Dungeon Fantasy: Beastmen

[demonsbane]

I don't agree, Vitruvian, by the simple reason the works of these authors aren't really traditional fantasy. Their works have very little to do with the earlier and different imaginatio vera -the source and root of traditional fantasy.

What do you regard as my interpretation of Kabbalah, isn't. In no moment I spoke about a "fictional" development of that doctrine, instead speaking exclusively about real world data. On the other hand, fictional treatments of Kabbalah for these and many other authors, including poets and what not -it is an abused theme-, can't be regarded more than as their own artifacts. What concerns these authors is fiction, not fabulisimilitude.

Moorcock isn't fantasy for me, but iconoclastic modern philosophy and science fiction in low TLs with swords and elementals around, really. Nor even his artifacts of "Law" and "Chaos" make really but partial sense, and they don't match with traditional fantasy very well. The same about most of the other authors & works quoted. Moorcock, along with Zelazny and others, are today regarded "Classics" of science fiction, fantasy, sword and sorcery, etc . . . But that quality of "classic" doesn't means traditional, implying this a continuation of something earlier than all these authors. Nor even Robert E. Howard with Conan fits entirely traditional fantasy. These authors tried to draw from the root, but their results are distorted in some different ways. Not all is useless, however, but the anti-fantastic elements portrayed can't be ignored.

Mainly, only the work of Tolkien was traditional fantasy, and some other minor works -including some you are quoting- share some of that in varying degrees, mostly in inconsistent ways, and not being able to be truly representative of the thing I'm speaking of.

In the measure Dungeon Fantasy incorporates elements from there along with many others coming more or less directly from myths and folklore and other sources -only in that measure- it shares traits of traditional fantasy as one of its "partial" developments.

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by vitruvian

(...) One of the inspirational *games* for Dungeon Fantasy (I bet you know which one) had multiple physical planes or worlds within the 'Prime Material Plane' at least since a module called Queen of the Demonweb Pits

Sure, I'm aware of Gygax's bibliography, various weird sources . . . and that mess about Planes and the Manual of the Planes was something needed of some forgiveness . . . Anyway, it was relatively easy to put it rightly, because there were still a lot of fabulisimilitude, or at least, enough of it. It can be much, much worse than AD&D, as I am seeing these days. Different than Tolkien's work, it is almost impossible to find a true traditional fantasy development today, so, there is needed some adaptation and forgiveness regarding a few not too important anti-fantastic elements inevitably portrayed. My concern is these anti-fantastic elements, can grow to be too many for resulting in something worth to look at.

[vitruvian]

Moorcock isn't fantasy for me, but iconoclastic modern philosophy and science fiction in low TLs with swords and elementals around, really. Nor even his artifacts of "Law" and "Chaos" make really but partial sense, and they don't match with traditional fantasy very well. The same about most of the other authors & works quoted. Moorcock, along with Zelazny and others, are today regarded "Classics" of science fiction, fantasy, sword and sorcery, etc . . . But that quality of "classic" doesn't means traditional, implying this a continuation of something earlier than all these authors. Nor even Robert E. Howard with Conan fits entirely traditional fantasy. These authors tried to draw from the root, but their results are distorted in some different ways. Not all is useless, however, but the anti-fantastic elements portrayed can't be ignored.

How far back does one have to go for something to be regarded as 'traditional fantasy' by you? Does even Dunsany fit, or do we need to go back to mythopoeic sources, apart from Tolkien?

Anyway, regardless of your answer to the above any argument based on the premise that Leiber, Moorcock, Vance, etc. 'aren't really fantasy', whatever its merit in terms of *literary criticism*, is pretty much useless when discussing fantasy *role-playing games*, which have routinely drawn from such sources since their inception. These sorts of sources *were* contemplated as possible inspirations for GURPS *Fantasy* campaigns, as a cursory look at the Bibliography for GURPS Fantasy 4e will confirm.

So basically, I guess what I'm saying is, post all you want about how *you* would choose to create a setting in accord with what you see as traditional fantasy tropes, but this telling other folks that they're essentially doing it all wrong if they include portals to other material worlds or even a hint of evolution (which, as an aside, needn't be Darwinian natural selection as we understand it - it could be Lamarckian, according to the speculations of Greek philosophers, or simply a case of the gods slowly perfecting their work over time), or other such 'non-fantastic' concepts is getting a little tired.

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by vitruvian

Anyway, regardless of your answer to the above any argument based on the premise that Leiber, Moorcock, Vance, etc. 'aren't really fantasy', whatever its merit in terms of *literary criticism*, is pretty much useless when discussing fantasy *role-playing games*, which have routinely drawn from such sources since their inception.

Well, that routine certainly can be bettered regarding its current state of meaningless phantasia.

Originally Posted by vitruvian

(...) So basically, I guess what I'm saying is, post all you want about how *you* would choose to create a setting in accord with what you see as traditional fantasy tropes

Of course, I probably will do that for some time more, depending of occasions. Perhaps some additional person can draw benefit from illustrations, and that is certainly worthwhile.

[vitruvian]

Well, that routine certainly can be bettered regarding its current state of meaningless phantasia.

I don't think the characterization of the work of the authors mentioned as 'meaningless' is easily defended, honestly.

Regardless of the merits of the work, though, I submit that works such as these are in fact part of what most folks actually mean when they refer to 'fantasy', whether in the context of literature or of fantasy roleplaying. Therefore, it is not particularly helpful, and mostly just confusing, to tell all and sundry that their settings aren't *really* fantasy because they contain elements not found in Tolkien or original myths and legends, but definitely found in other works that are part of the genre as usually understood both by critics and by the shelving practices of bookstores.

[Stone Dog]

Multiple worlds are the most common ways to go, but aren't the only way.

Spirits don't need another plane to be insubstantial. They can just BE insubstantial because that is the nature of spirits. Gods don't need another plane to live on. Olympus can actually be a mountain that gods live at the top of. The dead can actually dwell in an underworld that is simply underground and hard to get to, but solidly on this singular plane of existence.

A lot of fantasy tropes do depend on having multiple worlds. Fantasy itself though doesn't need them anymore than science fiction needs FTL or horror needs undead.

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by vitruvian

I don't think the characterization of the work of the authors mentioned as 'meaningless' is easily defended, honestly.
(...)

The answer you are replying to, isn't but a side of the coin, partial. Soon, you will have the other view about the issue.

[b-dog]

Originally Posted by demonsbane

Sure, I'm aware of Gygax's bibliography, various weird sources . . . and that mess about Planes and the Manual of the Planes was something needed of some forgiveness . . . Anyway, it was relatively easy to put it rightly, because there were still a lot of fabulisimilitude, or at least, enough of it. It can be much, much worse than AD&D, as I am seeing these days. Different than Tolkien's work, it is almost impossible to find a true traditional fantasy development today, so, there is needed some adaptation and forgiveness regarding a few not too important anti-fantastic elements inevitably portrayed. My concern is these anti-fantastic elements, can grow to be too many for resulting in something worth to look at.

Let me just say that Dungeon Fantasy is supposed to be about early D&D. Gygax was the main man here. He had all sorts of things that were not really traditional fantasy. Expedition to the Barrior Peaks was one. The lost caverns of Tsojcanth was another ( it had all sorts of dimension travel when the PCs try to open the doors to Drelzna ).

In any case I like the idea of dimension travel because it lets other character have advantages in the dungeon. For instance what if a mage creates a dimension that must be crossed before PCs can get to the treasure? It could be a vast wilderness dimension, an ocean, or just about anything.

Plus I really think that Stormbringer/Elric is a great game and these ideas should be included in Dungeon Fantasy

[demonsbane]

Dimension travel would be (and it is!) definitely Ok, if it doesn't means parallel worlds. Otherworlds and different dimensions are definitely necessary. "Yetzirah" or the psychic domain "high in the atmosphere" above "the corporeal world" (Assiah) already includes any imaginable "dimensions" (excepting "alternate earths") for the fantasy roleplaying point of view. Characters only need Jumper (Spirit) -see Powers- instead Jumper (World), or gates enabling the benefit of the advantage. Projection also can be useful for this purpose. GURPS has the tools.

However, wait for a better and -I hope- somewhat more useful answer about this, what I should be able to provide once we are in this point of the discussion. Maybe in a few days.