Is it low fantasy when a Hero can be overwhelmed by 10 mercenaries?
>>47871308
No, that's just realism.
Low fantasy is when things don't have a lot of magical bullshit in them.
>>47871317
Realism would be hero overwhelmed by two mercenaries
>>47871347
Well technically he didn't say it was the minimum
>>47871347
depends on the level of skill and the type of equipment
a well trained and armored knight versus two poor mercenaries seems like it'd end up in favor of the knight even with full realism
if its knight + horse it would even be highly unrealistic for the mercenaries to pose a serious threat
>>47871308
No, because those mercs could just be as fantastic as the hero.
>>47871347
>Depends on so many factors that your statement just causes argument
Depends on:
>tranining on both sides
>equipment on both sides
>ambush or fair fight
Etcetera
>10 heroes are overwhelmed by a single mercenary
Low fantasy: 80-100% melee, 0-20% magic, with small deviations in percentages.
And even one mercenary overwhelming can be perfectly fine if it was smart about it. 1v1? Sure the hero would win. Merc set up a cloths line while hero is full gallop on mount? Different story. Heros should be great because of what they do and not their plot armor.
>>47871308
Why are you asking this question? Are you asking for a definition of "low fantasy," because that's a weird and stupid way to do it.
Are you just trying to start an argument? Because that's the only motivation I can imagine for asking about an ill-defined term in such a fuzzy way.
So, you're either stupid or malicious or both. Please drink bleach.
>>47871407
now thats just the DM setting up the Dragon
>>47871407
I guess Gundam is low fantasy.
It is hero and mercs of comparable levels.
Not necessarily, OP. Being a protagonist in a High Fantasy setting doesn't assure being especially powerful, or always encountering enemies that are always weak enough to fight. Those ten mercenaries can be the cream of the crop as far as the setting is concerned, or they can catch the hero when he's wounded (or sick, or drugged, or exhausted, or demoralized).
High Fantasy does not always mean Easy Mode; sometimes the opposite can be true, even in comparison to Low Fantasy.
>>47871308
Only if it happens in the real world.
>>47871419
Crossbows and bowsguns sometimes tooare a thing in low fantasy, not just clubs n melee-stuff.i think you knew that but used the wrong word, happens. Dont want to argue, just to clarify
>>47871308
Eh, I don't think so. That's just a Hero sucking at his job. A hero is supposed to be someone who can change the world, be it based on cunning and tactics or sheer skill at fighting.
If he allows himself to be killed by 10 mercenaries, he wasn't cunning at all. If he loses in a fight against 10 mercenaries, he wasn't really a good warrior.
And no, it isn't all that unrealistic for a exceptionally good soldier to be worth more than dozens of common ones.
See: The Viking at Stamford Bridge, Tsuitsui Jomyo Meishu, Jack Churchill, Alvin York
>>47871308
"Low Fantasy" just means it takes place on Earth.
>>47871740
>If he loses in a fight against 10 mercenaries, he wasn't really a good warrior.
I for one am outraged beyond sanity when my favorite fictional characters are slain by no less than twenty five of the realms finest bladesmen, and even then he shall be revived by the caress of the sweetest maiden in all the land.
>>47871670
no your right I should have clarified as more physical stuff rather then melee. Things like fire pots and scalding oil too.
>>47871308
depends on the hero.
>>47871777
Trips are right. Everything else is meaningless.
>>47871308
>>47871396
>>47871801
Exactly. I mean, if the one who's supposed to be saving the world and whatnot can easily be defeated by a squad of footmen, why don't you just send your armies and crush the ultimate evil with your "superior numbers" and whatnot?
It makes absolutely no sense.
>>47873663
Also the hero must be a half dragon half asimaar half fiend half werewolf and have a +9001 Vampire Katana of Diagonal Slashing and when he whirlwind jutsu decapitates all the guard he turns slowly and his trenchcoat flutters in the wind and he give a wicked smirk as he tips his trademark meme trillby.
>>47873741
So you mean that someone being able to dispatch a squad of soldiers is inherently edgy mary sue teenage OC level?
Last time I checked, the last wildly popular "low fantasy" setting had shit like this all over the place. I mean, sure GoT is edgy because GRR is like an emo kid, but I don't see people bashing it for having "OP" fighters.
>>47871347
3pbp
>>47871740
>Alvin York
To be fair, I'm pretty sure no one told York he was in a high realism/simulationist game,so he went at it like Wolfenstein.
>>47871308
Depends how awesome the mercenaries are
>>47871308
>>47871317
>>47871419
>>47871670
Literally has nothing to do with high or low fantasy whatsoever.
Some high fantasy has the world based on Earthly limits of physics, and the tales are told by characters not capable of crazy shit but exploring the strange and magical world. Some low fantasy has no limit to what a character can do, and they can fight off alien demons from the voids of space with luck and testosterone.
>>47871308
Not really, most of modern fantasy settings are low fantasy. Practically in high fantasy setting heroes could be outnumbered, defeated and killed but they either avoid this situation and escape, big good guy shows up and scares away enemies or they end up captured and transported to BBEG realm or smaller bad guy working under him for plot development.
>>47871308
Mid-low. LOTR level, really.
Real low fantasy has the character die before the game even starts
>>47871447
And then Yazan gets btfo by a couple dumbass kids in the first few episodes of ZZ.
>>47871308
Are action movies low fantasy? 80's action heroes can take out small armies on their own, and most of them are on present day (past now) Earth.
>>47873741
Are you mentally retarded? Have you lost the ability to communicate in anything except memes and hyperbole?
There are dozens, even hundreds of examples of 'good' (Or at least, generally well-liked) fantasy settings where it is not only possible and conceivable, but has actually been the case that lone warriors have defeated overwhelming odds.
Tolkien did it. Hell, the Epic of fucking Gilgamesh did it. Are you seriously going to tell me that the worth of all literature involving this theme has been devalued by a jumble of buzzwords and nonsensical bullshit spawned from modern pop culture?
I once saw a movie were an old soldier killed like 50 dudes with one of those contraptions that throws metal pencils real real fast.
He had training though, years earlier some cop tortured him and he went into the bushes and fought them in a tunnel made of stone
>>47873663
So kinda like Russia using human wave tactics in WW2?
>>47871494
Doesn't High Fantasy mean just a lot of magic/space tech?
>>47875920
Oxygen deprivation mang.
>>47876050
High Fantasy means happens on an imagined world rather than Earth.
>>47871347
>Not winning 300 v 143000
>Or 3000 v 30000
>""realism""
>>47876050
It's high magic
>>47876230
But Dorf Fort is called low fantasy and it isn't on Earth.
>>47871308
Yes, in high fantasy hero gets overwhelmed by 10 housecats.
>>47876277
>But Dorf Fort is called low fantasy
Incorrectly.
>>47876312
Mid Fantasy, then?
>>47876342
You said it yourself.
>it isn't on Earth.
High Fantasy.
>>47876361
So it's impossible to set a low fantasy on another world?
>>47871407
One guy versus 5 people works as well.
>>47871419
20% magic is a fuckton. A world where one in five people is magically capable would be so vastly different from real-world societies as to be practically unrecognizable. I'd say even 1% is borderline high-magic.
>>47876385
According to that guy, no.
But I check the wiki and it seems more about amount of fantastical/nonsense stuff than it being literally Earth.
>>47876385
Yeah.
>>47876422
I meant yes, it's impossible.
>>47876422
>But I check the wiki and it seems more about amount of fantastical/nonsense stuff
That would be a meaningless definition.
>>47876452
It means about how close it is to actual realism.
>>47871740
>hero = good warrior
Not necessarily, anon.
>>47871777
>>47876230
>>47876361
This is such a dumb definition, though. It tells you absolutely nothing relevant about the world because you can take literally any setting and just say "oh yeah by the way this takes place in a distant mythical prehistory/post-apocalyptic far future".
>>47876477
Right, literally meaningless.
How close something is to realistic would be a scale, rather than a binary low or high. Then you'd need to quantify just how fantastic a fantasy element is. Do Orcs make a setting high fantasy? Do Wizards?
>>47876512
>It tells you absolutely nothing relevant
It tells you whether it occurs on our world or another one.
>>47876598
>How close something is to realistic would be a scale, rather than a binary low or high. Then you'd need to quantify just how fantastic a fantasy element is. Do Orcs make a setting high fantasy? Do Wizards?
Yes, obviously this isn't a binary distinction. But things like orcs and wizards make a setting MORE high fantasy (or "high magic" if you prefer) than a setting without orcs or wizards. Being on a continuous scale =/= meaningless.
>It tells you whether it occurs on our world or another one.
This is the thing that's actually meaningless. The fact that Middle-earth happens to be the actual real world 10,000 years ago makes absolutely no difference to anything that happens in the setting and is in general completely irrelevant. It's like if you classified settings based on whether the author's last name starts with a vowel: sure, that's a clearly-defined unambiguous binary classification, but it's also completely trivial and doesn't say anything interesting or useful about the setting.
>>47876714
>Being on a continuous scale =/= meaningless.
That's the thing though, it NOT a scale.
It's High Fantasy or Low Fantasy.
It is binary.
So if I have a setting with Orcs and Wizard is it High Fantasy or Low Fantasy to you?
>This is the thing that's actually meaningless.
It is not, you may find it to be of limited utility but it does in fact tell us one thing, which cannot be said for the stupid definition you would have it be.
>>47876787
If something lasts 1 day, is that a long time or a short time?
Remember, "long"/"short" is binary, so clearly there must be one absolute answer to this question or otherwise those terms are meaningless.
>>47876787
By your definition some of the settings considered iconic staples of high fantasy (Middle Earth, Wheel of Time) are low fantasy, while A Song of Ice and Fire is high fantasy. Your definition is shit and does not correlate to the accepted uses of the phrases whatsoever.
How are there people posting in this thread without the ability to read and/or use Wikipedia?
>>47876856
Guess what, people actually concerned with measuring length have come up with scales.
If you were to go and buy a length of rope you wouldn't ask for just long, you would have an exact length in mind.
What is long and what is short varies depending on context. One day is a long time to sit on a toilet, one day is not a long time to travel around the world.
What is High Fantasy and what is Low Fantasy meanwhile only has the context of describing a Fantasy setting.
You definition is still meaningless.
>>47876981
>Your definition is shit
It's correct and actually has a meaning unlike the garbage you're trying to push.
Why should ASoIaF be low fantasy in your definition?
If all we do is base it on the amount of magic shit flying around then are undead, dragons, giants, gods and wizards simply not enough? What if we added Orcs? Would it be High Fantasy then?
What if there were flying boats?
Where's the tipping point?
>>47876981
By definition all of those are high fantasy.
>>47877114
>How are there people posting on the internet without the ability to read and/or use Wikipedia
Fixed
>>47877114
Wikipedia isn't especially clear here. Within the course of a single section, it claims that 1) high fantasy takes place on worlds that aren't earth, and 2) Middle-earth is a classic example of high fantasy. Those cannot both be correct.
>>47877117
Yeah, how long a time period is depends on what you compare it to. Similarly, how high fantasy something is depends on what you compare it to.
>If all we do is base it on the amount of magic shit flying around then are undead, dragons, giants, gods and wizards simply not enough?
Depends on how common/influential these things are. If they're there but rare/inactive like in ASoIaF it's probably low fantasy. Can there be things that are more low fantasy than ASoIaF? Yes, but there aren't too many - that's exactly what I mean by saying that ASoIaF is "low fantasy".
>Where's the tipping point?
There isn't one. When do you have enough grains of sand to make a "pile"? How many seconds, exactly, do you have to have before it's a "long time" to sit on a toilet? It turns out that not every category has firmly-fixed boundaries. Hell, even fantasy as a whole doesn't have clearly-defined boundaries. At some point it just starts blending into a similar genre like sci-fi or horror.
>>47877167
Not using either definition people in this thread are using. WoT is the only one that has commonly-used and powerful magic, while ASoIaF is the only one that doesn't take place on earth.
>Johny set sail from Portsmouth, England, hoping to travel to the new world, but he was ship wrecked along the way and found an Island filled with cannibals!
Low Fantasy.
>On the world of Midterra, in the kingdom Saracast which lies along the northern bank bank of the golden river the good King Gideon reigns
High Fantasy.
The terms came about when most Fantasy was of the first sort. Nowadays most Fantasy is of the second sort because the world has been discovered
>>47877336
>Those cannot both be correct.
Middle-earth is not earth, so it can be.
>>47877117
ASoIaF starts off as low fantasy and gradually becomes more high fantasy as the series progresses is the correct answer.
The setting as a whole is high fantasy but the story itself starts as low fantasy and gradually becomes more high fantasy.
The first book has virtually no fantastic elements aside from dragons in the past and the seasons. The seasons are its "One big conceit" in the first book. Once you get more than one or two big fantastic elements, then it stops being low fantasy.
It's the same general thing as hard sci fi. You're allowed one or two improbable things in hard sci fi and everything else has to be based in current science.
>>47877336
Show me Gondor on a map of Earth. Give me a globe with the Seven Kingdoms
>>47877371
middle earth is set in a mythological version of our ancient past. So is hyperboria.
Though by the 60's, low fantasy was synonymous with sword and sorcery and high fantasy with epic fantasy.
This is why conan gets called an early version of low fantasy and king of elflands daughter and early version of high fantasy.
>>47871308
There are no heroes in low fantasy. It's mercenaries all the way down.
>>47877348
>>Johny set sail from Portsmouth, England, hoping to travel to the new world, but he was ship wrecked along the way and found an Island filled with cannibals!
Literally not even fantasy.
>>47877371
>>47877406
Middle-earth a mythical prehistory of earth. Tolkien directly acknowledges this in his letters, and specifies that the events of LotR happen around 6000 years before the present day. He does remark "Many reviewers seem to assume that Middle-earth is another planet!", but says that while these events must have happened in a very different time he intentionally "kept my feet on my own mother-earth for place".
And no, it's not too rare for the continents of Middle-earth to be shifted around by various dramatic happenings. Gondor doesn't fit on a modern map for the same reason Numenor doesn't fit on a Third Age map.
And really, the fact that it's entirely possible to read The Hobbit and LotR without ever being aware that Middle-earth is Earth shows how pointless the whole "low fantasy = real world" definition is.
>>47876361
>it isn't on Earth.
>High Fantasy.
it depends on whether you're taking the literary slang or the videogame/RPG/wargaming slang
low/high fantasy isn't a hard set definition. It's an argument starter.
>>47877336
>Yeah, how long a time period is depends on what you compare it to.
It depends on the context it is being used in. High Fantasy and Low Fantasy has only one context.
>Depends on how common/influential these things are.
Again, not something you can actually define because it is entirely subjective.
>Well I was reading a Fantasy novel that was described as low fantasy but then an elf appeared! What the fuck?
You definition does not serve as a definition, it is meaningless.
>There isn't one.
Then don't use the binary option.
>It turns out that not every category has firmly-fixed boundaries.
Yet this one does and should. It is supposed to be used to help describe a setting. Your definition describes nothing.
>>47877374
>ASoIaF starts off as low fantasy
It starts with undead. Once again the quantity of magic shit fails to find any use.
ASoIaF is High Fantasy from the beginning.
You only become High Fantasy from Low Fantasy when you step into Narnia.
>>47871308
Depends on if the hero has time to cast a magic missile before he's dogpiled.
>If it's not set on Earth it's not low fantasy
>>47877600
>the correct definition is the wrong one
>>47871308
No. Those mercenaries could be fearsome demon knights, or have mastered Nine Yin White Bone Claw and No Dogs Under Heaven. It has no bearing on shit.
>>47877559
>Yet this one does and should. It is supposed to be used to help describe a setting. Your definition describes nothing.
It answers the question "is there a lot of magic/supernatural shit or not?" The fact that this is somewhat subjective (because "a lot" is inherently subjective) does not mean it's meaningless.
>It starts with undead. Once again the quantity of magic shit fails to find any use.
Do you genuinely not understand what people mean when they say that ASoIaF has less magic than, say, WoT? In ASoIaF you have to travel to the fringes of the world to find any magic at all, and there's barely anyone who can actually make significant use of magical power. In WoT there are cities full of people who can juggle fireballs and call down lightning. This makes WoT significantly more high fantasy than ASoIaF.
>>47877661
Cite your sources on that statement
>>47877559
>starts with undead
Once again, you have "one fantastic element". If the presence of ANY fantastic elements make something high fantasy, then you're basically left with historical fiction and we might as well not even have a low fantasy genre.
Besides, they don't appear in the first scene in the books. The books end up being more high fantasy in the end but have a slower drip of fantasy elements in the beginning.
If we can't have fantastic elements, then does low fantasy even exist as a setting? If you have no fantastical elements "on-screen" for the first 100 pages and only three or four fantasy things by the end of the book, I'd say the book is low fantasy.
Do you consider conan to be low fantasy? Because that's been used as an example of what low fantasy is for over 50 years now. Hell, the whole "super realistic fantasy" is a more modern thing. In the 50's and 60's, low and high referred to the "power level" of magic more than it did how common it is. The term high fantasy started getting used a lot in its modern form in the 50's and basically meant epic fantasy until the 70's when people started getting burnt out on tolkienesque high fantasy.
>>47877497
Tolkien saying that he based Middle-Earth on a mythical reimagining of the history of Earth while ignoring all geography and actual history doesn't make it low fantasy. That's retarded.
>>47877559
>You only become High Fantasy from Low Fantasy when you step into Narnia.
So it's fine for earth to exist in a high fantasy setting as long as the story doesn't take place entirely on earth? If a wizard briefly travels to Mars does the story suddenly become "high fantasy"?
>>47877374
On some definitons of low fantasy, ASoIaF is that.
Its about a realm which is about to enter its high fantasy age again.
And I think thats why its amazing that HBO even tried to do it properly: The most amazing moments are always when Magic shows its gigantic "fuck you" finger and starts doing shit.
>>47871347
Not always
>>47877716
You are retarded.
Conan was never considered low fantasy by anyone but morons who didn't actually know what words meant that then bred and passed their ignorance on with their need children.
The borrowers is low fantasy, the indian in the cupboard is low fantasy, the old pulp novels with ooga bunga voodoo are low fantasy.
Just because you learned how to use words incorrectly doesn't make you right, it makes you defiantly stupid. Something that shocks no one, because there are a lot of you around.
>>47877694
>It answers the question "is there a lot of magic/supernatural shit or not?"
Except it does not. "A lot" is dependant entirely on taste. Therefore it is meaningless.
>Do you genuinely not understand what people mean when they say that ASoIaF has less magic
I understand. You can compare two settings and and find which has more magic, but that doesn't mean that one is therefore low fantasy and the other high fantasy.
>>47877716
>Once again, you have "one fantastic element".
So at what number of fantastic elements does it transition to high fantasy then? Personally I find the idea of undead to be pretty fantastic. More fantastic than jackalopes. So how should values be assigned in here? How many jackalopes in a undead worth? How many jackalopes does it take to make a setting High Fantasy?
>>47877732
>So it's fine for earth to exist in a high fantasy setting as long as the story doesn't take place entirely on earth?
Absolutely.
>>47877822
>who didn't actually know what words meant
low fantasy has no "correct" definition, and you are retarded for thinking so
>>47871777
That's just historical fiction if there isn't some fantastic gimmick thrown in.
>>47877850
>So at what number of fantastic elements does it transition to high fantasy then?
Once its the baseline.
Once you have living gods that could reshape the continents if they wanted to(but it might take some time).
The joke is always that in low fantasy, a demon invasion is a doom for a country. In high fantasy, said demons are so much stronger its doom for a continent.
>It's gritty, therefore it's low fantasy!
Horror tends to use low fantasy a lot, too. I gave children's book examples because they are what I know.
Most people mean sword and sorcery or sword and sandals or sword and laser when they say low fantasy, but because of ASoIaF people started calling hard fantasy low fantasy.
Most people find "high magic" and "low magic" more accurate and easier to understand.
>>47877722
That's not at all what he said, though. He intentionally set it 6000 years ago so that it would be at least vaguely plausible that all this happened without leaving any effect on earth's actual history. A "mythical reimagining of the history of Earth" sounds exactly like all the allegorical stories he was always complaining about.
>>47877822
What? The Conan stories are set on prehistoric earth. How is this anything but low fantasy, by your own definition?
>>47877850
If you have something like ASoIaF, which has less magic than most other fantasy settings, you can say that it's low fantasy. On the other hand, something like WoT with more magic than a majority of fantasy settings would be high fantasy. Terms like these are defined by comparisons to similar things.
>So at what number of fantastic elements does it transition to high fantasy then?
So at what number of seconds does it transition to spending a long time on the toilet then?
>>47877902
>Once its the baseline.
Once more, meaningless twaddle.
At what point does it magically become baseline?
>The joke is always that in low fantasy, a demon invasion is a doom for a country. In high fantasy, said demons are so much stronger its doom for a continent.
That's a joke?
>>47877957
>At what point does it magically become baseline?
When it do. When else?
>>47877822
>words have set in stone meanings created by god
The definition of high and low fantasy has changed twice depending on the time period.
50's-70's was when it became commonly used and referred to s&s and epic fantasy. Then nowadays, it's a sliding scale of realism.
So semantic change isn't a thing? So when someone says that 6 year old males can't be called girls; they're idiots and wrong and have been passed down dumbassery from dumbasses of ages past?
Rejecting the idea of semantic change is a hallmark of autistics ime.
>>47877850
The values are assigned subjectively for the most part. Genres aren't these hard and fast things, they bleed over into each other a lot. It's like arguing over whether I Robot or 2001 are hard sci-fi or not. It depends on how fantastic you find the idea of intelligent robots and aliens.
>>47877855
The generally accepted definition is the correct one, otherwise there is no point in calling anything low fantasy.
Is solomon kane low fantasy? It's about a puritan traveling around colonial america and africa.
>>47877984
If you have a higher than 50% chance of having to explain what you mean by a word or correct someone else for 'using it wrong,' it follows you don't have a generally accepted definition.
>>47877933
>If you have something like ASoIaF, which has less magic than most other fantasy settings, you can say that it's low fantasy.
No, you cannot. Because the cut off point doesn't actually exist.
>So at what number of seconds does it transition to spending a long time on the toilet then?
Entirely subjective. Personally I consider anymore than five minutes a long time to spend on the toilet. Meanwhile Low and High Fantasy are used to sell people on a setting and are not subjective.
>>What''s the top speed of this car?
>Fast!
>>Oh boy, I'll take it!
>>47877984
>The generally accepted definition
It's not generally accepted, though. Evidenced quite clearly by the fact that you're the only one arguing for that definition in the thread.
>>47878072
>No, you cannot. Because the cut off point doesn't actually exist.
Yes, you can. I just gave the cutoff point: when a setting has less magic than most other settings. The fact that you understand what is meant by the statement "ASoIaF doesn't have as much magic as most other settings" means that you can understand my definition of low fantasy because those two things are equivalent.
>Meanwhile Low and High Fantasy are used to sell people on a setting and are not subjective.
They are not subjective by your useless definition, true. Or at least, not as obviously subjective. How far into space does a wizard have to travel before you've officially left earth and it becomes "high fantasy"?
>>47878072
>>Is this car fast?
>Yes, more so than most other cars.
or
>>Is this car fast?
>Your definition of "fast" is meaningless and subjective! Using the correct definition of fast, namely "was manufactured in an even-numbered year", yes it is.
>>47878145
>Yes, you can. I just gave the cutoff point: when a setting has less magic than most other settings.
Right, so now you just have to go through every fantasy setting ever created, quantify every fantasy element within each and assign a fantasticness rating to each. Then we can work out an average.
>The fact that you understand what is meant by the statement "ASoIaF doesn't have as much magic as most other settings" means that you can understand my definition of low fantasy
I can understand your definition when comparing two settings, but not alone.
Seven is greater than three.
Is valid.
Seven is greater than.
Is not valid.
> How far into space does a wizard have to travel before you've officially left earth and it becomes "high fantasy"?
Reach another world.
>>47878285
>Reach another world.
so is mars high fantasy
>>47878285
>I can understand your definition when comparing two settings, but not alone.
So you would not agree with the statement "ASoIaF has less magic than most fantasy settings"?
>Reach another world.
As in a planet? So we can go to another galaxy, but as long as we don't actually set foot on another planet it's still low fantasy?
>>47878145
I think he's using the 'literary' definition of low fantasy, i.e. fantastical elements in a world where these defy what is generally understood as that world's internal logic. It doesn't actually have to be Earth, so long as it's a world that isn't 'supposed' to have any fantastical elements.
For instance, if you're in a low fantasy setting, you'd probably freak out if you saw a spooky skeleton because that's an affront against reason. If you saw a spooky skeleton in high fantasy, you'd break out your mace because the lich is up to shenanigans again.
Also, tabletop players tend to use a different definition.
Also, I got all this off wikipedia and I'm not ashamed of that.
>>47878262
>>>Is this car fast?
>>Yes, more so than most other cars.
Subjective answer to subjective question. Fine.
Now imagine the fellow who purchases the car finds it only goes 60mph, he'll feel silly and get a refund if he is able.
>>Is this car fast?
>Your definition of "fast" is meaningless and subjective! Using the correct definition of fast, namely "was manufactured in an even-numbered year", yes it is.
If I was using a term wrong I would like to be corrected.
>low fantasy
Magic is rare
>high fantasy
Magic is common
this isn't hard people
>>47878317
>So you would not agree with the statement "ASoIaF has less magic than most fantasy settings"?
I would say that since I have not read about anywhere near most fantasy settings I do not know.
>As in a planet?
As in a world. It does not necessarily have to be a planet.
>>47878437
1/1 People have magic
1/10 People have magic
1/100 People have magic
1/1000 People have magic
1/10000 People have magic
1/100000 People have magic
1/1000000 People have magic
1/10000000 People have magic
0 People have magic
Where is the line senpai?
>>47878495
Does the line matter?
>>47878495
It's magic. I don't gotta explain shit. Seriously though, it's subjective and has no set line in the sand.
>>47878495
It's how the characters react in the setting to magic.
If they are like "Holy shit magic!" then it's low fantasy.
If they are like "Just use magic" then it's high fantasy.
>>47877711
Not him, but here:
>HIGH FANTASY. A term used by Lloyd Alexander in a 1971 essay on "High Fantasy and Heroic Romance" and subsequently developed by Kenneth J. Zahorski and Robert H. Boyer in an attempt to develop a terminology with which to deal with genre materials. In Zahorski and Boyer's taxonomy, high fantasy consists entirely of fiction set in secondary worlds, while the "low fantasy" with which it is immediately contrasted consists of fiction set in the primary world, into which magical objects and entities are introduced piecemeal (i.e., intrusive fantasies).
I'm not saying this is the "one true definition" but it's the definition most common in academic sources.
The terms "primary world" and "secondary world" come from Tolkien, who wrote about them in the 1947 essay "On Fairy-stories":
>What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful 'sub-creator'. He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is 'true': it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken, the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then our in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside.
Note that LotR would probably still be considered high fantasy in this definition, because even though it takes place on Earth, it takes place in a fictional period of time which doesn't directly fit into actual history, in which cultures and places have been invented wholesale. Which is contrasted with stories which start in the real world, or a real period of history, and are then embellished with fantasy elements.
>>47878612
Another possibility is if they are like "Magic, pfft yeah right."
>>47878545
>Does the line matter?
If trying to use it to accurately describe things then yes.
>>47878562
Not with the shitty subjective "definition" that defines nothing.
>>47878612
>It's how the characters react in the setting to magic.
Even worse, different characters react in different ways.
Could Frodo overwhelm even one mercenary?Trick question, LotR is low fantasy.
>>47878677
It's not a subjective definition. It's a subjective descriptor, like 'tasty' or 'high-concept.' There's no absolute point of reference these are drawn from and they don't orient the thing being described relative to other things except by what the individual describing it finds 'gross' or 'low-concept.'
As to how 'characters' react, I think it would be better to describe it in terms of whether or not fantastical elements are part of a consensus reality or not.
>>47878362
That makes more sense, but it's still subjective. ASoIaF is probably low fantasy by that definition. But then again, there are those (beyond the Wall, for example) who accept giants and undead as just part of life. The majority of people in the setting dismiss that stuff as mythical, but not everyone.
>>47878440
What is a "world"? Surely this definition can't be subjective - then it would be meaningless.
>>47878495
What is "fantasy"? Surely this definition can't be subjective - then it would be meaningless.
>>47878090
>he thinks I'm the only one
Seriously, I've made like 4 posts in this thread total.
>>47879172
>What is a "world"? Surely this definition can't be subjective - then it would be meaningless.
World is not subjective, it merely has multiple definitions.
>What is "fantasy"?
Something which is unreal.
>>47879618
>World is not subjective, it merely has multiple definitions.
What are these objective definitions, then? I'm curious where exactly in the universe my spacefaring wizards can travel without the setting turning into high fantasy.
>Something which is unreal.
Is all of fiction fantasy?
>>47879723
>What are these objective definitions, then?
Use a dictionary. World has different meanings than simply "planet."
>Is all of fiction fantasy?
I'd say the two are synonymous, though Fantasy as a literary genre is usually distinguished by the presence of magic.
>>47875950
Are you talking about Rambo?
>>47876787
>It is not, you may find it to be of limited utility but it does in fact tell us one thing, which cannot be said for the stupid definition you would have it be.
The one thing it tells us is completely meaningless, because it can easily be nothing more than an informed attribute with zero impact whatsoever on worldbuilding, even at the level of topography.
>"it's ancient earth, therefore it's low fantasy!"
>it has a kitchen sink of fantasy races and monsters
>it treats magic as commonplace, safe, reliable, AND capable of incredible feats
>it takes place on a world with over eighty percent landmass
>it has cinematic and unreal laws of physics
>"there was a magical apocalypse between then and now lol"
>>47880533
Nope, it tells us it takes place on an imagined world.
Your made up past world where everything is different is still High Fantasy because you've just made it all up.
Even if you were correct though, and the one thing it did tells us was not very important, that one thing is still infinitely more than the nothing we are told otherwise.
ITT: Buffy the Vampire Slayer is high fantasy
>>47871308
10?
Why not 20? Good ones
>>47879172
>ASoIaF is probably low fantasy by that definition.
Song of Ice and Fire is Low INTO High Fantasy.
The raw skepticism against religion, The Wall, and how rare sorcery is. Simply because we are experiencing a period where everything is at its lowest, at the place where its the driest.
But then we visit the neighbor continent. There is literally warlock clans in the open, doing extremely dangerous shit. Literally a witch cabal leading the Dorthraki hoards.
In the city of the Iron Bank, the Faceless Deity is still in the open, doing his job and laughing.
North of the wall there is literally a zombie hoard, and ice liches. Alongside a lot of magic beasts who is dying out because there is no more ecosystem as winter gets colder.
The stone disease is also still in the world(big deal!), even if they decided the best idea was to skip over most of that in the TV adaptation.
I agree it starts of as very dry novels, turns into low fantasy, and is slowly going for a high fantasy finale, with Dragons frying glacier liches.
>>47875445
He was a literal Paladin
>>47871308
So high fantasy texts are those that are set in "other worlds". Examples include The Lord of the Rings and other books set in Middle Earth and A Song of Ice and Fire. Low fantasy texts are set in the "primary world". Examples include Harry Potter and the entire "magical realism" sub-genre.
>>47871308
It's low when only humans are present, magic is non-existent or the next best thing, and BBEG is more of a political event instead of a Sorcerer plotting for kingdom domination.
High Fantasy is when all sorts of fantastic races and beasts exist side by side, magic is used regularly enough to solve problems or feature as a deus ex machina, and the BBEG is using magic for his world domination plans.
>>47881094
>can take on an army with twenty goodmen
>forgets to feed his dogs
>>47871347
Realism is a single Knight holding a bridge against a hundred other Knights and either routing or killing them all.
Realism is one angry soldier in the Trench with a broken rifle and a knife previously shot point-blank with buckshot and hit with a grenade to the face attacking a platoon of 30 men dragging away his unconscious bro and killing them all.
Realism is a force of 286 Knights routing and killing an enemy army of thousands.
Realism is a single Commando holding the line against a platoon of enemies, expending all his ammunition until he is forced to use a bipod as a melee weapon.
Realism is after being defeated once, casting down every single Knight to ever challenge you.
The greatest crime of the modern age is that we actively deny the existence of heroes for "muh grim realism", when heroes exist, and their feats and accomplishments in war are legendary.
>>47884004
Exaggerated legendary bullshit.
What's more, I bet you use these examples, which are one-offs for those involved, to justify your "muh noblebright fun" characters doing shit like that 10 times before breakfast.
>>47871308
Not necessarily. It's probably low power, but they could also be super badass mercenaries.
>>47884185
Two of those are recent and are cleanly verified using modern technology. The rest are entirely credible, considering they're taken from the entire length and breadth of human history. Just because something is very difficult and very unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible.
>>47871777
That's /lit/'s definition, not ours.
>>47876277
OR IS IT
>>47876787
>It's High Fantasy or Low Fantasy.
>It is binary.
"high" and "low" are both relative words. Note these inflections:
Higher
Lower
>>47877850
>taste
It's dependent on point of reference, you mongoloid.
>>47879618
>Something which is unreal.
Specifically, it is something which has its origins in the fancies of the mind. An aurora is not a fantasy, but the sky whales which dance in it are.
>>47878677
You might be the dumbest person I have ever seen on this website.
>>47884004
My nigga.
>>47881094
Jon snow bitchslapped that kid like he wasn't even there
>>47884004
some fair points but the greatest crime of the modern age is probably murder or corporate feudalism or something
>>47884004
The commando one referencing that Ghurka? Nepal doesn't have much, but there's a reason their soldiers are praised as they are.
>>47884185
William Marshal's entire life was exceptionalism incarnate, with him besting hundreds of knights, both on and off the battlefield, and going on to be the Mesnie of three kings and defend all of England from French invasion and rebellion.
Although IMO the best of those dudes mentioned is Henry Lincoln Johnson, a sergeant in the Harlem Hellfighters who got ambushed by 30 Germans while serving as a lookout with another Hellfighter in a foxhole. Henry took a direct shot to the chest from a shotgun and got blasted by a grenade. When he picked himself off the ground, his friend was gone and so was the platoon. So he chased them down (despite being shot/fragged) and jumped the 30 Germans, blasting away with his rifle until it ran out of ammo, then using his rifle as a bat until it broke in half, and then using a knife to kill or wound everybody else. When he was finished the entire platoon was either dead/wounded and fleeing for their lives.
>>47886681
>gaining levels in barbarian: the guide
>>47882517
High Fantasy = magic and shit and everyone knows about it
Low Fantasy = magic and shit and few people know about it/believe it exists
No Fantasy = no magic and shit
Jesus fuck y'all that's it. You can have low fantasy where elves exist but not when they rule the next kingdom over. You can have high fantasy on Earth with only humans but not when no one knows what a wizard is.
>>47875702
>Some low fantasy has no limit to what a character can do, and they can fight off alien demons from the voids of space with luck and testosterone.
How is that "no limit" to what a character can do? That could be entirely plausible within the limits of a character, to be able to defeat an alien demon.
Why not use something like the original Greek legends of demi-humans?
How much loyalty do the mercenaries have?
>>47876342
more like spicy fantasy desu
>>47888002
A surprising amount given their profession.
>>47887087
>High Magic = magic and shit and everyone knows about it
>Low Magic = magic and shit and few people know about it/believe it exists
>No Magic = no magic and shit
FTFY
High and Low Fantasy are chiefly defined by the environment. A Low Fantasy story is fiction that takes place on Earth. High Fantasy is fiction taking place in MadeUpLand. It's that simple.
So Harry Potter would be a Low Fantasy/High Magic setting.
>>47884004
This.
>>47884185
Yeah, no. Do yourself a favor and study some history before you start to make claims like that, next time.
>>47884004
Almost all RPGs provide for these situations. When the mooks all roll like shit. The other 99%+ of the time the would be hero was just another body on a battlefield.
A more realistic game tends more toward the 99%+ of the time outcome, with personal heroism crushed under unforgiving odds. More fantastical games expand that fraction of a percent chance of the heroes triumphing into a reliable occurrence.
>>47871308
Is it high fantasy when one sniper can slaughter hundreds of enemies in a few months?
The number of enemies that the protagonist can take on doesn't have to be linked to the amount of magic in the world. It's just about what kind of protagonist we're talking about. They might be a normalish person doing whatever they can or they could be a living legend who wades through combat in a flurry of steel.
>>47888849
Trustworthiness is a good quality to have for any professional. If you remain loyal for as long as the paycheck holds out, then you're more likely to get good word of mouth and less likely to have a former client come after you for betrayal.
Remember, you're doing it for the money, not for some unreliable ideology.
>>47871308
Unfortunately low fantasy means different things to different people.
Some people take high/low fantasy as a gauge of how magic heavy the setting is.
Others take the approach of whether the plot is about personal goals, or grand missions to save the world.
Both see regular use, and whenever it's bright up on tg you have a mix of people using both definitions.
>>47878072
>when people who don't know shit about cars try to talk about them
The word you're looking for is "quick".
Every car can be fast, every car is fast.
How quickly they get faster than other cars is the turning point.
>bad example buddy
>>47892288
With a moist nugget of all things, god damn.
>>47895719
it doesnt take much to kill peasants, women, and children anon
>>47871308
High and Low Fantasy are terms to describe settings and stories, depending on their content, depending on the amount of different fantastical elements, their prevalence in the story, the amound of screentime they have etc.
Take for example:
> LotR:
> Magic Creatures like Eagles
> Humans, Dwarves, Halflings, Elves, Orcs, Goblins, Balrogs, Dragons, Wizards, Evil-Overlord with World-Ending-Powers
is Iconic for Fantasy Writing. So one could argue, that LotR is more or less the medium point, because: Most of these Things are important on a storylevel, but you don't get hit in the face with them all the time. Effects of Magic are relatively subtle and larger Monsters are extremely rare.
Compare to
> D&D
> Fuckton of Multiverses
> Highlvel Characters have world-altering powers regularly
> there's a bazillion of Races playable and nonplayable
> there's a bazillion of monsters almost all over the place
> Magic and Godly Powers are flashy and overt
> Death can become meaningless via resurrection
This would be - compared to LotR - pretty high fantasy.
Compare to
> TDE / DSA
> Only a handfull of playable Races
> less than or equal to the amount of races in LotR
> but Magic is visible in day to day life in almost every city,
> the gods do interact with the world via their priests, this is also visible
> Big Bads have large countries full of undead or depraved hordes of shitheads
This would be - compared to LotR - more high fantasy,
however compared to D&D it's incredibly less high fantasy.
Compare to:
> Robin Hood and his Merry Men of the Sherwood Forest
> basically no magics whatsoever
> basically no mythical creatures or any such things
> basically real world medieval times set on our real earth
this is like baseline medieval, but because it is a fantastical story of halftruths or full fiction, it is still Fantasy....
But it is probably the Lowest type of Low Fantasy one can find.
>>47895827
?????
Battle of Kollaa was a Finnish defense. Simo Hayha would have never seen Russian civilians.
It's not like soldiers are inherently bullet-resistant, but I don't understand what you're saying here.
>>47896066
that russian "soldiers" consisted of shitty peasants, children, and fucking women
im not trying to say hes evil. just saying the russian army was a joke
>>47896123
I didn't think Russia could run out of men, but fuck me I guess.
>>47896213
its will known that russia was forcing every warm body it could get its hands on into service during wwii. how did you not know that?
>>47896254
Some of us studied other fronts.
>>47896276
you dont have to "study" any front anon. its like saying you have no idea that the nazis were involved in wwii because you "studied other fronts"
its common knowledge
>>47896276
"studied other fronts"
are you shitting me?! 90% of all manpower spent, all shots fired and all major military clashes happened on the eastern front.
Which other fronts did you "study" pray tell? "Murricans, Omaha Beach, Battle of the Bulge, VICTORY!" ? go back to school and learn something, boy!
>>47896333
I knew Russia had a very large army, and I knew they were poorly equipped and trained. I didn't know there were women and children.
Stop being obtuse you dope.
>>47896395
>m-m-muh eastern europe
And in spite of all that, nobody cares
women and children in the red army during the Winter War is objectively untrue. youths and women saw combat as partisans on the eastern front against the Germans, and women saw combat as formal combatants in the Red Army on the eastern front, but manpower issues weren't that severe until after the Winter War.
>>47896400
well it wasnt like half the army was women or anything. i was just making a joke about how shitty the russian army was. i think they had close to a million women serving though but im not sure
a healthy, fed, and warm man could probably take on good chunks of russian soldiers with a shovel
>>47884004
We both know those guys were using loaded dice.
>>47896420
Only Americans do not care. Which is laughable. The Germans had been fighting a loooong retreat and were strategically and economically defeated even before the anglo-Allies landed in Normandy. Basically, Americans and English got to the party real fucking late in terms of ground warfare and proceeded to mop up the meagre leftovers of the german military machine.
>>47896507
If it was so easy, why didn't anyone else do it?
: ^)
checkmait
