Search results

Sure.. that would mean that it is 99.999999% not fantasy. If that is the experience you expect, the book with a mythical beast in the title, a giant on the cover, and 90 pages of magic spells in the rules is a weird place to go looking.

Lotta hedging we're doing with "Majority" "Mostly" "Roughly" And "Analogous" Another way of saying this is .. "The vast majority of fantasy settings are different from the real world" Which is a true statement..and the characteristic which defines those settings as fantasy settings.

I don't see how this is responsive to my point. Which is this..if reality is what you are expecting, the fantasy genre is a weird place to go looking.

No evidence? At all? Planescape, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Gelatinous Cubes, Dragons, Giants, Liches, Gods, Spells, Hells, Wish, True Polymorph, True Resurrection, Sentient Objects, Awakened Trees...like.. there's almost 50 years of this stuff out there.. ..and you find none of it...

And in those worlds, is it possible that perfectly normal humanoids(for that world)(including humans) differ in maximum capability/potential from humans in the Real World, while still being "Totally Natural" there?

Sure, and I'd agree. How does this differ from dragons?

Sooo. Not synonymous, but basically synonymous. Let's circle back to the owlbears.. you said it's iffy.. Why? They don't exist in the real world. How can they be anything other than "magical/extraordinary/supernatural"?

No. Your setting is your setting, and if you are having fun you're good. That said, the game describes itself as a fantasy roleplaying game. If you want real world expectations, going to game book with the fire giant on the cover, 8 non-human races in the table of contents, and rules for divine...

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/fantasy It specifically calls out being "far removed from reality". Does it mean there can or should be restrictions? Maybe (personally I think not, but for the sake of discussion..) Using the real world as your rubric for what those limitations should...

Do you believe that the three words are directly synonymous? If so, yeah, that's likely a large part of the problem in this discussion (in that folks disagree on these being synonymous) If not, what do you think the differences are (because both the creatures you tagged, you tagged as all three)?

Ok..I will amend a couple things from the previous post. They might not know the definition of the word fantasy through no fault of their own. Good news. That is in the dictionary and can be provided. They, somehow, might not know that D&D is a fantasy roleplaying game. I think that's already...

It isn't their fault for not understanding the literal definition of the word fantasy and applying that definition to their expectations for a fantasy roleplaying game? Agree to disagree.

It's a fantasy setting. The definition of fantasy specifically calls out things that are unrealistic or improbable. Fantastic stuff happens there..Why would anyone expect otherwise?

You're kind of making my point for me. Nowhere in your examples have you needed anyone to tell you that you or anything else in the setting is extraordinary.

And if the door of that portal included a ln image mage in the hands of a fire giant, with a hellhound in the background, I'd expect you to have figured out that you aren't in Kansas anymore.

I just don't see how that matters. If you go to a swimming pool, you don't question why the people in that pool are wet when you are dry. And you don't expect that some people in that pool might be dry, despite being immersed in water.

Sure.. then I think we're agreed.

Writing up and defining a singular structure for the fantasy elements DMs can choose to incorporate in their worlds and defining reasons (natural or supernatural) that they function the way that they do for everyone is.. A. Impossible..because it's all made up, and made up by a broad community...

I certainly can agree that there are people who want it. I stand by that no one needs it.

I have no idea what you intend to mean here?