D&D 5E (2014) I hope 5th edition makes room for "Adventurers" and "Heroes".

[Iosue]

I consider LotR low fantasy, no ones's slinging meteor swarms around there; Dragonlance, definitely high fantasy.

I like to think of LotR in terms of Frye's thematic modes, as suggested by Tom Shippey. They also provide a nice short-hand for different playstyles of RPGs.

Ironic: Hero is inferior to the audience.
Low-mimetic: Hero operates on the plane of common humanity.
High-mimetic: Hero is superior to others, but inferior to environment.
Romantic: Hero is superior to others and to environment.
Mythic: Hero is on divine plane.

LotR moves through the various modes. The hobbits start off low-mimetic with a taste of irony. Gandalf, Aragorn, the elves, etc. start off high-mimetic, and stay that way to the end of Fellowship.

In Two Towers, people get upgrades. Aragorn remains high-mimetic, but starts showing flashes of romance. The Three Hunters, for example, cover 135 miles (216 km) in 4 days, or nearly 34 miles a day. (By comparison a full marathon is 26 miles.) Aragorn also holds off hundreds of uruk-hai with only a magic sword and the force of his personality. Frodo moves up to high-mimetic. Gandalf the White is firmly in romance territory -- he can't be harmed by weapons, even the ones carried by Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli.

In Return of the King, the upgrades proceed. Frodo shows flashes of romance. Sam bounces between high-mimetic and low-mimetic. Aragorn is now firmly in romance -- he wrests control of the palantir from what is essentially a fallen angel, summons the dead to fight at his command, and comes out of a day long battle unscathed.

The Silmarillion, of course, dealing with minor gods (Valar) and angels (Maiar) is firmly in the mythic mode.

 

[triqui]

I like to think of LotR in terms of Frye's thematic modes, as suggested by Tom Shippey. They also provide a nice short-hand for different playstyles of RPGs.

Ironic: Hero is inferior to the audience.
Low-mimetic: Hero operates on the plane of common humanity.
High-mimetic: Hero is superior to others, but inferior to environment.
Romantic: Hero is superior to others and to environment.
Mythic: Hero is on divine plane.

LotR moves through the various modes. The hobbits start off low-mimetic with a taste of irony. Gandalf, Aragorn, the elves, etc. start off high-mimetic, and stay that way to the end of Fellowship.

In Two Towers, people get upgrades. Aragorn remains high-mimetic, but starts showing flashes of romance. The Three Hunters, for example, cover 135 miles (216 km) in 4 days, or nearly 34 miles a day. (By comparison a full marathon is 26 miles.) Aragorn also holds off hundreds of uruk-hai with only a magic sword and the force of his personality. Frodo moves up to high-mimetic. Gandalf the White is firmly in romance territory -- he can't be harmed by weapons, even the ones carried by Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli.

In Return of the King, the upgrades proceed. Frodo shows flashes of romance. Sam bounces between high-mimetic and low-mimetic. Aragorn is now firmly in romance -- he wrests control of the palantir from what is essentially a fallen angel, summons the dead to fight at his command, and comes out of a day long battle unscathed.

The Silmarillion, of course, dealing with minor gods (Valar) and angels (Maiar) is firmly in the mythic mode.

I have to spread experience and all that crap, but I'd like to thank you for this nice scale.

 

[triqui]

Low-level PCs are adventurers. High-level PCs are heroes.

High level PC (15+) are superheroes.

 

[Shadeydm]

Adventurers vs Heroes fells more like a playstyle/campaign tone issue than a system/edition issue to me. While I can certainly see how a system/edition can better support a specific playstyle/tone I don't think anything is impossible.
Look at 3.x on the surface one wouldn't expect it to do grim and gritty all that well yet pick up the Midnight campaign setting and tell me its not grim and gritty.
I think you can probably always get to where you want to go playstylewise with D&D the question becomes how hard do you want to work to get there.
Since 5E is supposed to be the Linux edition of D&D I would expect it to support a wider variety of playstyles than previous editions or perhaps support a wider variety easier.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I've always previously heard the terms called "High Fantasy" and "Low Fantasy." Low fantasy is more Grey Mouser and Conan in his early career, while High fantasy is Dragonlance and LotR. If the characters feel more like soldiers of fortune (with or without conscience) then it's low fantasy. As someone earlier mentioned, it's possible for the same campaign to be both. Conan starts out stealing loot from towers and attempted rape on frost giant daughters, but ends up a freakin' king of a nation taking down powerful wizards. (people often forget Conan was a barbarian...) I'm trying to think of some stories that went in the other direction (from grand quester to merc) and failing, but I'm sure there are some.

Well, but did Aragon or Conan start with 5 hit points or 25?

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm trying to think of some stories that went in the other direction (from grand quester to merc) and failing, but I'm sure there are some.

Elric. But then, Elric breaks all the rules, and deliberately so. He's the anti-Conan - an effete, decadent king, physically weak, who gives up his throne and becomes a mercenary. Elric's usually categorised as Sword and Sorcery, but doesn't have much in common with Conan or Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser.

 

[Henry]

I definitely like Iosue's scale, it better defines the differences we're talking about here. High fantasy and low fantasy doesn't have to do as much with power levels as themes. Superheroes can be dark and gritty and antiheroic (see many Iron age comics themes) just as you don't have to throw around flashy magic to be "high fantasy." when forever slayer talks about lack of noble or legendary causes for adventurers, LotR is textbook "noble or legendary cause".

Frodo doesn't start out being the savior of Middle Earth (well, Sam, really ) but his goal is no less than the salvation of his friends and all mortals, really. Conan and the frost giant daughter, or Conan and the Tower of the elephant never actually hangs the fate of nations or worlds in the balance - its whether Conan gets rich, or survives by the skin of his teeth, or just because he wants to see if the legends of wealth, frost giant nookie, etc. are true. Conrad Stargard starts out trying to survive in the first couple of books, and takes fame, women, and wealth on the way, but graduates to an epic cause - saving Poland from the Mongol army.

(warning for those unfamiliar with the cross-time engineer series - epic adventure and epic Connecticut Yankee in king Arthur's court themes, but epic-level misogyny undercurrents, too.)

 

[Doug McCrae]

I consider LotR low fantasy, no ones's slinging meteor swarms around there; Dragonlance, definitely high fantasy.

If LotR isn't high fantasy, then nothing is. It's the benchmark.

 

[hamstertamer]

If LotR isn't high fantasy, then nothing is. It's the benchmark.

This is an example of terminology meaning different things to different people. I also consider LOTR Low fantasy. Specifically, I see it as low-middle Fantasy. Things like Harry Potter are High Fantasy. To me has to do with how much it it is weighted down by reality and how much supernatural elements like magic is in it.

 

[Tovec]

I consider LotR low fantasy, no ones's slinging meteor swarms around there; Dragonlance, definitely high fantasy.

I would say that Dragonlance is standard fantasy while Forgotten Realms is high fantasy.

Not everyone and their mother is slinging spells in Dragonlance and everyone doesn't walk around with a magic sword.

I can see what you mean, but the bottom (cheeky) line is, you can sling a fireball in Dragonlance.

You are all confusing high fantasy with high magic. High fantasy has the characters deeply rooted to be HEROES. Some of them might die but they do it epically and gloriously. They aren't nameless smucks traveling around doing random quests.

Low fantasy is the opposite. If LotR were low fantasy then the characters would be adventurers, their success would not be all but guaranteed. More than one would have probably fallen to the Balrog, hell a couple could have fallen to the cave troll.

Low-level PCs are adventurers. High-level PCs are heroes.

A lot of times, sure.

But not necessarily. That is something I'd like to adjust for myself.

I would like if it were a setting I could turn on or off for certain games, I already do to a certain extent but it would be nice if it were a better filter.

Low level (even level 1) characters could be heroes in the sense that they are designed to be the good guys and supposed to triumph over their enemies. They might be the hero of destiny and given the great and powerful X item they'll need to defeat the bad guy, or maybe more HP or extra powers.

High level characters could have transitioned into heroes or they could still be adventurers trying to eke out their fortune. They might be antiheroes or truly grey (neutral) characters who just do what best suits them. They could be everyone else in star wars who isn't part of the skywalker family, nameless jedi master or random grand moff.

Characters in books resemble heroes because they are books and are supposed to be about heroes. Characters in most games are probably closest to adventurers and that is fine too. No one is saying that the shoe is the hero of monopoly. And no one is saying that harry potter is an adventurer. It has to do with the medium.

And again, I have no problem with the game being one way or another because it is something that crosses that bridge, but I'd rather have a filter.