Infinate or Limited Potential In Fanatsy?

[Yuan-Ti]

At the rate we're going, "grim-and-gritty" will soon be as meaningless as "munchk*n"....

Shutup, munchkin.

 

[Reprisal]

Was that supposed to be a joke?

I certainly hope it was...

 

[Patrick-S&S]

What you wrote was:
"the world is usually more detailed"
...which begs the question, "More detailed than what?" Given the context of the post, it's reasonable to assume that you mean more detailed than non-grim n gritty campaigns. That's a personal view that you can indeed hold. I for one, don't buy it, and extrapolated from it in order to point out what I see as it's questionable side.

First of all I must ask if you are a moron... Nah, joking only, because I like this "close-to-flame" posts where everyone can still be mature and upheld an opinion without bursting into some sort of outrage. Rounser, odd as it may seem, I like your questioning.

Now to what I mean... When I am talking about settings I am not talking about the rules themselves so drop all the PH, DMG, MM, and all the rule add-ons. I am talking, well writing, about the detail put into the setting itself. Hârn, Ars Magica, and what appears to be coming in Kalamar as well, to name only a few.

Now Greyhawk, Scarred Lands, and Forgotten Realms (but this seem to go into the GnG range by the looks of the schedule), to name some, has some fine looking adventures but unlike the aforementioned settings above I am hard pressed to find any regional, kingdom, city etc. modules that are detailed and give world a kind of developed setting. They do exist but are not made up by the bulk.

Yes they may be if you take old out of print products, but unless you do not many of the less GnG do have the upper hand in detail. IMO of course and yes I still like D&D...

There are of course exceptions to the rule...

 

[Valicor]

You guys have good points on both sides of the argument for GnG & High Fantasy.

Let's get alittle more specific, in regards to my original question though. When I say limmited or infinate in fantasy, I was talking about the capacity of a character, his race, his magic, and his fighting prowess. Should these be limmited in fantasy to what the rules have allowed thus far,or should you be capable to growing as vastly as your desires and ambitions as a man or woman in a fantasy setting.

I know epic is comming out, Its just some people believe in lmmited capability and limmitation. I have always believed that one can always strive for and attain new heights. Is it in ones nature to be able to take it to the next level no pun intended or do we simply become as good as we possibly can as a certain point in fantasy?

 

[Codragon]

... Is it in ones nature to be able to take it to the next level no pun intended or do we simply become as good as we possibly can as a certain point in fantasy?

Several things come to mind...

I don't think there should be a max level cap (e.g. 40) in D&D. That's restrictive and kind of pointless. Such things vary from campaign to campaign and shouldn't be set in a book.

There should always be something more powerful than the PCs, be it NPCs, monsters, or dieties. No challenges = no fun.

At a certain point, gaining levels loses its luster and becomes boring. Then its time to retire and start over at level 1. This point, again, varies extremely from group to group. It may be level 10, 20, 40 or whatever...

 

[Tsyr]

Actualy, depending on WHEN you set it, Dragonlance is a very GOOD canidate for grim-n-gritty... any time between the cataclysm and the return of the gods (Thats many hundred years to play with) would be GREAT for grim-n-gritty... and the closer to the cataclysm you are, the more grim it is.

And by a similar token, I would not consider Kalamar "grim-n-gritty", as I belive was implied above. The world is quite detailed, and there isn't a "Bob the epic level archmage favored of the god half-fiend lovechild of a balor and a turnip" figure or anything, like in Forgotten Realms or something, but it's not really a grim or gritty setting either, in terms of feal.

And then you have Scarred Lands... which is certainly grim, but I'm not sure I'd want to play a "grim and gritty" campagin in that world... it works better as grim high-fantasy.

Same with Ravenloft, for that matter...

 

[Umbran]

Yes they may be if you take old out of print products, but unless you do not many of the less GnG do have the upper hand in detail. IMO of course and yes I still like D&D...

Two things...

First, you may be running into a case of "confounding bias". Note that a majority of the non-GnG settings you mention (and probably the majority that will pop to your mind) are/were produced by WOTC (or TSR). So, is this perception due to it not being GnG, or to most of the settings under consideration being published by a company that (for whatever reason) generally didn't want to do those details?

Second - In your original statement, you said, "...the world is usually more detailed...." Not, "The published worlds are more detailed." Intentionally or not, you seem to ignore any work the DM does - the implicit assumption you seem to make is that the DM uses the setting right out of the box. Or, if they don't use a published setting, that they don't include any more detail. You seem to ignore the possibility that the DMs may choose to add those details themselves, which isn't fair.

The final measure of the genre isn't how the publisher prints it, but how the DM and players play it.

 

[Reprisal]

I agree with what you said about Kalamar, Tsyr. It doesn't really seem like either Grim&Gritty or High Fantasy. I think that rings true for most, if not all of the established settings (barring Harnworld, I think).

 

[Vaxalon]

upper limits

When the PC's in my game get to 20th level, I plan on running one final adventure in which the PC's can set the world the way they want it, and then end that campaign.

I'll crank the clock ahead a hundred years or so, and we'll start over at first level.