[Rant] Fantasy - beyond the "standard" paradigm

[Hussar]

It's better than obfuscation and confusion with "big F" Fantasy, and it describes Tolkien and derivatives to most people, even if officially Tolkien is "officially" epic fantasy, Moorcock dark fantasy etc. etc.

What people?

Tolkein is about as much S&S as Harry Potter is.

Ok, let me ask this then. What defines S&S fantasy? What stylistic elements define the genre. If the genre is defined so broadly, then the definition has no meaning. So, I'm asking, how can you include Howard, Tolkein, Moorcock, Neil Gaiman, and Tad Williams under the same genre heading.

 

[shilsen]

What, am I that controversial around here?

I mean, I do have a certain reputation over at the SJGForums, but I wasn't aware of anything similar on ENWorld...

I was kidding, and it actually had nothing to do with you. Hussar's been fairly voluble recently in arguing that it's a good thing D&D is broadening its horizons, and I've posted in a couple of the threads that he's been involved with arguing for the same.

So, more seriously, I agree completely with you.

 

[Hussar]

I was kidding, and it actually had nothing to do with you. Hussar's been fairly voluble recently in arguing that it's a good thing D&D is broadening its horizons, and I've posted in a couple of the threads that he's been involved with arguing for the same.

So, more seriously, I agree completely with you.

Heh, I'm procrastinating, and I have the house to myself for a couple of weeks. I'm just trying to replace my post count back to pre crash levels.

 

[rounser]

What people?

People who take the term "swords & sorcery" by it's literal meaning, and extend that to what it implies about most worlds involving both those elements? Yes, I accept that this is misuse of the term, but for purposes of this conversation it's probably better than the alternatives.

Or we could continue to split hairs over Tolkien being epic fantasy, and the confusion with the all-inclusive genre named fantasy, because I get the feeling you'd prefer such obfuscation?

 

[jdrakeh]

What people?

People who aren't familiar with basic tenets of genre and literary classifications of fiction, but don't want to admit it. Saying that "fantasy" refers exclusively to fiction or settings that serve as an analogue for medieval Europe is geek cluelessness in action, on the order of non-gamers who use the term "D&D" to refer to all roleplaying games because they don't know any better.

 

[Hussar]

People who take the term "swords & sorcery" by it's literal meaning, and extend that to what it implies about most worlds involving both those elements? Yes, I accept that this is misuse of the term, but for purposes of this conversation it's probably better than the alternatives.

Or we could continue to split hairs over Tolkien being epic fantasy, and the confusion with the all-inclusive genre named fantasy, because I get the feeling you'd prefer such obfuscation?

So, by this definition, any story which has both magic and swords is S&S fantasy.

And you complain that I'm obfuscating?

Ok, then what is the difference between fantasy and S&S fantasy? I suppose S&S fantasy would leave off Alice in Wonderland. But not Wizard of Oz. Fantasia would possibly go, but not The Little Mermaid. Tarzan would have to go, but not MacBeth.

This is my point. If you define the genre so broadly, then it has no meaning. "I like it" is not a genre.

Rounser, you have repeatedly stated that you think that DnD should remain true to S&S roots. Yet, using your definition, what roots are you talking about? Leiber and Howard? 1001 Nights? Classics? How can you possibly say that one place of inspiration is superior to another? Since your definition includes pretty much 99% of fantasy, other than perhaps a few childrens stories, what roots are you talking about?

 

[WayneLigon]

After reading through this thread, I realized that many people here interpret fantasy rather narrowly - to be specific, to them it's only fantasy if it adhers to a pseudo-medieval paradigm (or possibly to an even more primitive technological level).

I hope it comes down to people just liking to bitch about something on the Net. It's like the whole 'video-game' arguments, or 'dungeonpunk' arguements, or 'anime' arguements. I'd like to think that gamers were not so mired in thinking of fantasy in one particular way, but it seems less and less likely. In the early Dragon sneak peeks one of the things that stood out to me was that they were purposefully going for a look and feel that would remind people 'this ain't your father's AD&D'.

My own pet conspiracy theory? 3E and 3.5 are a stepping stone. They are there purely to get you all used to the idea of change. 4E and beyond will be even greater change, until I can see a point 15 years down the road when every paradigm or sacred cow of the current D&D has been made into hamburger. My point being that it would behoove people to get used to change because there are heaping spoonfulls of it coming down the pike.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Personally, I like a variety to my fantasy gaming. I very much like the standard D&D Sword & Sorcery style, but I'm currently playing in a alternate history magical Victorian England campaign that I'm enjoying immensely, and I've got designs on someday running a Cthulhu-fantasy campaign, and maybe a Northern Crown Colonial America game.

Some people really don't like peanut butter in their chocolate, or vice versa. To claim it isn't fantasy doesn't make much sense to me, though. I have a pretty broad view of the genre, and I'm not too keen on "defining" things too much;

 

[Maggan]

I'd like to think that gamers were not so mired in thinking of fantasy in one particular way, but it seems less and less likely. In the early Dragon sneak peeks one of the things that stood out to me was that they were purposefully going for a look and feel that would remind people 'this ain't your father's AD&D'.

I'm reminded of something I've heard from both a (once) major RPG publisher as well as from a friend of mine who makes a living translating fantasy books.

Paraphrased:

"There are none as opposed to change as fans of fantasy".

Basically, "if it aint Tolkien it aint fantasy!"

/M

 

[rounser]

So, by this definition, any story which has both magic and swords is S&S fantasy.

No. It's shorthand so people don't have to say "S&S+epic+dark fantasy, plus some other stuff because the existing subgenre terms are inadequate". You're welcome to try and improve on that definition, though if you say just "fantasy" as a definition then you'll prove that you are just trying for obfuscation (as if that isn't clear enough already).