The Possibility of "Too Fantastic" Fantasy

[jdrakeh]

Absolutely -- but D&D has neglected the mundane for a long, long time.

I'd argue that since D&D and the vast majority of its settings have adhered to a very strict, formulaic, model that what was considered fantastic back in 1976 has since become mundane. For example, I was watching Stardust yesterday and was struck by how non-D&D the world of Stormhold was. Lightning wranglers? Humanoid stars? Magic wielded only by a select few? A barter economy where things such as hair and kisses have real value?

That all seems remarkably more fantastic than anything that I've seen coming out of D&D in the last decade or two which, with the notable exceptions of Spelljammer, Dark Sun and Eberron, has clung tightly to the old tried and true 'Europe with Middle Earth Influences' model. This staunch adherance to a particular model for setting design has made said model so utterly familiar as to render it plain, IMHO.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Originally Posted by Hussar
Of course you need setting. However, what I don't have to do anymore is spend hundreds of hours mentally masturbating and creating a world, just to play D&D.

Wow Hussar you have a lot of hostility toward homebrewing. A lot of DMs derive great pleasure in creating a world. In fact, worldbuilding keeps me interested in DMing even when I get burned out. Worldbuilding is a creative outlet unto itself that gets a DM's imagination going and helps spark new ideas as one sees the potential interactions between different parts of the setting. If worldbuilding wasn't an option, I would've quit D&D many years ago.

Worldbuilding is no more mental masturbation than any other creative act done for the joy of the work and the joy derived from creating something others (ie. your players) can enjoy. If worldbuilding is mental masturbation then certainly so is a game where adults sit around a table using books full of rules to play what amounts to nothing more than a complex game of make-believe.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Wyrmshadows]

I'd argue that since D&D and the vast majority of its settings have adhered to a very strict, formulaic, model that what was considered fantastic back in 1976 has since become mundane. For example, I was watching Stardust yesterday and was struck by how non-D&D the world of Stormhold was. Lightning wranglers? Humanoid stars? Magic wielded only by a select few? A barter economy where things such as hair and kisses have real value?

That all seems remarkably more fantastic than anything that I've seen coming out of D&D in the last decade or two which, with the notable exceptions of Spelljammer, Dark Sun and Eberron, has clung tightly to the old tried and true 'Europe with Middle Earth Influences' model. This staunch adherance to a particular model for setting design has made said model so utterly familiar as to render it plain, IMHO.

I think however that it is important to not that there is a difference between adult fantasy that makes an attempt at versimilitude and fairy tale fantasy. Adult fantasy has a baseline of normality that makes the fantastic seem fantastic via contrast. Fairy tale type stories such as Alice in Wonderland and Stardust require no sense of normality and the fantasy can be over the top (people made of playing cards or humanoid stars) because they are supposed to be absurd. Fantasy aimed at adults or sophisticated children is internally consistant and possesses a believabiliy that allows for the suspension of disbelief. Fairy tales aren't supposed to suspend disbelief because it is their strangeness that makes them enjoyable. By their very nature fairy tales are absurd in a good way.

I enjoyed Stardust, just like I enjoy other movies reminscent of fairy tales though I don't prefer to DM or play in such settings.



Wyrmshadows

 

[jdrakeh]

Wow Hussar you have a lot of hostility to homebrewing.

I think I know why. . .

A lot of DMs derive great pleasure in creating a world.

This is true. Absolutely, 100% true. But for every GM who has the free time available to create their own settings, there seem to be dozens who don't. And, right now, those people essentially have three options when it comes to D&D:

1. Buy a seperate pre-made setting (which can be very pricey).
2. Buy a different game that comes with a pre-made setting.
3. Find another hobby that is less time-intensive.

In recent years, it appeas as if more and more people have choosing Option #3, as evidenced by the continuing decline in sales throughout the hobby. I suspect that, as the core D&D player base grows older and takes on more responsibility IRL, they may be a bit resentfuil that their favorite game isn't doing much to change with them.

It looks like Option #2 above can be safely crossed off the list if D&D 4e actually contains some kind of a codified default setting out of the box. Such a setting not only makes the game more accessible to RPG newcomers who have no idea how to build a decent setting, but also to longtime fans whose RL responsibilities get in the way of such a laborious endeavor.

More importantly, including a codified default setting in no way prevents the homebrewers from creating their own

 

[jdrakeh]

I think however that it is important to not that there is a difference between adult fantasy that makes an attempt at versimilitude and fairy tale fantasy. Adult fantasy has a baseline of normality that makes the fantastic seem fantastic via contrast. Fairy tale type stories such as Alice in Wonderland and Stardust require no sense of normality and the fantasy can be over the top (people made of playing cards or humanoid stars) because they are supposed to be absurd. Fantasy aimed at adults or sophisticated children is internally consistant and possesses a believabiliy that allows for the suspension of disbelief. Fairy tales aren't supposed to suspend disbelief because it is their strangeness that makes them enjoyable. By their very nature fairy tales are absurd in a good way.

1001 Nights wasn't written for children, nor was Stardust. You're trying to set up a false dichotomy here by divding the established genre of High Fantasy (a genre that encompasses both most D&D worlds and lands such as Stormhold) into your own "For Adults" and "For Kids" categories based on your personal tastes. Verisimilitude is not required for High Fantasy to be enjoyed by adults, nor is the absurd just for children. That assertion is nothing short of deliberately insulting.

 

[Greg K]

seems a lot more masturbatory to me. Unless you do it in a group.
*/yech*

I think there is a term for that.

 

[Incenjucar]

Generally, the difference between "adult" and "children" fantasy is how deeply they examine the horrible, horrible things going on to the characters.

Disney happily shrugs off slavery and abuse (Cinderella), betrayal, kidnapping and attempted child murder (Peter Pan), war and poverty (Robin Hood), and so on by distracting you with happy little songs. Those are otherwise what we would consider terribly adult themes. Childrens' fantasy just glosses over it with a smile and a wink.

 

[jdrakeh]

Generally, the difference between "adult" and "children" fantasy is how deeply they examine the horrible, horrible things going on to the characters.

Neither Stardust nor Alice in Wonderland (as written by Carroll) qualify for "children's fantasy" by that definition, either. If you mean to say that the level of graphic violence is what seperates "adult" and "children" fantasy, that may well be true. This division at least has some support in terms of observable phenomena. There is a huge difference between Disney's Alice in Wonderland and the Wonderland presented by Lewis Carrol in that respect. I think that Dali, Burroughs, Dunsany, Gaiman and other well-known dabblers in the absurd would find it very amusing to learn that their works are only "for children"

 

[Campbell]

I won't speak for Hussar, but my issue with focusing too much on 'world building' is that such pursuits often come at the expense of actual play.

• Time spent world building is time not spent on preparing adventure material.
• A lot of world building is done without considering how it affects actual play.
• A highly developed world places constraints on adventure design.
• A highly developed world all too often places undue limits on PC design space.

 

[Incenjucar]

The neither Stardust nor Alice in Wonderland (as written by Carroll) qualify for "children's fantasy" by that definition

Which is why they are awesome and beloved.

There's a reason Alice translates so well into horror.

--

World building shouldn't be as big a deal using the PoL concept. You can define many PoLs, but there should always be plenty of darkness between them. It's Points of Darkness campaigns that can get restricting.

As for design time, world building is ultimately it's own hobby, like miniature painting, so I wouldn't treat it as intrusive any more than playing video games or going for a walk are.