Do fantasy RPGs have to be fantasical?

[DragonLancer]

I was referring to a fantasy of the D&D variety not shows that emulate. Thinking of tv shows may not have been right but movies probably. Remember that I was pondering the fantastical elements of D&D.

I'll list the ones that immediately come to mind:

Eragon: A fantasy world that has dragons, magic and wizards. I don't recall there being magic items and if there are not everyone has them.

Lord of the Rings: A high magic world where there are monsters and magic but most people go their whole lives without seeing any or at least only minor magics. There ate magic items but they are in the hands of high level characters and most people don't see them and certainly can't buy them even the minor ones.

Dungeons & Dragons: Probably the film that comes closest to how the default setting is right out of the book. Magic is extremely common and lots of people practice it. Magic items seem common and there are probably magic shops or outlets where those with the money can buy them. Monsters seem common and people don't seem surprised by it.

Clash of the Titans (original) : A time of myth and legend. Monsters exist but you don't find them unless you go looking in the dark places of the world. Magic is in the hands of wizards but you don't looking for them either. Items are rare but find their way into the hands of heroes and villains, and not into the hands of the commoner.

I am sure there are more but they will do for my point. Of these the D&D movie probably best fits the D&D model but for me it's probably a mix of LotR and clash of the titans that best showcases how I see the D&D model.

This post was made from my phone so I apologise for any typing errors.

 

[Loonook]

I was referring to a fantasy of the D&D variety not shows that emulate. Thinking of tv shows may not have been right but movies probably. Remember that I was pondering the fantastical elements of D&D.

I'll list the ones that immediately come to mind:

Eragon: A fantasy world that has dragons, magic and wizards. I don't recall there being magic items and if there are not everyone has them.

Lord of the Rings: A high magic world where there are monsters and magic but most people go their whole lives without seeing any or at least only minor magics. There ate magic items but they are in the hands of high level characters and most people don't see them and certainly can't buy them even the minor ones.

Dungeons & Dragons: Probably the film that comes closest to how the default setting is right out of the book. Magic is extremely common and lots of people practice it. Magic items seem common and there are probably magic shops or outlets where those with the money can buy them. Monsters seem common and people don't seem surprised by it.

Clash of the Titans (original) : A time of myth and legend. Monsters exist but you don't find them unless you go looking in the dark places of the world. Magic is in the hands of wizards but you don't looking for them either. Items are rare but find their way into the hands of heroes and villains, and not into the hands of the commoner.

I am sure there are more but they will do for my point. Of these the D&D movie probably best fits the D&D model but for me it's probably a mix of LotR and clash of the titans that best showcases how I see the D&D model.

This post was made from my phone so I apologise for any typing errors.

Three movies based on books and the movie based on the game you're asking about? Also, movies... don't allow for narrative scope. You are talking about a game that makes character development occur over 100+ hours and you want to have an example of something but you want a movie that gives you 90 minutes to do it?

The things I listed range from no magic to tainted high magic... And have more mysticism than LOTR. I think you need to broaden your horizons RE: how to define your campaign.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Water Bob]

I guess as I get older I am finding myself wanting to run games that go back to the classic medieval look and feel..

Suggestion: Play in a low magic universe.

My campaign takes place in Conan's Hyborian age. Yes, there are some fantastical elements. It's a Swords & Sorcerery genre. But, it's sure not like D&D where a dungeon will have a different critter in each room.

A prime example of this is wherre my game currently is taking place. The PCs are batteling their way through ancient ruins (a dungeon), but the place is populated by the bad guys (humans) and exactly two monsters--both of which I made up. This is a far cry from a standard D&D game where the PCs will face a new beastie in each room.

 

[Mallus]

I'll confine my comments to D&D (any edition) and Pathfinder.

Do these RPGs have to be fantastical? No.

Is it easier to run these RPGs with a large number of fantastical elements? Oh hell yes.

 

[Water Bob]

Is it easier to run these RPGs with a large number of fantastical elements? Oh hell yes.

I'll second this.

In my D&D games, if I need a quick baddie, I'll just pick something and have the players encounter it once they're over the next hill.

When the games are more fantastical, like standard D&D, no one questions where the wyvern or the swarm of stirges came from. Those things exist in the game world and are no more uncommon than when a particular type of bird or swarm of bees is encountered.

Not so in my Conan game. If a wyvern-type flying beastie shows up over the next ridge, it needs to be rather unique and probably a big part of the story rather than a simple, forgotten random encounter.

And, you can't just keep pulling random beasties from the Monster Manual and throwing them in your players' path.

Doing so would not be true to the universe, and the game would no longer feel like "Conan".

So, yes, in a low magic game, your choices of foe are lowered in that you can't have too many fantastical elements in your game. The fantastical stuff has to be rare.

 

[gamerprinter]

Suggestion: Play in a low magic universe.

My campaign takes place in Conan's Hyborian age. Yes, there are some fantastical elements. It's a Swords & Sorcerery genre. But, it's sure not like D&D where a dungeon will have a different critter in each room.

A prime example of this is wherre my game currently is taking place. The PCs are batteling their way through ancient ruins (a dungeon), but the place is populated by the bad guys (humans) and exactly two monsters--both of which I made up. This is a far cry from a standard D&D game where the PCs will face a new beastie in each room.

Eh, in my Pathfinder games, 80% of encounters are with NPC humans, or whichever race is prevalent in the area. While there tends to be lots of undead, in non-human NPC encounters, they are always associated with a tomb, ancient battle site or a place where something once considered home. Perhaps 1 to 5% of encounters are with truly exotic monsters. It depends where the party is currently located, of course.

There is often more traps, hazards, special terrains and haunts than true encounters. And often the encounters are non-combat social encounters, not necessarily fights.

 

[Desdichado]

I guess as I get older I am finding myself wanting to run games that go back to the classic medieval look and feel. Which is what I plan to do in my next Pathfinder campaign. I want to keep the monsters, the spellcasters and such, but not go the route that fantasy gaming seems to have done.

Curiously, if that is indeed a trend, it seems to be one that's mostly associated with D&D in particular. Low fantasy seems to be on the rise in the novel publishing industry, for example.

Non-fantastical and Medieval European however, don't have to be correllated. I'd say my homebrew setting is fairly low fantasy in most respects, but it's more based on the American Old West and the Golden Age of Piracy than it is on Medieval Europe as its baseline.

 

[Desdichado]

I tend to like things like those you mention, but frankly I'd settle for D&D doing an adequate job of representing popular fantasy.

I agree.

That's a big mistake, and thus it's not really surprising that there are people who want D&D play to mimic fantasy fiction. It's exactly what D&D advertises itself as doing. Why should it be wrong for people to want D&D to fill that niche? It's not a case of people wanting to turn D&D into something it isn't, it's a case of D&D not being good at what it advertises it's supposed to do.

This goes back to what a lot of people believe about what D&D is, though. Even the designers, if you look at Monte Cook's column from yesterday, believe that some of the D&D idiosynchrosies are part of what makes D&D be D&D; he specifically mentioned Vancian spellcasting and the cleric "archetype"--both of which are pretty much non-existant in non-D&D fantasy.

I think it's a bit of a puzzler. While a lot of folks (myself included) really want D&D to more closely resemble fantasy fiction, a lot of other folks obviously very much want D&D to contain most of the D&Disms, or else "it isn't D&D" and "why don't you just play a different game?" or whatver. Some of that is passive aggressive rhetorical nonsense when discussions head down that path, but some of it isn't, and either way, it's indicative of a fairly divided vision in the fanbase about what D&D should be. Frankly, I suspect sometimes that we're in the minority for wanting D&D to be more like fantasy fiction and less like... well, like itself. We may see D&D's self-referntialism as a problem, but I don't think a lot of the fanbase agrees.

 

[DragonLancer]

I rather like Vancian magic. It and most of the D&Dism's is what brings me back to play D&D/PF. It's not the rules that bother me but more where the feel of the game has gone. Gone are the days where fantasy roleplaying seemed to be medieval Europe with some magic and monsters. Now everything seems to have to be realistic to the rules, and I'm not sure where that has come from.

To those who have posted since the weekend, I haven't replied recently because I haven't explained my point of view very well and despite repeated attempts I can't think of a better way to do it.

 

[Desdichado]

Well, personally I think your vision of it is a bit revisionist. D&D wasn't originally very Medieval in many respects--in fact, it was originally so gonzo that a lot of folks here now would complain about the tainting of their beloved fantasy with all kinds of weird sci-fi elements and whatnot.

Not denying that the feel of the presentation of the game has changed, just that it was arguably never really very medieval in the first place.