The Nature of Fantasy

[Matt Larkin (author)]

Lately I've been reworking my setting, and in so doing, thinking a lot about how a setting feels and is perceived.  This has left me wanting to get the opinions of the guild on some things.  I hope this will turn into one of those things where we can really get the community going and learn something, as with the Ethocentric/DivSet debate.

So sound in:

What, exactly, do you think defines high or low fantasy?  Where is the line drawn?  How does dark fantasy fit in?

Equally importantly, what part of the spectrum do you prefer (for reading stories, playing games, or whatever)?  Can you say why?

Finally, where do you see your own worlds fitting in?

[DeeL]

I don't know if this exactly fits here, but I was recently given reason to contemplate the difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy.  Fantasy introduces impossibility as a dramatic element; you might wonder how it works, but it's real value lies in its ability to continue the narrative.  Science Fiction, on the other hand, introduces impossibility as a way to provoke thought on how it might be possible.

An example of Science Fiction would be the Superman franchise.  The first two were successful in the sense that they got people talking about how Superman could fly, or fire rays out of his eyes, or pick up an entire building without breaking off a piece.  The latter two - thank you Golan-Globus - were unsuccessful because they didn't reward such thought.

An example of Fantasy would be the Star Wars movies.  While they include a technological motif, our own technology has exceeded the performance of certain elements of the SW Universe that it's almost pointless to wonder why wireless communication is used in some instances but not in others, or why 'droids are fantastically successful in some tasks but not in others that would evidently involve using the same kind of mechanical processes.

I don't know much of the difference between High and Low Fantasy.  Sorry, I'm just stuck on that one.  But Dark Fantasy is a bit clearer.

Dark Fantasy may involve the same elements as any other kind, but I think its basic trademark is in the focus on the perception of threat.  The Hobbit might have become dark fantasy if the language had been slightly different, emphasizing the threat to the various heroes' lives, sanity and integrity.  

I think that's why attempts to reproduce horror in games have been so hit-or-miss.  Dark Fantasy depends heavily on descriptive power; I have played with only rare GMs who could manage it.  And without that description, settings like Ravenloft become just D&D with a horror-simulation ruleset that traps characters on the edge of effectiveness.  (FYI, I have never enjoyed Ravenloft.  Or the TORG setting, Orrorsh.  It's not enough to merely adventure in such a place, no matter how well written - you have to *feel* the desperation.)

That's as far as I can think right now.  Enjoy.

[Hibou]

Here comes a long one:

Well, I can't elaborate right now, but I do believe there are many settings on here and WotC both that people would like to call low-fantasy or whatever, but in reality they're very high-fantasy. When you look at a lot of settings that say "a low-fantasy setting based off of the Roman empire" or anything remotely similar, you'll see a lot of elements that all added-up prevent a setting from really being low-fantasy. And I notice that often (especially among newer worldbuilders) that the definition of "high-fantasy" is becoming more and more of a definition for a setting that is a literal dreamscape and/or so full of magic and supernatural beings that to exclude them would be impossible, or that they're a particularly integral part of the setting.

Ultimately in my eyes this means a shift towards the abandonment of the true "traditional" D&D setting, a place where a brave knight goes on a quest to save a princess from a dragon, or hunts down a vampire through an old, mist-filled graveyard and into a castle because of the murder of the most noble of clergy, or even where a few lost travelers are guided by a mysterious cloaked figure to find a legendary artifact and become heroes that prophecies said they would become in an archaic script. Any setting like this, where magic and fantastic creatures and histories exist, but much is mundane and similar to real medieval Europe or somewhere else, in my opinion is low-fantasy.

This would mean that everything else (except perhaps no-magic settings) is high-fantasy or dark-fantasy. Some fit the title more than others, but nonetheless there are several elements that more and more settings share in common that makes them high-fantasy or dark-fantasy: they're a far step from reality. Sure, the idea that wizards and dragons and vampires really do exist is potentially a "far step"(especially if you are one of many who don't believe in them, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or anything else), but these places fit high-fantasy and dark-fantasy much more.

Take the Magic: The Gathering settings, for example. They are what I'd consider high-fantasy, and I'll explain why, using the adventures of Gerard and Sisay and their nemesis Volrath (I think that was his name) (which would consist of Tempest, Mercadian Masques, and Nemesis among other later  card sets). These settings feature a variety of unusual creatures, flying ships that can jump dimensions (The Weatherlight), flying islands, strange armies, firearms and medieval weaponry combined, and armies of malicious constructs, among other things. They feature a clash of the modern and the medieval as well as the primitive and the epic, as well as a healthy and extensive dose of magic. In addition to all of this, even the very landscape that they do battle upon and live within is often akin to that of legend, with massive forests and mountain ranges, not to mention exotic blends of real-world terrains. With all of this, it's hard not to classify it as high-fantasy. And a lot of settings being produced nowadays look similar.

And no, it's not required of you to have all of these things or even a lot of them to be considered high-fantasy. The M:tG worlds are high-fantasy because they're such a different series of places than Earth is, and chances are any setting that does the same is going to end up high-fantasy as well.

All of that nonsense being said, I think that they're both equally good for gaming, stories, and anything else you'd use them for. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses.

My settings? Well, the two most recent ones that anyone here is likely to have seen were Vilydunn and Aath (Witchcraft's accompanying setting isn't up yet). Aath was an example of a high-fantasy setting because of the durastically different nature it had, from roads that led up into the sky from the earth to the cities of wealthy genies, to forests that grew upon to the tops of oceans, to flying ships and clans of dwarves that mastered the art of gunpowder when all of those around them learned to cast world-shaking spells. Vilydunn was what I might call dark-fantasy, because while it had many of the qualities that Aath did and more mundane worlds did mixed into one, the fantasy elements present were much more shadowy.

That's just my two cents.

[Raelifin]

I doubt this will spark much discussion because there's not much controversy (in my experience). I'm going to flat-out agree with WitchHunt.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

I doubt this will spark much discussion because there's not much controversy (in my experience).

Perhaps.  Partly this is my wanting to look at my own conceptions and make sure I know what makes something one or the other (I may post on a bigger question at a later time).  The line isn't always real easy to draw.  The idea kind of arose when I looked it up on Wikipedia, and was not quite satisfied with their definition: the main one for high fantasy was fantasy taking place on a completely different world.  That would, of course, mean most fantasy settings we see are high fantasy, regardless of the amount of magic and whatnot.

But another part of the question, the big part, was about preference.  What do people prefer, why, and where do their own settings fall?

To me, I think the mood (or tone, or whatever) a setting sets is ultimately one of the most crucial aspects of it.  If you've got a light mood one set of information might seem very different than the same information when the mood is dark, for example.

I also sometimes wonder if seriously high fantasy excludes a dark and serious tone, and yet, WitchHunt mentions Tempest, which I had not considered.

[Numinous]

In short, I'd call High Fantasy standard D&D.  With wizards flying around, dragons in every cave, and magic as much a part of life as gravity.

Low fantasy is the hero searching for an ancient artifact to defeat a new evil, massive sacrifices and obscure rites required to perform even the most insignificant of effects.  In a world where magic is rare, ancient, and misunderstood, I would call it low fantasy.

Dark fantasy is where the world is filled with sinister, and magical, effects and creatures.  Phoenix mentioned earlier that Dark fantasy is synonymous with horror, and although I'm sure someone could split that hair, I'm inclined to agree with his view.

Hubris, my current project, is a dark fantasy world filled with a  Late-Narniaesque fantasy level.  Legends suffuse every culture of ancient times when dragons blocked out the sun and trees walked, but only in the most remote places does magic still reach the level of "high Fantasy".

[Matt Larkin (author)]

Yeah normal D&D is definitely high fantasy.  If we are then to define high fantasy as high magic/supernatural and low fantasy as rare magic, then we run into problems in ever really making D&D anything but high fantasy.  The game's just designed that way.

In mentioning whether dark fantasy was synonymous with horror, it was actually a question DeeL.  Sometimes it seems  that way, but then sometimes I think it's possible to have a dark tone and not necessarily be horror.  But I suppose that's the hair that can be split.

[Seraph]

When I think of High Fantasy, I think of grand heroic adventures.  It's not necessarily the cliche Knights charging into battle with the dragon to save the princess, but it has that feel.  It's very magical in high fantasy, and the mood seems to be largely optimistic.  Sure, you may have a demonic horde, but it is assumed that the valiant heroes will be able to stop it.  The villains are villains simply because they are villains.  They may have a story, but, there is no need for debating what to do with the BBEG once you've caught him.

Low Fantasy, on the other hand, I think of as being more realistic.  Less suspension of disbelief is required here than with high fantasy, and characters are more real.  Villains have a specific reason for doing what they do, and their actions have the potential to be considerably more heinous.  It has a much rougher feel, tends to have less magic, but is not without magic.  The heroes are not the perfect protagonists they are in high fantasy, they have specific motivations that may not always lead them to fighting evil.  

Dark Fantasy is largely as others have described.  

[Ghost]

I'm not sure where I would draw the line between such distinctions as 'High' or 'Low' fantasy. Admittedly, my perusal of Fantasy-genre volumes is not quite as big as i'd like. I can tell that worlds like Ravenloft or the Cthulhu Mythos are certainly Dark Fantasy, on the other hand.

But I also wonder where the line is even between Fantasy and Science Fiction. Practically, I tend to see Fantasy as involving events or technologies that obey impossibilities, whereas Science Fiction obeys the known possibilities (and known probabilities, as well).

For example, my setting, Ifpherion, is an oddity. The people have developed quite advanced technologies, but this was done only with and alongside the development and refinement of magic. Sure, they've colonized several of their moons, but they couldn't do it without the Gravetite (rocks that are naturally magical, and tend to float when exposed to air) that is embedded in the planet's surface. So, my setting is quite within the genre of Fantasy.

I'd love to see stories that defy this, though.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

Well, the question of science fiction versus fantasy is a classic one, but it can be, I think, more blurred than the idea of high/low fantasy.

Settings like Dune or Star Wars are science fiction with varying degrees of fantasy sprinkled on top (we see the same thing in a number of video games, such as Final Fantasy).  Other settings may be fantasy with sci fi elements (I see Kishar this way, for example).  Most settings might be clearly one or the other, but a setting can have elements of both and be really interesting, so they need not be divided all the time.

[Kindling]

In short, I'd call High Fantasy standard D&D.  With wizards flying around, dragons in every cave, and magic as much a part of life as gravity.

I've never got why people seem to assume that all the supernatural stuff in "standard" D&D has to be commonplace.

For example, I've always thought that the Cleric class represents a kind of warrior-prophet, infused with his or her deity's powers in order to accomplish specific goals on the mortal plane(s). The idea that every priest(ess) in the world has these same supernatural powers not only detracts from the "chosen one" factor of any PC Clerics, but also makes the world considerably less believable to me personally.

Likewise the party Sorcerer is probably one of only a handful born with these magical powers every decade, and he or she may well go his or her entire life without meeting another Sorcerer.

I guess this means I tend towards low-magic settings, because even though I don't use the supernatural any less in the game, in the world as a whole it is rarer. It's just that the PCs are Heroes with a capital H, and by virtue of this they do end up encountering all the stuff that most common folk know mainly through legend.

Not that I object to high-magic settings, in fact I've seen some very supernatural-packed settings that look very nice. It's just not really my style.

Also I think that high or low FANTASY should not be confused with high or low MAGIC in terms of setting design. There are plenty of fantastical elements you can use to create an exotic world which aren't supernatural (or not obviously supernatural, at least).

[SA]

What Kindling said.

In my opinion Alice in Wonderland was more "High Fantasy" than D&D will ever be; all the balors and vorpal swords in the world don't hold a candle to a caterpillar with a hookah.

[Lmns Crn]

In my opinion Alice in Wonderland was more "High Fantasy" than D&D will ever be; all the balors and vorpal swords in the world don't hold a candle to a caterpillar with a hookah.

I didn't know we were talking about that kind of "high fantasy." But it's interesting to note that Through the Looking Glass is the origin of the word "vorpal," anyway.

I think the attempts to categorize all of this into subgenres is inaccurate at best, unnecessarily constrictive at worst. I'm not convinced you can set up such a system that works consistently enough to be worth using.

[Johnny Wraith]

Settings like Dune or Star Wars are science fiction with varying degrees of fantasy sprinkled on top

I've always seen Star Wars the other way; High Fantasy with science fiction sprinkled on top. The advanced tech in my opinion is just a small part of what the movies are about. But I stray away from the point of this thread.

There's one thing that bothers me about high fantasy: It seems that most people, when they think of high fantasy, envision this place with wizards and magical creatures in which most things are absolutes (Good-Evil). With some exceptions, this makes settings that take in place in such environments tend to be less serious. As someone mentioned before, in these settings villains are villains and their intentions aren't really important (Or tend to be the same world-domination kinda thing). When you start blurring the edges of alignment, for instance, things start to get more serious... Perhaps because it's closer to reality. Personally, I think low-fantasy settings bring up many more ethical issues and therefore more "thinking".

I'm not saying low-fantasy is better than high-fantasy, but I think as with most things in life, it is best not to go to the extremes: Low-fantasy to the extreme would be real-life, which I wouldn't consider playing (If you like this, go play The Sims :P). On the other end, extreme High-Fantasy would take us to a really clichéd world. I think it is best to stay in the middle, kinda balance things out like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings did. They both create situations for moral issues to arise (think Darth Vader or Boromir) yet you have a notion of good and evil.

In my setting (Which I think I'll be posting soon), I'm trying to accomplish this balance. For instance, the deities have alignments just like in normal D&D. These alignments restrict their actions and they are never subject to moral issues of any kind (A god of good will never commit an evil act, no matter what). People in the world, however, while they may have alignments (Well, this is to be decided still) the edges between them are real blurry (To match our world). Now that I think of it, this idea doesn't really stray away from real-life religions... The difference really is that the actions of the gods in my setting actually alter things on earth.

I guess in a way I believe that high-fantasy/low-fantasy is taken as a theme and a mood-setter. This, by all means, isn't true for all settings and I don't think it is the way to go. I'm just pointing out that this -seems to me- is the line of thought most people I've encountered have in their heads(I'm including people who don't play D&D or anything like it).

Now go ahead and tear me apart :)

[Matt Larkin (author)]

In my opinion Alice in Wonderland was more "High Fantasy" than D&D will ever be; all the balors and vorpal swords in the world don't hold a candle to a caterpillar with a hookah.

I didn't know we were talking about that kind of "high fantasy." But it's interesting to note that Through the Looking Glass is the origin of the word "vorpal," anyway.

I think the attempts to categorize all of this into subgenres is inaccurate at best, unnecessarily constrictive at worst. I'm not convinced you can set up such a system that works consistently enough to be worth using.

Yeah, I'd go with Alice in Wonderland being a stage up on high fantasy, more like sureal fantasy.

You may be right, LC.  Maybe there isn't a definitive answer or point to the question (which could be said of most philosophy of design questions, I guess).  But I had all this rolling around in my head and wanted to hear from the community.  To that end, they have articulated some things I can agree with, or thought, but hadn't thought in those terms.

The question often seems most important when you want to generalize (always dangerous) a setting.  You say it's low fantasy, and people get certain expectations.  You say high-fantasy, they have others.

I'd say it sounds like the prime expections of high fantasy seem to be lots of supernatural and magic, a real moral dichotomy, and, in general, a lighter tone (though it could very well still be an epic story).  Low fantasy, I guess is closer to the real world, but there is still fantasy in it.  So there could still be dragons, magic, and whatnot, but these elements are rare.