What is "Iconic Fantasy"

[melnibonian]

^
!

Oh god do I want to play in that game...

I believe, that in the public eye, iconic fantasy is A. Derived from fairytales and a (dragons, princesses, knights, wizards), B. Lord of the rings (Hobbits, dwarves) and C. Sword and sorcery films of the 80's.

Iconic D&D however, is much harder. It is entirely subjective. For me, phsychedelic moorcock, and Conan comics of the 70's are fantasy. But D&D itself is the tarrasque, the oddly colored 1st ed books, intricate 2e details, Diterlizzi art, Errol Otus, the boxed set I first played, and the red boxed set.

Which I think is why people bring this up. D&D is "iconic fantasy" for everyone, as they see it. (Thanks to the astute posters who brought this up.) Any change of art, of tone, of anything upsets this. Anyone can still do Conan, or Lieber, or Tolkien. It's the actual product look that people worry about.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

I think it is much easier to define Iconic Fantasy by what it isn't than by what it is.

And I think that gloombunny said it better and more concisely earlier on:

"iconic fantasy" means "the way I play D&D". It's used by people who have this weird idea that D&D, and particularly D&D the way they play it, is some sort of baseline of all fantasy fiction.

Iconic fantasy is not-- Rainbow mohawked facial pierced kenderesque halfing anti-paladins riding steam-powered dinosaurs.

Which curiously appear ten times in grognard arguments for every actual appearance in games, illustrations or whatnot (if that).

Iconic fantasy is not-- messy-haired guys who yell out the name of the attack they are about to do as little pebbles start floating behind them, then unleashing said "chi blast" but missing and taking out half the moon.

Iconic fantasy is not-- having "social encounter rules" to replace actual role-playing & storytelling and skip ahead to 'da dungeon hack!

Have you ever actually played a game with social encounter rules, such as any of the WW ones (Vampire, Mage, Exalted...)? Because, based on this comment, I'm pretty much sure you're speaking from the position of sound ignorance.

I'm not saying any of this stuff is bad/wrong/fun-- just saying that it is not "iconic" fantasy. Also not saying that D&D must be "iconic" fantasy-- Castles & Crusades can pick up that slack, as could OSRIC, Basic Fantasy, GURPS, etc if D&D doesn't want to do that anymore.

It seems to me you are restricting "iconic fantasy" to mean "D&D and fantasy fiction as it was about thirty years ago, minus such obviously sword-and-sorcery inspired beings and classes as tieflings, dragonborn and warlocks."

I'm not saying that's badwrongfun, either, but it makes me agree more and more with gloombunny.

 

[Imban]

I think it is much easier to define Iconic Fantasy by what it isn't than by what it is.

Iconic fantasy is not-- Rainbow mohawked facial pierced kenderesque halfing anti-paladins riding steam-powered dinosaurs.

Iconic fantasy is not-- messy-haired guys who yell out the name of the attack they are about to do as little pebbles start floating behind them, then unleashing said "chi blast" but missing and taking out half the moon.

Iconic fantasy is not-- having "social encounter rules" to replace actual role-playing & storytelling and skip ahead to 'da dungeon hack!

Iconic fantasy is not-- klingon-looking armor, spiked chains, and magic item shops.

Iconic fantasy is not-- Fighters who can light their sword on fire and shoot flames at enemies by sheer willpower that is somehow not considered magic. Same fighters being able to jump over 50' crevasses while throwing their flaming sword like a boomerang.

I'm not saying any of this stuff is bad/wrong/fun-- just saying that it is not "iconic" fantasy. Also not saying that D&D must be "iconic" fantasy-- Castles & Crusades can pick up that slack, as could OSRIC, Basic Fantasy, GURPS, etc if D&D doesn't want to do that anymore.

Man, I was with you until the social encounter rules thing. That's got nothing to do with "iconic fantasy" or anything else here.

 

[Mallus]

I think it is much easier to define Iconic Fantasy by what it isn't than by what it is.

OK. Iconic fantasy is not what D&D is. And was. Or most likely will be.

Rainbow mohawked facial pierced kenderesque halfing anti-paladins riding steam-powered dinosaurs.

You had me at steam-powered dinosaurs.

klingon-looking armor, spiked chains, and magic item shops.

I saw plenty of Star Trek influence, usually in the form of orc=Klingon, in the 1e campaigns I played in. Not to mention a fair number of magic item shops.

I'm not saying any of this stuff is bad/wrong/fun-- just saying that it is not "iconic" fantasy.

And I'm not saying its wrong to prefer a more focused kind of D&D campaign, but I think it's wrong to suggest that D&D has traditionally been something other than an amalgam of currently popular fantasy tropes and peculiarly idiosyncratic material haphazardly mixed together.

When I started playing 1e, D&D was a bunch of Tolkien and Howard second-stringers, plus David Carradine from "Kung Fu" trying to get rich by robbing brain-eating space monsters, carnivorous Jello molds that evolved on graph paper, and incarnations of pure chaos that bore a striking resemblance to frogs...

 

[Doug McCrae]

Iconic fantasy is not-- having "social encounter rules" to replace actual role-playing & storytelling and skip ahead to 'da dungeon hack!

Pendragon rpg most definitely is iconic fantasy, in the sense of highly revered and respected.

Iconic fantasy is not-- Fighters who can light their sword on fire and shoot flames at enemies by sheer willpower that is somehow not considered magic.

If you're referring to Tome of Battle, that isn't the case. The Desert Wind flame powers are supernatural abilities ie magic.

The swordsage, the only class which can use these maneuvers, "blurs the line between martial prowess and magical skill", a warrior wizard rather than a straight warrior.