Do you understand what "vanilla fantasy" means anymore?

<< < (2/17) > >>

brainface:
I pretty much agree with Jürgen: "vanilla" fantasy relies heavily on stock fantasy features. "This setting has elves, you know, those elves. Also dwarves."

A vanilla setting may have non-tolkein features, but then they will still tend to be stock and unoriginal--werewolves, sprytes, lizardmen, whatever. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as the players generally know what's going on without having to research it.

Scholar:
to me, vanilla fantasy is what you get when you construct a setting based solely on the DnD players handbook (pre 4th ed) and the corresponding monster manual. i.e.
- vaguely european medieval society without race or gender bias
- absurdely long history without any kind of progress
- demystified magic
- bewildering and illogical amount of sentient races divided into:
- generic chaotic evil antagonist races vs genericized tolkien-inspired races (alcoholic dwarves, emo elves, manically cheerful halflings, adhd gnomes); no distinction between race and culture except for humans.
- huge universal and homogenous pantheon
- adventuring as a goal in life
- everything a bit two-dimensional (planet of hats)
that about sums it up.

Elemental_Elf:
Scholar
to me, vanilla fantasy is what you get when you construct a setting based solely on the DnD players handbook (pre 4th ed) and the corresponding monster manual. i.e.
- vaguely european medieval society without race or gender bias
- absurdely long history without any kind of progress
- demystified magic
- bewildering and illogical amount of sentient races divided into:
- generic chaotic evil antagonist races vs genericized tolkien-inspired races (alcoholic dwarves, emo elves, manically cheerful halflings, adhd gnomes); no distinction between race and culture except for humans.
- huge universal and homogenous pantheon
- adventuring as a goal in life
- everything a bit two-dimensional (planet of hats)
that about sums it up.



Exactly what I was thinking :)


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

Matt Larkin (author):
Yup, pretty much your standard assumptions for D&D qualify.

Thing is, what makes an interesting setting, it's often not what makes a good longterm gaming setting. Sometimes it is, but cliches often become cliches because they work well--the resonate so much they become part of the expectation. And then we rebel against those expectations.

brainface:
Elemental_ElfThe sad thing is that I enjoy playing in those worlds
is[/i] a game, sometimes you want to play basic monopoly and not Duke University monopoly with Star Wars Monopoly pieces.

Quoteto me, vanilla fantasy is what you get when you construct a setting based solely on the DnD players handbook (pre 4th ed) and the corresponding monster manual. i.e.
Vampire[/i] vanilla.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page