High Fantasy/Low Fantasy/Power Fantasy

[Elbeghast]

There are no clear, objective definitions of these terms. As others noted above, these are expressions used in literary circles for the sake of discussion and comparisons only. Without any particular context, their use as quantifiable, clear-cut categories of genres within the realm of Fantasy is erroneous, misleading and ultimately, pointless.

 

[ggroy]

Of course when it comes to litcrit, being useless and obfuscatory may be seen as positive attributes...

Litcrit isn't the only field which is filled with obfuscatory jargon.

Some other fields do the same thing, in making something simple look really grandiose and esoteric.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Fantasy RPGs != fantasy literature.*

There, I think that's a more useful version. Says essentially the same thing, but is less likely to attract certain behaviour.

Given how much difficulty gamers have sorting out what high magic and low magic mean, wrt fantasy roleplaying. . . yeah. Perhaps we can do without high/low fantasy altogether.

Or, indeed, we need to come up with some definitions that work, for the majority of fantasy TTRPG players and GMs at least.


* Oh, and what applies to one doesn't necessarily apply to the other.

 

[ggroy]

Given how much difficulty gamers have sorting out what high magic and low magic mean, wrt fantasy roleplaying. . . yeah. Perhaps we can do without high/low fantasy altogether.

Back in the day, an approximate working definition of high and low magic we used in discussions was:

low magic = magic is rare or almost nonexistent

high magic = magic is everywhere.

These definitions were typically on a sliding scale, and made no references to whether the setting was fantasy or not.

In the case of 1E AD&D, low levels were largely "low magic" where magic users were very weak almost next to useless. Very high levels had "high magic" where magic users were very powerful.

Not the best definition, but enough to convey how much magic there was in a particular rpg.

 

[Krensky]

They don't seem useful though - there's nothing inherently 'high' about 'secondary world', and certainly nothing 'low' about (theoretically?) 'primary world' fiction - and how can fantasy ever be set in the real world?

Of course when it comes to litcrit, being useless and obfuscatory may be seen as positive attributes...

It refers to the amount of fantasy. Wonderland, Middle Earth, Narnia, Neverland, Harry Potter etc are all high fantasy.

As for fantasy set purportedly in the real world there's the Dresden Files, Dracula (Stoker's novel), The Brotherhood of the Wolf, Sherlock Holmes, the Quartermain stories, etc.

 

[Krensky]

That said, first of all, what is it that meets the definition of fiction, according to you?

From Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: fic·tion
Pronunciation: \ˈfik-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story b : fictitious literature (as novels or short stories) c : a work of fiction; especially : novel
2 a : an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth <a legal fiction> b : a useful illusion or pretense
3 : the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination


Roleplaying games meet definition 1a and 3. Most campaign settings meet 1b and 1 c as well.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Back in the day, an approximate working definition of high and low magic we used in discussions was:

low magic = magic is rare or almost nonexistent

high magic = magic is everywhere.

These definitions were typically on a sliding scale, and made no references to whether the setting was fantasy or not.

In the case of 1E AD&D, low levels were largely "low magic" where magic users were very weak almost next to useless. Very high levels had "high magic" where magic users were very powerful.

Not the best definition, but enough to convey how much magic there was in a particular rpg.

Exactly. Right there are two very different ways of defining the terms. And I've seen even more crossed wires, just on that topic.

Roleplaying games meet definition 1a and 3. Most campaign settings meet 1b and 1 c as well.

No. Campaign settings might get 1c and 3. Roleplaying games, per se? None of the above.

If it were freeform 'roleplaying' (which I was *obviously* not referring to, btw) then yeah, maybe some of those. Or whatever.

But, like I said in my last post, how about that new improved version instead. Easier on everyone that way (or anyone likely to take things the wrong way, at any rate.)

 

[ggroy]

Defining some jargon terms in rpg games, may also be controversial.

For example, not everyone may agree on what defines "low magic" vs. "high magic".

For even in tangentially related stuff, many people would define pejorative terms like "munchkin", "fatbeard", "powergamer", etc ... such that they themselves are not encompassed in such definitions.

 

[Hussar]

Krensky - I may not know my fantasy terms so well, but Space Opera is not defined by how "hard" the science is. New Space Opera is very, very hard SF sometimes. Alastair Reynolds, Robert Reed, Stephen Baxter - all super hard SF space opera writers.

I think I'll stick with Gardner Dozois definitions over you when you include John Carter (a planet story genre staple) in with Space Opera. I would agree that Kim Stanley Robinson isn't Space Opera, simply because most of the action takes place on a single planet and there is no larger empire. Dune is Space Opera for exactly the same reason.

 

[Krensky]

Krensky - I may not know my fantasy terms so well, but Space Opera is not defined by how "hard" the science is. New Space Opera is very, very hard SF sometimes. Alastair Reynolds, Robert Reed, Stephen Baxter - all super hard SF space opera writers.

When did I say space opera could not have scientific rigor? I said the defining characteristic of Space Opera is a focus on characters over technology and a romantic or melodramatic plot. Baxter is a hard sci-fi author. Characters are secondary to tech in all of his stories that I've read. Reed is a handwaver of first order, his stories aren't hard in the least (again, from what I've read). Reynolds bounces between styles, probably best described as a British Space Opera author. It's not the rigor of the science though, its the character development and plot structure that defines Space Opera.

I think I'll stick with Gardner Dozois definitions over you when you include John Carter (a planet story genre staple) in with Space Opera. I would agree that Kim Stanley Robinson isn't Space Opera, simply because most of the action takes place on a single planet and there is no larger empire. Dune is Space Opera for exactly the same reason.

For me, Planetary Romance and Planetary Fiction are sub-genres o space opera along with military science fiction. The discussion about the relation of Planetary Romance and Space Opera is ongoing, and if Dozois puts them somewhere else, well, it wouldn't be the first time I didn't agree with him.