Subtle Fantasy

[Dauntless]

One of the great things about the Lord of the Rings trilogy was that magic was subdued, and at least in the third age, creatures of great power (dragons, balrogs and other Morgoth lieutenants) were few and far inbetween. I happen to think this is a HUGE reason why the movies ignited the fancy of mainstream audiences....precisely because Gandalf and Saruman weren't throwing fireballs at each other, or levitating off the ground or doing other Harry Potteresque things. Also, while major characters were extremely capable, you didn't see them doing impossible things (well, except for Legolas, but I guess if you're an immortal you have a lot of time to practice skills) even with incredibly powerful weapons. Even Narsil, Glamdring and Sting didn't do much other than glow, and the most powerful magical item of them all could only make you invisible.

 

I always loved the game HarnMaster which is a fantasy game that's very medieval in its feel with limited magic and non-human races. I found this to be a refreshing change of pace from the typical AD&D monster bashing +5 Vorpal sword slashing campaigns. Another game that I enjoyed immensely was the first 3 editions of Ars Magica which was set in Mythic Europe (it followed Europe's history through the 13th century....but the legends and myths about wizards, faeries, demons, and other supernatural creatures were real). In Ars Magica you had the realism of history backing you up...but with the inclusion of Mages and the occasional supernatural creature. Magic in this world however was not very spontaneous, and only the best mages could do improptu ad-libbed magic so they needed protection through warrriors (or Grogs and Companions as they were called).

 

High Fantasy has never appealed to me that much, at least in the manner that it is usually done. Looking at Middle Earth's First Age, it was most definitely High Fantasy, with the Vanir gods walking the Earth (although technically I suppose the wizards could be counted as demi-gods in the 3rd age), Morgoth's armies made up of legions of Balrogs and Dragons, and entire continents being destroyed and mountain ranges being created (even in the 2nd age when Ancalagon was slain, his death created an entire mountain range when his body plummeted to earth). Somehow, this age just doesn't intrigue me as much as the 2nd or 3rd ages however.

 

How many other people prefer low fantasy as compared to high fantasy?

[Old Man]

I definitely prefer low, gritty fantasy, though I can't think of a specific reason why. Maybe it's because high fantasy is extremely difficult to write well--the only example that really springs to mind is Elric, and even that series 'feels' gritty. Or maybe it's because I relate better to people instead of superheroes. Certainly my favoritest books and films are low fantasy--Game of Thrones, Wizard of Earthsea, Conan, Fafhrd.

 

On a tangential rant, why is it that practically every magical duel in Hollywood comes down to telekinesis? LotR:FotR, Willow, Episode II, Conan the Destroyer, Harry Potter ("Expelliarmus!")...

[Markdoc]

I definately prefer "gritty fantasy" - which is strange-ish, since my fantasy world has magical artifacts of great power, flying castles, dragons, etc.

 

But the approach is exactly that of the Elric novels: big powers and human-sized characters. As Elric and Corum show a character can be excessively powerful, but still feel "gritty" because of the issues he deals with. OK, Elric talks to gods and ancient elementals - but he walks to the next town, has to worry about where his next meal is coming from (or at least his companions do). He can make a huge difference in battle, but he doesn't always have the option of raining firey death on his enemies, like a DnD mage/orbital weapons system.

 

I think that's where the "gritty" comes in. One of the nice things about Hero is the way it handles "low magic" settings - which in this case I use to mean settings where the PLAYERS have low magic. We have tried this with DnD and it never really worked well: 3e is a bit better in this regard, but it is still kludgy.

 

As for the telekinetic duels, I agree. What's with that? Enough, already. The Saruman/Gandalf punch-up was one of the low points of the films so far. Although at least Saruman didn't hiss "Hah! Your kung fu is too weak!"

 

cheers, Mark

[Talon]

Big low fantasy fan here. In my home-grown FH campaign, I vacillate between whether or not PCs can be mages...but in any event, it's made clear that mages are point for point weaker than other characters.

[AnotherSkip]

Ha Your magic is too weak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I think the whole thing has to do with the medium.

 

the Movies are a visual medium, therefor what better way to show magic than with "not being able to see it". I supose from the long line of movies with "magical" elements (ranging from the Topper ghost movies of the 50's, or was it 30s? ehh...) have directly shown us what is capable with movie magic. Sadly the people think that magic must be invisible since technology is visible.............

[Vondy]

I am a huge low fantasy fan.

 

My campaign is centered on a late bronze age to early iron age planet (moon, actually, but that's another issue) and has subtle magic based on "riding the dream". It can be very powerful, but it has limited combat applications (it generally takes to long to enter the lucid dream) and little in the way of high-fantasy flash-bang effect.

 

Its also more expensive than other skills so playing a mage means you won't progress as fast as other archetypes, and becoming powerful generally means forgoing breadth. Its just more cost effective to be something else. Its also less of a pain in the tuches because most cultures take people with the potential and indoctrinate them into societies/cults that cultivate the skill (so there's usually social baggage).

 

There are monsters and the supernatural (esp. the demons from beyond the veil of dreams who manifest in the waking world), but they are their for dash and story, not for everyday fodder.

 

I don't know how gritty it is, though. People do get killed, but I tend to favor cinematic action and use a system that has built in mechanics for script immunity, die rolling conventions that favor characters with more important roles to play (PCs, Major Henchmen, Arch-Villains) over the extras (goons, peasants, etc), and the like.

 

I've never really used Hero for fantasy very much, but I may give it a try.

[JohnTaber]

I ran essentially all of my FH games in Harn but I did add a bit more magic...but just a bit. I also creatd some Magic system guidelines which help enforce this...some that come to mind include...

+ Min amount of real points spent on Magic.

+ Forcing Magic Rolls.

+ Doubling the END Cost as a default.

+ Carefully restricting the Active Points of spells.

[Dauntless]

I would love to do an asian fantasy setting (either China during the Warring Kingdoms or even earlier in the Song dynasty with some low fantasy elements, or maybe in feudal Japan) but I think most people's conception of asian fantasy is stuff like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, or Storm Riders, or The Zu Warriors. Unfortunately, I'm not too big a fan of high flying/leaping, blades emanating forces style of fantasy either.

 

But if you look at most asian myths, their monsters are actually very subtle and most often take human forms for most of their time interacting with humans. Even asian dragons for all their power were extremely reluctant to use it. And magic in eastern cultures is usually based on alchemy or Feng Shui manipulation of heavenly chi....so there's very little in the way of spectacular magic effects.

 

It's unfortunate that the more modern asian fantasy has taken on Dragonball Z-like effects and powers. I think that fantasy is like a drug....in sufficient quantities it can be beneficial, but in higher and higher doses not only do you build up an immunity to it, you may also get addicted to it. That's just my take on it, and people are of course free to enjoy whatever they like. But I hope that the majority of fantasy supplements that come out are set in low fantasy settings.

[Killer Shrike]

I like high, medium, and low fantasy when done right, but I must admit that I prefer mid-high; i.e., medium fantasy with the potential for high magic.

 

My favorite Fantasy authors are Raymond E Fiest, David Gemmel, and Dave Duncan. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/GGMLODRZ84BV/ref=cm_aya_av.lm_more/103-4376451-8460637

 

So, I prefer a grittier group of protagonists, magic that has some cost involved, and such like, but the capacity for some pretty powerful effects on a occasion when I read fantasy.

 

However, when I play fantasy I tend towards wizards/spellcasters, and I like to have a measurable capacity of power in-game. Within the context of a RPG, I just find that to be more fun.

[AlHazred]

I've run two cycles of a really successful Harn Hero game for several years now (the GMs in my group trade off so no one gets stale).

 

I think it's telling that every success seems to mean more when there's a great deal of challenge.

[Dr Rotwang!]

I flip-flop. If want a high fantasy campaign, I'll design one; if I want gritty low-fantasy, that's what I'll do.

 

That said, my players and I had a lot of fun with a campaign that I started and never finished (typical!) where they were the descendats of the survivors of a magical catastrophe and blah blah blah, and were the first daring explorers to go out into the wild and find out what was left some 3 generations after the kaboom.

 

Result? No danged +5 swords lying around, no elves in every tavern...nothing but ruins. Finding a rusty knife was A Huge Deal because they'd forgotten steel!

 

And when they met some goblins, they had no idea what they were, so they weren't sure how to deal with 'em...or even what to call 'em ("gakkins", they decided).

 

It became a game of the re-discovery of the fantastic, rather than a game of jumping into a pool full of wands of wonder and splashing around.

 

No, no, that's another campaign.

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by Dr Rotwang!

That said, my players and I had a lot of fun with a campaign that I started and never finished (typical!) where they were the descendats of the survivors of a magical catastrophe and blah blah blah, and were the first daring explorers to go out into the wild and find out what was left some 3 generations after the kaboom.

 

w00t! Magical Gamma World!

[Dr Rotwang!]

Yeah, kind of. I sort of put Gamma World (unknowingly), Earthdawn and the art design of Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring in a blender.

 

It was fun. I've had requests to do it again.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Dr Rotwang!

I flip-flop. If want a high fantasy campaign, I'll design one; if I want gritty low-fantasy, that's what I'll do.

 

That said, my players and I had a lot of fun with a campaign that I started and never finished (typical!) where they were the descendats of the survivors of a magical catastrophe and blah blah blah, and were the first daring explorers to go out into the wild and find out what was left some 3 generations after the kaboom.

 

Result? No danged +5 swords lying around, no elves in every tavern...nothing but ruins. Finding a rusty knife was A Huge Deal because they'd forgotten steel!

 

And when they met some goblins, they had no idea what they were, so they weren't sure how to deal with 'em...or even what to call 'em ("gakkins", they decided).

 

It became a game of the re-discovery of the fantastic, rather than a game of jumping into a pool full of wands of wonder and splashing around.

 

No, no, that's another campaign.

Hrm....very intriguing. Kind of like Canticle for Leibowitz. You do to Gamma World what Shadowrun did to Cyberpunk.......

 

That one gets added into ye old Idea Blender.

 

Thanx Rotwang! (Now thats a phrase I NEVER expected to type )

[Markdoc]

>>>I flip-flop. If want a high fantasy campaign, I'll design one; if I want gritty low-fantasy, that's what I'll do.<<<

 

Something I have had fun with is running games at different levels in the same fantasy game world: from games where most of the action revolved around sheep-stealing (famous quote: "I want a sword too! Why does he always get the sword, just because he's the oldest!")

 

through mid-range games where the players were covert troubleshooters ("If you are discovered, the council will of course deny any knowledge of you existence") involved in the middle levels of political and magical intrigue..

 

through to a game where the players were some of the powers that move things behind the scenes: immortals who interacted with other immortals, kings and high priests ("What are you doing?" "I'm starting a religion. I figure if we help it out, it could be useful powerbase in a couple of centuries.")

 

All good fun, although I have to admit my heart lies in the games played at lower points levels.

 

cheers, Mark

[Dr Rotwang!]

So Killer Shrike sez to me, he sez:

Thanx Rotwang! (Now thats a phrase I NEVER expected to type )

 

Why? You think I'm USELESS? You think I'm NO HELP?! That's it, sucka, you wanna FIGHT?! Three o'clock! Right after school! At the flagpole! You're dead mea-

 

...

 

...oh, it's the name. Oh! Naaah, dude, "Rotwang" means, like, 'Rosy Cheeks' in German, and this particular Rotwang was the mad scietist in Metropolis. But I can see where you're coming from.

 

Then Markdoc, he's all, like,

Something I have had fun with is running games at different levels in the same fantasy game world: from games where most of the action revolved around sheep-stealing ...through mid-range games where the players were covert troubleshooters ...through to a game where the players were some of the powers that move things behind the scenes: immortals who interacted with other immortals, kings and high priests.

 

Yeah, I wanted to do this, too, but never got around to it. Obviously, I think it's a great idea, or else I'd never have agreed with it.

 

Dude, you must be a genius!

[Shaddakim]

Originally posted by Markdoc

As for the telekinetic duels, I agree. What's with that? Enough, already. The Saruman/Gandalf punch-up was one of the low points of the films so far. Although at least Saruman didn't hiss "Hah! Your kung fu is too weak!"

 

cheers, Mark

 

Hahahahahahaha!

Actually, I would pay good money to see that. Hah!

 

 

But to answer Old Man's point, I think it is because TK fight scenes are easier and (more importantly) cheaper to film, yet still say "this is a fight between Wizards, not sumo wrestlers".

 

In my more cynical moments, I also think it is because they don't have the ability to visualize anything better.

[Old Man]

We have a winner!

 

Compounding the overuse of TK is the overuse of SF actors. When MagnetoGandalf whips out his TK skillz against SarumanDooku, I mean, am I supposed to be impressed? As if I haven't seen this before? The presence of Agent Elrond doesn't help.

[Shaddakim]

My games tend to run a little magic heavy in a technology sort of way - there is a good deal of magic doing things technology does in the real world (lightstones, fresh water supply, etc.) but not weaponry. The players characters, however, start out with a silver piece per professional skill, 3 kg of armor spread out however they want, and some basic gear. Sort of like getting out of college...

 

At that point, I show them the world, provide them some options, and ask them what they do next. I favor the "provide the playground and see which playgound equipment they want to play with" school of GMing. It means a little more work for me as I have to have several things ready initially, but after that I have some idea of where they want to go and provide adventures that go there. Seems to work so far (5+ years playing once a month in the same campaign).

 

I favor starting points at 50+50 or 75+50. I am much more interested in seeing beginning heroes grow and make their name in the world than starting high and going higher.

[Rene]

Cool thread!

 

High or low fantasy?

 

Really, I can go either way. Both styles can be rewarding, and both styles can be handled poorly.

 

I always loathed Tolkien, but my favorite fantasy series of all time is VERY low fantasy and really subtle in the use of magic: "A Song of Ice and Fire". Plus, it almost totally lacks flashy non-human races and monsters. Real low-key stuff.

 

OTOH, I also LOVE the "Malazan Book of the Fallen" series, with all it's gods, superhumans, demons, and earth-shattering mages. Another high-power fantasy series I like is Roger Zelazny's "Chronicles of Amber".

 

Ultimately, it's the characters's emotions that make a story for me, not the character's power totals. I also require a fast-pacing, suspenseful, character-driven story, both in fiction and in RPG. And I think that bears no direct relation to the character's point total or the presence or absence of powerful magic.

[Herolover]

I guess I like low Fantasy.

 

My problems with high level games whether it be high fantasy, supers, or some other form is that the powers and abilities of the characters outshine the characters themselve.

 

The players end up being more concerned with their abilites and using them and don't set and plan things out as much. (At least that is what I feel.)

 

In my current fantasy champaign magic is around, but it isn't very common and most effects seen by the players and the populas of the world see small simple spells.

 

The one thing I have noticed lately is how much D&D has effected what people think of as fantasy especially in the ways of RPG. It seems all people want are magic items and bigger magic spells. It really gets to be a headache.

[Rene]

"My problems with high level games whether it be high fantasy, supers, or some other form is that the powers and abilities of the characters outshine the characters themselve."

 

"The players end up being more concerned with their abilites and using them and don't set and plan things out as much. (At least that is what I feel.)"

 

 

Though that is a real problem, I don't think it's a problem with the high-power genres. It's a problem with some players.

 

You know, several low-power games I encountered suffered a similar problem to the one you mentioned. But in them, it's not the powers that outshined the characters themselves. It's the need for survival that outshined all the rest.

 

I've played in terminally low-points games where EVERY fiber of your being must concentrate on tactics and planning, leaving no room for role-playing, and even characters whose backgrounds suggest they're happy-go-lucky daredevils quickly had to act as cautious tacticians if they hoped to survive. Heroic knights who swore never to retreat had to retreat all times, etc. It felt more like a war game or chess game than a story. Just like some high-power games feel like war games when the players see their characters as power lists.

 

It all depends on the players. Some people, when trusted with a lot of power, devise ways to use their powers in dramatic ways, to further illustrate their character's personalities and backgrounds. Other players, when trusted with the same lot of power, just want to kick ass and get more and more power to win the arms race with the other players.

 

In the end it's all in the players. Of course, every player and GM has that range of power they feel more confortable...

[MarkusDark]

Source material

 

A friend of mine just handed me a rulebook for a fantasy game - it is called Riddle of Steel. Oh my gods. If you want to talk about gritty, life threatening combats and low magic realms, this is it. Reading it has given me so many ideas for a FH game. If you can pick up a copy just to peruse, you might be impressed.

 

Sorry, didn't mean to 'push' another system, just that I have not seen a low fantasy game put together as well as this one. It makes combat LETHAL.

[AnotherSkip]

I have a minor concern about Steve Doing FH, most of the sample Package Deals seem to be high Fantasy.

[Dauntless]

Interesting comment on how both the ultra-realistic gritty campaigns and the high powered ultra fantasy campaigns can both lead to a style of gaming which loses focus on "role" playing.

 

I think though that the problem isn't so much all in the hands of the players but the GM as well. If a GM runs a low powered and highly realistic campaign, if he wishes to have characters play in character, then this must be done out of combat for the most part. Characters in such campaigns who choose disadvantages like "never retreat", "never decline a challenge", always stick to promises" etc must abide by the consequences of their actions. In a highly realistic and dangerous world, those kinds of psychological limitations are very limiting (and should probably be worth more points in such genres)

 

The roleplaying should come when the characters are out of combat. Making alliances, talking with "the troops" (or NPC as the case may be), experiencing the horrors of war first hand (like a child clutching at her dead parents) and other things are what drive the human aspect of games.

 

I do tend to think that high powered games tend to encourage "bean counting" and power fixation ("hey, John, is that a +5 vorpal sword you're using, or the the sword of dancing?") more than low-power despite the need for calculating every last penny in low-powered games. Why? Because in high powered games, the focus often is on the powers and not the characters. The very essence of grim and gritty genres is the very aspect of how weak and fragile human life is. In high powered games, the epic nature of such campaigns often overshadows the individual and focuses on the deed, gods, or the magical elements that drive the plot.

 

This is why LOTR is so popular, because it was high fantasy to some degree, and yet you never really saw it. And ultimately, thought the most destructive weapon in the world was an element of the story, it was about two "weak" little hobbit and how they coped with their burden to decide the fate of their world. It's very personal despite being extremely high powered (I mean Gandalf, Saruman and Sauron are for all intents and purposes gods being part of the Valar).