Thinking Too Hard About Fantasy

[DreadPirateMurphy]

The keys to good fantasy:

1) Most of the setting works the way that the real world works. If it doesn't, it gets harder and harder for the reader/watcher/gamer to relate. It is possible to get really weird in the context of a short story or one-shot game. It becomes harder the longer the work. Think of Lord of the Rings. Physics was largely the same. Geography at a local level was plausible. People (and even elves, and hobbits, and orcs) behaved in clearly understandable ways for clearly understandable purposes. The consumer of the story has a limited store of suspension of disbelief, so they should only have to use it for things that matter to the story.

2) Things are consistent. If things are inconsistent, then they should be consistently inconsistent. A novel, for example, should not have magic be incredibly difficult to use for the first half of the story, then describe how every village has a few wizards and witches who can cast spells. An example of consistent inconsistency would by the presence of a realm of dreams where things constantly shift. If, later in the story, somebody visits the world of dreams and it looks just like the real world, then that is inconsistent. Consistency is important, because without it, there is no way to predict whether or not the actions of the characters have the expected consequences.

3) The details of the setting should be easy for the reader/watcher/gamer to grasp. Tolkein used lots of invented languages, but he never expressed key dialog or plot points in elvish. That would have made it impossible for the reader to follow. Similarly, the D&D rules describe spells based on their effects...not based on how the caster actually forms the magic of the spell. Sure, there are flaver details like spell components, but even those are dropped by many gamers.

Going back to the point of overthinking...overthinking in gaming is when you go beyond where it is necessary to follow the 3 rules above (familiarity, consistency, and simplicity). The city feeds itself by importing food and hunting/fishing. That eliminates the need for fields (assuming you don't want fields). There are cities that survive that way in the real world, so it is familiar. As long as every other city doesn't survive on mana from heaven, it is probably consistent. It is easy to understand, so it is simple.

Overthinking would be figuring out the exact volume of food needed for X people, identifying how it is imported, defining what % is of what crop, etc. Explaining how the city feeds itself is not overthinking, since having a population with no food supply is neither familiar, nor is it probably consistent. The only reason to do that is if it is an important plot point, e.g., the city doesn't need food because a large percentage of the population are secretly undead.

 

[gizmo33]

Personally, of all the things I'm ever expected to disbelieve, human nature is the hardest thing for me to accept changes in.

But it also might be one of the hardest things to ever understand. IMO the differences that people have in religion, politics, and so on comes down to differences in beliefs in human nature. A comprehensive look at human nature would involve examining how shamans are treated in certain socieites, and look at the values such as "hospitality" that determine the respect that is accorded to "outsiders" - exactly the sort of people that AFAICT you think would be persecuted out of hand.

It's a huge and difficult question IMO, and for that reason I think the designer of a fantasy world has plenty of options - even if they don't appeal to everyone's cynicism.

So, my gut instinct is that most people would react to wizards and spellcasters about the way they react to: a) Mutants in X-Men comics, or b) accused witches in Earth's past.

Human nature would include humans outside of the European Middle Ages though - and different societies reactions to people who are different depend on other conditions besides the fact that they are different. Some people in those societies with unique powers are highly respected.

Even within Europe, those traditions labelled as witchcraft existed as far back as history goes - the persecutions were motivated by a conflict of Christian and pagan traditions and were a characteristic of only a slice in time. Ancient Egypt is full of magical tablets in the spirit of DnD's "arcane" magic.

The X-Men is dealing with themes of alienation. I wouldn't take it as a study on human nature as much as it is a story about the anxieties of people who are different. The fact that the themes are appealing does not indicate that it contains objective truth. IMO it's significant that the story is told from the perspective of the mutants. You wouldn't think there would be enough mutants out there to sell tickets. Nobody is as "normal" as they think, and I don't think it's just the modern period that understood this. Plus IMO the modern period is full of as much human nature as the past, so people ought to be hating the X-Men movies.

Right. That fits with human nature. Which is why old women and men with nothing more than herbalism and and a little learning were hung, drowned, or burned at the stake in the real world.

But IMO they weren't burned because they were herbalists. They were burned because, for that sliver of history and that culture, herbalism was equated with older pagan pratices and clashed with other forces in the society. There are plenty of shamans and herbalists both within Europe and without that were respected.

Human nature is what prevents an Eberron-style magic renaissance. It's a fantasy golden age that would probably NEVER come to pass.

Lets say for arguments sake that magic doesn't exist in the real world. Then the closest thing you have is technology - which is alternately respected, feared, and ignored depending on other factors. Being "special" is probably a double edged sword. There are plenty of reasons to think that "special" people could either be well respected, or hated, but it depends on factors other than "specialness" IMO.

Unless of course, everyone's mind-controlled by some uber-deity...but that would be a much darker campaign.

I disagree - a powerful uber-deity (like the Christian one) has a lot to do with how people think. IMO it's overly cynical to call religion's influence on people's values "mind-control". A respect for arcane spell casters could be built in to the ethos of the prominent deities of the campaign. A paladin's code that says not to kill Lawful Good wizards doesn't necessarily make for a dark universe IMO.

 

[JohnSnow]

Human nature would include humans outside of the European Middle Ages though - and different societies reactions to people who are different depend on other conditions besides the fact that they are different. Some people in those societies with unique powers are highly respected.

Well...true. But if you're going to tell me that you don't believe that, when it comes to most people, "power corrupts," I've got a bridge in California to sell you.

Obviously, everyone believes that some people can be trusted. But usually, all it takes to bring that trust crashing down is a little kernel of doubt. You're telling me you could accept a society where people are told "these people can read your thoughts, control your actions, and generally do anything they want - but they won't (most of the time) so you can trust them."

You can talk about themes all you want. But the simple fact is that trust is not something that's easy under the best of circumstances. The question isn't whether magic-users could ever be tolerated once they were in power, it's whether people would ever let them become powerful in the first place. Think about it. You don't know ANYTHING about these people. Someday, one of them could make you do ANYTHING. And, there's nothing you'd be able to do about it - then. Of course, if you handle it NOW, he's got no more power over you than anyone else.

Who is trusting enough to let that go? And even if people ARE because their religion tells them to be, or something, then all it takes is one renegade wizard to destroy all that trust. Once one of them goes bad, distrusting them all is not an enormous leap.

I'm not saying it's completely impossible. But I think the stable lifespan of a society based on the routine use of a power not everyone can control could be measured with an egg-timer.

Like I said, if ANYONE can use magic, then it's different. That, of course, is where the technology argument falls apart completely. An individual may not understand how technology works, but it works the same for everyone. Magic may, or may not be, the same.

But if it is the same, it's just technology dressed up in funny clothes because there's nothing "magical" about it.

Possibly because I take a dim view of human nature. Of course, if I had a better one, I'd favor monarchies over democracies because they're more efficient. The stablest societies seem to be those that assume the worst of human nature - NOT the best.

But you're of course entitled to disagree.

 

[gizmo33]

Think about it. You don't know ANYTHING about these people.

We don't? You're making assumptions that might not be universally true for all fantasy universes. Aren't all wizards like Gandalf? He was a good guy.

Someday, one of them could make you do ANYTHING. And, there's nothing you'd be able to do about it - then.

Whoa man, what kind of game are you running !? I get a saving throw, don't I? Pretty much anyone with a gun falls into that category though, and in a general sense I see a gun-wielder taking the same sort of risks as a wizard trying to use charm person. Of course with the gun analogy, it seems natural that if some nasty monster is summoned into the town square, the wizard is going to be the first suspect.

Once one of them goes bad, distrusting them all is not an enormous leap.

"One of them" indicates pretty clearly that in your campaign culture arcane spell casters are seen as outsiders. If your second cousin's uncle's mother is a wizard, then "one of them" is a lot closer to "one of us."

Like I said, if ANYONE can use magic, then it's different.

According to the core rules, anyone with a 10 intelligence can choose the wizard character class AFAIK. Depends what you mean by "can use magic". An arcane spell caster might not be an "alien" creature as much as just have unique training.

That, of course, is where the technology argument falls apart completely. An individual may not understand how technology works, but it works the same for everyone. Magic may, or may not be, the same.

In DnD magic works the same for everyone that follows the same rules. Just as technology.

But if it is the same, it's just technology dressed up in funny clothes because there's nothing "magical" about it.

People are critical of magic as technology but it's not that much of a stretch from actual culture. The superstitious practices of people - whether it's throwing salt over your shoulder to ward off a curse, checking your horoscope before taking a job, CAN resemble technology. I'm sure there's some story value to keeping magic wonderous to the *players*, but that doesn't mean that the characters would find it so.

Possibly because I take a dim view of human nature.

You think?!

Of course, if I had a better one, I'd favor monarchies over democracies because they're more efficient. The stablest societies seem to be those that assume the worst of human nature - NOT the best.

Any society that expects that it's citizens can elect their leaders IMO takes an optimistic view of human nature. In fact it's the monarchists who argued that people were scumbags in general, and so the ideal was a enlightened despot. Classical liberals take a dim view of government, like the "power corrupts" thing, but not so much of human nature.

But you're of course entitled to disagree.

Thanks I'd certainly be looking over my shoulder in your campaign world ! "He's a fifth level fighter and can kill many of us commoners in a single round! Get him!!"

 

[Hussar]

The amount of fun to be had in a particular game world is inversely proportional to the amount of real world knowledge you bring into it.

Quit being a muggle.

QFT. And, I think this is very, very true. Look at the discussions of historical background you seen here. Weapons come to mind. I admit, beyond a passing familiarity, I know next to nothing about swords and such. Doesn't bother me that much. So, the fact that the weapon weights in DnD are wonky don't bother me. Some people get bent out of shape over it. To each his own.

On the Shelzar thing. There was a large problem though. The main contact between the continents was controlled by one nation (Calastia) and that nation was FAR closer geographically than Shelzar. Like I said, this only became an issue when I started to want to run an economic based campaign with trade and ships and whatnot. Goes straight back to Gearjammer's point that looking too hard at things causes headaches.

Take Gizmo's and John Snow's conversation here. There are any number of cultures out there that respected and revered wizards and spell casting. Aztecs, North American Native groups, Korean shamanism, the Khmer people of Angkor Wat. All had "wizards" that ran the state. Even Biblical Egypt had the same. The story of Moses contains all sorts of Egyptian wizards and spell casting priests.

The idea that spell casters would be universally reviled because of the persecution of witches in Europe is perhaps taking things a little too far.

 

[J_D]

An unusual combination of free time and piqued interest have prompted me to insert several random replies...

I of course agree that different gamers have different tastes and styles, and many (but not all) of my comments are just my personal tastes.

Ultimately, fantasy, especially D&D fantasy, doesn't make sense; that's
why it's fantasy.

That's not my view of fantasy. To me, fantasy represents what's impossible in the real world - what explicitly violates known natural laws of the real universe. Fantasy can still have its own 'make sense' in the form of internal consistency even if it doesn't 'make sense' in the real world sense.

ISTM that many home worldbuilders prioritize a consistent, functioning world over a world that really pushes their or their players buttons

Aren't you assuming that there is a probable or necessary disconnect between a 'consistent functioning world' and a 'world that really pushes their or their players buttons'? It's certainly not a universal taste, but I'd say that at least for some people a 'consistent functioning world' IS EXACTLY what 'pushes their buttons'! I'm one of them!

A powerful wizard being able to summon several sorts of giant hands that beat people up, yet completely unable to cure poison or disease 'because only priest can do that' feels really contrived.

Similarly, a skilled engineer who can build skyscrapers and 'summon' several sorts of giant hands (i.e. massive cranes) to aid him in that work, yet be completely unable to perform neurosurgery 'because only a doctor can do that' feels really contrived. Hmm.

It's not contrived, it's only a matter of specializing in one's field. No one can do everything, and the better one gets at any specific thing the less time he has to learn anything else.

Every group of adventurers above a certain level flying everywhere because it's faster than walking feels painfully contrived.

Similarly, every group of vacationers above a certain level of wealth flying everywhere on airlines because it's faster than driving feels painfully contrived. Or not, to both of them.

When people want do to something and they have the opportunity and resources to do it faster, better or more efficiently, they generally do so. That's sort of part of human nature. I see no reason why that should be different in a fantasy world. If you don't want it to be common in your world, then make it harder and more expensive to do.

If you want to insure a certain feel (e.g. Authurian or Viking) to your world, then you need to jigger the rules to make it difficult to do non-Arthurian or non-Viking things.

The amount of fun to be had in a particular game world is inversely proportional to the amount of real world knowledge you bring into it.

Quit being a muggle.

If that's your style, then it's fine for you. For myself, though, I'd adamantly disagree with that statement. If that's your definition of a muggle, then I'm a muggle and proud of it! Gearjammer, meet the gear-head!

I think the major issue with fantasy not being based in some form of reality, is that it makes it more difficult for players. Unless you give the players an excellent rundown of what is and what isn't and the whys and hows, the players will have no frame of reference upon which to base their perceptions.

Quoted for profound truth. The more it deviates from reality the harder it is for a person born and raised in the real world to wrap his head around it, unless those points where the deviation takes place are well-defined and well-described. For anything that is not thusly defined and described, though, 'it works just like the real world' is the standard and default assumption.

It's a reasonable consequence of cheap and available flying magic, but it's compromising the concept of the world (since Vikings, Arthur and all that other stuff that goes to make up the nebulous "generic D&D" don't just fly around all the time) in favour of making room for "reasonable consequences".

It's important to note that "generic D&D" is nebulous, because it has drawn inspiration from a great many sources of which Vikings and Arthur are only two. You're going to have problems with some part of the D&D system any time you try to narrow the concept of the world to any specific subset of those great many sources. "Generic D&D" has drawn so many bits of inspriation from so many varied sources that it's become its own genre, and if you want to try to emulate just one or two of those varied sources you're going to have problems.

The arcane/divine thing is one of my big pet peeves from D&D.

It doesn't bother me. For the split to bother you so carries the underlying assumption that they're really the same thing just dressed up with different robes and accoutrements. I think of them as two genuinely different things. The arcane/divine split makes just as much sense as the medical sciences/physcial sciences split. It doesn't bother me that engineers and surgeons have their special stuff, and in the same way it doesn't bother me that clerics and wizards have their special stuff.

Why would anyone ever trust wizards with their power? Personally, of all the things I'm ever expected to disbelieve, human nature is the hardest thing for me to accept changes in.

If you're going to ask that, then you need to ask a broader question: why would anyone ever trust anyone who has power over them? The answer is varied, and the same with wizards as it is with anyone else with power - pharoahs, emperors, kings, popes or presidents: some people want them to do their thinking and deciding for them, some people seek safety under their protection, some people seek a little power or advantage of their own as minions under them, some people simply bow down in fear of their power.

So, my gut instinct is that most people would react to wizards and spellcasters about the way they react to: a) Mutants in X-Men comics, or b) accused witches in Earth's past. That is, control them or kill them in various creative ways before they get dangerous.

If this were truly how people reacted to others wielding greater power, then we'd have never had pharoahs, emperors, kings, popes or presidents. While the specific mechanism of a wizard's power is quite different, at the heart if it power over others is power over others and it all works by the same rules.

Right. That fits with human nature. Which is why old women and men with nothing more than herbalism and a little learning were hung, drowned, or burned at the stake in the real world. People distrust power and those who know things they don't or can do things they can't.

In my opinion, that's not human nature. That's just the Christian church stamping out competing belief systems. Those old men and women got along with other just fine for a long time until the Christians came around. If it were truly part of human nature to hang, drown or burn anyone with a little herbalism and learning, then they would have always been burned long before the Christians came around.

1) Most of the setting works the way that the real world works. If it doesn't, it gets harder and harder for the reader/watcher/gamer to relate.
2) Things are consistent. If things are inconsistent, then they should be consistently inconsistent.
3) The details of the setting should be easy for the reader/watcher/gamer to grasp.

Quoted for truth.

You can talk about themes all you want. But the simple fact is that trust is not something that's easy under the best of circumstances. The question isn't whether magic-users could ever be tolerated once they were in power, it's whether people would ever let them become powerful in the first place. Think about it. You don't know ANYTHING about these people. Someday, one of them could make you do ANYTHING. And, there's nothing you'd be able to do about it - then. Of course, if you handle it NOW, he's got no more power over you than anyone else.

If that's truly the way most people think, then we'd never have had pharoahs, emperors, kings, popes or presidents. Why do you think wizards would be taken down before they became powerful, but not any other people in positions to wield power?

I'm not saying it's completely impossible. But I think the stable lifespan of a society based on the routine use of a power not everyone can control could be measured with an egg-timer.

Funny, I could have sworn that my history book had a fairly good list of all sorts of kingdoms and empires that lasted hundreds or thousands of years where the ruler had routine use of power that not every citizen or subject could control.

According to the core rules, anyone with a 10 intelligence can choose the wizard character class AFAIK. Depends what you mean by "can use magic". An arcane spell caster might not be an "alien" creature as much as just have unique training.
...
In DnD magic works the same for everyone that follows the same rules. Just as technology.

Quoted for truth, and allow me to elaborate on that thought.

Magic has to work that way. People in the fantasy world pursue magic for the same reason real-world people pursue technology - because it works!, and people who know it can use it to improve their lives! If it weren't reliable and reproducable no one would pursue it. Show me a world where magic is unreliable - a few words, a handwave and a bit of guano might produce a fireball today but the same words, handwave and guano won't work next Tuesday - and I'll show you a world that has never seen and will never see an archwizard. People will pursue something that works instead.

You will always find a few cranks and crackpots in any society who pursue things that will never work, of course, but if the larger portion of people did that then we wouldn't have cars, comupters, airplanes and MRI machines today. The same applies to wizards in a fantasy world. If magic didn't work reliably and repeatably, then the only 'wizards' you'd find would be assorted con-men and fortune-tellers in carnival sideshows.

I know this isn't to many people's taste - they want magic to be mysterious and think my view makes magic too much like technology - but to make it fundamentally mysterious and unpredictable even to those who use it would shatter all suspension of disbelief for me. You can make it mysterious to the average person in the game world by raising the bar for entry to the art - say by making the minimum intelligence 16 instead of 10 thereby making wizards and magic much rarer - but to those who actually use it it has to be understandable and reliable to use or they wouldn't bother using it. This means the game has to have consistent rules for its use, and that will inevitably lead to comparisons with technology. Think of it this way - if your DM changed the game rules regarding magic every session - requiring that you relearn how to play a wizard every session - would you ever want to play a wizard? No? So why would characters in the game world approach magic any differently? If characters still did pursue such mysterious and unpredictable magic, wouldn't you have a believability problem with it?

People like jasin may accuse me of overthinking in all this, but I've got this little personality quirk that I am simply not capable of turning off my brain. Some may view that as a disadvantage, but if so it's one that I rather enjoy! Things that don't engage my brain - my analytical and rational power - and prompt me to think simply bore me.

QFT. And, I think this is very, very true. Look at the discussions of historical background you seen here. Weapons come to mind. I admit, beyond a passing familiarity, I know next to nothing about swords and such. Doesn't bother me that much. So, the fact that the weapon weights in DnD are wonky don't bother me. Some people get bent out of shape over it. To each his own.

That's an interesting point. There isn't a single level of suspension of disbelief that applies across the board even in a single gamer. One's level of suspension of disbelief will vary depending on one's real-life expertise in the subject at hand. A professional economist might have a great tolerance for inaccuracies in weapon rules but have a low tolerance for inaccuracies in game monetary systems and town wealth charts, while a master metalsmith might be picky about the details of game weapons but not give game economics a second thought.

Take Gizmo's and John Snow's conversation here. There are any number of cultures out there that respected and revered wizards and spell casting. Aztecs, North American Native groups, Korean shamanism, the Khmer people of Angkor Wat. All had "wizards" that ran the state. Even Biblical Egypt had the same. The story of Moses contains all sorts of Egyptian wizards and spell casting priests.

The idea that spell casters would be universally reviled because of the persecution of witches in Europe is perhaps taking things a little too far.

Agreed. JohnSnow made the mistake of taking a specific historical situation and trying to apply it out of context as a broad general rule about human nature.

 

[Odhanan]

Whatever people feel comfortable with, really.

Personally, that depends on what the focus of the campaign is. If it's about alternate history/pseudo-historical stuff that would be "believable"/immersive, then such things as food supply and other basic good-sense considerations ought to be covered.

If however it's about classic beer and bretzel dungeon crawling (which can be just as great as far as I'm concerned as a DM or player) and it's assumed, then I won't be searching for the bathrooms or food supplies on the maps of the dungeon.

 

[Odhanan]

A little thinking can also lead to interesting situations.

I was building a dungeon in a dead-magic area. It was inhabited by humans and other humanoids. I did a mental walkthrough and realized that there would have to be non-magical light sources in hallways and rooms. I thought further and realized they'd need a storage room for torches; or better yet maybe they had oil lamps attached to walls. Thinking even further, I realized they'd also need someone to go around re-filling oil lamps and keeping them working and lit. That led me to create a low-level mongrelman servant (by the name of Grool) who could be found wandering the halls. In turn, when encountered, this led to fun role-playing -- Grool was none too bright, and assumed the PCs were just more minions. He also had a colorful patchwork cloak that the PCs borrowed from him, and a rogue used it to disguise himself as Grool to let him move about a few of the rooms without being noticed by the minions.

In this case, a little thinking was better than -- in the midst of play -- having to say ... "Oh, I guess the humans all carry torches with them."

Cool idea. I might use that one in my upcoming Ptolus campaign. Thanks, Eric.

 

[rounser]

Fantasy can still have its own 'make sense' in the form of internal consistency even if it doesn't 'make sense' in the real world sense.

But D&D, and the genre it represents, aren't internally consistent except to a degree necessary to support suspension of disbelief, even by their own standards. They're just an abstraction, not an actuality. Attempting to apply logic to them in an attempt to enforce internal consistency of specific details that are there as fantasy devices, nothing more, is akin to the fable of killing the goose which lays the golden eggs in an attempt to find more.

 

[reanjr]

I think it's even more important to address these topics plausibly in fantasy because it is already so alien compared to real life that verisimilitude allows people to better understand characters and motivations within the context of the world.

People will stop assuming anything about characters and resort to idle voyeurs of the world if nothing makes any sense.