There's a thread on ENWorld where a poster is asking "if you homebrewed a 'vanilla' fantasy world, what classes would you choose". And I read that line and I was like "Wait......what's 'vanilla fantasy'?" I'm completely serious when I say that I can't come to a concrete conclusion. I can make an assumption, but I still find myself needing more information.
I think I've hung around the definitely non-vanilla CBG so long that the very idea of vanilla fantasy just doesn't make sense. :yumm:
Anyone else find "vanilla" hard to understand anymore?
Sort of. It's more I now see Vanilla Fantasy as amateur and boring. This is very negative and wrong of me, but generally I find little to excite me in such settings (although, ironically, I prefer to play them as games).
Though I think that asserting that there are a set of qualities that absolutely define "vanilla" fantasy (or any other genre/sub-genre) is impossible, when I think of vanilla fantasy I generally think of worlds still locked in a post-Tolkienian mode with a fairly standard (and stagnant) array of racial/cultural types and environments. I think, fortunately, that in fantasy we're increasingly seeing an abandonment of any norm or center, any "standard" or "vanilla" or "typical" world. Hopefully this trend will continue and fantasy will become a genre of wild and unlimited invention rather than a self-limiting genre as it often has been.
To me, a "vanilla fantasy world" is one where everyone knows the main tropes of the setting before you even tell them of the background.
Though I might be in the minority, to me 'Vanilla' means traditional published setting, as opposed to a setting built around the needs of the specific players in question.
I pretty much agree with Jürgen: "vanilla" fantasy relies heavily on stock fantasy features. "This setting has elves, you know, those elves. Also dwarves."
A vanilla setting may have non-tolkein features, but then they will still tend to be stock and unoriginal--werewolves, sprytes, lizardmen, whatever. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as the players generally know what's going on without having to research it.
to me, vanilla fantasy is what you get when you construct a setting based solely on the DnD players handbook (pre 4th ed) and the corresponding monster manual. i.e.
- vaguely european medieval society without race or gender bias
- absurdely long history without any kind of progress
- demystified magic
- bewildering and illogical amount of sentient races divided into:
- generic chaotic evil antagonist races vs genericized tolkien-inspired races (alcoholic dwarves, emo elves, manically cheerful halflings, adhd gnomes); no distinction between race and culture except for humans.
- huge universal and homogenous pantheon
- adventuring as a goal in life
- everything a bit two-dimensional (planet of hats)
that about sums it up.
Quote from: Scholarto me, vanilla fantasy is what you get when you construct a setting based solely on the DnD players handbook (pre 4th ed) and the corresponding monster manual. i.e.
- vaguely european medieval society without race or gender bias
- absurdely long history without any kind of progress
- demystified magic
- bewildering and illogical amount of sentient races divided into:
- generic chaotic evil antagonist races vs genericized tolkien-inspired races (alcoholic dwarves, emo elves, manically cheerful halflings, adhd gnomes); no distinction between race and culture except for humans.
- huge universal and homogenous pantheon
- adventuring as a goal in life
- everything a bit two-dimensional (planet of hats)
that about sums it up.
Exactly what I was thinking :)
The sad thing is that I enjoy playing in those worlds :(
Yup, pretty much your standard assumptions for D&D qualify.
Thing is, what makes an interesting setting, it's often not what makes a good longterm gaming setting. Sometimes it is, but cliches often become cliches because they work well--the resonate so much they become part of the expectation. And then we rebel against those expectations.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfThe sad thing is that I enjoy playing in those worlds
is[/i] a game, sometimes you want to play basic monopoly and not Duke University monopoly with Star Wars Monopoly pieces.
Quoteto me, vanilla fantasy is what you get when you construct a setting based solely on the DnD players handbook (pre 4th ed) and the corresponding monster manual. i.e.
Vampire[/i] vanilla.
Vanilla makes good ice cream.... not so much for fantasy.
When one says, "vanilla fantasy", the first thing that pops into my head is the "World of Greyhawk" - which, to me, is the epitome of vanilla fantasy.
GP
Quote from: Gamer PrintshopWhen one says, "vanilla fantasy", the first thing that pops into my head is the "World of Greyhawk" - which, to me, is the epitome of vanilla fantasy.
GP
yes. I as well.
Heh this kind of reminds me of indie music somehow. I was thinking of Eberron and whether Eberron could be called vanilla. On the one hand, it's not really post-Tolkienian. On the other, many people seem to be concieving of vanilla as: "typical, standard, default; popular." If Eberron supercedes Greyhawk as the "standard" (or most popular) roleplaying setting, does it not itself become vanilla? And isn't that ironic, in that part of the appeal of Eberron (at least for many) is that it deliberately strays from and works against well-worn or "vanilla" tropes? It's like indie music that becomes popular and therefore mainstream: no longer indie anymore.
The interesting question is whether that changes the merit of a given work (does Eberron become "worse" as it becomes mainstream, as it loses its avant-garde appeal?). I want to say no, but I get tangled up in my own distaste for post-Tolkienian fantasy, which I think relates to my distaste for the "vanilla".
A tangential but perhaps vitally important question is whether there always has to be a vanilla/standard/typical idea of fantasy for the avant-garde to define itself against, or whether it's possible to have no norm or standard/typical/vanilla fantasy setting at all. How much is popularity tied intrinsically or proportionately to vanilla-ness?
I don't understand the haughty attitude many have against 'vanilla fantasy.' Just because Jimmy's world draws on the standard tropes of fantasy literature doesn't make it any less of a legitimate world than your dystopian pineapple-shaped world populated by god-less broccoli valkyries. :mad:
Good point. My retort is that after awhile worlds that do not innovate at all, that are literally Middle-Earth/Faerun/Greyhawk carbon copies, get really stale to me, personally.
Quote from: SteerpikeGood point. My retort is that after awhile worlds that do not innovate at all, that are literally Middle-Earth/Faerun/Greyhawk carbon copies, get really stale to me, personally.
Same here. Those sort of settings have been done to death to the point that I have trouble having fun while playing them.
Personally, I've never found a reason to have an attitude against any specific "kinds" of settings. I don't find myself particularly drawn towards what we're describing as "vanilla" here, but I'm also not necessarily drawn to crazily esoteric settings either - I'm just drawn to settings that have a good story and a good reason for being.
To Steerpike, just because chocolate becomes more popular then vanilla doesn't make it vanilla (chocolate = Eberron, vanilla = Grayhawk)
I have nothing against a vanilla world (full of stock and pretty much only stock fantasy tropes, most derived from Tolkien or Warhammer and now Warcraft [I'm looking at you Green Orcs] since those are the largest influence on "popular fantasy culture")
Personally I'm more drawn to non-vanilla settings simply because I enjoy the exotic. I know my best friend is the exact opposite, he likes stuff as traditional and "plain bread" as possible.
Ok, how are Greyhawk, Faerun and Middle-Earth related? Middle-Earth has less races and less nations. Pre-4E Faerun has the greatest diversity of races, gods, nations and cultures (read as real world proxys). Greyhawk is more of the middle child.
Middle-Earth was written long before the other two. Faerun was (initially) created with a different goal than Greyhawk (being more of world and less of an adventurer's backdrop). The number of 'chefs in the kitchen' also varies, from 1 (Middle-Earth) to some (GH) to a ton (FR).
With so many differences, what really unites the 3 as being 'vanilla?'
Quote from: Elemental_ElfOk, how are Greyhawk, Faerun and Middle-Earth related? Middle-Earth has less races and less nations. Pre-4E Faerun has the greatest diversity of races, gods, nations and cultures (read as real world proxys). Greyhawk is more of the middle child.
Middle-Earth was written long before the other two. Faerun was (initially) created with a different goal than Greyhawk (being more of world and less of an adventurer's backdrop). The number of 'chefs in the kitchen' also varies, from 1 (Middle-Earth) to some (GH) to a ton (FR).
With so many differences, what really unites the 3 as being 'vanilla?'
Not Greyhawk, Faerun and Middle-Earth. Greyhawk, Faerun and Middle-Earth
copies. I don't mind playing in those settings, but when it seems that 90% of settings now days are along those same lines it gets boring. For me vanilla is the stuff that does the same old tropes over and over. It's why I tend to shy away from high fantasy, since it falls so easily into the same trap. That's not to say I won't play these games, I will play anything with a good story. However, it is rare that vanilla excites me enough to want to play it.
To me a "vanilla" fantasy world is one that, as others in this thread have said, relies heavily on stock elements of the fantasy genre, and one that anyone with a decent knowledge of the fantasy genre would really be able to play in with very little difficulty without having any prior knowledge of that specific setting or being "briefed" on it by the GM.
As to the validity of these settings... for RPGs? I think perfectly valid, they can be a lot of fun to play in, and as for the "well why not just use Middle-Earth?" query, well, sometimes the games you want to run and the storylines for those games require a certain political balance of power (for example) which means you need a world very much like Middle-Earth, but not Middle-Earth...
However, as settings for books? Personally, I think that while imitation may be the highest form of flattery, it isn't the highest form of art. Sure, you are influenced by those that came before you, sure you can draw on their works for inspiration, even quite heavily in some cases, but do bring at least SOMETHING of your own to the table, okay?
But then again, that's just my taste...
Well the first thing seems to be that the answer to my question is "Yes" all-around. Though most people don't seem to have actually answered the original question directly.
As I see it vanilla fantasy would be fine so long as people didn't try to make complete settings out of it. If the purpose of using it is to give everyone involved common assumptions to work with then it's very jarring to find specific details about something. An outline is okay, but specifics about anything other than what concerns the immediate game foil my ability to do the necessary assuming.
To me, vanilla settings are appeals to a common denominator. People use vanilla settings because people use vanilla settings. People only play in Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms because everybody else does and there's so much published material about them. Greyhawk started as a homebrew, back when Gary Gygax was still exploring D&D's potential and inventing things that would become cliches later, so maybe Greyhawk wasn't always considered vanilla. Forgotten Realms started as a setting for sword-and-sorcery fan fiction. Once again, it borrowed from generic fantasy tropes on purpose. After D&D was invented, it became another homebrew. Nowadays, people only use these settings because they're popular, and they're only popular because of the low standards of quality in the early history of D&D. It's a vicious cycle. But at least Greyhawk now seems to be fading into the obscurity it so richly deserves.
Note that there is no good way to summarize the premise of Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms. The closest you can come is by connecting them to real people: saying things like "It's the one people use in the RPGA" or "it's the setting that has an ass-ton of novels and computer games set in it." In other words, "It's the one that everyone else uses."
I don't know enough about Dragonlance to be able to say whether it's vanilla, but I've heard nothing but jokes and insults about it, so it must not be great.
Literally using Middle-Earth as an RPG setting is so seldom done that I'm not sure if I'd count it as vanilla. People tend to know less about it than they think they know. It might be so vanilla that it cycles back again and becomes daring.
Quote from: LlumI'm looking at you Green Orcs
you know that warcraft is one of the few settings where there is an actual story related reason why some orcs are green, right? ;)
Quote from: Elemental_ElfThe sad thing is that I enjoy playing in those worlds :(
why is that sad? it's nice to play some adventures where you don't have to read 20 pages of cliffnotes to just be able to get into character. ;)
Quote from: Elemental_ElfOk, how are Greyhawk, Faerun and Middle-Earth related?
the first two's races are based on the middle-earth's race portfolio (with one addition: "cute"), see Five Races (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FiveRaces) for a nice summary. :)
Quote from: Bill VolkI don't know enough about Dragonlance to be able to say whether it's vanilla, but I've heard nothing but jokes and insults about it, so it must not be great.
depends on your tastes, i guess. i loved the old DL comics and novels. sure it's a bit cheesy to today's readers (hell do i sound old. i'm only 21!), but it's a good kind of cheese. like stilton, not like those american spray-can cheeses. all very heroic, with the good guys being really good and the evil guys really evil. :)
now get off my lawn, you bloody kids! *shakes stick*
Yes I know, Orcs were brown, got corrupted by Demons turned green. Later drank some Demon Blood and turned red....
This however doesn't change that now most people see Orcs as green people (Warcraft and Warhammer did this).
Dragonlance isn't really bad its just cliche. And involves lots of dragons... as mounts.
Quote from: Elemental_Elf'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦dystopian'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦
Unfortunately this one characteristic seems to be the defining factor in whether or not a setting is noticed. I had one guy who's setting I reviewed tell me that the only reason it was dark fantasy was because it had been decided that that was the best way to ensure it sold.
I have to admit, Terra started as The Known World with the serial numbers filed down (Magocracy of Arcanum vs. Magocracy of Glantri), so I think I am intimately familiar with vanilla fantasy. I don't think there's anything wrong with vanilla other than a steady diet of it becomes boring.
Having said that, I know my tastes have evolved since then, but sometimes you feel like playing D&D and the basic rules set for D&D is suited pretty much only for vanilla fantasy out of the box.
Quote from: khyron1144Having said that, I know my tastes have evolved since then, but sometimes you feel like playing D&D and the basic rules set for D&D is suited pretty much only for vanilla fantasy out of the box.
Yeah, sometimes coming up with a detailed, high-concept setting just isn't worth it. It can be more fun sometimes to just make it up as you go. That way you're never bitching to your players that they don't "get" your setting.
Vanilla rocks in play.
D&D included very non-standard things from very early if you look at the monster manual (catoblepas, for example). Some of the non-standard D&D elements drifted into the mainstream later.
Small changes of specific kinds can add flavor to a vanilla setting (slightly advancing the tech level, scaling back the "nonhuman" races, etc.)
Quote from: Elemental_ElfI don't understand the haughty attitude many have against 'vanilla fantasy.' Just because Jimmy's world draws on the standard tropes of fantasy literature doesn't make it any less of a legitimate world than your dystopian pineapple-shaped world populated by god-less broccoli valkyries. :mad:
I didn't say Gary's world was a bad thing, I just said it was vanilla. I have enormous respect for the man and his work, and was honored to have met him at Gencon 07, just a few months before he passed. Its just Greyhawk is the definition of vanilla fantasy, in my eyes.
Fact is I like vanilla icecream (Breyers Vanilla with the flecks of vanilla bean is great), though I prefer Rocky Road and Cherry Garcia.
GP
It's true that Gygax dug up a lot of obscure mythological monsters like the catoblepas, and he also invented plenty of brand new monsters, mostly of the "pop-out-and-kill-adventurers-in-some-totally-unfair-fashion" variety like the Lurker Above and the rust monster, but also many of the "splice-animals-together-to-create-something-hilarious" variety like the owlbear. The original monsters that fit in neither of these categories, like the beholder and the githyanki, were so successful and iconic that they were later excluded from the OGL.
D&D used to be very freaky and very lethal. This style of RPG used to be the definition of vanilla, but resurrecting it now would be retro enough to qualify as not vanilla anymore. That's why the word "Gygaxian" now exists.
[blockquote=Elemental_Elf]Ok, how are Greyhawk, Faerun and Middle-Earth related? Middle-Earth has less races and less nations. Pre-4E Faerun has the greatest diversity of races, gods, nations and cultures (read as real world proxys). Greyhawk is more of the middle child.
Middle-Earth was written long before the other two. Faerun was (initially) created with a different goal than Greyhawk (being more of world and less of an adventurer's backdrop). The number of 'chefs in the kitchen' also varies, from 1 (Middle-Earth) to some (GH) to a ton (FR).
With so many differences, what really unites the 3 as being 'vanilla?' [/blockquote]Obviously there are some major differences between those three settings, but compared to some other settings out there, Greyhawk, Faerun, and Middle Earth are pretty similar in many respects. The stock characters mentioned above are a big part of this: woodsie or high-magicy elves, beardsie, ale-swilling, mountain-dwelling dwarves, hairy-footed halflings, nasty orcs (sure, Faerun has slightly different orcs than Middle Earth orcs, but they're still broadly quite comparable), etc. Faerun might have more deities and cultures than Middle Earth, but like Greyhawk and Middle Earth it's dominated by a predominantly medieval society with a late Dark Ages or early Middle Ages tech level.
Compare the 3 settings to some other somewhat popular/mainstream settings out there: let's say Dark Sun, World of Darkness, Exalted, and Arcana Unearthed. Maybe I see things differently but I see those 3 settings as having much much more in common with each other than with those settings. Or compare them to a few settings on these boards: Xiluh, The Jade Stage, Divergence, and Silvercat's Dream, for example. A couple of those settings have a few of the same races as Greyhawk, Faerun, and Middle Earth, but their treatment of those races/cultures is usually radically different compared to the relatively similar treatment given to those races in the vanilla 3.
Note that I'm not an expert on Faerun, although I'd like to think I'm fairly familiar with it from articles, computer games, and the internet. It's definitely more diverse than Middle Earth from what I've seen, but still seems more similar than different to Greyhawk and Middle Earth, at least when compared to more avant-garde or "out-there" settings.
For the record, I don't hate vanilla settings, I just don't prefer them. I do like dystopian settings - I have a definite taste for the macabre or "dark" - but I like lots of non-dystopian settings in gaming and literature as well. I'm also not claiming that anyone shouldn't enjoy vanilla settings: they're some people's cup of tea, and that's totally cool, and I respect the energy and detail in many vanilla settings (such as Faerun) even if they're not my favorites - in other words, I don't feel I look down on vanilla settings, or on players/DMs who prefer them, just because I don't personally enjoy them.
Good, my comment generated much discussion (which was the post's aim).
Ok, so by you're guy's logic, any (or most) settings that have a Mid Middle Age Tech, Idealized Western Societies, Dwarves, Elves (in 1, 2 or 3 varieties), Orcs, Halflings and Humans is a 'vanilla setting?'
If so I think your criteria is too broad. Many settings can have those elements and still be unique and not-vanilla. i think we, as a group, need to better define vanilla with stricter criteria, if only to get a better sense of what truly is and is not vanilla.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfOk, so by you're guy's logic, any (or most) settings that have a Mid Middle Age Tech, Idealized Western Societies, Dwarves, Elves (in 1, 2 or 3 varieties), Orcs, Halflings and Humans is a 'vanilla setting?'
yup, spot on. the only thing missing is cultural stagnation. most vanilla settings have huuuuge histories that either loop or are like normal history stretched out. that's because big numbers sound more epic. "the sword was forged OVER 9000 YEARS AGO!" is way cooler for some people than "my granddad forged that sword, back when old luthor was king."
Quote from: Elemental_ElfIf so I think your criteria is too broad. Many settings can have those elements and still be unique and not-vanilla. i think we, as a group, need to better define vanilla with stricter criteria, if only to get a better sense of what truly is and is not vanilla.
hmm... being made from stock elements and not being vanilla is kind of impossible, isn't it? or do you mean they have *some* of them, but not all?
You can has all of the 'stock elements' and create something new and exciting. Adding only 1 theme to the 'stock elements,' which is something ALL settings do, no matter how vanilla they may seem, can create a very different product.
Example: The World of Gutrapaka is inhabited by countless sub-races of Elves and Dwarves, accompanied by an equal number of Halflings, Humans and Orcs. The World's history stretches back to the time when the Goddess Xevcoticua created each of the races some 25,000 years ago. From that day to the present, Chivalric Knights clad in full plate have fought thousands of wars, each more disastrous to the peasantry than the last. The constant wars have brought ruin to the land, forcing the people of once great nations to seek security near the various fortifications that dot the landscape. The land left by the Human's retreat laid fallow for many hundreds of years. Slowly monsters crept out of the shadows, inhabiting the unsown lands, claiming it for themselves. Left unchecked and unchallenged for centuries, the monsters have once more risen to become a significant threat to the nations of Gutrapaka. Men are forced to bear the brunt of the tidal wave, as the Elves stay hidden in their forests and the Dwarves in their mountain holds. This has caused a colossal migration of humans from the periphery of the '˜civilized zone' and into its core, further worsening the already bleak situation. Fewer and fewer crops are harvested each year and yet the aristocrat's demands of tribute only increase, to the point where peasants are left to starve during the cold, harsh winters. Normally the various churches of the 10,000 God Pantheon would come to the aide of the peasantry however a great crusade was called some centuries ago, to stave off the growth of the most ferocious of monsters '" the Dragons. With their resources stretched thin, none can spare even a ration for the poor.
Obviously this setting's premise draws on all the vanilla tropes we here discussed but it is obviously not vanilla due to the addition of a dystopian theme. Now granted this is extreme but it does serve its purpose inillustrating the fact that our tropes of vanilla fantasy are too broad and thus need to be honed in upon more.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfYou can has all of the 'stock elements' and create something new and exciting. Adding only 1 theme to the 'stock elements,' which is something ALL settings do, no matter how vanilla they may seem, can create a very different product.
Example: The World of Gutrapaka is inhabited by countless sub-races of Elves and Dwarves, accompanied by an equal number of Halflings, Humans and Orcs. The World's history stretches back to the time when the Goddess Xevcoticua created each of the races some 25,000 years ago. From that day to the present, Chivalric Knights clad in full plate have fought thousands of wars, each more disastrous to the peasantry than the last. The constant wars have brought ruin to the land, forcing the people of once great nations to seek security near the various fortifications that dot the landscape. The land left by the Human's retreat laid fallow for many hundreds of years. Slowly monsters crept out of the shadows, inhabiting the unsown lands, claiming it for themselves. Left unchecked and unchallenged for centuries, the monsters have once more risen to become a significant threat to the nations of Gutrapaka. Men are forced to bear the brunt of the tidal wave, as the Elves stay hidden in their forests and the Dwarves in their mountain holds. This has caused a colossal migration of humans from the periphery of the '˜civilized zone' and into its core, further worsening the already bleak situation. Fewer and fewer crops are harvested each year and yet the aristocrat's demands of tribute only increase, to the point where peasants are left to starve during the cold, harsh winters. Normally the various churches of the 10,000 God Pantheon would come to the aide of the peasantry however a great crusade was called some centuries ago, to stave off the growth of the most ferocious of monsters '" the Dragons. With their resources stretched thin, none can spare even a ration for the poor.
Obviously this setting's premise draws on all the vanilla tropes we here discussed but it is obviously not vanilla due to the addition of a dystopian theme. Now granted this is extreme but it does serve its purpose inillustrating the fact that our tropes of vanilla fantasy are too broad and thus need to be honed in upon more.
did you write this setting?
I'd agree that it is possible to have a non-vanilla world which still includes elves, dwarves, orcs and the rest, but... Well, it's either gonna be "vanilla with a twist" rather than entirely original, or you're going to have changed things so much from their traditional roots that there's no real reason keeping the names... If your orcs are civilised merchant-wizards with a penchant for mathematics and complex musical compositions, then they're hardly orcs anymore, right?
I dunno about anyone else but I find the "setting" Elemental_Elf posted quite vanilla. I think I'm going to have to agree with SilverCat MoonPaw in that "dystopian" is now a fairly vanilla element.
I would also like to say that Kindlings mentioning of "vanilla with a twist" is still in essence a "vanilla" setting. Just with a twist... obviously
That was kind of my point :P
Quote from: LlumI think I'm going to have to agree with SilverCat MoonPaw in that "dystopian" is now a fairly vanilla element.
That wasn't really what I was trying to say, but I do agree that it's a valid interpretation.
The futility of the question is kind of like asking someone if they like rock music. Opinions of what it is are going to be very diverse, and what one classifies as said genre may be the determinant for whether or not they say they like it or not.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfObviously this setting's premise draws on all the vanilla tropes we here discussed but it is obviously not vanilla due to the addition of a dystopian theme. Now granted this is extreme but it does serve its purpose inillustrating the fact that our tropes of vanilla fantasy are too broad and thus need to be honed in upon more.
it's still vanilla, because it still fullfills all the criteria (five races, cultural stasis, european middle ages, OTT history, etc). sorry. the added dystopian theme is just the chocolate sprinkles on the delicious v-flavoured ice-cream. ;)
we should also add "no regard to "hard" demographic and/or geographic facts" to the list of vanilla tropes.
Quote from: ScholarQuote from: Elemental_ElfObviously this setting's premise draws on all the vanilla tropes we here discussed but it is obviously not vanilla due to the addition of a dystopian theme. Now granted this is extreme but it does serve its purpose inillustrating the fact that our tropes of vanilla fantasy are too broad and thus need to be honed in upon more.
it's still vanilla, because it still fullfills all the criteria (five races, cultural stasis, european middle ages, OTT history, etc). sorry. the added dystopian theme is just the chocolate sprinkles on the delicious v-flavoured ice-cream. ;)
we should also add "no regard to "hard" demographic and/or geographic facts" to the list of vanilla tropes.
While the extension of the metaphor amused me, I think to define the term so broadly (and mutably, since the definition seems to be every changing) is to render it more-or-less meaningless. Assuming it ever had any meaning--the original question seemed to be what does "vanilla fantasy" mean. If it means something different to everyone that hears the term, it doesn't really
mean much of anything.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Elemental_Elf'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦dystopian'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦
Unfortunately this one characteristic seems to be the defining factor in whether or not a setting is noticed. I had one guy who's setting I reviewed tell me that the only reason it was dark fantasy was because it had been decided that that was the best way to ensure it sold.
I find this to be at least
slightly preposterous. There are plenty of amazing settings on this site which are nowhere near a classic definition of dystopian. And Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk, two of the biggest sellers in the entire fantasy world (I'm talking all RPGs here, not just D&D), are not dystopian. Eberron really isn't either. Getting a setting noticed is about being original and having a real story, and on top of that,
being able to sell your story. If you can't sell your setting, then you're always going to sit back crying and wondering why no one likes yours as much as someone else's, and chances are, you'll come up with pretty silly reasons without looking at any logical or rational facts - human rationale can be funny like that.
[/off topic]
Quote from: Phoenix....the original question seemed to be what does "vanilla fantasy" mean.
Actually the original question was "do you still recognize vanilla?".
Quote from: IshmaylThere are plenty of amazing settings on this site which are nowhere near a classic definition of dystopian. And Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk, two of the biggest sellers in the entire fantasy world (I'm talking all RPGs here, not just D&D), are not dystopian. Eberron really isn't either. Getting a setting noticed is about being original and having a real story, and on top of that, being able to sell your story. If you can't sell your setting, then you're always going to sit back crying and wondering why no one likes yours as much as someone else's, and chances are, you'll come up with pretty silly reasons without looking at any logical or rational facts - human rationale can be funny like that.
I consider any setting that sounds like it's about to fall apart to be a dystopian setting. That includes Greyhawk and Eberron.
Also I would point out that "being original" is not as easy as it can be said to be: I've posted what I consider stunningly original content on this site, and no comments on it. I'm not sure what conclusions to draw other than either I'm being too original and not tapping in to peoples' likes or that what I consider original has already been done and seen by other people and I'm behind the curve.
Quote from: Gnomish Cheetosdid you write this setting?
The setting proposal, yes. Why is it bad/good/evil?
Quote from: KindlingIf your orcs are civilised merchant-wizards with a penchant for mathematics and complex musical compositions, then they're hardly orcs anymore, right?
If it looks like an Orc, smells like an Orc and tries to sell me Bach, I'd still call it an Orc.
Quote from: LlumI dunno about anyone else but I find the "setting" Elemental_Elf posted quite vanilla. I think I'm going to have to agree with SilverCat MoonPaw in that "dystopian" is now a fairly vanilla element.
I would also like to say that Kindlings mentioning of "vanilla with a twist" is still in essence a "vanilla" setting. Just with a twist... obviously
Huh, that's weird... I blame 4E for making post-apocalyptic & dystopian a trope of Modern Vanilla.
Quote from: Scholarit's still vanilla, because it still fullfills all the criteria (five races, cultural stasis, european middle ages, OTT history, etc). sorry. the added dystopian theme is just the chocolate sprinkles on the delicious v-flavoured ice-cream. ;)
we should also add "no regard to "hard" demographic and/or geographic facts" to the list of vanilla tropes.
I suppose I like my vanilla Ice Cream with Chocolate Sprinkles then... Better Chocolate than Avacado :P
Also, I like the new addition, it definitely pulls WoW into the mix to a much larger degree.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawAlso I would point out that "being original" is not as easy as it can be said to be: I've posted what I consider stunningly original content on this site, and no comments on it. I'm not sure what conclusions to draw other than either I'm being too original and not tapping in to peoples' likes or that what I consider original has already been done and seen by other people and I'm behind the curve.
I'm beginning to believe nothing is truly original any more and everything is just one of the 31 flavors of ice Cream with different colored sprinkles and other crazy toppings (like Gummy Bears).
~~~
Quote from: Elemental_ElfI'm beginning to believe nothing is truly original any more and everything is just one of the 31 flavors of ice Cream with different colored sprinkles and other crazy toppings (like Gummy Bears).
Except if it were ice-cream you could at least eat it yourself if no one else wanted it. :drunk:
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Elemental_ElfI'm beginning to believe nothing is truly original any more and everything is just one of the 31 flavors of ice Cream with different colored sprinkles and other crazy toppings (like Gummy Bears).
Except if it were ice-cream you could at least eat it yourself if no one else wanted it. :drunk:
But that would make you a sad fat person whose only means of reconciling his love of ice cream with the cold-hearted disapproval of his peers, would be to engorge upon more yummy ice cream, thus creating a very sad circle. :cry:
Man I would love some Avocado Sprinkles...
I think dystopian being vanilla is more of a general trend in fantasy and science fiction in general then just a specific RP'ing thing.
So again, vanilla is something that shifts, right? It's totally relative. Is this how it's being interpreted? And in that case, is it any different from "popularity"?
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI consider any setting that sounds like it's about to fall apart to be a dystopian setting. That includes Greyhawk and Eberron.
You may consider that, but those settings don't fall anywhere close to that definition.
"A dystopia (from the Greek δÏ...σ- and Ï,,ÏŒÏ'οÏ,, alternatively, cacotopia,[1] kakotopia, cackotopia, or anti-utopia) is the vision of a society that is the opposite of utopia. A dystopian society is one in which the conditions of life are miserable, characterized by human misery, poverty, oppression, violence, disease, and/or pollution." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia)
Key words being "characterized by," meaning, "The vast majority of XXXX are in this particular situation." Eberron is set in a period of technological and magical renaissance, and Greyhawk currently has more peace, goodwill, and prosperity happening in it than earth ever has. You can say "I consider XXXX," but forcing a definition to fit into your pre-conceptualization of a word or subject matter isn't very logical.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawAlso I would point out that "being original" is not as easy as it can be said to be: I've posted what I consider stunningly original content on this site, and no comments on it. I'm not sure what conclusions to draw other than either I'm being too original and not tapping in to peoples' likes or that what I consider original has already been done and seen by other people and I'm behind the curve.
Once again, you're forcing definitions on a word based on what you think they
should mean. Just because you've posted "what you consider stunningly original content," has no bearing on whether or not it actually
is stunningly original. I have not read your work (not that that means anything, I don't read a lot of peoples' work, I'm pretty busy with other site-related issues), but my guess would be that your work was not as original as you thought it was, or you weren't able to sell it. Selling something is important - Goodkind basically ripped off Jordan in his magnum opus, and even though I've not ever read a single original word in one of Goodkind's books, he's still somehow
consistently at the top of the Best-Seller lists. If you can't convince people that your work is worth reading, then it's not going to get read. After that, the human rationalization I mentioned above starts kicking in.
[/off topic
AGAIN ]
Quote from: SteerpikeSo again, vanilla is something that shifts, right? It's totally relative. Is this how it's being interpreted? And in that case, is it any different from "popularity"?
This is why I believe Dystopian is not a vanilla concept. Its just a phase we're going through because the world around us is falling apart. A year from now, Dystopain will not seem trite because the current 'flavor of the month' will have moved on down the line.
So in essence, Vanilla and Popularity are related topics in the short term but in the long term are two different beasts.
Dystopianism has been in vogue long before the recession. Historically speaking a more positive outlook appears in fiction when things in the real world are going to hell.
Quote from: SteerpikeSo again, vanilla is something that shifts, right? It's totally relative. Is this how it's being interpreted? And in that case, is it any different from "popularity"?
I believe they are interrelated, however they are not the same thing. Vanilla is "staple tropes" with little to no "exotic tropes" (discounting the *twist/sprinkles* which even then can be varying levels of exotic)
Currently distopian tropes are becoming less and less exotic, comming closer and closer to being "vanilla". I hope that helps clarify things.
Quote from: IshmaylYou can say "I consider XXXX," but forcing a definition to fit into your pre-conceptualization of a word or subject matter isn't very logical.
It was logical for me based upon what I thought the definition was. I still consider any setting that seems mired in problems to be distopian, even based on the definition you gave.
Quote from: IshmaylOnce again, you're forcing definitions on a word based on what you think they should mean. Just because you've posted "what you consider stunningly original content," has no bearing on whether or not it actually is stunningly original. I have not read your work (not that that means anything, I don't read a lot of peoples' work, I'm pretty busy with other site-related issues), but my guess would be that your work was not as original as you thought it was, or you weren't able to sell it.
I'm confused: I said as much at the end of my paragraph, that possibly the content isn't as original as I thought. So what are you trying to say to me here?
Quote from: IshmaylSelling something is important.....If you can't convince people that your work is worth reading, then it's not going to get read.
Well how do I do that? No one's ever told me.
Also I consider "selling" to be wrong: people should read something because they want to read that sort of thing, not because someone hyped it. You can provide a summary of the thing, but it should be free of any enticement. Enticement is deception.
Quote from: LlumDystopianism has been in vogue long before the recession. Historically speaking a more positive outlook appears in fiction when things in the real world are going to hell.
I disagree. There were definite dystopian elements to the creative arts but no more than usual. Recently though, there has been a real rise in Dystopian themes, especially in Sci-Fi... I still think its just a phase, like boy bands, that will pass soon enough, at least prior to4E's release which has spurred much interest into dystopian & post-apocalyptic themes thanks to its heavy handed 'points of light' concept.
Quote from: Elemental Elfi think we, as a group, need to better define vanilla with stricter criteria, if only to get a better sense of what truly is and is not vanilla.
I don't think that's really necessary (possibly especially since vanilla is assumed to be a negative trait? Having some sort of official checklist might be a bad idea :)). It's a very relative term, and this meaning isn't really ever going to hit the dictionary so ishmayl can't even quote us back on it.
You could probably make a definition using this thread as research though.
Vanilla Setting:
1: "any settings that have a Mid Middle Age Tech, Idealized Western Societies, Dwarves, Elves (in 1, 2 or 3 varieties), Orcs, Halflings and Humans"
2: a setting heavily influenced by fantasy tropes, possibly including dystopia
3: Any setting based entirely on pre-4e core fluff
Or whatever. It's not like dictionaries limit themselves to one definition anyway.
Quote from: brainfaceJust because your contents original and awesome (i'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is) doesn't mean it's gonna be read or commented on (i haven't because I only read these meta threads :P). I don't think it's meaningful to assume lack of comment means your setting isn't original, and the lack of comments doesn't mean your setting isn't good or worthwhile.
Do you happen to know what
will get read? Because I don't consider that my work's bad just because no one reads it, I just have to consider whether it's worth my time to write it down. If no one wants to comment on it that's fine, but I don't see any other practical reason to write it out.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawWell how do I do that? No one's ever told me.
Also I consider "selling" to be wrong: people should read something because they want to read that sort of thing, not because someone hyped it. You can provide a summary of the thing, but it should be free of any enticement. Enticement is deception.
I disagree. There were definite dystopian elements to the creative arts but no more than usual. I still think its just a phase, like boy bands, that will pass soon enough, at least prior to4E's release which has spurred much interest into dystopian & post-apocalyptic themes thanks to its heavy handed 'points of light' concept.
[/quote]Recently though, there has been a real rise in Dystopian themes, especially in Sci-Fi...[/quote]
I just want to point out that there is a time delay between the ideas forming and getting released. Most of these things were created before the recession. I would also like to say that the rise in dystopian elements has being going on for longer then the last little while.
Finally once again I'm not speaking about just the RP market (I don't RP) but fiction in general.
I think vanilla can be interpreted as too obviously Tolkien-derived. Tolkien has shaped the modern fantasy genre.
Obvious elements are:
One key artifact that the entire story revolves around.
Stout, dour dwarves with beards.
Tall, graceful magically potent elves.
Massive conflict between good and evil.
Dragonlance is fairly vanilla.
Strangely enough, Moorcock's Elric books could be considered Vanilla with dark overtones and dwarves dropped.
Discworld starts to diverge noticeably. Dwarves are kept and even extended and played up (female Discworld dwarves have beards and gender is more or less an optional concept in a dwarf mine). The one artifact is dropped. Good and evil are not so clearly delineated (every Discworld bad guy is doing it for the best of reasons and almost all the nominal good guys are a little grubby).
I would say that Discworld started as parody and has only recently (well the last 5-8 years) become relatively serious.
Quote from: LlumWhile your welcome to disagree, I'm not giving my opinion. Historically speaking (as in factually with reference to history) in times where the real world is going to shit fiction tends to become more optimistic.
Now your right that all the dystopian elements is a phase; as to how soon it will pass, who knows.
I was disagreeing with our assertion that Dystopian has been popular for a long time, not that happy stuff is popular in depressions. :)
Quote from: LlumI just want to point out that there is a time delay between the ideas forming and getting released. Most of these things were created before the recession. I would also like to say that the rise in dystopian elements has being going on for longer then the last little while.
Finally once again I'm not speaking about just the RP market (I don't RP) but fiction in general.
I never said the recession was the root cause. I meant the last 5 or so years of 'the sky is falling' mentality derived from the rise of Russia, the tail end of the 'Bush Tyranny' (as liberals call it) and all the 'China Scare,' as well as the housing bubble and the global Recession .
Quote from: LlumYou seem to understand enticement, which is part of selling. Selling however is based on two things, opinions and facts. Opinions can't be deception, you think its great, you say so. Even if others don't think its great it isn't deception (ex:All the people who like bad movies and tout them as being awsome). Fact wise there can be deception if you make up some facts.
Opinion can be deceptive because it is based soley on factors unique to one individual. Further more it is deceptive of someone to recommend something to someone else based upon the first person's opinion only. Just because 1,000 people like something does not mean it should be recommended to person 1,001.
It's important for people to have the facts on something to really be informed if it could be something they'd enjoy.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawWell how do I do that? No one's ever told me.
Also I consider "selling" to be wrong: people should read something because they want to read that sort of thing, not because someone hyped it. You can provide a summary of the thing, but it should be free of any enticement. Enticement is deception.
You have quaint view of society, SCMP. Marketing is not evil, in a world that offers such a massive input on any topic concieveable, it is a necessity. For your work to get noticed and commented on, you have to *get* people to notice it and ask them for their POV. If you just post little nuggets of fiction or ideas that stand as-is, people won't feel it necessary to comment on it, because you present it as finished. They'll read it and think "nice" or "not my style" and read the next topic. Making something "free of enticement" translates into making it boring. Enticement isn't an offer of free viagra or naughty pics, it's getting the reader to think (critically) about your work.
[/off topic]
@ dystopia: dystopian settings and stories have been around for over a hundred years, for example "brave new world" or "metropolis".
@ topic: i could offer a more philosophical definition of a "vanilla setting" - "a setting or story which uses stock genre elements known to its target audience, requiring little to no explantion for the reader to feel familiar with it."
it's not perfect, it's meant to be a starting point. :)
Quote from: ScholarMarketing is not evil, in a world that offers such a massive input on any topic concieveable, it is a necessity. For your work to get noticed and commented on, you have to *get* people to notice it and ask them for their POV. If you just post little nuggets of fiction or ideas that stand as-is, people won't feel it necessary to comment on it, because you present it as finished. They'll read it and think "nice" or "not my style" and read the next topic. Making something "free of enticement" translates into making it boring. Enticement isn't an offer of free viagra or naughty pics, it's getting the reader to think (critically) about your work.
Why would I want them to read my work if they don't like the type of things I've put in? I don't want to dupe someone into reading something they hate or don't think is worth their time, I want them to read it because it contains something they want to read.
I found Steerpike's comments comparing Vanilla setting to indie music (does the word 'alternative' make anyone else want to barf?) the most useful so far, and how they tie to Nomie's comments as well.
It deals with the idea that the creators of a genre or genre-slice being trailbreakers and even somewhat Avant-garde (which, as many of you I'm sure know, literally means 'Vanguard') at the time when they are doing the bulk of their work, but once it is digested and regurgitated ad-nauseum by the general population, it is looked at as 'Vanilla'. So my opinion of Tolkien-like and Greyhawk-like settings is what I am considering generic, not the original settings. I may not be the biggest fan of D&D, but I give Gygax himself loads of credit for his weaving of his games into a setting he could sell.
Nor is it always bad. Vanilla with a few twists is the same as writing in a genre and still keeping it fresh, and it can be useful in that people can kind of know their way around, and the parts you've worked hard to be different stand out more for their ingenuity.
Buton the other hand, I find the same things mentioned above boring. Dour dwarves, Emo elves, happy halflings...I am not against using stuff that makes sense, but there has to be enough new to breathe life into a setting.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawWhy would I want them to read my work if they don't like the type of things I've put in? I don't want to dupe someone into reading something they hate or don't think is worth their time, I want them to read it because it contains something they want to read.
it's the difference between "lookit!" and "lookit, this is so cool, because..."
also, have you never picked up a book where the first chapters where bloody confusing and you thought "what the hell", but after keeping on reading you found it was actually pretty good? like, you know you can't judge a book by its cover? (I'm looking at you, mister peter f. hamilton!"
Quote from: Scholarit's the difference between "lookit!" and "lookit, this is so cool, because..."
If you're going to give a "because" then give it and leave off the hype because the hype is superfluous.
Quote from: Scholaralso, have you never picked up a book where the first chapters where bloody confusing and you thought "what the hell", but after keeping on reading you found it was actually pretty good? like, you know you can't judge a book by its cover? (I'm looking at you, mister peter f. hamilton!"
No.
1) I vet the contents as carefully as possible without spoiling them (and in some cases I do that) before I decide to pick it up.
2) If the first few chapters are weird I'll stop reading. I don't have that kind of patience, plus my experience has been that books don't get better as they progress.
3) I've had experiences where the contents of a book were not properly described such that I was confronted with something I didn't like when I had no idea it was in there. (In fact one time a book I bought cause it sounded fun turned out to be a rolling series of depressing incidents with a horrifying plot twist I could see coming half-way through. I never finished it. In fact I hated it so much I left it back in Istanbul.)
Here's an experiment: what are the first 3 words and/or images that come to mind when I say "Fantasy"?
Quote from: Elemental_ElfHere's an experiment: what are the first 3 words and/or images that come to mind when I say "Fantasy"?
Magic, sex, and dragons. If it had been four words I'd also add elves.
Quote from: LlumI would say that Discworld started as parody and has only recently (well the last 5-8 years) become relatively serious.
True enough. From pretty close to the beginning, though, Pratchett has done enough interesting twists to keep Discworld from being simply vanilla + funny. For instance, my comment about the murky cut-off between good and evil is rather nicely illustrated in
guards! Guards!
What about chocalate vanilla swirl? And to tell the truth, I like vanilla ice cream beter then chocalate.
And if there's anything I learned from this thread is that you can not put flavors on settings. Unless it is gumdrop land.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfHere's an experiment: what are the first 3 words and/or images that come to mind when I say "Fantasy"?
Dragons, Castles, and Magic
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw1) I vet the contents as carefully as possible without spoiling them (and in some cases I do that) before I decide to pick it up.
2) If the first few chapters are weird I'll stop reading. I don't have that kind of patience, plus my experience has been that books don't get better as they progress.
3) I've had experiences where the contents of a book were not properly described such that I was confronted with something I didn't like when I had no idea it was in there. (In fact one time a book I bought cause it sounded fun turned out to be a rolling series of depressing incidents with a horrifying plot twist I could see coming half-way through. I never finished it. In fact I hated it so much I left it back in Istanbul.)
this might be the booze talking, but are you some kind of robotic space alien? you're always so... dunno, rational? and peaceful. and... stuff.
compared to you, I'm almost feral, and I'm a bloody academic! as to books, I've bought them because they were hyped (eragon, locke lamora), because they're part of a series (gaunt's ghosts) or because i liked the premise (dark tower). i've been seldom disappointed. sure, eragon is a starwars/lotr fanfic, but it's an easy read and not too bad.
three words for fantasy?
violence, magic and chainmail-bikinis (that SO counts as one word).
Wizards, Dragons and sword wielding armored knights - it could be a girl in that armor, I just can't tell!
GP
[blockquote=Silvercat Moonpaw]It was logical for me based upon what I thought the definition was. I still consider any setting that seems mired in problems to be distopian, even based on the definition you gave.[/blockquote]Sigh.
Hmn. I certainly agree with Ishmayl that Greyhawk and Eberron aren't considered dystopian by most standards and definitions of the worlds, and I definitely disagree with you that those worlds are "about to fall apart." There are tensions and problems, but those worlds are relatively stable, not nearly as saturated with evil/destruction/dystopian elements as most classic dystopias. People in those worlds are not as a rule miserable or depraved or horrendously opressed, for the most part. Will you at least concede that even if you consider these worlds dystopian in some sense that dystopias lie on a spectrum, and that they're on the "lighter" end of that?
Sometimes you puzzle me, Silvercat. I get that you're uncomfortable with depictions of evil and ickiness and dark stuff in games and fiction: it's not your cup of tea. Cool, fine, I respect that. But what settings do you like? For example, I would have pegged you as someone who could appreciate Eberron, because of the pulp elements, but you count it as a dystopia, a type of world that to my understanding you find pretty repulsive, not merely as a world itself (dystopias are meant to be repulsive) but in the sense that you wouldn't want to play a game in a dystopian world or read about a dystopia. Using such a broad definition of dystopia - a world with lots of problems in it - what worlds are there out there that you enjoy? I don't mean what type of worlds are out there that you enjoy, I mean what actual settings (like Faerun, Eberron, etc?), either in gaming or in fiction?
I'm not trying to be hostile, and you're totally entitled to your tastes, I'm just trying, as I often have, to come to grips with your particular perspectives.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfHere's an experiment: what are the first 3 words and/or images that come to mind when I say "Fantasy"?
I'm going for images, rather than words.
One is an excessively "well-proportioned" man or woman wearing little or no clothing doing battle with some kind of monster and/or a gang of hapless mooks. To imagine the kind of person I see as the centrepiece of this image, look at a Boris Vallejo painting...
The second is of a tall, relatively slender figure, wearing overly elaborate, probably magical armour standing illuminated by the light of the giant glowing crystal behind them, possibly also with glowing eyes or glowing runes etched on their armour.
The final image is of a forest where everything kind of... runs together. I find this one very hard to describe, but it's unlike any forest I've seen in the real world, either firsthand or otherwise. Lots of moss and creepers and... yeah just... "magic forest" sums it up, I suppose.
There are lots of other things that come to mind, too, but those are, I think, the strongest three mental images.
Quote from: DrizztrocksAnd if there's anything I learned from this thread is that you can not put flavors on settings. Unless it is gumdrop land.
:band:
The problem here is that "vanilla" is being so fluidly defined. A better question, certainly a more meaningful one to campaign builders, would be, what tropes bore you in a setting.
Quote from: Scholaras to books, I've bought them because they were hyped (eragon, locke lamora), because they're part of a series (gaunt's ghosts) or because i liked the premise (dark tower). i've been seldom disappointed.
Mmmm, I've had a lot of the opposite result. The rules I gave you were born out of a long and annoying process. My tastes just aren't like so many other people.
Plus I have this thing about popular media: the way people describe it when the
like can make my skin crawl.
Quote from: SteerpikeI certainly agree with Ishmayl that Greyhawk and Eberron aren't considered dystopian by most standards and definitions of the worlds, and I definitely disagree with you that those worlds are "about to fall apart." There are tensions and problems, but those worlds are relatively stable, not nearly as saturated with evil/destruction/dystopian elements as most classic dystopias. People in those worlds are not as a rule miserable or depraved or horrendously opressed, for the most part. Will you at least concede that even if you consider these worlds dystopian in some sense that dystopias lie on a spectrum, and that they're on the "lighter" end of that?
There not dystopian. I was just being stubborn. Don't waste time hating me for it, I already hate myself.
I do view them as 'falling apart', though: every tension and/or problem and/or problem that could happen in the future (e.g. a secret group that may try to take over) seems to me like a point at which the world is starting to break. Enough of these and they add up to 'falling apart'.
Quote from: SteerpikeSometimes you puzzle me, Silvercat. I get that you're uncomfortable with depictions of evil and ickiness and dark stuff in games and fiction: it's not your cup of tea. Cool, fine, I respect that. But what settings do you like? For example, I would have pegged you as someone who could appreciate Eberron, because of the pulp elements, but you count it as a dystopia, a type of world that to my understanding you find pretty repulsive, not merely as a world itself (dystopias are meant to be repulsive) but in the sense that you wouldn't want to play a game in a dystopian world or read about a dystopia. Using such a broad definition of dystopia - a world with lots of problems in it - what worlds are there out there that you enjoy? I don't mean what type of worlds are out there that you enjoy, I mean what actual settings (like Faerun, Eberron, etc?), either in gaming or in fiction?.
It's got a lot to do with this feeling I have whenever I'm presented with (most) conflict (and/or darkness, in case they aren't always the same thing): I keep thinking someone is trying to show me something but they're being subtle about it. I don't do well with subtle, in fact I stink at it. So giving me conflict is giving me a puzzle which I feel like I'm expected to figure out but which I can't, and I get confused and frustrated. And then multiply that by the large number of conflicts in most settings and it just seems to me like a morass.
(If you want to discuss it, though, I have several objections to Eberron that don't have to do with how light or dark its tone is.)
So what do I like in a setting? Non-complexity. I don't want to have to read in to anything. And I need problems presented to me one at a time and having reasonably easy solutions.
As to exactly which settings I've found that I like'¦'¦'¦'¦it's getting late, so I'll have to tell you later.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfHere's an experiment: what are the first 3 words and/or images that come to mind when I say "Fantasy"?
A motley band of swordsmen of all different humanoid species kick in the door of a room, kill everyone inside and take their stuff.
An omnipotent dreamer messes around with a world just for the fun of it.
Everything is so glowy and covered in sparkles that you can't see what the hell is going on.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfHere's an experiment: what are the first 3 words and/or images that come to mind when I say "Fantasy"?
Great, majestic beasts.
Mages throwing around glowing shapes.
Sweeping vistas of huge cliffs, probably on a coast, possibly featuring a multi-leveled city of brick and stone with an impressive castle at the back.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: brainfaceJust because your contents original and awesome (i'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is) doesn't mean it's gonna be read or commented on (i haven't because I only read these meta threads :P). I don't think it's meaningful to assume lack of comment means your setting isn't original, and the lack of comments doesn't mean your setting isn't good or worthwhile.
Do you happen to know what will get read? Because I don't consider that my work's bad just because no one reads it, I just have to consider whether it's worth my time to write it down. If no one wants to comment on it that's fine, but I don't see any other practical reason to write it out.
Put a link in your sig? Bump it to the front page? Give it an evocative title (maybe in the form of a question or something humorous... "Why is there a dragon in my living room?"). People won't know right off the bat whether the setting will interest them based on a place name. "Eberron" on these boards would sink to the bottom of the forum for months at a time between updates by its author. "Metal Earth" (saw this on another board) piqued my interest immediately. Oh, and if its relevant mention it in meta or other threads. There was that one setting in the alternate elements thread that looked really good. I don't know that I gave feedback, but it got me to read it.
You don't have to be a pompous braggart, but you do need to get people to click on the link to your setting. As others have said: Sell it.
Three words?
Knight. Dragon. Wizard.
Quote from: SteerpikeHeh this kind of reminds me of indie music somehow. I was thinking of Eberron and whether Eberron could be called vanilla. On the one hand, it's not really post-Tolkienian. On the other, many people seem to be concieving of vanilla as: "typical, standard, default; popular." If Eberron supercedes Greyhawk as the "standard" 9or most popular) roleplaying setting, does it not itself become vanilla? And isn't that ironic, in that part of the appeal of Eberron (at least for many) is that it deliberately strays from and works against well-worn or "vanilla" tropes? It's like indie music that becomes popular and therefore mainstream: no longer indie anymore.
Oh, Eberron used lots of stock tropes from the start. It's just that they weren't the classical
fantasy stock tropes, which makes it fairly unusual for fantasy settings and thus cannot be counted as a "vanilla" fantasy setting.
It's tropes primarily come from the pulps, with a dash of Noir thrown in. They are still very recognizable by most people and thus it is easy to get into the proper spirit of the setting - it's just that the combination of tropes used is unusual.
In my opinion, it's not necessary to try to come up with something entirely new for a setting for it to be "refreshing" - all that needs to be done is to mix up tropes that hadn't been associated with each other before. Shadowrun mixed the tropes of the fantasy and cyberpunk genre, which nobody had done before - making it something unique and interesting (at least, at the time). And my own Urbis tries to mix all the usual tropes of "vanilla fantasy" with the tropes of 19th century fiction.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawAs to exactly which settings I've found that I like'¦'¦'¦'¦it's getting late, so I'll have to tell you later.
Well now back to trying to answer this:
The only published RPG settings that have really worked completely for me have been related: "Teenagers from Outer Space" and "Star Riders", the latter of which is actually a semi-supplement for the former. Both draw on Saturday morning cartoons and comedic animé to produce the sort of gonzo universe you find in something like Hitchhiker's Guide.
Moving away from that you have "RPG settings that were generally okay, although generally boring". They include:
Uresia, Grave of Heaven: Animé fantasy. Tries to be funny sometimes, sometimes tries to be sort of horrific, mostly falls down on being an interesting setting.
Conan, Barbarians of Lemuria: Both the same sort of "sword and sorcery basic" settings, they don't present themselves as being all that dark despite their grittiness (admittedly I haven't actually read either one more than samples).
San Angelo: A superhero setting with very little superhero-related stuff actually presented. Manages to avoid creating the "1,000 enemies who all want to take over/destroy the world" or "we hate supers" environment that other superhero settings get into.
Monte Cook's Diamond Throne: Despite the fact that the Arcana Evolved book puts up a possible future conflict between the giants and the returned dragons the place has a very intact world for a fantasy setting.
For media settings:
Lots of things Disney:
Tailspin,
Darkwing Duck,
Buzz Lightyear of Star Command, and their TV spinoff from
Aladdin.
Early 90s version of TMNT cartoon.
A few animé dealing with aliens coming to Earth (most of which I can't remember the names of all that well), including one where you had a seemingly modern Japan integrated into the trope "great galactic civilization" and had aliens living there but without any change in the way the place looked or really acted.