What is "middle fantasy"?

[Quickleaf]

I personally look at it as being measured on three axes:

The X-axis is the prevalence of magic. This covers how often you run into magic/fantastic elements, as well as how much people believe in them/are knowledgeable about them. If magic is rare, hidden, and not widely believed in, then there's a low mark here. If it's fairly well-known, and you can find a spellcaster as easily as you can look someone up in the phone book, then there's a high mark here.

The Y-axis is the power of magic. This is how strong the fantastic elements of the setting (which is really what "magic" is shorthand for) are in terms of their ability to accomplish things. Lord of the Rings gets a low mark here, because nobody is tossing out cure spells willy-nilly, dragons are exceptionally rare, and magic items are legendary lost treasures with names and histories. By contrast, the Forgotten Realms has a high mark, since magic can quite literally move mountains, dragons and demons and beholders are everywhere, and there are artifacts that can banish gods and freeze the entire planet.

The Z-axis measures the setting, in terms of its connection to Earth. The closer the setting gets to Earth (both in actuality and resemblance), the lower the score here, and vice versa. That sounds odd, since this tends to be thought of as binary - either something is set on Earth of it isn't - but fantasy is broad enough that this is more of a continuum. As the past is (sometimes quite literally, in fantasy) a different country, the scale here measures not just the connection to Earth, but also to contemporary Earth (though medieval Europe is such a standard now that it barely moves the proverbial needle if it's set there).

What a great framework! I do wonder if there's a 4th axis that some folks have alluded to: the role of the adventurer & scope of the quest. For example, in FR there are bands of adventuring parties, "adventuring" is recognized as a pastime, and quests tend to have high national/global/cosmic stakes.

So, I asked about "middle fantasy", and I think of it as the origin point (0,0) on that coordinate system. For example, I consider the Witcher setting by Andrzej Sapkowski to be an example of "middle fantasy" using this definition. Maybe another literary example could be the Black Company? I suppose something like Greyhawk or Kingdoms of Kalamar comes down to how the DM ran them, but I've always thought of those as somewhere between high and low fantasy.

Magic prevalance (0) is neither everyday nor is it exceedingly rare. So it's uncommon and there may be political restrictions to its use, popular superstitions against it, and other cultural elements that show it is part of the setting but the average person doesn't encounter it much and when they do it tends to be life-changing.

Magic power (0) is neither vast nor minimal. Dragons, mighty spells, healing magic, and magic items would exist, but the more powerful stuff would be rare and capped off at a certain point, while the less powerful stuff would be perhaps uncommon. While the less powerful stuff wouldn't necessarily have a great story behind it, the more powerful stuff would have some important narrative.

Setting (0) means that Earth folklore and real-world cultural aspects are drawn upon without it actually being Earth or an earth facsimile. Something like "bog standard" magical medieval Europe-esque setting would fit here.

And if we were going to add in role of adventurers/scope as a 4th axis....

Scope (0) means that there are a mix of local/personal challenges and national/grand challenges, while things on the extreme ends (scraping silver just to get by & confronting gods in their realm) would not be the focus of action. Adventuring might be (mis)understood in a cultural context, but it would be an uncommon or rare thing. So while there are other adventurers out there in the world either they don't cross paths with the protagonists or they play only a supporting role.

Obviously, any discussion of genre is trying to distill principles from non-homogenous source material, but how does that look as a definition for "middle fantasy"?

 

[Derren]

I would call the Witcher series "Middle Fantasy".

 

[Jhaelen]

I've seen Ars Magica being called 'high magic, low fantasy'. The setting is superficially identical to medieval Europe ca.1220 AD, but from a player's viewpoint it's mostly about (powerful) mages. However the Code of Hermes ensures, that the mages don't meddle much in the affairs of the mundane population. Perhaps another way to describe such a setting would be 'middle fantasy'?

I'm not too familiar with Greyhawk, but I suppose it could be similar - there are a few very powerful mages, but they don't have much effect on the setting?!?!

I'd definitely not call A Game of Fire and Ice 'middle fantasy', though. It's 'low fantasy' at best. At least it's 'low magic'.

Ah, well, I have no clue

 

[Alzrius]

What a great framework! I do wonder if there's a 4th axis that some folks have alluded to: the role of the adventurer & scope of the quest. For example, in FR there are bands of adventuring parties, "adventuring" is recognized as a pastime, and quests tend to have high national/global/cosmic stakes.

I considered that, but I had a problem with trying to reconcile the narrative versus the setting. In the paragraph I quoted, this can be summarized as the difference between the first sentence and the second, respectively.

The issue there is that a given tale can be epic and grand in its particular scope, but that's usually limited to a very specific set of times, places, and circumstances. That's quite often not representative of the setting as a whole.

Really, it comes down to what you're trying to categorize - the story or the world.

Obviously, any discussion of genre is trying to distill principles from non-homogenous source material, but how does that look as a definition for "middle fantasy"?

I'd say if that works well for you, run with it.

That said, it's different from the scale I was using (in my head), because I had the "0" value equated with "none" - or rather, that if something was ranked at 0, then it had no variance from the real world that we're living in now. That is, a setting value of "0" meant that it's set on contemporary Earth with no alterations (e.g. it's set in the modern-day "real world"). A magic prevalence value of "0" meant that magic was totally unknown, and not seriously believed in by most people, etc.

That helps to eliminate ambiguities over having 0 be a median value (e.g. it eliminates negative numbers), since there's no consensus on what constitutes "median" in that regard for, say, how powerful magic "should" be, etc.

The other question is how high up the scale should go. In this case, I set it to top out at a value of 10 for each attribute. The reason for this is that the larger the scale, the more it measures smaller grades of difference, which can be hard to quantitatively identify between two different works. If on a scale of 0-10, for example, you rank magic power in Harry Potter as being a 3, whereas Lord of the Rings is only a 2 on the same scale, the diminutive range of the scale means that each number has a broader range in what it stands for - so you can say that the former's use of teleporting and death-curses, for example, is enough to let it edge out the latter setting.

By contrast, if you have a scale that ranges from 0 to 100, then each number covers something more specific, and you'll need to have a clearer understanding of those specificities. If you rank the magic power in Harry Potter as being a 27, for example, and the magic power displayed in Lord of the Rings at 21, you better be prepared to explain why you chose those numbers specifically, and what a difference of 6 - as opposed to, say, one of 9 - means in practical terms.

 

[Umbran]

I've seen Ars Magica being called 'high magic, low fantasy'.

Yep. That description is probably using the definitions I presented. It is taking place in the primary world, and so is low fantasy. But there's lots of magic, so it is high magic.

I'm not too familiar with Greyhawk, but I suppose it could be similar - there are a few very powerful mages, but they don't have much effect on the setting?!?!

Greyhawk as tons of magic all over the place. There's magic in every module set int eh world. Every town described has spellcasters of both clerical and arcane types. Countries are ruled by wizards and demigods. High magic.

It is also high fantasy - it most certainly isn't the primary world.

I'd definitely not call A Game of Fire and Ice 'middle fantasy', though. It's 'low fantasy' at best. At least it's 'low magic'.

By the definition I gave, it is pretty certainly high fantasy - a separate world from ours. How much magic it has is only a tendency, not a determiner itself.

 

[gamerprinter]

I pretty much agree with Umbran as regards to the definition of "middle fantasy", that said, The Saga of Fire and Ice is not middle fantasy. Its low fantasy. So far, from the books, the dragons, worgs being people spiritually connected to animals and the "other people" of the underground hinted at in the last book of the series (published so far), is the closest thing magic at all in the books/setting. How is Fire and Ice any more magic than that?

Conan is considered low fantasy, but there still are wizards, thus I consider Saga of Ice and Fire as even lower fantasy than Conan.

 

[Quickleaf]

Ok, so Song of Ice and Fire and Conan are "low fantasy."

Greyhawk and Lord of the Rings are "high fantasy."

Witcher is "middle fantasy."

What other middle fantasy examples are out there?

 

[Yora]

Define Middle Fantasy.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Well, it seems to me that the term "high fantasy" is more and more losing most of its meaning due to being used in entirely different ways. Most likely our preferred usage stems more from how we first heard it used than any other consideration.

For me, high fantasy (as I was introduced to it) it primarily about the scope, both in power level and in significance. High fantasy is about good vs. evil, fate of the world, knights in shining armor and dragons kidnapping princesses. Dragonlance and Lord of the Rings are some well-known examples of high fantasy.

While high fantasy is pretty much always set in an alternate world, being set in an alternate world provides zero "points" towards getting the high fantasy title. Its an incidental (if ubiquitous) trait, rather than a defining one.

Level of magic is also entirely irrelevant. Lord of Rings had a very low level of magic on a day-to-day basis, for instance.

Things like Game of Thrones (with moral ambiguity and a focus on politics), Peirs Anthony's Xanth novels (lots of fantastical elements), or Conanesque stories (where it's just about killing things and taking their gold--kinda like some playstyles of D&D) are not high fantasy.

I admit, I actually get kind of frustrated on this particular issue, because it seems like people have changed the meaning primarily on the basis of misunderstanding the term. People starting mistakenly thinking that "high fantasy" meant "a high amount of fantasy elements", which generally meant "high magic," and weren't corrected, and it just stuck.

EDIT: Let me second the link that Cadence provided: https://www.worldswithoutend.com/resources_sub-genres.asp That's a really good description of various sub-genres of fantasy.

 

[gamerprinter]

Well, it seems to me that the term "high fantasy" is more and more losing most of its meaning due to being used in entirely different ways. Most likely our preferred usage stems more from how we first heard it used than any other consideration.

For me, high fantasy (as I was introduced to it) it primarily about the scope, both in power level and in significance. High fantasy is about good vs. evil, fate of the world, knights in shining armor and dragons kidnapping princesses. Dragonlance and Lord of the Rings are some well-known examples of high fantasy.

While high fantasy is pretty much always set in an alternate world, being set in an alternate world provides zero "points" towards getting the high fantasy title. Its an incidental (if ubiquitous) trait, rather than a defining one.

Level of magic is also entirely irrelevant. Lord of Rings had a very low level of magic on a day-to-day basis, for instance.

Things like Game of Thrones (with moral ambiguity and a focus on politics), Peirs Anthony's Xanth novels (lots of fantastical elements), or Conanesque stories (where it's just about killing things and taking their gold--kinda like some playstyles of D&D) are not high fantasy.

I admit, I actually get kind of frustrated on this particular issue, because it seems like people have changed the meaning primarily on the basis of misunderstanding the term. People starting mistakenly thinking that "high fantasy" meant "a high amount of fantasy elements", which generally meant "high magic," and weren't corrected, and it just stuck.

EDIT: Let me second the link that Cadence provided: https://www.worldswithoutend.com/resources_sub-genres.asp That's a really good description of various sub-genres of fantasy.

I agree with your definitions of both high and low fantasy. What is a middle fantasy? Answer, a made up word/term that doesn't really have a meaning, except to those who misunderstand the true meaning of high and low fantasy.