To you, what makes a fantasy world "Great" ?
M.
The greatness of a fantasy world is inversely proportional to the number of chainmail bikini-clad women who populate it.
I'm not sure there's an answer to that M. At least not a good answer.
I tend to like dark, semi-historical, or historical settings like Martin's SoIaF. On the other hand, I also liked Sanderson's Mistborn world. But others have other tastes.
And when we start talking about gaming, that throws in another kink. A setting can be a great setting purely in virtue of having a great GM, while a poor GM can make anything boring.
But as best I can answer, I tend not to like high fantasy, with lots of wacky races and weirdness going on. It doesn't in itself make a setting great, the presence of such things does tend detract my initial interest in the setting.
It should be "fantastic": there should be a whole bunch of flashy and odd/weird things around where normal people can see them. And some of those things should be regular people who can do over-the-top stuff.
Also it shouldn't take itself too seriously, there should be some feeling that there's a joke mixed in somewhere. Otherwise it doesn't feel real.
Hmm, tough question.
I dislike the use of "fairy tale reasoning" where there are no limits to what can be done with magic and the like. As such, i also dislike most high fantasy worlds as well as have a strange aversion to dragons and extensive use of gods. I like for the settings to be strange and original; the more never-seen-before stuff the better. At the same time, i want it to retain coherence and credibility as well as internal logic. I dislike extreme realism where everything is a simulation of the middle ages but the world should have a touch of realism with the other stuff built on top. I enjoy when settings have elaborate explanations for phenomena and detailed metaphysics for their magic and planes.
Verisimilitude coupled with some opportunity for escapism: a world that on some level we'd like to experience, even if we wouldn't choose to live there. Breathtaking imaginative power and creativity are always a plus. I'd disagree with Silvercat that the world has to have the fantastic elements out there in the open, although most of the worlds I consider great (Bas-Lag and The Dying Earth for example) do employ this.
Something or someone immmortal. It just isn't fantasy (or science fiction) without it. Even if you have flying whales that battle each other steam cannons ans magical ballistae, no immortals = I have a lot of trouble with it.
I don't think I can define any single characteristic that I consider a necessity. I'm sure I would be missing out on something wonderful if I did so.
This is like any other type of art, and more like music than many.
The 'hook' that makes it great can take many forms. Sometimes it is complexity and realism, sometimes a storyline, perhaps the underlying magic...SOMETHING DIFFERNT EVERY TIME.
for me, what makes a setting great is a mixture of purely fantastic elements (dragons, magic, etc), with enough realism to suspend my disbelief. i can accept dragons, but when every joe everydude is a potential superhero, twelve-year olds save the world on a regular basis and every tale has a happy ending, that tends to put me off. same thing with consitency. darker, more serious settings don't need comic relief races to make them acceptable for kids or girlfriends.
well.... in the end, it's just as hard to explain as "what's a great painting."
Quote from: Scholar'¦'¦'¦tends to put me off. same thing with consitency. darker, more serious settings don't need comic relief races to make them acceptable for kids or girlfriends.'¦'¦'¦'¦
:huh: I think something was lost in translation here. Could you explain that again for the record?
sorry, this is a personal pet peeve of mine which is exemplified in WotC settings sometimes, but mostly in dragonlance. to me, DL is a setting about chivalry, standing up for your cause, etc. all very heroic and even a bit grim. until you meet a bloody kender. cleptomanic and curious to the point of suicide midgets. sorry, but you got comedy into my epos. :(
the only setting that i have played in which has no oddball race is eberron, the others have scatterbrain gnomes, freindly/cheerful hobbits, or bloody kenders.
i know that feeling is subjective, but i don't want my knight to be derailed from whatever heroic stuff he's doing to go chase or bail out a lackwit who stole the king's macguffin for shits and giggles.
i call that consistency (or lack thereof), because these things are not in keeping with the overall tone of the setting, and are only introduced to broaden its appeal to the more merry-go-lucky gamers.
alternatively, i'm just too somber or cynical a person and just don't get it. maybe. maybe...^^
Ah, okay, I understand it now. It was hard to read where one sentence ended and another began.
I'm avoiding the "comedic" races, though I'm adding some weird ones to inject a differing culture. Those that followed my introductory thread know that my setting is based on Anglo Saxon England. I decided to add a race of Half Dragons who have a culture very much like the Shaolin Monks.
M.
Vreeg and LC have the right idea here. It's not that simple to define what makes a good setting. Of course, given a good setting, one can easily define their favorite elements of said world.
What makes a good fantasy setting good is the same thing that makes any other setting good. It has to be an effective tool for telling a story. It can go about doing that in many different ways. However, if it is not a good vessel for the story then it is not a good setting.
Quote from: Jack of HeartsThe greatness of a fantasy world is inversely proportional to the number of chainmail bikini-clad women who populate it.
I love Dynamite's current Red Sonja comics, so I'd have to go with directly proportional rather than inversely.
I think one thing that can make a setting work for me or not is a seedy underbelly/ criminal underworld element. DS9 was my favorite of the Treks. I rather like Discworld. I like Fafhrd and The Grey Mouser. Although, they both have some crime and gangs, Gotham has always seemed more interesting than Metropolis to me.
It's definitely a preference issue. I really loved Lord of the Rings and the Shannara books. I also have liked all the Forgotten Realms books I've read, and I loved the FR video games; but I haven't liked any of the D&D games I've played in it, so go figure.
Quote from: Jack of HeartsThe greatness of a fantasy world is inversely proportional to the number of chainmail bikini-clad women who populate it.
LIAR!
A sense that the people who inhabit that world feel "real", despite their fantastic surroundings. Even in the most cinematic, over-the-top settings - if it has human inhabitants, they should span the range of human behavior. Some might be saints, some might be Evil Incarnate, but most people should span the region between, and act accordingly.
Quote from: NomadicWhat makes a good fantasy setting good is the same thing that makes any other setting good. It has to be an effective tool for telling a story. It can go about doing that in many different ways. However, if it is not a good vessel for the story then it is not a good setting.
I, too, am very narrative based. And this is another good litmus test (which may be a good way of looking at this thread...creating a Litmus test for settings) for determining the worth of a setting.
This can, of course, be dragged into the 'What makes a good Story' rubric (and then be linked to Phoenix' book thread).
Quote from: Vreeg's BaroloQuote from: NomadicWhat makes a good fantasy setting good is the same thing that makes any other setting good. It has to be an effective tool for telling a story. It can go about doing that in many different ways. However, if it is not a good vessel for the story then it is not a good setting.
I, too, am very narrative based. And this is another good litmus test (which may be a good way of looking at this thread...creating a Litmus test for settings) for determining the worth of a setting.
This can, of course, be dragged into the 'What makes a good Story' rubric (and then be linked to Phoenix' book thread).
Well that's really what role play is about. Whether you are a DM handling an overarching world or a player simply handling a single person within that world, you are all telling a story. As to what determines how good a story is, that is based upon those telling it. As within roleplay the tellers are also the listeners (a bit like the timeless experience of telling tales around a campfire). Thus what they think makes a good story, is what actually makes the story good. This is why it is so important for the DM and the players to each understand what the others like and dislike within a game.
For many of my later games, and sometimes during campaigns long-running, I'll take time out to ask what kinds of adventures/plots people wanted.
Some of our groups would run the gamut from high combat, to politics, to puzzles. One player was a big fan of dungeon puzzles, riddles, and bizarre traps. Another favored intrigue and relationships over all else. Some just want scenes where they can utter cool lines. Giving players what they want can make a game seem great--the world is another issue entirely.
Short Answer:
Great story telling
Long Answer:
I think I may be picky because I've read a LOT of fantasy. My favourite series to date has of course been George RR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire. Besides absolutely fantastic story telling, the world is socially and politically complex. Each of the seven kingdoms of Westeron is unique and differentiated, and not in such a manner as to be too cliche. I mean ya there's the "northmen" starks, and the "viking" greyjoys, etc. However, things like the "house mottos" and such give each kingdom something that differentiates themselves without falling into the realm of cliche. I also like that he purposely underuses "fantastic" and "magical" elements, so that when they DO appear, they're all the more exciting.
Tad Williams is another great author (finishing off Memory Sorrow and Thorn series right now). His world is very simplistic, and falls into the "evil guys in the north" trap, but it's saved with great atmosphere and great story telling. He carved down on the number of fantasy races to basically elves and trolls (who are really more like gnomes/halflings), and throws in a few elven variations rather than whole new races (sithi are good elves, norns are evil elves, dwarrows replace dwarves but still look elvish). Again though, magic is limited and thus cool when it's found. All the real "fantasy" elements are in that "lost civilization"-style, making it all the more mystical
The problem with it as a roleplaying setting, however, is that players WANT to encounter magic. As a DM I'm always obsessed with story telling, so to me the "high fantasy" overuse of elves and such is cliche and annoys the crap out of me. However, to my players, they want to see all that crap. In the words of one of my players "this is roleplaying, not real life. I like that things are 'good vs evil,' and that there's magic everywhere and stuff. I *LIVE* in real life, I don't want to roleplay there too." In fantasy literature, the authors restrict magic to make the characters more vulnerable, and thus build more suspense. In RP, you want *some* degree of vulnerability, but I think much much less than you would have in a novel. Otherwise, their characters are weak and the player's get bored.
Thought maybe I'd post a few examples of what I meant
A Song of Ice and Fire, George RR Martin:
-Fantasy Scale: low fantasy, very little magic, almost no non-human races, nearly no influence from gods
-Campaign?: Most PCs wouldn't like it. What DOES work though is the level of political intrigue, the complexity of the characters and nations (none are truly evil, only shades of gray). Different warring factions would allow for plenty of plot hooks as well
Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn, Tad Williams:
-Fantasy Scale: medium. Gods mentioned, but little influence. Magic is present, but not to main characters. Fantasy Races include elves and variations (sithi, norns, dwarrows), and Qanuc (kinda like halflings who live in the mountains).
-Campaign Setting?: Again, restricting magic to "the bad guys" and "super NPC" elves would be boring for PCs. The world itself is rather bland too. However, fantastic descriptions pull you right into the setting, which can help make one overlook any other flaws in the world.
David Eddings:
Fantasy- Again, all humans. Lots of magic, direct influence from gods
Campaign?-Very much generic fantasy. Certain races are evil, certain good. Certain gods are also evil, certain gods good, and the good gods rule the good peoples and vice versa. People of a certain race act according to stereotypes, and are predictable. Throw in a few extra fantasy races though, and you end up with a very generic fantasy setting much like the D&D standard setting, which seems to work well for roleplaying...so who knows...
Quote from: GaranthA Song of Ice and Fire, George RR Martin:
-Fantasy Scale: low fantasy, very little magic, almost no non-human races, nearly no influence from gods
-Campaign?: Most PCs wouldn't like it. What DOES work though is the level of political intrigue, the complexity of the characters and nations (none are truly evil, only shades of gray). Different warring factions would allow for plenty of plot hooks as well
Although there are Song of Ice and Fire/A Game of Thrones RPGs, so apparently someone decided there are enough interested people that it's worth it. ;)
Hmm. I like lots of different types of fantasy. High fantasy, if done differently from the norm - i.e. Eberron - can be interesting. I despise comedy relief races like halflings and gnomes, but they CAN be NON-comedy relief races (again, see Eberron). I also like LOW-fantasy, realistic worlds (like ASOIAF) but I don't think I'd like to play in them. Finally, I like fantasy that mixes with other genres, such as sci-fi.
Also, chain-mail-bikini-clad girls are fine by me.
How about one of heresies, where faith pseudo-real gods lead two powerful nations to collide head-long into strife?
One where inquisitors of a foreign nation stalk the land against the will of the king? A setting where nobody is safe, because the king himself has a counter-inquisition at his command. This is a realm where brigands band together to rape the countryside in the name of Greed and Freedom, besieging villages with no defense of their own but a steady heart and a ready brush-hook.
A king (because no fantasy setting is complete without a monarch; it's one of the oldest forms of government), angry with the way another religion has changed his nation, takes up arms and throws out the priests of certain foreign gods, while retaining priests to a god he considers acceptable -- one much like the gods of the old tales. Now he is dead, killed by his own drunkenness and a deep garden pond.
His son, now king, reigns on the throne with steely will and vicious temper. His neighbors to the south, home of the religion his fore-father threw out, is too busy with internal strife and their own more pressing heresy to oppose him as he sends picked men to weed out all traces of the now disposed faith within his lands.
But he is blind to the location of a select few faithful launching their own inquisition, undermining his reign. A plague has set in, devastating the people of the borderlands and driving them to the point of madness; forcing them to join the roving bands of brigands who plunder and burn.
The faithful of the dark gods, maddened and twisted glory-seekers backed by their malignant bodi warriors, reinforce the most powerful and bloodthirsty bands, lending them supernatural strengths.
The king, at the behest of the people, has thrown out the magi guild, executing the leaders and banishing the rest as filthy and unnatural wielders of borrowed powers. He has installed the rare few priests of his new belief as the leaders of the new faith, and has granted them their own lot of legal rights. He has declared witches and their ilk illegal and subhuman, ordering they be hunted down lest they too subvert the people like the now-exiled priests.
In Ouroboros, nations rise. In Ouroboros, nations fall. In Ouroboros, violence never sleeps.
M.
My thinking on "not very fantastic" fantasy vs. "at least sort of fantastic" fantasy is that I think fantasy should be at least like the myths and legends from ancient times: heroes go on fantastic adventures involving magic (especially some sort of weapon or trinket) and/or far away lands of wonders, and more often than not fight some form of evil/monster.
How often do you see complex societies/politics in those stories? I can't recall any. But I can recall it in Real Life. So when I encounter that complex stuff in my RPGs I get dragged out of the fantasy the same way people say they get dragged out by lack of logic or inconsistencies.
Cheo, some interesting ideas. But ideas cannot in and off themselves make a setting great or poor. It's how you implement them, who's playing, and a bunch of other subtle factors. Sometimes things that sound fun on paper (and make good reads) can lose their appeal in play.
I like settings based on reinterpretation of myth (obviously). But I think any statement of what fantasy "should be" gets into dangerous territory.
QuoteHow often do you see complex societies/politics in those stories? I can't recall any.
You mean besides Norse myth? And Hindu myth? And Japanese folklore? And arguably Celtic myth? Arthurian legend?
I can see Greek myth as being rather straightforward politics, though. I could go either way on the Tibetan Gesar stuff. Australian aboriginal is complex, but not political.
Either way, I think it's a rather broad statement.
Quote from: PhoenixQuote from: PhoenixEither way, I think it's a rather broad statement.
It has to be broad: that's what I see. I see the ancient myths I know, and then I see the game settings, and the ancient myths are simple in comparason to what goes on in so many of the settings I've come across.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: PhoenixQuoteHow often do you see complex societies/politics in those stories? I can't recall any.
Compared to the societies presented in so many of the RPG settings I've read I'd say none of these are complex. I don't recall any politics in Norse legends/myths. For the others I'm not as familiar. But I've just never encountered a society in myth that's as complex as what setting designers come up with.
The societies are representative of real Germanic societies, which did indeed have some complexities (like all societies). But I was actually referring to your other claim, that they have no politics. See the Volsung Saga or especially Frithiof Saga for complex politics.
Quote from: PhoenixThe societies are representative of real Germanic societies, which did indeed have some complexities (like all societies). But I was actually referring to your other claim, that they have no politics. See the Volsung Saga or especially Frithiof Saga for complex politics.
*sigh* You're probably right. Also my fault for being an idiot: I said "ancient myths" thinking there couldn't be any others than the ones I'd read. I'm stupid that way.
But I really mean it when I say I consider fantasy devoid of that sort of stuff: complexity and politics. To me fantasy is a story, and I don't see a story as having or needing all the details about society and politics that get crammed into nearly every single P&P RPG setting I've ever seen or read. (Nor anything referred to as a "game", but that's another thread.....)
Fantasy doesn't need complex politics to be fantasy, but neither does it really lose anything by their inclusion. It simply adds new elements to the story, influencing it's flavour. Whether one likes that kind of flavour or not, comes down to personal tastes.
I for one enjoy political intrigue and plots in general, so I prefer my fantasy with plenty of them :)
Some more thoughts:
- The world needs some conflicts the players can really care about. After all, gaming and stories both thrive on conflict.
- The players need to know what they can do - the abilities of the protagonists must be placed within the overall context of the world, and thus it must be understandable what is possible for them. This isn't merely about game rules. A 200 CP GURPS mage in a world with only a dozen mages will be rather different than the same mage in a world where half the population has some magical training, even if the game stats are identical.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: PhoenixThe societies are representative of real Germanic societies, which did indeed have some complexities (like all societies). But I was actually referring to your other claim, that they have no politics. See the Volsung Saga or especially Frithiof Saga for complex politics.
*sigh* You're probably right. Also my fault for being an idiot: I said "ancient myths" thinking there couldn't be any others than the ones I'd read. I'm stupid that way.
But I really mean it when I say I consider fantasy devoid of that sort of stuff: complexity and politics. To me fantasy is a story, and I don't see a story as having or needing all the details about society and politics that get crammed into nearly every single P&P RPG setting I've ever seen or read. (Nor anything referred to as a "game", but that's another thread.....)
Have you considered that most games include more material than they need intentionally, and that each individual game played in that system/setting will only focus on one or two things?
It's kind of like how they map the whole world... how often do you really use the whole world in one session? And yet it's fun as hell to just explore, and more convenient for the DM to already know what's on the other side of that forest.
So a story might include law enforcement if the heroes get arrested, the army if the story turns to war, a bunch of bandits if the PCs travel the wrong road at night, etc, etc... But rarely does one session use or need everything the setting has to offer.
Quote from: beejazzHave you considered that most games include more material than they need intentionally, and that each individual game played in that system/setting will only focus on one or two things?
I don't know. I feel like I did, then decided that it was better if information didn't exist until finalized or things got inflexible.
Also amount of information doesn't have an impact on what I think a fantasy setting should be like: I think complexity detracts from a story at any level.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI don't know. I feel like I did, then decided that it was better if information didn't exist until finalized or things got inflexible.
Also amount of information doesn't have an impact on what I think a fantasy setting should be like: I think complexity detracts from a story at any level.
[/quote]
I don't see why that would be the case.
Quote from: beejazzI think it really depends on what kind of game you're running. A big world with a lot to explore, I'd rather have an idea (as a GM) of what's over the next hill. For a mystery, I'd like (as a GM) to already have a plausible answer on hand. For something highly social? Takes a lot more winging it, as people are unpredictable.
I guess I do feel more like social games than other kinds.
I just tend to feel a kind of drag, though, when a setting doesn't leave a lot of room (not just size) to go wild in.
Quote from: beejazzQuoteAlso amount of information doesn't have an impact on what I think a fantasy setting should be like: I think complexity detracts from a story at any level.
It's distracting.
Quote from: beejazzI think it really depends on what kind of game you're running. A big world with a lot to explore, I'd rather have an idea (as a GM) of what's over the next hill. For a mystery, I'd like (as a GM) to already have a plausible answer on hand. For something highly social? Takes a lot more winging it, as people are unpredictable.
I guess I do feel more like social games than other kinds.
I just tend to feel a kind of drag, though, when a setting doesn't leave a lot of room (not just size) to go wild in.[/quote]
It's distracting.
[/quote]
I think this is only the case if used in excess. One or two complications is fine. Besides which, it's important to make the distinction between a complication and, say, an obstacle. Of the two, I prefer the former because it usually entails more of a decision to be made and less of an impediment to the game.
Its funny, increasingly I've come to the reailzation that Silvercat Moonpaw and I are exact polar opposites with regards to roleplaying style. Nothing wrong with that at all (in fact I still very much enjoy your work, Silvercat, and find your opinions incredibly challenging and illuminating, forcing me to view things from a difefrent perspective), just a comment... we're almost totally antithetical in terms of taste. A little overlap in certain regions of pulp fiction, perhaps, but otherwise...
To me a good fantasy setting entails many things, a smattering of enough detail that holds some sort of logic to build a solid framework to place a story.
As an artist working in a variety of media, especially for the purposes of fantasy cartography, especially at encounter scale. I put in lots of detail - rubble, a skeleton here, a cob web there, furniture, whatever elements I need to help explain what is in a given chamber or wilderness location. Using photographic texture fills helps bring more reality into a given map. However, I don't try to duplicate natures total complexity, I place just enough to give a viewer a good idea what's going on. The detail is there to hint to the viewer what else might this room contain.
I see that as the same thing in a fantasy setting. The devil's in the detail. I try to touch upon many aspects to a given world. I do need to know how economies work, how the political structure is built, how magic works, are the gods real, really as much as I can fit into an "armload" then piece back together into a coherent whole.
Perhaps no adventure will go down all aspects of a world, maybe just a few. But understanding that it exists and how it exists makes the setting that much more solid. Think of the details as threads, not object ideas. The threads have to be woven together to make sense. With enough detail threads you weave together a fabric and that is the setting.
Once a given player understands how things work, and what's available they know what options they can take to give them the best advantage in both character progression and story-telling.
Fictional work often needs far less detail to make a magical literary exploration. What works for fiction or pure story-telling, doesn't necessarily work as a game. I need a cohesive and comprehensive playing field as a ground to stand on. Then telling an effective story that fits in the framework, providing challenges and surprises (players sometimes do the "surprising", due to their understanding of the world and how they can take advantage, that I as a GM did not see.)
Knowing the world makes the play experience more complete. The adventure/story becomes another thread that is woven into the greater fabric of the setting.
I never memorize every detail of a given setting, but knowing that that information is available helps me tell better stories.
GP