Post by Alex Leone in The Priest Questions and Feedback

Viewing post in The Priest Questions and Feedback

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