Do you understand what "vanilla fantasy" means anymore?

[Llum]

I would say that Discworld started as parody and has only recently (well the last 5-8 years) become relatively serious.

[Elemental_Elf]

While 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. :)

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 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 .

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

You 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.

[Scholar]

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.

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. :)

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

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.

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.

[LordVreeg]

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.

[Scholar]

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.

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!"

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

it'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.

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!"

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.)

[Elemental_Elf]

Here's an experiment: what are the first 3 words and/or images that come to mind when I say "Fantasy"?

[khyron1144]

Here'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.

I 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!

[Drizztrocks]

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.

[Nomadic]

Here's an experiment: what are the first 3 words and/or images that come to mind when I say "Fantasy"?

Dragons, Castles, and Magic

[Scholar]

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.)

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).

[Gamer Printshop]

Wizards, Dragons and sword wielding armored knights - it could be a girl in that armor, I just can't tell!

GP

[Steerpike]

[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.