What makes a good fantasy world?

[Cheomesh]

To you, what makes a fantasy world "Great" ?

M.

[Jack of Hearts]

The greatness of a fantasy world is inversely proportional to the number of chainmail bikini-clad women who populate it.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

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.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

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.

[Superfluous Crow]

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.

[Steerpike]

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.

[Llum]

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.

[Lmns Crn]

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.

[LordVreeg]

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.

[Scholar]

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."

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

'¦'¦'¦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?

[Scholar]

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...^^

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Ah, okay, I understand it now.  It was hard to read where one sentence ended and another began.

[Cheomesh]

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.

[Biohazard]

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.