TheRPGSite

I preordered Monte Cook's Ptolus book, and reading about it I see that there is a huge spire around which the city is built, a spire 3000 feet tall. That's damned big.

As a long-time reader of science fiction, especially space opera, I've been accustomed to hugeness in a setting. Larry Niven is an author who really seems to get the notion that a writer of scifi (or even fantasy) can play around with truly stupendous concepts - billion-year-old aliens held in stasis, ringworlds that can have full-scale relief "maps" of planets like Earth and Mars as mere islands in an ocean, aliens that use entire planets as nurseries for their young, etc. Doc Smith had a similar penchant for the enormous; the opening of one of his books involved the collision of galaxies.

Yet fantasy fiction rarely presents such concepts. In my experience, at least. Tolkien did it a few times, especially in the Silmarillion, when battles could literally destroy entire continents. Lovecraft posited that life on Earth evolved from baterial foodstuff seeded on it by aliens who were, essentially, farming, and he presented us with beings so huge and powerful that their mere presence meant the end of life on Earth. Gene Wolfe's "Book of the New Sun" (which is really more scifi than fantasy, but whatever) shows us an entire mountain range in which each peak is carved into a statue of past monarchs. But rarely does fantasy tread on such ground (and in the last two examples, it isn't surprising to me that the setting is in the far future or involves aliens).

I wonder why this is? Scifi fans seem much more comfortable with extreme dimensions, where fantasy fans seem more comfortable with settings that have more conventional dimensions. Perhaps it's because, as modern people, we can more easily grasp the concept that technology will eventually enable us to build huge things or control enormous energies. Magic is a nebulous concept to us, in general, and seems more, for lack of a better word, personal in nature. That is, we seem to see magic as something that affects things on a smaller scale.

Thinking back on it, I can see that most of the fantasy campaign worlds I devised over the years were pretty conventional, or tame, in comparison to what I came up with for scifi campaigns. The more I think about it, the more inclined I'm becoming to create a campaign world in which cyclopean proportions are not unheard of. Canyons that literally reach down into hell, mountain peaks so high they can be used as jumping off points to the moon(s), mountains that can walk when they feel like it, flying cities, levitating oceans, civilizations millions of years old, etc. Why not have such things? It's a fantasy setting, right?

This is more of a thread about discussing the concept of enormousness in a fantasy setting than about answering a question. Any thoughts, ideas, concepts?

Interesting idea, you almost think it would be the reverse.  With SF, you have to at least give a hand wave explanation how such things as possible.  With fantasy, you really don't.  You could have a spinning mountain and no one knows why.

I've played around with dream planes and other dimensions, but I really should add more outrageous stuff to standard fantasy settings.

My long in development D&D campaign called the Sunless Sea takes place in a vast void, with chunks of land masses of various sizes drifting around an ancient city(which predates the oldest living being in the setting) controlled by the last living God of the setting. She(the god) has encased an elemental of some kind in a planet sized crystal and uses this as a sun.

She allows some chunks of land the "sun's" life nurturing rays and others she leaves in total darkness. Submit to her and your path will be illuminated...resist, and you will learn to fear the darkness.

It's a huge epic seting with strange cultures and even stranger magical technologies. Vast ships, some the size of small cities travel the Sunless Sea - ironic since I stole this idea of craftworlds from WH40k, a sci-fi setting :ponder:

Regards,
David R

For some reason the archetype of fantasy is to have a psedo-quasi-medieval setting, and assume that basic level of technology. Also to assume a relitively familiar world like ours, except there's some magic stuff going on.

I think the problem people run into designing more and more extravegently magical settings is that it gets harder and harder to explain the daily lives of the inhabitants. At some point, suspension of disbelief breaks down. But it's really a fairly arbirtary line in the sand - the introduction of any magic at all, naturally, is totally unrealistic. So where does it become just totally unbelievable? How many hands are you willing to wave, and just say "that's just the way it is"?

Quote from: Name LipsHow many hands are you willing to wave, and just say "that's just the way it is"?

Seven

Quote from: Name LipsHow many hands are you willing to wave, and just say "that's just the way it is"?

The weird thing about it is that readers are seemingly willing to accept one really big handwave in scifi - "technology can do it, eventually!" - rather than any number of handwaves in fantasy.

I don't know where the convention of "realism" in fantasy comes from - I absolutely adore the old Conan comics I used to read. Everything is just BIG. Temples, statues, machinery, monsters - everything is XXL, at the very least.

I like to be reminded - frequently - that I'm part of a fantastic setting, not reenacting the dark ages, mud, black death and all.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheI like to be reminded - frequently - that I'm part of a fantastic setting, not reenacting the dark ages, mud, black death and all.

Same here. I have tried to include such elements in my campaign world...huge ruined cities from a time when giants were the dominant advanced civilization, sprawling cities built by centaurs, etc.

Since we're on the subject, what would be the elements of a truly fantastic setting? Examples from fantasy fiction, or even scifi, would be a good source of such things.

The issue may be the inverse of Clarke's Law (which is "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishible from magic").  
 
In this case, if you scale up magic enough, it starts to become interplanitary/interplanar in scope, which looks scifi-ish.
 
Star Wars is a great example.  The tech is really window dressing, whereas the "magical" elements of the Force are pretty central to things.  I've heard several people say (correctly, IMO) that Star Wars is more fantasy than scifi.  Flash Gordon is another (somewhat cheesy) example.  Heck, even Eberron has gotten some flack for being too heavy in the magitech department and not "Troo Phantacie" (TM).  Personally, that's always been one of my gripes about Planescape -- cool as it may be, the setting just doesn't "feel right".

That's a good point, Sobek. Scaled-up fantasy looks exactly like science fiction.

I've observed already that virtually any D&D module can be converted to a sci-fi setting just by changing a few words here and there.

Maybe the problem is that we're trying to differentiate the genres at all.

Frankly, a lot of the sci-fi I've played in has been pretty damn mundane, too.  Look at Traveller -- I like the setting, but it's pretty darn tame.  Especially since most of the galaxy is pretty low tech in practice.

I think the key to truly fantastic settings is to make sure the players can keep up.  If they have no idea how their characters would fit into the setting, it's not gonna work.  They need some mundane things to tether onto.

Quote from: GunhildaFrankly, a lot of the sci-fi I've played in has been pretty damn mundane, too.  Look at Traveller -- I like the setting, but it's pretty darn tame.  Especially since most of the galaxy is pretty low tech in practice.

Traveller seemed to hint at some really big scale stuff, or really out-there concepts. In Twlight's Peak

Spoiler

there is the control room for the Ancients on one of their ancient planetary outposts that had what was basically a "point and click" weapon where you'd put a cursor over a holographic representation of an orbiting ship, take your finger off the button, and the target was just...gone.

In Signal GK

Spoiler

the PCs could discover and befriend an intelligent computer chip, and possibly use it to make their ship into a NPC follower, in effect.

Quote from: GunhildaI think the key to truly fantastic settings is to make sure the players can keep up.  If they have no idea how their characters would fit into the setting, it's not gonna work.  They need some mundane things to tether onto.

Which is fine, and not that hard to do, especially if the truly fantastic stuff is from an earlier age. But I imagine it could be done even if the campaign was set during that golden age of magic.

I think it has to do with mindset.  

We tie magic to the people in a fantasy campaign usually.  

Magic isn't considered to be infinitely scaleable by normal humans.  Technology is considered, in sci-fi, to be infinitely scaleable by normal people.
 
Magic, especially when game rules are involved, has built in limitations of scale, duration, fineness of control, etc...  Every time you remove or improve on one of those limitations your personal power increases in most settings.

Would you allow a spell caster to look back in time during the last hundred years for any and every time when the nifty relic he's searching for has surfaced in history and find out information about who had it, what it did, why/how it disappeared, etc?  

Would you consider it a zero level spell?  

You probably would in a sci-fi game.  It would be cast by putting the artifact's name in a good search engine.

Having all the information available through google at your finger tips would be considered diety level magic in the medival world that standard fantasy is in.  You are mocked if you have poor search engine skills these days.

The first thing I think you would have to do to overcome this mind set is figure out a way to make magic infinitely scaleable.  Does one mage cast one spell to do the thing you want done?  Or do hundreds of mages work together on crafting a complex spell that once perfect any group of 5-10 of them can cast in a variety of ways?  How does that change your world?


Magic is usually considered rare, even in the most high magic of worlds.  Not everyone is a wizard.  You want the feel of sci-if grandness in your fantasy world.  Assume everyone, every farmer, every goblin, every monster is a sorceror or wizard of level equal to hit dice.  A 5th level expert blacksmith is also a 5th level wizard.  
In a city of 200,000 you have probably 20,000 people that can make potions.
That's what your talking about with technology.  Technology is magic that everyone has access to and can use.  The one exception is, that of the 20,000 potion makers only 20 know why the potions work or how to make new types of potions.  The other 19980 follow preset recipes and formula's that only make the same identical potion over and over.

I understand your analogy between magic and tech, Xavier Lang, and I actually don't have much of a problem with it at all. Cyberzombie was exploring the implications of D&D magic and its impact upon a setting, and I feel it would be pretty much like what you posit.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonTraveller seemed to hint at some really big scale stuff, or really out-there concepts.

Oh, there were plenty of hints of such, but I would have preferred something a little more in my face.  Of course, it does all depend on how you run it...

Quote from: ColonelHardissonWhich is fine, and not that hard to do, especially if the truly fantastic stuff is from an earlier age. But I imagine it could be done even if the campaign was set during that golden age of magic.

Yeah, Exalted does a pretty good job of creating a truly fantastic setting.  But it's not the easiest setting to get into, especially for the REALLY fantastic parts, like the Sidereals.

One setting that had a fair amount of the fantastic was the Known World.  Again, it wasn't in your face most of the time, though.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonThis is more of a thread about discussing the concept of enormousness in a fantasy setting than about answering a question. Any thoughts, ideas, concepts?

To continue blathering.

In a truely epic fantasy world your "wizards" wouldn't be people with magic.  They would be the people able to create/invent new ways of doing things or getting magic to do new things.  

You would need to lock down spell research.  Researching a truely new spell would take significant work like inventing a truely new technology would.  A variant spell would be very simple though.  

Using D&D for examples.  Energy manipulation would be kids stuff.  Everyone can do it and anyone with significant resources can also counter it.  Nothing new there.  Your true "wizards" would have to do something else.  A true "magic" item would be one that let you accesss the space inside the walls between the Ethereal plane and material plane so you could avoid all the default defenses that protect against interplanar travel.  Then you could "magically" appear in places no one else could.

The other big difference I see between fantasy and sci-fi is the scale the actual people can play on.

If dragon = space ship
In fantasy 5 player characters can attack and kill dragon.
In sci-fi 5 player characters usually cannot attack and kill the spaceship.  
The space ships armour and weapons are usually on a different scale and you have to use something designed for that scale to fight it.  Its possible to win in a frontal assualt against a dragon in D&D.  You can't frontal assualt a Star Destroyer in Star Wars as people.

Fantasy
The characters can become personally powerful on any scale. (You can ascend.)
The characters personally have power that raises them above others.
Power comes from within and without, but the best stuff from within.  (Gear is important but super powers, level, etc... is more so.)

Sci-Fi
The characters are not personally powerful on every scale.
The characters do not have power that others cannot have/duplicate/steal
Power comes from knowledge, luck, influence, etc... not raw power within.

Those are the big differences I see between Sci-Fi and Fantasy.  Do people agree/disagree?  Have suggestions?

Is there a difference (besides definiton :) )  between fantastic and wondrous. I'll give you an example. Purely subjective, but here goes. I think that Eberron is a "fantastic" setting, where as Jorune is a wondrous setting.

Regards,
David R

Well, to be honest, it's possible to have some things in a fantasy setting that are...well, fantastic...

My gaming group thought up an inter-planar flying tower, where each level on the tower is it's own demi-plane, etc.

But, I think part of the thing with fantasy is that it is the quests, the epic sort of feeling of one man, with a sword, against an army to save the world...

Whereas SF is more of a bigger feeling, but less epic, sort of environ.

Says I, anyway.

Quote from: pandiculatorBut, I think part of the thing with fantasy is that it is the quests, the epic sort of feeling of one man, with a sword, against an army to save the world...
 
Whereas SF is more of a bigger feeling, but less epic, sort of environ.

I tend to agree, largely.  I really like the larger-than-life feel that fantasy characters have.  That feeling of "destiny" and uniqueness, where one man can bring down a god.
 
On the other hand, I tend to view the mundane classes (fighter, rogue, and [kinda] ranger) in D&D as being more heroic than the spell-slingers.  It's Arthur, not Merlin who is the focus of the story.  Bizarre dichotomy, but there it is.

My homeworld has many epic aspects.

On the center of the continent, lies an inner sea infinitely deep. It eventually folds into the Elemental Plane of Water.

Surrounding that inner sea are very, very tall mountains, in a roughly circular ring, they are huge and practically vertical. Many cities are excavated within, each having several plazas carved out, each atop the other.

Somewhere is a long tunnel descending on a straight slope, so long that no records of anyone ever going to its end exists.

But the really outlandish concepts are not there, but on the ethereal planes, where things are easily exacerbated.

I've noticed the planes being mentioned in passing in a few posts, and it made something click. The descriptions of the planes in both 1e and 3e D&D, especially some of the more obscure ones, have elements along the lines of what I'm talking about.

For example, for the life of me I can't remember which plane it is, but it's one with two layers, one of which hangs above the other. So an inhabitant of one will have a sky which would resemble the view an astronaut in fairly close orbit has of Earth. Another example is that there is a city in one of the evil planes that has a multitude of legs and actually moves around on a continual basis. And yet another plane - Mechanus? - which consists of gears, each of which is inhabited like an island. Acheron, as I recall, is essentially a huge battlefield that is composed of rusted and ruined war equipment.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonAcheron, as I recall, is essentially a huge battlefield that is composed of rusted and ruined war equipment.

That is neato.
I believe I will steal it at some point.
thanks for bringin it up.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonFor example, for the life of me I can't remember which plane it is, but it's one with two layers, one of which hangs above the other.

IIRC, it's "The Twin Paradises of the Beastlands" or "The Beastlands".  I forget what its 1E name was.  "Elysium", maybe?

Quote from: SobekIIRC, it's "The Twin Paradises of the Beastlands" or "The Beastlands".  I forget what its 1E name was.  "Elysium", maybe?

Sounds right to me.

Quote from: SobekIIRC, it's "The Twin Paradises of the Beastlands" or "The Beastlands".  I forget what its 1E name was.  "Elysium", maybe?

No, the Beastlands used to be the Happy Hunting grounds, and it was the N/CG plane.

I think the plane you're thinking of was called Bitopia or some shit like that.  I think it was the L/NG plane; I know it's infested with gnomes.  In the latest version, one side was "civilized" and the other was "wild" and filled with animals and monsters.

All in all, the evil planes get all the press, but they have added some damn cool shit to some of the good planes.  The plane may not be out to kill you, and neither are the people in charge, but there are more than enough things around that would happily put a cap in your ass.  :)

Dead Gods was a proper fantasy epic.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonI've noticed the planes being mentioned in passing in a few posts, and it made something click. The descriptions of the planes in both 1e and 3e D&D, especially some of the more obscure ones, have elements along the lines of what I'm talking about.

For example, for the life of me I can't remember which plane it is, but it's one with two layers, one of which hangs above the other. So an inhabitant of one will have a sky which would resemble the view an astronaut in fairly close orbit has of Earth. Another example is that there is a city in one of the evil planes that has a multitude of legs and actually moves around on a continual basis. And yet another plane - Mechanus? - which consists of gears, each of which is inhabited like an island. Acheron, as I recall, is essentially a huge battlefield that is composed of rusted and ruined war equipment.

Bytopia. To get from one side to another you have to find two mountains that meet at their points and climb up one and down the other.

The Crawling City is a stronghold of the Yugoloths. It makes it's way through the three mountains of Gehenna.

Acheron is actually made up of metal cubes floating through a void. On each lower layer the cubes get progressively more worn down until on the final layer their just razors floating around in space. Armies of every race and nation battle continuously on the first layer. The second layer, Thuldanin, is covered in the refuse of wars. Old warships, siege towers and even more fanatical armaments are preserved on this layer for eternity. Anyone who spends too much time scavenging risks being 'preserved' along with anything they might find.

I love Planescape. :D

Quote from: AcinonyxI love Planescape. :D

I don't. A lot of that stuff first appeared in the 1e Manual of the Planes.

Could it be that one of the reasons that there are not too many truly fantastic settings, is because such settings are difficult to play in? I like Planescape and Spelljammer, but some of the complaints are that these settings are unplayable. There are of course a variety of reasons for this, but sometimes I get the impression, that there is a feeling that there is an over the top quality of these settings that does not appeal to some people.

I think (as mentioned before) Sci-fi settings have the safety net of science to explain away the seemingly improbable aspects of the setting....fantasy settings unfairly(in my opinion) do not have that luxury. I mean even Eberron disguises some of it's more fantastic elements in the guise of magitech (I could be wrong, since my knowledge of the setting is pretty limited)

Looking back at the Forgotten Realms setting with it's uber powerfull mages, one would think that the world would be a fantastic place full of bizarre wonderments, esp, with the existence of all those powerfull mages around, but thats' not the case. The setting is pretty mundane, compared to a setting like say Planescape.

I think truly fantastic settings demand a flight of fancy, that not many gamers are willing to indulge in. Magic, is just that. Unexplainable, mysterious and enigmatic. I think a large part of the problem is, that when you have a fantastic setting, there is an urge to justify the fantastic elements in the setting - probably because sci-fi does this - and probably because, these justifications bring order to the chaos that the fantastic is capable of creating.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: ColonelHardissonI don't. A lot of that stuff first appeared in the 1e Manual of the Planes.

:p

I don't see how that detracts from the setting. It's not like Planescape ever claimed to have thought up the whole D&D cosmology whole cloth. It built on what came before. Nothing wrong with that.

On unplayability:
The last long campaign I ran was in the game Earthdawn. During the course of the campaign, the characters traveled across a vast monster filled underground sea, pocked with undead infested islands and gargantuan ruined temples. They also scored an airship and traveled over the world's edge to the the moon. Enroute to the moon the encountered a giant sculpted stone head floating in the Aether, they entered the head through a nostril and found an entire world inside. Later they went on to the moon, and had a battle that detroyed it.
All that was playable- enjoyable even, but when it was done so was the game.
I guess my point is that really fantastic settings seem to have the same kind of effect as the "Tolkienesque" save the world type story lines do. In a space game the players and the characters know from the beginning that the universe is infinite- it has room for lots  worlds. you can save the world, and still be a nobody a couple of light years away. I think that one of the conciets of Heroic/epic fantasy is that the world is fairly low tech and small scale. And speaking for myslef i would rather play a  fantasy game involving small scale stuff as opposed to large (for instance pirates of the carribean as opposed to lotr).
I'm not sure I made any kind of point at all here...

Quote from: David RI think a large part of the problem is, that when you have a fantastic setting, there is an urge to justify the fantastic elements in the setting - probably because sci-fi does this - and probably because, these justifications bring order to the chaos that the fantastic is capable of creating.

I think you've hit on part of it right there.  By its very nature, an RPG has to have rules and has to have at least a certain level of explanation for everything.  The DM, at least, has to have a grasp of what's going on, or nothing will make sense.  But the more that everyone knows what's going on, the less fantastic everything becomes.

I have the new World of Darkness book.  Unlike most books, I started reading on page 1 and I'm proceeding from there.  The book started out with fiction to establish the setting from the POV of normal humans.  The setting that I glimpsed through that fiction is mysterious, sinister, and magical.

But then I step back and now what is ACTUALLY going on is that the world is infested with a bunch of vampires who are Cure groupies and Anne Rice fans.  They're as unmysterious, non-sinister, and unmagical as you get.  Once I remembered that, I kind of deflated.  Sure, it'd be easy enough to put in eldritch horrors and REAL monsters, but I still know that Vampire is out there, pouting and angsty...

I think the way to fix things is for the writers of the setting to resist the urge to explain.  Sure, modern things can be explained, and many of the things from the inevitable fallen civilizations can be explained.  But that floating mountain over there?  No one knows why it is floating.  Or why it has suddenly started having rumbling noises from its base...

Quote from: GunhildaI think the way to fix things is for the writers of the setting to resist the urge to explain.  Sure, modern things can be explained, and many of the things from the inevitable fallen civilizations can be explained.  But that floating mountain over there?  No one knows why it is floating.  Or why it has suddenly started having rumbling noises from its base...

Exactly. And strangely this also applies to the way how I run my fantasy games in particular. It's all about "not looking under the hood" or to put it another way , "looking under the hood and finding nothing at all". This way, the players are caught up in the wonderment of it all - and let's be realistic, no amount of explanation can be a satisfactory answer to questions about things fantastic. Sometimes -most times, not having an answer frees your mind to explore all possibilities, which is what I think fantasy is all about.

Which is why I don't have a problem with a sinister fantasy city made of gleaming bone white marble, riddled with veins of blood red runes, which traps unwary travellers with whispers of shelter and peace and every one hundred years consumes it's citizens and rebuild's itself in another distant land.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Acinonyx:p

I don't see how that detracts from the setting.

I never said it did. I was simply saying that I didn't get my info via Planescape, but by way of the 1e and 3e Manuals of the Planes.

Quote from: AcinonyxIt's not like Planescape ever claimed to have thought up the whole D&D cosmology whole cloth. It built on what came before. Nothing wrong with that.

I never said there was.

Quote from: David RCould it be that one of the reasons that there are not too many truly fantastic settings, is because such settings are difficult to play in?

While your post in general is pretty good, I'll just riff on this question. I don't think such settings are more difficult to play in, unless they're made to be so. It's more of a flavor thing than anything else. My example from Monte Cook's Ptolus in my first post pretty much encapsulates my point - a 3000 foot spire doesn't make the setting unplayable. Neither would a floating city or a stairway up into the clouds or constellations that move of their own volition.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonWhile your post in general is pretty good, I'll just riff on this question. I don't think such settings are more difficult to play in, unless they're made to be so. It's more of a flavor thing than anything else.

Yeah. I think unplayable is an inappropiate word for me to have used. I don't think that any setting is unplayable. I think certain settings are more popular whilst others appeal to a certain crowd. You are right, of course, it's more flavour than anything else. But this is the curious part...

QuoteMy example from Monte Cook's Ptolus in my first post pretty much encapsulates my point - a 3000 foot spire doesn't make the setting unplayable. Neither would a floating city or a stairway up into the clouds or constellations that move of their own volition.

...having read, Monte's design notes and frankly finding myself admiring certain aspects of the setting, I question if settings such as these could really be considered fantastic. I mean, the thing is conventions such 3000 foot spires, floating castles etc seem pretty common in the vast landscapes of fantasy settings homebrews or otherwise.

Let's take for instance settings such as Amber, Nobillis, Everway and if I'm remembering correctly Aria. These settings in scope and perhaps maybe originality seem vastly more fantastic then some of the other fantasy settings out there. By fantastic I mean, there is a touch of "the beyond imagination" to these games.

Now I'm not taking about whether these games are any good - I don't know -but it does seem to me, that they have more "fantastic" ideas within them, then say the average fantasy setting and their sometimes interesting genre twist.

Having said that, the question of how "difficult" these settings are to grasp comes into play. Some of the above settings are perhaps (in my opinion) written in a deliberately obtuse manner - as though clarity some how sacrifices atmosphere -as such many would find them not to their taste.

An interesting "fantastic' setting which I have always liked is the original "Immortals" gold set from D&D. This seems to me the kind of fantastic setting that is so lacking in the traditional high fantasy market. Hell, I never really liked high level play...but this setting and game seems different somehow.

I remember hoping for Dawnforge to be a truly fantastic setting, filled with First Age mystery and magic and being severly dissapointed by it. It just seemed with all it's add ons another generic fantasy setting. But rereading my Immortals boxed set, I glimpse vast vistas of unexplored mystery.

(Also Aos, I think I get what you are trying to say. Perhaps if you clarified your post, I could be sure :) )

Regards,
David R

let me try again:


When everything is huge, nothing is huge?

I know not everything has to be fantastic in a fantastic setting, but you know, it's hard to send them to kill orcs when they've seen the floating city.

Quote from: AosWhen everything is huge, nothing is huge?

Interesting. The more I think about truly fantastic settings, the more I realize that I have to abandon certain assumptions I have of what constitutes fantasy. And maybe even how I run and play such games.

Regards,
David R

One more thing, along the same lines: magic is mystery. Concealment enhances the mystery, somewhat. Technology (unlocking the way the universe works and creating tools to manipulate it) is revalation, and needs to be seen/perceived to have the right impact.

Even if we don't know how the city floats it's blatent presence removes some of the foggy mystery which should surround magic. I think that this mytery is a huge part of the flavor of fantasy.

Quote from: Aoslet me try again:


When everything is huge, nothing is huge?

But when nothing is huge, everything is small. Even the real world has its wonders that are almost beyond belief - whether it's natural wonders like Everest or the Grand Canyon or Monument Valley, or man-made ones like the Taj Mahal or the Great Pyramids or the Sears Tower. Such things rarely seem to make it into fantasy RPG settings, especially if they take into account the existence of magic.

Quote from: AosI know not everything has to be fantastic in a fantastic setting, but you know, it's hard to send them to kill orcs when they've seen the floating city.

Why? In scifi that kind of thing happens all the time.

Quote from: AosEven if we don't know how the city floats it's blatent presence removes some of the foggy mystery which should surround magic. I think that this mytery is a huge part of the flavor of fantasy.

I can see your point, but it does kind of depend on what kind of fantasy you want to have.

agreed, if I knew how, I'd surround that and every post I make with a big "maybe" tag.

Quote from: AosEven if we don't know how the city floats it's blatent presence removes some of the foggy mystery which should surround magic. I think that this mytery is a huge part of the flavor of fantasy.

I'm not sure I follow this. Why would the presence of a floating city remove any of the mystery? Lightning, clouds, the Moon, the stars, all of these things were seen for centuries by man before science could explain them, and were often accounted "magical" and figured very prominently into myths, legends, and religions. Their blatant presence, as you put it, didn't seem to diminish their ability inspire awe.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonWhy? In scifi that kind of thing happens all the time.

and in superhero games as well...
The short answer to your question is "I don't know, but..."

in the case of the floating city: MAYBE in sci fi the floating city and even the ringworld are like the world's biggest most advanced skyscraper. Cool, possibly magestic, even- but not inherently fantastic, but merely an extrapolation of the everyday out to cosmic proportions.

if I muddy the water's enough with my vaugue blather, will I get banned?:mischief:

Quote from: Aosif I muddy the water's enough with my vaugue blather, will I get banned?:mischief:

Dude, you're not muddying waters that weren't already muddied. Your posts glaringly point out just how odd and contradictory such genre conventions can be. Which is very interesting.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonI'm not sure I follow this. Why would the presence of a floating city remove any of the mystery? Lightning, clouds, the Moon, the stars, all of these things were seen for centuries by man before science could explain them, and were often accounted "magical" and figured very prominently into myths, legends, and religions. Their blatant presence, as you put it, didn't seem to diminish their ability inspire awe.

it could simply be that I'm way wrong.

Quote from: Aosit could simply be that I'm way wrong.

No, not really. The conventions of the two genres - scifi and fantasy - are very hard to define, as is why the conventions of scifi seem inherently fantastic, but don't seem to comfortably fit in fantasy.

maybe the "quaintness" of the fantasy setting is a necessary component, and when you remove it by adding too many (or maybe just the wrong) fantastic elements, it becomes something else, something that many people find less satidfying- like diet soft drink.

Quote from: Aosmaybe the "quaintness" of the fantasy setting is a necessary component, and when you remove it by adding too many (or maybe just the wrong) fantastic elements, it becomes something else, something that many people find less satidfying- like diet soft drink.

Sure, to modern audiences. I guess what I'd like to see more of in fantasy settings is stuff like the Bifrost Bridge or Yggdrasil of Norse mythology, or Mount Olympus or Hades (which could be accessed from the "real world" at various points) of Greek mythology, or even the 3000 spire of Monte's "Ptolus."

Quote from: Aosit's hard to send them to kill orcs when they've seen the floating city.

I've been seriously pondering having my next campaign set in a world of floating "islands" of various sizes, civilizations, etc.  There would be no actual "earth" and it'd be effectively infinite.  All natural phenomena (rain, wind, etc.) would have some esoteric explanation (fighting elementals, pissed off rain spirit, etc.) and, explicitly, would have no real scientific explanation.
 
In short, it's a setting where anything can happen, quite literally, and the players should never, ever be able to start "gaming" the game by bringing in real world physics.  If the rules say something works that way, then it does -- end of story, must just be different than our world.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonSure, to modern audiences. I guess what I'd like to see more of in fantasy settings is stuff like the Bifrost Bridge or Yggdrasil of Norse mythology, or Mount Olympus or Hades (which could be accessed from the "real world" at various points) of Greek mythology, or even the 3000 spire of Monte's "Ptolus."

One of the reasons that the spire is so fantastic, I think, is that the world of Praemal is, for the most part, a normal world - the fantastic events of the world are all centered around Ptolus and the Spire.

Spoiler

Cook designed it with the Galchutt trapped below, causing gathering forces of evil to naturally be drawn to the area.

Because the rest of the world is so "normal," the spire really draws attention because it is such a fantastic detail.

When you make the fantastic into the mundane - the fantastic becomes technology, and commonplace - that's when you get settings like Eberron. Everything is overdone and so the players are just overwhelmed.

If you look at George Martin's Song of Ice and Fire, the reason that The Wall is so fantastic is that it is unique compared to the normalness of the world (at least in the seven kingdoms).

In science fiction, the fantastic is almost the point - changes are far more sweeping in scale and distribution than they are in fantasy literature.

Quote from: SobekI've been seriously pondering having my next campaign set in a world of floating "islands" of various sizes, civilizations, etc.  There would be no actual "earth" and it'd be effectively infinite.  All natural phenomena (rain, wind, etc.) would have some esoteric explanation (fighting elementals, pissed off rain spirit, etc.) and, explicitly, would have no real scientific explanation.
 
In short, it's a setting where anything can happen, quite literally, and the players should never, ever be able to start "gaming" the game by bringing in real world physics.  If the rules say something works that way, then it does -- end of story, must just be different than our world.

sounds good to me.

Quote from: SobekIn short, it's a setting where anything can happen, quite literally, and the players should never, ever be able to start "gaming" the game by bringing in real world physics.  If the rules say something works that way, then it does -- end of story, must just be different than our world.

I like this thinking alot. Esp, the last sentence. I think the problem is that generally human nature seeks an explanation for everything. The fantastic, generally should resist this urge. Most sci-fi settings justify their fantastic elements for various reasons, but I think that fantasy  should be except from this notion -esp, when elements in fantasy settings are justified with real world physics.

Something I have been thinking about since the Colonel first brought up this subject is this. In his first post he said that it seemed that sci-fi had a lot to offer in terms of the fantastic. What I was thinking is, has anyone ever used sci-fi worlds as settings for their  fantasy games.

I have this urge to run Transhuman Space as a fantasy setting, somehow I think that I could pull it off.

Regards,
David R

I usually go with Le Guin's statement about the difference between fantasy and science fiction: fantasy deals with inner psychology, science fiction deals with outer environment. What makes Tolkien's innivations so different from Howard and other earlier fantasists is that he dresses the dream in almost everyday clothing (uses the techniques of literary realism) in order to give the fantastic elements more power by contrast (as has been pointed out in this threas). Fantasy, in the end, treats the environment more symbolically than anything else, and the entire world is a setting for a personal drama (the classic heric quest being one dominant cliche plot that is often played out in rpgs). You can have the huge scale, but, if it dwarfs the hero, then it may not feel like "good fantasy" to many people.

Science fiction, on the other hand, has always been about the toys, the future, and endless possibilities. In its golden age, the genre is fairly optimistic about the power of technology, and the dreams it feeds on are dreams of control, power, and expansion. In that mindset, the gadgets are an extension of the person, and the scale reflects the possibilities.

Obviously, these distinctions aren't hard and fast, and many works of art appeal to both inner and outer impulses in different ways. But Tolkien's example of selective fantasy within a realistic framework looms large in that tradition.

As for my own games, I usually incorporate big-scale items relatively infrequently in order to increase their impact. There is one large-scale topographic feature that was caused by mystic forces, for example. On the other hand, I do like to include creatures that are far too powerful for the players to handle--running away is the only sensible option. I've found that moments like that, when handled well, address the scale/wonder issue well enough. When there are things out there that are too big to handle (at least at that moment), then they seem big enough.

Okay, I'm wandering of topic here, but another aspect about the whole "fantastic" issue, is I think , the way how the GM describes the setting to the players. A lot of it has to do with the use of language -of tone etc.

An average GM may make the fantastic mundane whereas a talented one could make the mundane fantastic. So it may not really be about the setting, per se, but rather how the setting is presented.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: willpax. lots of good stuff

not to wander to far afield here, myself, but I think that , prose style aside,  Tolkien and Howard use magic in somewhat similar ways. Magic is visible in both Hyborea and the Middle Earth, but largely off screen. furthermore, in both setings it is best avoided if at all possible. Vaugenes is also very common with both authors, Niether Tolkien nor Howard give us lengthy system of how magic and spell casting actually work- as opposed to authors like Steven Erikson, or L.E. Modistett, who do provide such systems, and also have magic operate much like technology.

Quote from: David RWhich is why I don't have a problem with a sinister fantasy city made of gleaming bone white marble, riddled with veins of blood red runes, which traps unwary travellers with whispers of shelter and peace and every one hundred years consumes it's citizens and rebuild's itself in another distant land.

As a complete aside, I've read a LOT of things that I saw other people go "Dude, Yoinked!" or variations.  I just wanted to stop and say, That city is a damned cool idea.

Quote from: WolvorineAs a complete aside, I've read a LOT of things that I saw other people go "Dude, Yoinked!" or variations.  I just wanted to stop and say, That city is a damned cool idea.

Thanks. The city has great replay value. The first time I used it was in a homebrew fantasy setting.

Player 1 : The city is out to get us.

Player 2 : Yeah, tell us something we don't know.Everyone here hates us, That's what happens when you expose a much loved priest for the hypocrite that she is.

Player 1 : No, I really mean the CITY is out to get us.

The second time was in a Mage(1st ed) game.

The players had just had a battle with some Syndicate goons, which had destroyed a large section of an office building.

Player 1 : What the fuck is this building made of? (looking at pieces of bone white debris, with strange glowing blood red runes fading like the last embers of a fire)

Player 2 : (She was one of the players in the above fantasy campaign)  Why does this keep happening to me?

Gming, the gift that keeps on giving :)

Regards,
David R

I once fed an entire party drugged food three times in the same play session- "well we've already been drugged once today, probably wont happen again." "well we've already been drugged twice today- what are the chances?"

In the back of my mind, I keep working on a fantasy setting where the whole world is covered by one city.  All of the different climates and environments run through the city.  It isn't the same style through the whole city, parts may be open like large agricultural fields, but the world is covered in the city.  Some areas of the city have fallen or sunk, and they were built over.  So you have catacombs that may or may not be inhabited.  The city has been around since recorded history.

Things that come into question for me:

Oceans.  They are there, and the cities remain above them.  I've been leaning toward water-dwellers helping build the city to the foundation of the ocean floor.

Tectonics.  In reality, most planets have those wonderful tectonic plates causing things such as mountains and earthquakes and tidal waves.  Tie that into volcanoes, and I'm just not sure if I would include these real-world things.

Wars.  Wars are fought through the city.  There are areas between different regions where the city has been modified so major wars can occur.  There the streets run red with blood, the cobblestones lined in blood.  Massed units of troops are only effective in broad thoroughfares (unsure of what to call them yet, Bloodstreets possibly).  However, smaller unit city wars also occur, where homes and shops become battlezones at the worst of times for the inhabitants.

Origin.  I'm not sure who built the city myself.  Was it the gods?  I don't know.  I have considered that the builders warred between themselves, with the victors ascending to godhood, demonhood, devilhood, elemental hood, and the losers being the founders of the races inhabiting the world.

I was trying to think of other "Big" stuff in fantasy fiction, but I don't read a lot of fantasy fiction so the only one I can think of is in Ash: A Secret History - you've got the sun being blacked out across most of North Africa and Europe. That's pretty big.

My homebrew campaign world had a cataclysm in which one of the greatest cities of the previous age disappeared into a canyon (think Grand Canyon but longer, wider, effectively infininately deep) that split the continent in half, and was so deep that it connected with the Plane of the Abyss, (which was effectively the negative elemental plane, combined with a demonic plane in my campaign) and Plane of Fire*. In one of the early adventures the players set through a portal that use to connect to that city and discover it full of undead and demons, and quickly leg it back through the portal.

There is a bridge several miles long and a couple wide, that spans the Abyss, held aloft by magic and guarded from the creatures that rise from the Abyss, and a city/shantytown that runs the length of the bridge, it obviously being a major trade nexus.

That's pretty big.

*Comsmology was that the planes were layered on top of each other so the Elemental Plane of Fire was at the centre of the Planet. Elemental plane of water was in the deep ocean (constantly creating water that was then consumed by the Abyss at either end, poored down until it hit the plane of fire, which turned it to a mist that rises from the Abyss to the plane of air), Earth plane started a few miles below the surface, and Air in the upper atmosphere. You could actually travel to any of them via conventional means if you were suicidal enough. The Abyss was between the Earth and Fire planes.

Interesting idea.
 

Quote from: Eric E.Tectonics. In reality, most planets have those wonderful tectonic plates causing things such as mountains and earthquakes and tidal waves. Tie that into volcanoes, and I'm just not sure if I would include these real-world things.

Leave 'em out.  Consider it part of the fantasy element.
 

QuoteWars. Wars are fought through the city. There are areas between different regions where the city has been modified so major wars can occur. There the streets run red with blood, the cobblestones lined in blood. Massed units of troops are only effective in broad thoroughfares (unsure of what to call them yet, Bloodstreets possibly). However, smaller unit city wars also occur, where homes and shops become battlezones at the worst of times for the inhabitants.

Nah.  Wars are not fought in agreed upon zones.  Ultimately, a war is just a name for using force to get someone to do something you want them to do.  That doesn't always happen in an arena setting (which is, essentially, what you've got here).  That is, except for cultures with a very, very strict code of honor.
 
A global city would have two impacts on war.  First, it'd be bloody, messy, and ugly.  Any engagement en masse would include levelling your opponent's cover.  That means lots and lots and lots of collateral damage.  Lots.  Break buildings and dead civilians everywhere.  Rumors of war would be grim, indeed.
 
The second would be to devalue hordes in favor of skill.  Navy Seals and adventuring parties would rule the day.  This is a really good thing for a D&D setting.  There's always a castle to raid, buried sections of the city to explore, etc.  The world is a dungeon.  Sure, adventurers may not be well liked, but they'd make a whole lot of sense and be necessary.

Yeah, I don't think I would include the real world tectonics.  I don't think that would be an issue for many folks anyway.  Thinking about it, it seems like many fantasy RPGs do this same thing (consider all of the underground civilizations, it would take immense magic to stop tectonics to completely protect cities and passages).

Good point on wars.  Small units (parties of adventurers as hired specialists) would probably be a preferred way for many of the rulers.  After all, who wants to completely destroy the area you are taking over?  Also, this gives a great reason for adventuring parties, rather than hordes of warriors.  I may have to review the Black Company Campaign Setting for some ideas on tactics and such as well.

Quote from: Eric E.In the back of my mind, I keep working on a fantasy setting where the whole world is covered by one city.  All of the different climates and environments run through the city.  It isn't the same style through the whole city, parts may be open like large agricultural fields, but the world is covered in the city.  Some areas of the city have fallen or sunk, and they were built over.  So you have catacombs that may or may not be inhabited.  The city has been around since recorded history.

Scope this setting out... yes I know it is MtG, but Ravnicca was all about a vast world spanning city...
Ravnicca (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=magic/expansion/rav)
and scope out these pages for some pics that may help inspire a few ideas...
Life in the Big City (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/feature/283) and The Essence of Land (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/feature/284).