+  Denver GURPS Group Forum
|-+  GURPS
| |-+  Campaigns
| | |-+  How'd I wind up running Fantasy?
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: How'd I wind up running Fantasy?  (Read 3358 times)
tshiggins
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 764



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: September 24, 2015, 06:41:48 AM »

Yeah, wainscot fantasy has a fair amount of variation, and a lot of it (looking at you, Supernatural) edges really close to horror.

As for Anita Blake, I agree that setting doesn't include hidden magical stuff; I mostly cited it as Vaginal Fantasy (that's actually a thing, I guess...) set in the modern-day, which makes wainscot fantasy more accessible.

http://vaginalfantasy.com/

Another culture with a rich supernatural heritage is India, but it's tough to find source material for it. A TL2 Iron Age game set in the expansion of the Mauryan Empire (c322-185 BC) could be fun, for instance. You've got tons of squabbling local kings slowly being swallowed up by a massive empire, and a dangerous enemy to the west (the remnants of Alexander's Hellenistic world).

Alternatively, set it during the Delhi Sultanate (early 1300s to about 1526) for TL3 Silk Road Goodness with no European flavor, anywhere, with another looming threat (Timur the Lame) rising in the west.

My favorite period, though, would be a steampunk-magic British Raj, in the late 1800s. I planned to give the party reason to choose to go there, had the Castle Falkenstein campaign continued.

You gotta be a little careful, though. The mythology of India is incredibly rich, but to a lot of people from India, it's not mythology; it's their religion.

Working in the industry I do, these days, I meet a lot of people from India. I remember how strange it was, for me, to start to discuss Hindu folklore as fairy tales and mythology, only to realize the other person in that conversation actually, truly believed in Rakshasa's and Nagas.

I had to rethink my approach to the discussion, really quickly.
Logged

"Our problem is, our plans never survive contact with US!" -Christopher Denny, veteran gamer, incorrigible punster.
Christopher
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 665


Resistance is worthwhile.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 24, 2015, 01:44:23 PM »

Quote
Also, when I look at ASoIaF, from the outsider perspective of someone who isn't a Fantasy fan . . . I see it not falling far from the Tolkien tree.  It's unabashedly European medieval, even though it's not set on Earth.  It's operating solely in the Fantasy comfort-zone.

I'd put ASoIaF pretty distant from Tolkien actually.  The major thrust of the work, in my view is closer to the Borgias than it is to anything Tolkien did.  To me, Tolkien is marked more by magic, elves, races and _fantasty_ trappings that are mythological.  Chivalry and Knights and those trappings of medieval aren't really that important in Tolkein.  Let's not give him some great credit for medieval trappings, that exists before, after, and outside of his contributions and frankly his work isn't really that deeply medieval anyway save for tech level and weaponry.  But the meat and potatoes of medieval plots? Not really.

GOT (easier than the other acronym) certainly has some of those fantasy trappings, but they are actually a lot less important and central than you'd expect. They're nothing like what we'd expect from the elves and fairies and dragons and such books that really make up the body of Fantasy.  He has dragons, they're a plot point, but if you really think about it, they're a rather minor one.  He has woodland fantasy creatures. Again, there but minor.  Direwolves. Meh.

The biggest pay off is in intrigue and politics.  It's political melodrama.  This has almost no relation to Tolkein.  There was so very little political melodrama in his works and what little there was was resolved in other ways.  The Steward of Gondor was not ousted with Machiavellian plots.

GOT is about as fantasy as it is a zombie genre.  The elements are there.  It's not sitting firmly in that pocket though.  I'd contend it's more at home in historical fiction, alt-history, and such, despite the fact that it's not Earth.  And there is magic. And dragons.  And even with the obvious parallels to the War of the Roses, there's a lot of Renaissance Italy in there too.
Logged

Bill
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 759


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: September 24, 2015, 06:48:04 PM »

Christopher, I’m not giving Tolkien credit for creating the Medieval setting, just the one to choose it as the primary setting for Fantasy that everyone else has gotten locked into.  Regardless, his work is set in a generic Medieval European setting.  Fundamentally, so is ASoIaF.

(I use ASoIaF to refer to the books and GoT to refer to the HBO show—it was an easier way of differentiating the two.)

Not counting the people on this fora I can count the number of people I know who have read ASoIaF on two fingers.  However, both of them agree ASoIaF and LotR/H are significantly similar.  They’re different, to be sure, but, reading one then reading the other would not take you out of the generic fantasy comfort zone.

However, the people who watch GoT I can’t even count anymore.  With 300 people in my department, over half watch it.  And each of the ones I’ve talked to all agree that it’s grittier than LotR/H but it is not substantially different otherwise.  Less magic, more boobs.  A more adult feel, but that was just a stylistic choice by the creator.

Both you, Christopher, and G&A are missing the point that the very specific details aren’t terribly relevant.  No one is saying that ASoIaF and LotR/H are identical, just that they are very similar.  Sure, with an in-depth, detailed knowledge of both, you’re able to find nuanced differences.  And, without reading ASoIaF, I could have already told you that it would be more character driven than plot driven (I’ve read other of Martin’s work).  I could also tell you that Martin’s not going to spend page after page describing the sun coming up like Tolkien would.

You’re focused on the nuances of the differences between the styles—which isn’t pertinent to the discussion of the generic fantasy genre.  If Martin wrote a book set in Heavy Gear, I’d probably jump on that with both feet.  Why?  Because I like the setting.  Setting it in a fantasy world . . . meh, I’ll be over here playing with my little robots.

Our friend Kait doesn’t like mecha games.  It doesn’t matter if it’s BattleTech, CthulhuTech, Gundam, Heavy Gear, or Robotech.  She doesn’t like them.  It doesn’t matter how it is dressed up or how it is presented, she doesn’t like them.  Each one of those setting is fundamentally different from the others.  The two closest are BattleTech and Heavy Gear, which are about as similar as ASoIaF and LotR/H (though reversed, Heavy Gear is much more character driven then BattleTech).  Hell, you could pick two Gundam series and they might be less similar than BattleTech and Heavy Gear (Kim warns against picking Gundam Reconguista in G as, apparently, it was fucking terrible).  But, you could also pick some Gundam that is shockingly similar to both BattleTech and Heavy Gear (I’m looking at you 8th MS).

GOT is about as fantasy as it is a zombie genre.  The elements are there.  It's not sitting firmly in that pocket though.  I'd contend it's more at home in historical fiction, alt-history, and such, despite the fact that it's not Earth.  And there is magic. And dragons.  And even with the obvious parallels to the War of the Roses, there's a lot of Renaissance Italy in there too.
(comment from Kim:  It's TL3.  It has Magic and Dragons.  It's alternate history.  Congratulations, you just defined "Fantasy.")

You are the only person I’ve met who thinks that.  It is astoundingly Fantasy.  It is comfortably Fantasy.  It is first and foremost Fantasy.  There really is no other way to describe it.  If you left the Fantasy description off, most people would be put off by that.  It is primarily Fantasy from every perspective. 

Wikipedia describes it as “. . . a series of epic fantasy novels . . .”.
Google even uses the Wikipedia article when you search for it.  It also defines it as “Genres:  High fantasy”.
Amazon describes it as “. . . in many ways, the gold standard for modern epic fantasy.”
Barns and Noble says “From a master of contemporary fantasy comes the first novel of a landmark series unlike any you’ve ever read before.”

Please, show me as widely an accepted description of the series that defines it as not fantasy.
Logged
Gold & Appel Inc
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1743



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2015, 06:37:03 AM »

So, have you seen Tantric's Ubuntu thread at the big forum, Bill? No link, sorry, but it's an African-themed fantasy setting that this guy's been working on for years. Also, several of the collaborative fantasy setting creation games go right off the rails you dislike very quickly, including the one where I defined the geography as Laurasia and Gondwana in the second or third post because whiskey.

People do think about fantasy outside the Western Medieval box, but thinking within that box is incredibly popular, especially in but not limited to Western society (offhand I can think of Fullmetal Alchemist, Neon Genesis Evangelion, and Record of Lodoss War incorporating strongly western fantasy elements into anime just cause some guy in Japan thought it looked exotic and/or cool). Tolkien arguably didn't cause that, rather than play into it because he enjoyed it himself, and even if he did in some way cause it, he did it by writing some books that a shitload of diverse and, in many cases, creative people enjoyed (spawning everything from Bored of the Rings to Happy Hobbits), not by donning a ring of power and tyrannically bending people to his will.

Other styles of fantasy have the potential to become more popular, if quality material that resonates with a wide audience is produced for them. Why attempt to shout down the concept of fantasy in general rather than promote Asian-style fantasy if that's what you really want?
« Last Edit: September 26, 2015, 09:03:52 AM by Gold & Appel Inc » Logged

Player | GM | Masochistic Setting-Adapter | Kallisti | Level 5 Cleric of the Cult of Stat Normalization - Stats For The Stat God! BELLS FOR THE BELL CURVE!
Bill
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 759


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2015, 09:58:11 AM »

Not much time right now.
Important note:  Record of Lodoss War was actually a D&D campaign that the producers played in and turned into Anime.  Much like Wild Cards was an RPG that got turned into novels.
Logged
Gold & Appel Inc
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1743



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2015, 11:24:11 AM »

Not to be snarky, but I knew that, and did not personally find it important enough to note in this specific context. Western inspiration is Western? No shocks here.
Logged

Player | GM | Masochistic Setting-Adapter | Kallisti | Level 5 Cleric of the Cult of Stat Normalization - Stats For The Stat God! BELLS FOR THE BELL CURVE!
Christopher
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 665


Resistance is worthwhile.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 26, 2015, 04:29:52 PM »

You seem to be responding to a well reasoned and detail supported argument with logical fallacies.  A polling of people, especially ones that can't be cross examined, is irrelevant.

The differences are not minor and they are not in the details either.  The similarities are all superficial.  The two series are vastly different on the fundamental levels.  It's only in some window dressing that they are similar.

They are not significantly similar. Setting is not plot. It's not characterization. It's not mood or tone or message either.

I'd say that ASOIAF owes much more to Dune than it does LOTR.  It owes more to historical fiction than it does to LOTR as well.

The differences are hardly nuanced.  Nuance would be a better term for LOTR knock off works like Sword of Shannara or the Drizzit books, etc.  Elves, Dwarves, Magic, Wizards, Quests, Orcs and Goblins and Trolls and Antrhopomorphized genius Dragons and their fortunes.  Races, most of them homogeneous.

LOTR:GOT::STAR TREK:BSG/Traveler/Dune/40k

Space might be the setting, but the content and the message and really the genre is very different.

The TECH LEVEL might be roughly medieval in LOTR but he leaves out so much of the actual social, economic, and political content of that era that calling it medieval doesn't mean a whole lot on all those axes.

GOT/AS... is not lacking in the Social-Political-Economic-Religious aspects of that era and others.  LOTR is lacking majorly in these areas.  There's very little political drama at all.  There's little economy.  Where's the Church?  In many ways it's like Star Wars or Star Trek where everything is in its own place, very distant, and rather uniform inside those bubbles.

There's no Roman city states, no Holy Roman Empire, where feudalism is bumping up against itself and conflict is close to home.

GRRM builds an expansive world in size but he takes us right to the fringes of these kingdoms where the action happens and King's Landing and the characters of Little Finger and Varys take us places JRRT never did.

DnD is a model of LOTR. To model ASOIAF the game would be more like Diplomacy.  It's not really about details at all, it's big picture stuff.


Logged

Bill
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 759


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: September 28, 2015, 03:50:21 PM »

Matt,

I wasn’t sure if you knew that about Record of Lodoss War.  It wasn’t an argument, just a trivia fact that people might find interesting.

And, in general, I don’t go around “shouting down” Fantasy, unless I’m asked.  Usually, I simply state “No sir, I don’t like it.”  It’s not until someone starts proselytizing at me that I don my colander and eye patch and go off on them.  This thread was, originally, supposed to be more funny and ironic and less a debate about Fantasy—specifically my tastes.

Christopher, your logic is false as well.  It is not as well-reasoned as you might think, since you are attempting to convince me that details will change the fact that the setting is Fantasy. 

As for someone to cross-examine, you can talk with Martin (creepy Uncle Karl, not GRR) as he's one of the two people I know who read the book (and aren't really on the fora.  Matt could probably get hold of him if necessary).  And, if I remember correctly, Tom doesn't like Giant Robot games either.  So, there's someone else.

However, most scientific studies don't bother allowing a cross-examination of their subjects.  It is assumed, in the peer-review process, that other experimenters will go out and conduct their own experiments.

It is not “window dressing” in their similarity, it is in the core setting.  That’s a fundamental part of the book and the argument.  Sure, the entire book could be re-written to be set in the 31st Century of the Inner Sphere, but it wasn’t.  It was written in an Epic Fantasy world (like it or not, you have still not proven a single whit that this is anything other than a died-in-the-wool fantasy setting).  One of those I would find interesting, and the other I find boring.

The details are irrelevant—they don’t make it Fantasy or non-Fantasy.  You can believe that it isn’t fantasy, but, evidence (as pointed out above, easily searchable on the internet) points that it is fantasy.  While all the details are different, it’s the same, comfortable fantasy that Tolkien set out (see below).  Sure, it’s different, but that’s not the argument.  The argument is that it’s in the same vein as Tolkien-esque fantasy.  It is classified as “High Fantasy” which is the same genre classification as Tolkien.

The setting is what this discussion is about, not the message.  A good author could tell any message in any setting.  The setting is fantasy, and, as this is about me (being as I’m the subject of the thread), I do not find it interesting.  The details of the setting do not matter to me because the basic setting is, as far as I’m concerned, boring and done to death.  Minor details (and, compared to the overwhelming fantasy details, is what you’re arguing) simply don’t matter.

Nuance is the correct word.  It is the details that separate the two works, many subtle, some not so subtle.

Trying to convince me that the minor details will overcome my strong distaste for the setting is an overwhelmingly uphill battle.  Especially since it is the major details of the setting I strongly dislike.

As I’ve said, if Martin had written the stories in a setting I cared about, I’d probably read them.  But, he didn’t, so I don’t.  The setting is Fantasy.  All your arguments can’t change a basic fact.

I know Martin is a better author than Tolkien (anyone who reads and isn’t a Tolkien fanatic should already know that).  That’s not what is being discussed.  By focusing on the subtle details that separate their styles and stories, you’re missing the point.  I’m not saying he didn’t take inspiration from other sources.  I know Martin and Tolkien aren’t telling the same story, and that their worlds and approaches are different.  However, the issue remains that they’re close enough for me to find them completely disinteresting for precisely the same reasons.

Is it set before an industrial revolution?  Yes.
Is it set in a feudal society?  Yes.
Is it a European feudal system?  Yes.
Is there magic?  Yes.

That’s pretty much a cookie-cutter definition of “Fantasy.”  A lot of fantasy owes a lot to Historical Fiction.  A lot of the little details you seem to be focused on doesn’t dictate the genre.  Does political intrigue change the genre?  Not if the primary genre is “Fantasy.”  If it were set in a non-fantasy setting, it would be lumped in with Political Thrillers.  But, since its primary genre is “Fantasy” it gets to sit in Fantasy.  Heavy Gear is a Political Intrigue/Military story.  Does it get to sit in either the Political Thriller or Military section?  Nope, it’s Sci-Fi, so it gets to sit there in Sci-Fi/Fantasy.  Guess what?  That’s where ASoIaF is as well.

The lack of Rome/Holy Roman Empire should make a huge difference in the layout and political geography of the world, yet, here we are with feudal systems based on the collapse of Rome, in two worlds without a Rome.  And yet, you’re trying to convince me that Martin’s makes more sense than Tolkien’s.  I’m trying to explain that neither makes any sense.  This is a core tenant of my issues with Fantasy, especially when someone does or does not follow Tolkien: why didn’t they come up with their own feudal system?  Either because everyone accepts the Medieval system or because The Simpsons . . . er . . . Tolkien did it.  So, if Martin put so much work into his world . . . why didn’t he come up with a different feudal system for it?  Why emulate the Medieval Feudalism from Earth?  After the fall of Rome, which is a city that never existed on his world?

Most well-written worlds would model more like Diplomacy than D&D.  That’s completely irrelevant to the discussion.  It’s also irrelevant because a highly-skilled GM could run a political intrigue game within D&D.

Your argument comes from the angle that because Martin wrote a better story than Tolkien, it should be judged on those merits alone.  That is false logic.  There is no debate that ASoIaF is better than LotR/H (at least not here).  The quality of the story also doesn’t change it from Fantasy to another genre.

The issue is that the two worlds are outwardly extremely similar (see the four-point definition above).  Similar enough to lump them both together.  It requires an analysis of the details to separate the two.  However, that requires a desire to do so—which is a desire I completely lack as the basic, over-reaching setting is Epic Fantasy, and I don’t find that interesting.

To me, they’re close enough to turn me off.  Little details, still within the Fantasy setting, will not change this.  Hell, I’m a pervert and even the “gratuitous” (apparently hilarious) sex in the novels wasn’t enough to make me care.  So, political intrigue . . . no chance.

You’re passionate about the books.  Good.  Enjoy them.  I don’t.  And, convincing me that I would will require a significant “improvement” in the setting . . . not something I can see Martin doing for the last two books.
Logged
Christopher
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 665


Resistance is worthwhile.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 28, 2015, 05:53:19 PM »

> It's TL3.  It has Magic and Dragons.  It's alternate history.  Congratulations, you just defined "Fantasy."

Erm, I didn't say it wasn't Fantasy.  And it seems that you're entirely focused not on substance but merely on setting and superficial labels we might apply based on the shallowest of criteria.

The gestalt of LOTR is in a very different place than ASOIAF.  Even the superficial make-up of "fantasy" tropes is handled very differently between the two.  The dragons of ASOIAF have little in common with the singular dragon of the Hobbit.  The dragons in ASOIAF are essentially a mount and a weapon, an evolution of cavalry from a horse to a helicopter.  Smaug is actually an actualized and elevated character.  Magic is also rather different.  Sex. Politics. The economy.  The cast. Races.  The concept of good and evil.

If this is merely a minimum criteria to slap on some label, whatever, how pointless is that?  Lazy Town and Black Sails and Treasure Island and Pirates of the Caribbean and Hook all belong in the same box --- because pirates.  Star Trek, Dune, Fifth Element, Hitchhiker's Guide, Aliens, and Event Horizon -- because space.  Men in Tights and Kingdom of Heaven -- because Crusades?  Friends and Melrose Place because apartments.

Is Star Trek a slight change on the submarine genre or on the fantasy genre?  Because a simple find/replace ocean for space or Klingon for Orc and Vulcan for Elf can produce much the same meat.  Is Shai-hulud or the Xenomorph just a dragon ... in spaaaaaaace?

LOTR and ASOIAF are both fantasy if we just want to slap a label. This doesn't make them substantially -- in their substance -- similar.  It would be trivial to show that ASOIAF clusters closer with other works outside the fantasy genre than with LOTR, for all the above reasons.  Sure, within the Fantasy bubble on the Venn diagram, but closer to the works I mentioned above (like the Borgias) than with LOTR based on objective metrics.  These two concepts are not mutually exclusive or contradictory.

Just because we can apply a label or a keyword doesn't mean that the work is closer to other works which lack that keyword than ones that do.
Logged

Bill
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 759


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: September 28, 2015, 09:19:31 PM »

Actually, Christopher, you did.  Or you strongly implied it:
GOT is about as fantasy as it is a zombie genre. 

Being as it’s not in the zombie genre . . . you’re saying it’s not fantasy either.

You are, however, correct in that I am not focused on the substance—I’ve finally gotten that through to you.  Because to get to the substance you have to first attract an audience, and you do that with broad strokes of the brush, not details.  These broad strokes are in a setting I don’t care about:  Fantasy.  The fundamental basics of the book are a subject I do not care about.

The individual intricacies of the story are not that important to me when the setting looms so large.  The setting in ASoIaF, overwhelmingly, is fantasy.  One only needs to simply search the internet about it to find that fact.  The individual matters that ASoIaF is politically motivated as opposed to LotR/H’s GvE bias is, fundamentally irrelevant.  It only matters if you’re looking for a fantasy story about politics or good vs evil.

I’m not looking for a fantasy story, therefore, the details are irrelevant.  If I cared about the fantasy setting, I would be much more interested in ASoIaF.

Your difficulty with labels is amusing, but merely a symptom of the problem:  Fantasy doesn’t really have sub-genres.  Sure you have Low Fantasy (more like Conan) and High Fantasy’s (ASoIaF/LotR/H), but really they don’t break it down any further like almost every other genre.  There hasn’t been enough diversification in Fantasy, and ASoIaF shows that.  In broad strokes it does look like Tolkien.  There’s nothing at first glance to distance the two.  Which is great for selling ASoIaF to fantasy fans, but not for bringing in new audiences.

Wanting to whine about disliking labels and take an ad Absurdum angle towards them doesn’t help.  Genres exist for a reason.  And, though you try to downplay it, ASoIaF and LotR/H are firmly in the Fantasy genre.  No other existing genre can adequately cover what they are.  Putting them in any other genre will upset the people who are not looking for a Fantasy book when they read it.  You are welcome to call it whatever you like, but the literary world defines ASoIaF as Fantasy.

If we compare Star Wars to (original) BSG, in broad strokes, they look alike.  There are differences, to be sure, in fact, more differences than similarities (just like you enjoy pointing out between ASoIaF and LotR/H), but they appear to be the same.  But Star Wars is a small part of the Sci-Fi landscape.  If we compare Star Wars and Neuromancer, they are vastly different, significantly more so than ASoIaF is from LotR/H.  Arguably, different, established genres, one is Space Opera Sci-Fi and the other is Cyberpunk Sci-Fi.  Those genres are so well established that one doesn’t need to call them sci-fi—it’s actually understood by most that they are sci-fi.  Compare Star Trek with Judge Dredd, still very different.  Hell, if we compare BSG to itself, the two series don’t appear to be related at all.  So, you see, other labels exist for various settings which prevents them from being lumped together . . . but for Fantasy, there is really only one:  Fantasy.

While a good story should be able to be told in any setting the choice of setting influences the tone of the story.  The setting is as important as any other part because it sets up expectations.  It is a character in the story in its own right.

Balance of Terror, from the original Star Trek, is a submarine episode.  The creators have always said so.  They tried to do Star Trek as a full-time submarine show, it was called Seaquest DSV and it was awful.  Original Star Trek is closer to an old style western than to a submarine show.  But, it’s neither a western nor is it a military show: It’s Star Trek.  And it’s Sci-Fi (and some places consider Star Trek its own genre).

H2G2, Men in Tights and you forgot Spaceballs because Satire.  Friends and Melrose Place because dumb.  While I could see Shai-Hulud being a dragon, a xenomorph is more a demon.
Logged
Bill
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 759


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: September 28, 2015, 09:47:03 PM »

Let me try to explain this a different way—with a story:

My father hated Fords.  White-hot fiery passion.  Hated Fords.  Full stop.

One year, while I’m living with them, he decides to buy an RV for vacations.  Finds the perfect RV and goes to purchase it.  As we’re there, getting the run through (I was videotaping this—it’s that long ago), the sales person has me sit down and start it up to show me how the hydraulic jacks work.  I see something and ask a simple question:  “If this is a Chevy, why does the steering wheel have a Ford emblem?”

My father did a 180 right then.  It was a Ford and he wasn’t interested in it anymore.  That fast.  That was a deal-breaker for him.  Now, my mother and I spent about an hour convincing him that he really did want it because it had everything else he had wanted.  Everything:  Engine displacment.  Generator.  Dual AC units.  Satellite Mount.  Rear-view camera.  Hydraulic jacks.  Automatic awnings.  Reconfigurable master bedroom.  Electric/Propane appliances.  This was the mid ‘90s so, none of those were standard, and it was unheard of at the price we were getting for this RV.  In the end, he bought it and only had two complaints about it all the years they owned it:

1.   Changing the oil was a pain in the ass.
2.   It never had any other problems.

My father sold that RV only about a year before he passed away.  But, right then, when he found out it was a Ford, he was ready to walk away from it.

Fantasy is my Ford.  Just being Fantasy is enough to turn me off.  It really has to have everything else I want before I’ll consider it.
Logged
Christopher
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 665


Resistance is worthwhile.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 29, 2015, 01:37:11 PM »

> since you are attempting to convince me that details will change the fact that the setting is Fantasy. 

But I'm not.  [ Substantially different than LOTR ] does not mean [ not fantasy ].

I'm not even trying to convince you to like GOT/ASO... if you don't like LOTR.  Rather my limited point is that there is actually quite a wide difference between them.

If your aversion is superficial, fine.  It's rather like trying to convince Matt to like both Mexican and Thai food that uses Cilantro. The rest of the dishes can be widely different but the mere inclusion of that one ingredient is enough to taint the entire thing.  Fair enough.  But I'd still say, even in that case, that Mexican and Thai don't need to be substantially the same.

This gets back to my point about over arching labels and detailed reasons.  It's rather the common element of assessments we'd otherwise call racist or sexist or bigoted... namely the writing off of rather large groups without clarifying the actual elements that are offensive.  This, in turn, makes people overly defensive and then the argument shifts to superfluous details.  Consider how much banter over racism isn't actually about skin color or physical or even genetic clusters but rather political affiliation and culture.   Someone who is politically aligned with say Thomas Sowell and against Barack Obama would still get called "racist" when their dislike of one and like of the other is actually race independent.

My take on your view was seeing hatred toward fantasy that wasn't being linked to details, just a broad hatred or dislike or whatever in general.  You're welcome to hate the entire genre or anything that borrows elements from it in part.  Arguing tastes is rather pointless.  Arguing with details over why those tastes are the way they are is interesting however.  So should Matt say he hates Mexican and Thai, meh, not much to do there.  Should we get to the reasons, my love of Mexican and Thai would be much less challenged on the discovery that that we can't even have the same experience when eating the same food.  His actually tastes substantially different.  Should we remove Cilantro, we'd find that we do actually enjoy the same flavor profiles otherwise.

Thus when you lumped LOTR and ASOIAF, I countered because the lumping rings false across the weighted metrics I would use to judge the two. 

And at this point we've gone meta.  But I understand your aversion better.  The smell of fantasy elements is enough to put you off the dish.  Can't argue with that.
Logged

Bill
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 759


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: September 29, 2015, 03:31:10 PM »

The smell of fantasy elements is enough to put you off the dish.  Can't argue with that.
In a nutshell, yes. 

You were looking for a different discussion than the one I was bringing.
Logged
Gold & Appel Inc
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1743



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: September 30, 2015, 06:06:09 PM »

If I may extend the Ford metaphor to my original question:

I'm unclear why you say you dislike Fords, when I see you using after market Ford parts almost every time you're working on a Chevy or Dodge, and you rolled up to this thread in a vintage Model T. ;]
« Last Edit: October 01, 2015, 02:19:15 AM by Gold & Appel Inc » Logged

Player | GM | Masochistic Setting-Adapter | Kallisti | Level 5 Cleric of the Cult of Stat Normalization - Stats For The Stat God! BELLS FOR THE BELL CURVE!
Bill
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 759


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: October 08, 2015, 09:48:49 PM »

I missed your reply, sorry.

Basically, I don't steal a lot from fantasy.  ICBINE is an exception, but, it's a small part of the pie.  There's plenty of other bits that are in there that haven't been touched yet.  And, honestly, a lot of the bits for ICBINE are stolen from other games and utilized as they best fit.

Beyond that . . . I'd need some examples to analyze.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Free SMF Theme by Tamuril. 2008.