Do you understand what "vanilla fantasy" means anymore?

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

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?

[Wensleydale]

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).

[Steerpike]

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.

[Jürgen Hubert]

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.

[LordVreeg]

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.

[brainface]

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.

[Scholar]

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.

[Elemental_Elf]

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.

Exactly what I was thinking :)


The sad thing is that I enjoy playing in those worlds :(

[Matt Larkin (author)]

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.

[brainface]

The 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.

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.

Vampire[/i] vanilla.

[Nomadic]

Vanilla makes good ice cream.... not so much for fantasy.

[Gamer Printshop]

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

[LordVreeg]

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

yes.  I as well.

[Steerpike]

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?

[Elemental_Elf]

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: