Post by Alex Leone in The Priest Questions and Feedback

Viewing post in The Priest Questions and Feedback

The TL;DR of below is: It’s helpful to know which fantasy books you’re drawing from for Fantasy World. Leave these parts as they are!

Wow, I haven’t read most of those books! This is a great list. Sounds like I’ve got a lot of fantasy books to read. :)

The immediate but largely irrelevant answer to your question is… plenty of fantasy novels feature sex.

I don’t think this is irrelevant.

Fantasy World fosters a narrativist agenda, rather than a simulationist one.

I know! Like you’ve mentioned elsewhere, narrativist agendas borrow tropes from stories and fiction to build mechanics that emulate certain kinds of stories.

This list is super helpful to me because it made me realize that I thought I knew what kind of fantasy stories you were drawing from, but it turns out I was wrong!

For the stories and tropes you’re emulating here, yes, “fornicating” and “lust” make plenty of sense to have in your game! I had just misunderstood the kind of fantasy you’re emulating here, which I would call “adult fantasy.” Most of the fantasy I’ve read and seen has been, like, “young adult/children’s fantasy,” like Lord of the Rings, Redwall, Howl’s Moving Castle, Ella Enchanted, and lots of others I’ve forgotten the names of.

Alessandro Piroddi3 years ago(+1)

1) on FW "emulation" goals
2) on the relevance of "sex" in FW and the mentioned fantasy novels

1)
I'm glad that the list could help you :)

But as I mentioned... FW is really not trying to "emulate" a specific source. Rather, I was dissatisfied with the usual brand of emotionally immature and superficial fantasy adventuring games that were almost exclusively focused on escapism and power trips. I wanted something more humane and multi-faceted, that could also be "fantasy".

So FW does not take inspiration from specific sources, but rather from "fantasy literature in general". More on this can be read in a post I made a while ago on The Gauntlet forum, here.
There I also talk about playing LotR by way of FW.
I am not familiar with Redwall specifically, but maybe you might like the (partial) actual play of the Assassin's Cheese game I played with a group of friends :D
Howl's Moving Castle would be a perfect source of inspiration:

Howl has powerful magics but deep personal problems. Through the story he evolves from a hurt and spoiled brat, to a healthier and more complete adult.
Sophie is a common girl with big dreams but little confidence, with serious self-image problems. Through the story she grows a lot, overcoming her fears and doubts.
Other characters would probably be more NPC material, as they don't seem to have equivalent agency and depth and arcs... but they are ALL presented as "people" and as such they are never throw-away characters, they never feel expendable. From Calcifer impersonating the whole castle, to the Scarecrow, the weird dog, the young apprentice... even "the villain" Witch is made human and somewhat understandable and relatable, even endearing.
And the story is about how war negatively affects people and the things they love and care about. It's perfect FW material! One could use FW to play something different, but similar enough in all the ways that matter :)

2)
I think we might be experiencing a couple of communicative disconnects. Let's see if I manage to express myself in a way that makes sense :)
Also... everything I'm about to write is just me trying to clarify what I understood of your messages, and replying to that.
I don't want to put words in your mouth that are not yours. Feel free to correct any part I might have misunderstood ^_^'

Reading your previous posts I got the impression (and maybe I am wrong) that in your eyes merely mentioning the existence of sexuality in a story is a big deal for that story.
If we read a story, and the page says something like "...we could hear them having sex in the other room..." it is a big deal.
If we play FW and thanks to a move a player says "...as my PC speaks, some people in the audience get closer together, holding hands or passing an arm around each other, sharing eloquent looks..." it is a big deal.

I think that there might be a disconnect in this. In how we define what is and what is not a big deal for a story (and a game that produces stories).

To me, sex is NOT a big deal, because it is such a fundamental element of the human experience (and thus the stories we tell about it) that I barely notice it, and it would require specific focus and intention to make it into a big deal, to highlight it as one of the main thematic elements of a story/game.

So I read your posts and I hear "it's a big deal". And in my mind "a big deal" means that sex is central to the gameplay and the stories it creates. In my experience this might look like Apocalypse World, where how a PC experiences their intimacy with others is one of the main themes of the game. Or like Monsterhearts, where discovering your PC's sexuality and relation to gender norms is one of the core focuses of the game. Or like the dumpster fire that was Charm, where the teenage-bait advertisement was all about "this game has sex in it!". Or the bizarre D&D Book of Erotic Fantasy, featuring uninspiring and tactless rules to measure a PC's sexual stamina :P
(2 amazingly positive examples, 2 embarrassingly negative ones, for balance sake)

And to this I say no... FW world is not like that. FW is not about sex. So it's also It's not a big deal ;-)
And I say the same thing about the novels I mentioned before. Sex is not the main focus, so it's not a big deal.

But while writing this I notice how, if one changes perspective, it IS a big deal XD
FW is about people. People relations are largely driven by sex. To me it's invisible, but the moment you try to purge this element from the game... then it becomes a big deal.

And here there might be a second disconnect.

When I talk about "sex" I mean anything "sexual" or that obviously implies it. For example I easily spot sexual content in Howl's story :)
The character of the Witch is portrayed as being obviously lustful for Howl, both for the power he holds, and for his young pretty face. And after she is cursed, a good part of the "fun" of the situation and character specifically comes from the obvious cringe of an old woman hitting on a young man.
Sophie herself deals with more than one sexually charged situation, as she struggles with her feelings of being undesirable. It's a CORE element of that character :)
And the soldiers and young women from the various cities in conflict are often shown as quite obviously being sexually active, and in sexual pursuit of each other.

If you tell me that there is no sex in Howl's story, I say "no, there is".
But because it's not graphic and explicit you say "no, there isn't".

So when in FW you notice something that could potentially lead to an explicit description, and in itself uses explicit words such as "lust" and "fuking", for you it already is a big deal... and you express it... and I react to it using my parameters for what a big deal is to me... and I say that it's irrelevant... and you say "no, it is relevant"... etc ^_^

Interesting analysis... let me know if I have completely misunderstood you and have gone on an hallucinated tangent trip XD

Anyway, this distinction is relevant to me because of what it means.
If sex is not a big deal in FW, then you can ignore it and use the game to play the kind of sex-less stories you want.
If sex is a big deal in FW, then you can't ignore it and you won't be able to play the kind of sex-less stories you want.

To this I can say:

FW is, among other things, about people and their relationships and their emotions
FW is not about graphic and explicit depictions of sexual intercourse

If you are OK with the first point, then I think your group can safely use FW to play any kind of fantasy story they want, no problem.
If you need for graphic sexuality to not be depicted in the game... they can effortlessly do it.
If you need to purge any possible reference to sex from the play content... it's also doable and 100% up to the players.
If you need to purge any possible reference to sex from the game text... that's harder, but doable as there is no pervasive use of such language. But here and there it is present. So you'll have to do some redacting on your side :)

Alex Leone3 years ago(+1)

Thanks for the link to the Gauntlet thread! There’s some great context in there.

I have to agree with Froggy in what he said in that thread:

I really think it would benefit the game if you were to put together a list of touchstones and not wishy-wash around the “what type of fantasy” question.

The more I read it, the more I realize that Fantasy World is absolutely trying to emulate a particular kind of fantasy, and I’m realizing my own fantasy biases. When I think of “fantasy,” I realized I’m almost always thinking of “romantic fantasy.” FW does not seem like it will play out romantic fantasy well. You’re going for something more like Game of Thrones, which you mention briefly in the Introduction.

FW is really not trying to “emulate” a specific source.

That’s true, but it’s clearly trying to emulate a specific type of fantasy–one that’s prevalent in many different books, as you listed! I do think it would helpful if you said more about the type of fantasy FW emulates. Listing inspirational books and movies is one way to do that. Saying more about the type of fantasy FW emulates is another way to do that.

Re: sex (much less important)

When I say “sex” in all my posts, I mean explicit sexual intercourse, not sexuality. Hopefully that clarifies some confusion.

When I say “it’s a big deal,” I don’t mean that it’s central to the game, or the main focus. I mean that, if it happens at all (again, explicit sex, not sexual content or innuendo), it’s important, and usually veiled (as in, Lines and Veils).

The Minstrel and Priest moves in question here, have sex (again, intercourse) happening very casually (“and the entire crowd turned into one giant orgy”). Clearly the One Golden Rule could stop this from happening, but it initially seemed awkward to me that it was included as an option for the Minstrel and Priest at all.

Now that I know more about where you’re coming from, and what source works you’re drawing inspiration from, it makes much more sense.

And you’re right, it’s easy to remove, so I’m not worried about it. :)

Hopefully that cleared up any confusions you had! :D

Alessandro Piroddi3 years ago

When I think of “fantasy,” I realized I’m almost always thinking of “romantic fantasy.” FW does not seem like it will play out romantic fantasy well.

That's very interesting to me... could you elaborate? :D
What do you mean by "romantic fantasy" and why do you feel that FW doesn't do that well?
Wikipedia offers some info, but I want to be sure about your specific point of view.

(also at this point I have a question for background: have you played FW already?)

Alex Leone3 years ago (2 edits)

Wow, yeah, that Wikipedia page is really short. XD I found this page, which lays out in more detail what I’m thinking of.

Also, as far as Wikipedia pages go, High fantasy is another fantasy type that interests me, and its page is much longer and more detailed.

The thing that ties them together for me, is that, in these stories, the antagonist is usually “evil”–greedy, cruel, arrogant, power-hungry, etc.–if not to their core, then at least in their choices and actions. The protagonists can then work together to make the world a better place. It doesn’t seem like that’s what Fantasy World is going for, and that’s a good thing! No game can capture the entire fantasy genre. :D

(No, I haven’t played FW yet. I read and study every game I bring to my table very thoroughly before I introduce it to my players. I noticed some typos and things I didn’t understand when I was reading through FW thoroughly for the first time, which is why I started reporting them to you here. I’m still studying FW.)

Alessandro Piroddi3 years ago

Interesting, thanks for the links :D
And (again) thanks for the typo notations and the feedback in general, it's all very useful :)

About FW genre as compared to Romantic Fantasy...

TL:DR

- Romantic Fantasy is the bread and butter of FW, just use a more PG-13 tone and you are good to go.
- High Fantasy is... less fitting, depending on which tropes and elements you focus on. Pretty much everything is doable and fitting except for 2 things: plot-wise the focus on the lone hero, theme-wise the focus on Good-vs-Evil

...

So, Romantic Fantasy?

strong female lead... can do
themes of tolerance and diversity... can do
themes of ecology and environmental care... can do
themes of "nature vs tech" and "responsible use vs abuse"... can do
(basically Saruman's factories vs nature and natural magic)
exclusive to humans and "bright" animals... can do
no problem on the kind of Protagonists involved, the focus on their evolving inter-relationships
no problem on the social change they can bring
the focus on the ties between Protagonists and the world surrounding them (socially, politically, relationally) is at the core of FW too

This far I see zero differences between Romantic Fantasy as defined by Wikipedia and the Blue Rose article, and what can be achieved with FW. It actually fits very well and is supported and encouraged but the system mechanics :)

The one big difference I can see is the whole "good vs evil" thing.
It's possible to do... but for the Protagonists (thus the Players) it doesn't come free, nor easy.
What I mean is...

In D&D a Legal-Good character is "good" by definition, no matter what they do. The game never challenges the PC's (or Player's) definition of what "good" means. It is sanctioned by design. This of course goes in pair with the idea that "good" exists in the first place, and thus that also "evil" exists in and of itself, and (usually) that these are not circumstantial elements but rather intrinsic qualities.

Players and GM have to reeeally want to question and explore different moral themes in their game, and work hard at doing so with their own out-of-game devices.

In FW it's the other way around, especially if classes such as the Priest and Knight are involved in the mix. The game mechanics never impose an "all is grey, all is relative" worldview... but... they often foster the idea that, literally, "everything is people". So while there can easily be an "evil tyrant" it also comes natural to see them as a person, with their own flaws and qualities, fears and hopes, a past, a family, things they love, etc. This doesn't excuse their "evil acts" but it puts them into a frame where you can at least understand them, see them not as "evil" but rather misguided, broken, corrupted ... all qualities that are situational and could happen to anyone.

The "monster" in the cave? It's a savage beast, sure, and dangerous, sure, and needs to be dealt with, obviously... but it's not intrinsically "evil"... it's a "person" too... it's behaviour comes from somewhere, it has its own reasons, it can be understood.

All of this is presented, through many bits of the game mechanics, as a sort of question to the Protagonists (and their Players).
You are "good"? Fine, but why? What does it mean? What if the villain does the same thing you do? Are they "good" too now? No? Ok, but why? What's the difference? Ah, this is the difference? Fine, perfect, does it still holds true under this other circumstance? And this one? And this one?
They are "evil"? Fine, but why? etc...

There is no right answer, so the game never pushes a specific view. But the questioning is "softly ingrained" within the mechanics. It can be downplayed without breaking the game. But it's there.

itch.io

Viewing post in The Priest Questions and Feedback