What is the difference between low fantasy and sword & sorcery?

>>51696326
Low fantasy is just a sword, without sorcery.
But there might be a wide assortment of swords to choose from.

File: tumblr_ncw9qfSZIP1r0uc86o1_r1_1280.jpg (377KB, 1022x1198px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1022x1198px

How much skin the PCs show.

The commonly accepted definition of "low fantasy" features less of the mystic, and what magic/mysticism there is tends to be somewhat plodding ritualistic-type stuff.

Sword & Sorcery, while it has a fairly 'gritty' feel similar to Low Fantasy, is more about high-flying heroics and epic struggles of the heroes rather than "everyone dies face first in the mud". Also, magic tends to be flashier and more indendiary in S&S settings, with lots of clashes between savage nomad kings and evil serpent sorceress queens and shit like that.

>>51696326
Sword and sorcery is not the lack of fantasy, but the type of fantasy you feel.

>>51696326
As far as I'm concerned they are simply two categories that can overlap.

I'd say low fantasy is more like lazy history. Vaguely historical stuff but with fantasy elements and creatures. Very populous realistic worlds. Duller more everyday characters.

Not Medieval Europe.

Sword and Sorcery is more exotic and sparser. The worlds aren't written to make sense just to be impressive and enticing. They're a backdrop for the characters and very little more.

In low fantasy the characters can be taken out and the world remains much the same. In sword and sorcery without the major characters wouldn't be in anyway recognisable from any other.

Also this >>51696359

In low fantasy, magic is rare, low key, and often dangerous to the user and everyone around them. Magic users are usually either learned types who function as advisers or weird hermits. People tend to wear "realistic" clothing and armor.

In S&S, magic is rare, but fairly powerful. Your average magic user probably leads a cult or is an emperor and is probably a decent warrior as well, but can be beaten by a relatively mundane warrior who fights better or is cleverer. People mostly wear jewelry and loincloths. Everyone who's anyone shows off their chest as often as possible. Armor is rare and of questionable use, but boots are common for those who wear footwear at all.

In low fantasy, the villain is a normal dude with a vast army intent on politically fucking everyone up.

In sword and sorcery, the villain is a necromancer summoning a vast skeletal army intent on boning everyone up.

>>51696647
>People mostly wear jewelry and loincloths

Conan often wore heavy armor.

>>51697703
Which was of questionable use, and most everyone around him wore jewelry and loincloths.

File: elric7.jpg (75KB, 592x732px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 592x732px

>>51696647
>>51697703
>>51697802
Eh, I feel like you're being too stereotypical about the clothing, it's a bit like insisting on thighs and capes when discussing capeshit, they're iconic but largely irrelevant when defining the genre.
I mean, unless you want to see characters in skimpy clothing, then S&S is definitely relevant to your fashion tastes.

>>51697965
Well, if you're talking about silver age capeshit, you kinda do have to insist on tights and capes. It's part of the genre.

anyone got a guide to the definitions of all the sub genre's of fantasy?

>>51698054
Wikipedia is really good enough for this.

>>51696326
>>>/lit/

>>51701794
/lit/ is only really interested in this stuff if it gets /sffg/'s GRI approval

File: wut.jpg (29KB, 450x268px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 450x268px

>>51696326
the two are not related

also, side note (not directed at you OP, just in general): HOW HAS THE ENTIRE WORLD MIXED THESE TWO TERMS UP!? IT'S NOT THAT COMPLICATED!!!

Low Fantasy: a fantasy story (usually with magic although commonly this magic is limited) that takes place in a real setting whether it be modern or historical
>Examples:
>King Arthur legends
>The Bible, Greek Mythology, Shinto Mythology, etc.
>Harry Potter
>Percy Jackson
>The Adjustment Bureau
>Constantine
>most superhero comics
>Death Note
>etc.

High Fantasy: a fantasy story that takes place in an entirely fictional setting, with or without magic but commonly with a high degree of magic
>Examples:
>The Silmarillion
>Conan
>Chronicles of Narnia (sort of mixes both high and low fantasy but most of the story takes place in fictional worlds)
>Magic the Gathering multiverse
>Dungeons and Dragons setting
>Dragon Ball (even though the main planet is called Earth)
>Star Wars (even though GL says in the opening crawl that the SW galaxy is in the same universe as ours, it's still counted as an entirely fictional setting)
>Discworld
>etc.

>>51702012
also, note on Low Fantasy:

If a low fantasy story is set in the future then it counts as fantasy sci-fi (e.g. 40k - although that's sort of a big can of worms when it comes to pinpointing a specific genre)

>>51701794
Fuck off cancer.

>>51697802

Nah, in the stories it's often noted that his armor is the only thing that keeps him from being killed in one particular scrum or another. I remember at least one occasion where that's said directly, and a few other where the action involves Conan being bashed repeatedly in the head with something, but he's wearing a helm so he survives.

>>51698189
no, it isn't

both Wikipedia entries for High and Low fantasy need to be completely changed and are completely wrong

File: 1486860225688.png (377KB, 574x636px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 574x636px

>>51702012
>Percy Jackson
>Literally has literal gods in it
>Low Fantasy

File: Savage_Sword_of_Conan_Vol_1_4_Original_Art.jpg (264KB, 1253x1600px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1253x1600px

>>51696326

I don't know about low fantasy, but I think it's easy enough to understand Sword and Sorcery; read Conan and maybe Fafrd+Gray Mouser and you'll understand what basically everyone means by the phrase.

>>51702200
yes, because it takes place on earth in real places
>remember, Olympos is a real place

>>51702208
pretty sure conan is high fantasy

Hyperborea is supposed to be a different planet/fictional continent right?

>>51702200
although with judeo christian mythology it's still low fantasy because even though heaven and hell are not part of earth they are only connected to earth and no other realities and all of the events within the torah, koran, bible, etc. all take place on earth

File: 1486618551969.jpg (565KB, 1600x1111px) Image search: [Google]

565KB, 1600x1111px

>>51702291

As far as I recall Hyperborea is just one part of the Conan world...I don't know if it's supposed to have a relationship to the real world, but the geography definitely takes strong inspiration from the real world.

I definitely wouldn't say high fantasy though. The focus isn't on battles of good vs evil or huge displays of high magic; there's plenty of magic around but it's almost exclusively the domain of dickbag wizards who do pretty specific things with it. There's a ton of evil wizards (who are mostly not even wizards but just dudes who have access to strange powders and weird animals), and the one magic guy I remember who helped Conan out a lot then killstealed Conan with a giant flying bat/eagle thing and Conan said out loud something along the lines of "fuck sorcerers." I think the only truly benevolent magic dude in Conan world is the dead guy who lives under the mountain in Aquilonia(?) and sends him the phoenix sword to fight off an evil shadow ape. And even for the bad guys I can only think of the serpent ring dude, the ugly bat thing from the jungle and the dude from the Elephant Heart who really had anything approaching what we would call magic.

All that aside, though, Conan is a morally grey hero (even at the time he was written) and it's hard to read his stories as battles of good vs evil rather than just adventures of barbaric James Bond.

lol, currently editing the wikipedia page for low fantasy and some douche named robert keeps deleting the information I've written up - which is all correct

I don't think he knows what he's doing

>>51702477
well looks like he was able to block me but here's the correct entry for Wikipedia's "Low Fantasy" page

--------------------------------
"Low fantasy" involves stories (usually with magic although commonly this magic is limited) that take place in a real setting whether it be modern or historical. Examples include the King Arthur legends, the Bible and all other religious mythologies which take place on Earth, the Harry Potter setting, most superhero comics, the Death Note manga, etc.

"High fantasy" involves stories which take place in an entirely fictional setting, with or without magic but commonly with a high degree of magic. Examples include The Silmarillion, The Chronicles of Narnia, the setting of Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z, the Star Wars universe, and the Discworld series by Terry Pratchett.

Everything below is incorrect but I will leave the decision of whether to edit/delete any of it to someone else.

---------------------------------

>>51696326
It's not a hard science, it just comes down to flavor.

>>51702562
hard science:
>>51702012
>>51702535

>>51702012
>People still spout this shit
I guess Warhammer 40k and Shadowrun are low fantasy because there was the real earth in the past ( 40k ) and for SR it's literally real earth but suddenly magic.

Stupid useless definition that doesn't actually say anything.

>>51702670
see >>51702058

and no, it's not useless - it differentiates between two different types of fantasy; High and Low

File: 1447862422357.gif (1MB, 360x270px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 360x270px

>>51702861
Is IS useless you dumb fuck
Does it matter at all whether your fantasy takes place on fictional non-earth or fictional earth? No, there is no narrative difference so fuck off with your bullshit.
>Game of Thrones is high fantasy
>Shadowrun is low fantasy
You can take your retarded definition and shove it straight up your ass.
Magical/Fictional metaphysics influence is a way more useful descriptor to describe whether something is high/low fantasy
>mfw Star Wars is low fantasy according to your retarded definition because technically Earth exists and it just takes place in a galaxy far, far away.

>>51702861
I'm not even done yet.
Lets take this shit to it's logical conclusion

>Take generic D&D setting
>Mention Earth somewhere once among 1000s of pages of crazy gonzo shit.
>Suddenly entire setting is low fantasy because Earth exists
>Remove passage
>It's high fantasy again

There is no kind of bullshit like that when you use high/low fantasy as describing how close it adheres to real life physics though.

You definition is like saying "Literally doesn't have to mean literally all the time" Then what the fuck is the point of the word if it can't be relied on to actually mean something Literal?

>>51703630
It's an alternate definition.

>>51702861
Oh whoops, just thought of something else because you really triggered my autism
Lord of the Rings setting? According to your definition, Middle Earth is low fantasy because it's supposed to take place in real life Earths mystical past.

Another thing
>Write up setting with real earth names
>Ctrl + f anything that uses real location names
>Word replace those words, keep everything else the same
>Suddenly low fantasy became high fantasy with nothing else being changed.

>>51702861
A definition that puts such radically differing settings as Harry Potter and 40k in the same genre is functionally useless. A better definition than existence of Earth in the setting would be how fantastical it is, whether the events happening are mundane and low-key or not.

>>51696326
The way that I've always heard it is that low fantasy is fantasy worlds which are, in some way, connected to our world. They are set in a world separate from ours, but accessible from it. The "real world" is our world, and then there is the fantasy world. Narnia and Harry Potter would be examples of low fantasy under that definition.

In high fantasy, the fantasy world is the real world. Our world doesn't exist in the setting, or at least the two are completely separate and disconnected with no way to travel between them. Disc World and Middle Earth would be examples of high fantasy.

Personally I would put martial vs. magic on a separate axis rather than use it as a criteria for determining high or low fantasy, but as far as I know there is no definitive consensus on this one.

>>51702012
>General academic literary definition that doesn't exist outside of English class.

There's also low / high referring to the quantity of the magic.

And low / high referring to the scope of the story, with low being personal, and high being a grand nation saving quest.

People almost universally mean one of the other two definitions when saying low/high fantasy.

"Is it set on earth" is a functionally useless definition. It tells you nothing useful about the story itself.

I'd also argue it's not applicable to RPGs, which are not literature, but games.

But as for how people have 'mixed them up', because the terms have at least 3 different definitions, and the one you prefer is scarcely used and often deliberately rejected.

>>51703630
Forgotten realms has nations populated by people gated in from ancient earth, and there are canonical gates to earth.

Golarion has an adventure where you go to earth (iirc) during WWI.

Ergo, d&d, pathfinder, low fantasy.

>>51702291
Conan is swords and sorcery.

It's the archetypal example.

It's also supposedly set on earth, either shortly before or after the last ice age.

>>51702291
The hyborean age is a fictional prehistory of earth.

Cimmeria is located in doggerland.

>>51696473
>In sword and sorcery without the major characters wouldn't be in anyway recognisable from any other.

The world of Conan is pretty fucking unique.

>>51702012
Came here to post this.

It's just a term that so many people think they know the definition of because they assume it's literal.

Another example is 'role playing game'. You play the role of Master Chief in Halo, so Halo is a role playing game, right?

>>51703673
Correct. Under his definition, Lord of the rings, Conan, DCU, marvel u(all of them), forgotten realms, Stargate, star wars, Farscape, Andromeda, harry potter, and Golarion are all low fantasy.

Note you don't even have to be fantasy to count as low fantasy.

>>51703700
To address a few things that have already been brought up:

>Middle Earth would be low fantasy because it's supposed to be ancient Earth
Generally the only difference between our real real world and the story real world is that the story real world has the fantasy world existing along side it. Otherwise all history is exactly as we know it to be. At most, certain historical events take on a different significance when you consider the involvement of the fantasy world. But the ability to do that will vary from setting to setting. So under this definition Middle Earth is still high fantasy because it is an alternate Earth to ours, and thus it IS the "real world", rather than existing parallel to our own.

>40K is future Earth, so it's low fantasy
By that logic nearly all science fiction is low fantasy. Now, the sci-fi vs fantasy debate has been raging forever and will probably never end, and there's no sense in getting into that now. That said, 40K is something of a gray area here, as most such sci-fantasy would be. If pressed to slot it into either high or low though, I would call it low because it is extrapolated from modern earth and up until its history begins, the history of Earth is the same as the real world history.

However, I would also say that 40K is closer to being science fiction than fantasy so any fantasy classification i gave it would be tentative and really only for the purposes of conversation anyway. I wouldn't, strictly speaking, consider it fantasy at all.

Why cling so desperately to an incorrect definition?
Especially one as subjective as 'how magical a setting is'.

>>51702535
You're the same faggot who is angry that high fantasy can take place on earth.

Harry potter is most definitely high fantasy.

>>51702012
The terms aren't scientific, most people don't use them that way, and they're actually less useful if you do. It's worth bringing up those definitions, and pointing out that the terms can be used in different ways, but "correcting" people is pointless. Language evolves, and so many of the words you use don't mean quite what they used to.

>>51703825
Expanding on the first section there, about why Middle Earth is still high fantasy:

Suppose two stories: one where WWII was caused by people from the parallel fantasy world, and one where WWII was prevented by people from the fantasy world. In the first, we have low fantasy. History is the same, but the interactions between the two world cast the historical events in a new light. In the second, that becomes an alternate history fantasy story and is high fantasy. Although Earth's history is the same up to a point, it follows a distinctly different route after that, making it abundantly clear that it is a different and non-connected, though possibly parallel, Earth from our own.

>>51696326
This post is bait, deliberate or no.

The definition of low and high fantasy is contested. There are several competing definitions.

As a result, the terms are meaningless without the definition you agree with, and are no longer of any practical value.

You'd be better off asking about low/high magic fantasy, or personal/epic plot scope, or tech level.

But sword and sorcery is a particular flavor of personal scope, stone-iron age, low-mid magic fantasy, wherein magic is rare, powered by evil (with more evil deeds allowing for more power), and has an innate corrupting quality. Additionally the protagonists are action heroes as you would find in movies, managing things technically possible but highly improbable. It's generally not set in a firm historical time period if it's set on earth, and it often has fantastic beasts not found in modern day earth. The common theme is that civilization is evil and the "civilized" have arbitrary rules and no moral character.

>>51703711
And racism = prejudice + power, right?

I think the traditional high/low fantasy definitions are good.

A setting completely separate from our world appeals to me more than one based on/extrapolated from our world.

Star Wars vs. Star Trek, for example.

This reminds me of that guy that hates the term BBEG.

>>51703910
No.

Racism = prejudice against a race. Power be damned.

The other definition is just a way to claim personal level racism isn't racism. And that's retarded.

>>51703910
Both have earth in them.

Whether earth exists in canon is not relevant to me. What matters to me is "is it set on earth within 200 years of today".

It's better if the answer is no.

>>51703984
Earth is not shown or mentioned in Star Wars and it might as well not exist if it even exists at all.

I think practically speaking we should just see these designations as what they really are, which is words for different genres spun off from certain iconic fictions; "sword and sorcery" just means "Conan-like," "high fantasy" just means "Tolkien-like," and...well actually I don't know what the archetypal example of low fantasy is.

>>51704024
Asterix.

>>51704024
>I don't know what the archetypal example of low fantasy is.

Never played it, but I think Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay may qualify, at least on the grittiness level.

>>51703556
sorry you don't acknowledge the definition of words

>>51703630
this person answered it for me >>51703727 , thanks anon

>>51703673
middle earth being low fantasy is debatable because Tolkien never really solidified it in his canon - although it is strongly accepted that it is indeed low fantasy because he intended it to be a work of English mythology (but personally I put it with high fantasy because nothing makes sense in the setting if you assume it's Earth pre-history - but here I go against the author in assuming that so take my opinion here as is)

>>51703680
I actually don't personally put 40k in any sort of fantasy setting; I put it as sci-fi (especially because the 'magic' in that setting is rather adhering to the physics, or lack thereof, of a parallel universe, i.e. The Warp)

>>51703711
I appreciate that you're a different anon actually giving a personal response. That being said I still have to disagree, Low fantasy is Low fantasy and High fantasy is High fantasy - doesn't matter what you want the definition to be, that's what it is. I have no comment on how to classify RPGs except in the case where the G/DM would wish to explicitly state for some weird reason that the setting is specifically a high or low fantasy setting (maybe it's relevant to the world they've designed? I guess that might be the case if it isn't clear whether or not the setting is supposed to be on Earth or not but again, that's a tangent from my main points)

>>51703741
Conan is low fantasy
see >>51703754 (also thank you for clarifying, I wasn't sure if it was on Earth or not)

>>51703783
dude, that's video games. with those you definite it based on the convention and/or view of play. I won't even get into why Halo is not a role playing game but if you want to classify story modes in FPSs as RPGs, then fine - go right ahead

>>51703789
I love you so much right now

>>51703825
thanks but I think this is just confusing things at this point - 40k is just sci-fi

>>51704010
There are various Easter egg references to earth, but it's not mentioned directly, other than "long ago, in a galaxy far far away".

But where there are multiple definitions in use, and (the role-playing community in particular) tends to reject the English class definition due to it's worthlessness, it's counter productive to use the term that way on a role-playing board, and is argue it's not worth using the term at all, and it's better to use separate terms without disputed meaning.

cont. from >>51704073

>>51703867
lol, good one
HP is low fantasy - don't even try to troll on this

>>51703874
ugggh - take a linguistics class
I don't want to have to explain what definitions are

>>51702012
Academic definitions are not common ones in all cases. Language changes to suit the speakers. People mean "serious, gritty, low-magic" when they say Low Fantasy, so that's what it actually means outside of a literary circle of academics.

File: 1485487425221.png (39KB, 620x456px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 620x456px

>>51704094
3/10

>>51704073
You responded to my statement about Conan using my own post.

Sword and sorcery is a genre definition which has nothing to do with whether the fiction is set on earth.

It can be sword and sorcery either way.

>>51704103
academics don't discuss this - these are our terms that you should know that you are confusing

stop it.

>>51704138
I know the terms nigger. I have a bachelors in the goddamn language. Language changes. Get over your-fucking-self.

>>51704119
wait, are you a different anon than the troll?

regardless, we're in agreement on the sword and sorcery thing - I thought I said it in the first post but I questioned it here on the Conan topic >>51702291

Verdict on Conan:
Conan is a sword and sorcery story in a low fantasy setting

>>51704138
The definitions you're espousing are those of an English professor, not a fantasy fan or a roleplayer.

But academic definitions often differ significantly from the practical usage, like 'modern'.

To anyone outside academia, modern =contemporary.

But as you've seen, there's the definition you ascribe to, as well as two others which are commonly ascribed to, in this thread.

Due to the confusion and disagreement the terms generate, they're terms not worth using to discuss fiction.

>>51704159
Not him, but should it?

I hear all the time that language changes, but now that most humans are connected, should we not begin holding ourselves to a concrete standard of languages?

If only for clarity's sake?

>>51704172
I don't know who the troll is in this case. There's two people arguing over which definition is of value.

I'm the one arguing that due to the disagreement and confusion over what someone means when using the term, they're all useless.

>>51704159
>I'm a bachelor who doesn't understand the goddamn language
>Get over your-fucking-self
you're right, I'm sorry
I wasn't trying to be mean, I'm just saying there are actual definitions for what Low fantasy is and what High fantasy is and the definitions of words don't simply change because you misunderstood them at first

Low fantasy is typically either historical in basis or pseudo-historical. Sword and sorcery is not necessarily, but can be.

Conan is low fantasy and sword and sorcery, with the cultures largely based on real world ones. The Elric saga is just sword and sorcery.

>>51704193
>>51704202
Language changes. And that's beautiful to me. Trying to hold onto something old and doing no one good is stupid. Accepting change and the needs of modern conversation is necessary.

I understand what you mean when you say Low-Fantasy. There is an academic definition for that. However, from experience I know that no one ever actually uses that definition in these sorts of debates. They mean Low-Magic. However, I know what they said and what they meant are different, and I can translate in my head without the need to correct them, because I know it changes nothing. I know what they meant, they know what they meant.

The definition of Low Fantasy changes day-by-day to fit the times and needs of English speakers on the internet, or at the very least on 4chan. There's no need to sperg out over it. It's nature. Accept it.

>>51704197
Every time someone uses any of these terms, instead of constructive discussion, all that results is an argument over the definition of the term.

>>51704193
yes, please refer to the actual definitions of words when using them (as we all should do)

>>51704197
well cool, but dude - naw, that's... sad? sure. What I mean is that definitions are not useless in this case and just because (by canon) star wars and harry potter are in the same universe doesn't mean you have to give up on the meaning of words...
just look at this sweet video of luke skywalker killing harry potter!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRLuPHvF6Fo

>>51702012
Wow, those are awful definitions.

Gimme a second, one of my friends is a Literature Professor. Let me text him.

>>51704228
which is why I stated everything so plainly at the start of my posts >>51702012

since the discussion though there's been some clarification and it turns out Conan is Low fantasy and Star Wars could also be low fantasy or just plain sci-fi

so it hasn't all been useless

>>51704225
They either mean low magic, personal plot scope, or both.

>>51704231
>my "friend"
suuuuure

>>51704249
Either way, fair enough.

>>51704225
>there is an academic definition for that
dude, that's not how definitions work

>>51704231
That is an awful post.

>>51704225
>>51704268
also, what you're basically saying is "Accept my lies"
>are you tzeentch?

>>51704268
What if that's how definitions work according to his definition of the word definition?

>>51702012
Huh, first I've heard of this. Ultimately irrelevant outside of an academic context though. Why you would use this definition when better ones exist is beyond me.

>>51704280
>are you tzeentch?
Maybe I am. And maybe I'm not. Or maybe I just wanted you to bring up 40K in an unrelated thread so it'd burn to the ground.

Just as planned.

>>51704285
Surely you can understand the merit of using the official definition of a term.
Just as there is merit in using the popular definition of a term.

>>51704245
And your post, with the literary definition, is where the argument began this time. Because almost never intend the literary definition when they use them, they mean
>>51704249.

I do understand arguing word definitions, but I don't always agree with the dictionary definition.

Modern = contemporary. Due to overwhelming adoption.
Literal = literal, not figurative + emphasis
Factoid = a true sounding statement with no evidence to back it up.
Beta male = Omega male, due to overwhelming adoption, despite it also making me think the person using it is retarded.

File: allstatemayhemexecutive.jpg (131KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1366x768px

>>51704282
>>51704285
>>51704287
And then the Gellar fields failed

>>51704298
If you're the guy who posted that definition, my question to you is "Why would you use this definition?" It fails at conveying any level of depth and is ultimately irrelevant when the vast majority of readers, writers and publishers (you know, the people who actually MATTER) define high and low fantasy differently from academics.

Basically, why should I use this definition when there are better ones out there?

File: AyTbZ5B.png (91KB, 250x190px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 250x190px

>>51704312
only one of those sentences is true

>>51704305
Except the official definition serves no purpose and is actually inferior to the popular definition.

>>51704329
>there are better ones out there?
Where?

>>51704339
If you go by official definition every time, at least two of them are true.

Despite what Fox says, factoid and factory are not synonymous.

>>51704339
Do you have something against capitalization and punctuation?

>>51704347
I think you're just trying really hard to wish that into being true, but it just won't happen

>>51704358
No.

IM ,jUsT laZY

>>51704353
Based on >>51702477 and >>51702535 it's clear that Wikipedia does.

>>51704353
>>51704249
>>51703711
Here.

Both are more functionally useful.

>>51704373
What? The Wikipedia entry I found spells out both definitions, and explicitly calls out RPGs as using a different definition of the terms than literature.

>>51704373
only their high fantasy page is correct (half of it anyway)

the entire page for low fantasy is wrong

>>51704329
You're fighting an argumentum ab auctoritate with an argumentum ad populum.

Maybe just stop.

>>51704385
except that they mix up their definitions in the examples and their definition of low fantasy says nothing of the story taking place in a real setting (the high fantasy page does specify fictional settings however)

again, tried to edit it but Wikipedia wants those pages to be as confusing as possible

>>51703711
>>51704374
>And low / high referring to the scope of the story, with low being personal, and high being a grand nation saving quest.
But aren't you basically just using your own definition here, that has nothing to do with anyone else? Where else besides your comment is this definition used?

>>51704387
This whole thread is a fallacy battle.

>>51704360
How is the popular definition not more popular than the academic definition?

File: bait.png (83KB, 447x1200px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 447x1200px

>this thread

>>51704360
>>51704387

The only thing I'm drawing from this is that the literary definition is one that doesn't matter to me and will likely never matter outside of a literary context. So, why should I use it?

>>51704405
Because the academic definition is more popular overall, and your "popular" definition is more popular with some guy on 4chan.

>>51704405
lol, idk!

ask the anon who keeps trying to argue those weird troll points that don't make sense

>>51704402
also thanks to you for continuing to set the troll's posts straight
he keeps posting things that he thinks are confusing people but since we all understand what we're talking about it only seems to be proving the definitions more and more
keep it up?

>>51704415
Why not use both/either where appropriate?

>>51702012
(you)

>>51704415
le douche supreme

>>51704433
thank (you)

>>51704421
Except, it's not? The literary definition is only ever used in a literary context. The popular definition is used everywhere else.

>>51696326
We run our different campaigns based on the amount of suspension of disbelief not based on the amount of magic or grittiness.

Low fantasy - mild SoD

Hight fantasy - Close to absolute SoD.

According to this, Sword and Sorcery is a high fantasy setting, but the disbelief is mainly generated from the unbelievable actions and heroic deeds of the characters, not the amount of magic in the world.

>>51704446
>The popular definition is used everywhere else
Where?

>>51704421
I'm going to have to ask for some proofs at this point about the academic definition being more popular overall. Clearly in this discussion it is in the minority opinion.

File: 1296165515682.jpg (48KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 800x600px

>>51704446
when did you switch from saying 'academic' to 'literary'

did you think we wouldn't notice?

just stop posting, seriously, for your own sake

>>51704285
Useless in an academic context too, since the "secondary world" concept has never been rigidly defined or commonly accepted. These days the only people I know of who seriously ascribe to it are autists who get most of their information from wikipedia.

>>51704458
samefag trying to bugs bunny us (or eddie valiant, "I don't - You do! - I don't! - You don't!")

trolling up to 11!

>>51704454
Book and video game genres, for one. Harry Potter is considered High Fantasy, for example.

>>51704473
DUCK SEASON
RABBIT SEASON
DUCK SEASON
RABBIT SEASON
RABBIT SEASON
DUCK SEASON
>enter Elmer
DUCK SEASON!
*boom*

>>51702208
>Fafrd+Gray Mouser
My nigga

>>51696326
Swords & Sorcery was invented by Fritz Lieber, the guy who wrote the Fafrd & the Grey Mouser stories.
Magic exists, but has dangers, and the heroes or PCs rarely have access to much of it. Instead, they have to rely on their courage, wits & the strength of their swords against overwhelming odds.

>>51704458
>I'm going to have to ask for some proofs at this point about the academic definition being more popular overall.
It's more used in all the sources I can find where people write what the definitions of fantasy are. Books like The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, The A to Z of Fantasy Literature, etc. As for minority opinion, it kind of seems like a few people are simply being very vocal about their defense of "low fantasy" being low magic or low stakes, even if that's a definition they made up themselves after hearing other people use the term to refer to the original definition.

>>51704490
HP is low fantasy, it takes place in our world

>>51704427
You're arguing with multiple people.

I'm the one who made the couple posts calling out the other definitions.

The useful definitions are not the official one.

As a result you always get people rejecting the official *academic* definition, and every thread using them devolves into an argument of whether functional use trumps official definition. And most people seem to espouse the functional definitions, at least in the RPG community (here and elsewhere).

Which is why I suggested (a couple times) that the best option is to call out the terms as so hotly debated that they should be avoided in favor of less ambiguous terms.

>>51704490
Source?

>>51704501
superb work

>>51704462
Academic is too broad a term. My roommate is a Physics doctoral candidate but he sure as hell isn't discussing high and low fantasy in his thesis.

And you first.

>>51696326
In low fantasy when your gritty barbarian fights his way to the evil warlock through his zombies, the zombies are just drugged victims and the huge snake skull he wears is just a showy helmet.

In sword and sorcery, the zombies are actual undead and at the apex of battle the skull merges with the warlock as he turns into a monstrous serpent.

Basically one is scooby doo.

>>51704490
I've never heard Harry Potter referred to as high fantasy.

It's really not, no matter which definition you use.

>>51704512
there is no functional definition, it's just this one troll who keeps trying to convince everyone of it

low fantasy has only ever meant one thing and that is fantasy stories that occur in the world we know (or the same universe, as in the case of Star War)

>>51704537
this

>>51704505
I define Low Fantasy as taking place in another world and High Fantasy as taking place in our world.

Harry Potter is High Fantasy.

>>51704542
Star Wars is high fantasy. There's no Earth.

>>51704542
Again. There's the guy your arguing with (at least one). I didn't get the other two definitions from him. I've seen them many times. According to Wikipedia, they're also the definition used in GURPS products, and guide explains the definition and that they're not using the literary definition.

>>51704550
so you've reversed the definitions in your head?

that's a personal problem

>>51704542
You haven't really backed your point up besides saying it's the "official" definition. At this point, I'd probably side with the troll.

>>51704557
well that's what I think but strict SW fans will insist it's in the same universe, i.e. "... in a galaxy far far away"
but even so, I still insist because (like you said) earth never shows up

>>51704557
Yes there is an earth in starwars

If nothing else, they're connected through ET.

Many other connections before the Disney continuity explosion.

>>51704542
>>51704557

Star Wars is Science Fantasy you fucking retards.

>>51704561
I haven't said that in even one of my posts

and you're clearly the troll trying to bugs bunny this again

>>51704550
That's literally backwards.

>>51704560
Makes about as much sense as the "actual" definitions.

>>51704537
>It's really not, no matter which definition you use.
I've seen it referred to as such. By people (well, ""people"") like >>51702012, actually

The argument being the "magical world" being so drastically separated from the "primary world" is enough reason to call it a "separate world", and thus High Fantasy.

Stupid, no? Stuff like that is why someone using high/low fantasy outside of casual conversation is pretty much an immediate warning sign that you're dealing with a fucking retard.

>>51704579
The guy arguing the "official definition", low fantasy and high fantasy don't require you to even be in the fantasy genre. Historical fiction and sci-fi can also be low or high fantasy under that definition. Stupid as that may be.

>>51704576
see? moderately hardcore fan right there (knows the ET connection)

so Low/High is sort of up for debate with SW
I guess you could go either way and make arguments for both (personally I would take George's word for this if he's ever given a 'word of god' answer)

>>51704542
>>51704557
Come on you guys, is this amateur hour?>>51704579
Has been well established for a long time.

>>51704579
shit, this too

(how did I forget? I solved the 40k problem this way...)

>>51704588
lol, I'm the anon who made that post - and in that post which you just reference HP is under LOW FANTASY

LOL

WHAT A SHITTY TROLL

>>51704571
>>51704576
It's just a reference to the shows Lucas watched as a kid. He didn't intend for it it confirm that Earth is a part of this universe.

And the ET thing is an Easter egg.

>>51704594
Literary scholars didn't take Tolkien's word for it regarding LOTR. They decided because his "historical earth" is filled with monsters and magic and angels, Arda is not ancient earth.

He apparently got quite heated over it.

>>51704608
[Et aliens are included without being supposed to be the same species to visit earth in the distant future]
Citation needed to back up this ridiculous claim.

Well, I learned a completely useless definition today. I'm going to get a few beers and see if I can't force myself to forget it.

Good night assholes.

>>51704605
Do I need to go over the definition of the word "like" with you now?

>>51704609
wrong

see earlier posts in this very thread for clarification

>>51704609
Conan, I get, because his world kind of looks like earth if you squint at it funny, and his place names are based on myths, but Arda? Gondor, Rohan, Mordor, and the rest of them barely resemble the earth in any way. They FEEL vaguely European, but then what, the Elves went across the sea and settled in North America? What?

>>51704631
>A few high fantasy series do not easily fit into Gamble's categories. For example,J. R. R. Tolkien'sThe Lord of the Ringsis set in primary world of Earth in the ancient past,and he adamantly disagreed with anyone who thought otherwise.According to Tolkien, he had set it in the inhabited lands of geographically north-west Europe.The Professor himself disagreed with the notion that his stories diverged from reality, but rather defended his position that the "essentials of that abiding place are all there (at any rate for inhabitants of N.W. Europe), so naturally it feels familiar, even if a little glorified by enchantment of distance in time.".Nevertheless,Middle-earth, is sufficiently divergent from reality to be classed as a secondary world and hence high fantasy.
Wikipedia has sources. Low fantasy page

File: disneygremlin.jpg (49KB, 420x344px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 420x344px

for those who've lost the good posts in all the shit troll posts, here's the definition of low and high fantasy again:
>>51702535

>>51704619
No citation other than that Lucas and Spielberg are pals and that Star Wars: the franchise is clearly a thing in ET.

It is ludacris that Earth would coincidentally have a perfect chronicle of real events that took place many years ago many galaxies away.

And that most people spoke English.

>>51704663
the low fantasy page on wikipedia is wrong - all of it

>>51704666
Behold! Satan attempts to mislead us! Those are clearly the false definitions!

>>51704609
>He apparently got quite heated over it.
I mean, that's understandable. Having folks trying to say you don't know what you wrote and bang your literature into neat little boxes.

>>51704669
The races of star wars don't speak English. That's just cinema convenience.

And just because earth exists in star wars, doesn't mean it's earth with star wars fiction in it. There are no marvel comics in the marvel universe.

>>51704672
And we're just supposed to take YOUR word for it? The guy who can't even be bothered to use correct grammar?

>>51704678
>says tzeentch

>>51704666
>here's one of many definitions of low and high fantasy*

>>51704694
Tzeentch's sacred number is 9, dumbass.

>>51704692
I do use correct grammar

it's capitalization I don't bother with sometimes (punctuation I do informally here too)

>>51704696
>here's a troll

>>51704713
Capitalization and punctuation fall under grammar you idiot.

>>51704722
You really need another string to your bow, dude.

>>51704672
So, you're saying that the claims by Tolkien that Arda is earth, and the cited sources including Tolkien's words that state middle earth is Europe, are incorrect, and Tolkien doesn't know his own work?

Seems implausible.

>>51704713
Plenty of reason to distrust you. All you spread is lies. Poorly formatted lies.

>>51704687
>And just because earth exists in star wars, doesn't mean it's earth with star wars fiction in it.
ET's race is in Star Wars and ET visits Earth: an Earth with Star Wars media. Therefore, if Star Wars is low fantasy, then then the events of Star Wars and Star Wars media coexist.
This is so absurd that the only reasonable conclusion is that Star Wars is in fact high fantasy and "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away" is merely a reference to other works and not meant to be taken literally.

>>51704736
sort of but not usually

>>51704750
Or, the star wars media in et could be correct.

>>51704742
no, I'm saying you should take Tolkien at his word, not base anything you say off the Low fantasy page on Wikipedia

>>51704748
no, that's you - you're the troll in this thread

your tactics are stale, I think you should stop watching loony tunes or something

maybe try house of cards?

>>51704754
>Argues about using the proper definition of high and low fantasy
>Refuses to acknowledge what falls under the auspices of grammar

I think we've found the real troll.

>>51704760
Wikipedia is a conveniently collected summary of other sources.

Where it supports the accurate sources by the author himself, it is clearly not incorrect.

Arda is an alternate past for earth.
Hyborean age is also an alternate past for earth.

>>51704757
What is more likely?

If anything, 'a long time ago in a galaxy far far away' was probably meant to convey that Star Wars is high fantasy. Otherwise viewers might think that the humans in Star Wars came from Earth.

>>51704771
clearly you haven't spent much time researching linguistics

>>51704778
But according to Gamble, it's still high fantasy.

>>51704760
Why shouldn't I trust the Low Fantasy Wikipedia page? Seems perfectly trustworthy to me.

I predict your response will be "because it's wrong" and refuse to elaborate. Because you're a troll.

>>51704787
no, in that case it would be considered low fantasy - especially if the author says so (word of god and all)

>>51704788
no, I mean yes - it is wrong - but I've been elaborating this entire thread

seriously, just read it
your starting point: >>51702012

>>51704800
and by "if the author says so" I mean "if Tolkien says his world is pre-history earth"

>>51704784
The humans in the star wars setting were going to have a backdoor detailed showing them to be humans from Earth, in the 25th century, sent to another galaxy long ago, through time travel.

The project fell through though, and was never officially published. But one of the authors did make his work public after the project feel through.

So, convoluted and unofficially published it may be, but officially backed ties to earth nonetheless.

>>51704805
Wikipedia looks right to me. You're the one who isn't very trustworthy.

Called it. He'll keep dodging around and refuse to give a straight answer.

>>51704805
Well, I guess I can disregard everything you've said.

>>51704856
Why are you so desperate to make Star Wars low fantasy when it's clearly not meant to be?

ITT
>People argue the correct definition of the terms in the OP.
>Nobody is convinced

File: 1289148789329.jpg (11KB, 352x240px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 352x240px

>>51704862
>>51704877
I accept your defeat troll

it is delicious

>>51704891
As the guy who said Star Wars is Science Fantasy, >>51704856 is actually right. There was a whole thing planned with that.

However, it's also a completely fucking retarded idea and should be disregarded entirely.

>>51704918
As the guy who posted this >>51702012
I agree that it doesn't make sense to classify Star Wars as any kind of fantasy; it's Science Fiction

>>51704914

Look, you had a good run, but it just wasn't meant to be. Run along now.

>>51704944
as the victor I stay, as the defeated it is your duty to leave

>>51704938
Well, you're a troll, so whatever you say can be disregarded.

>>51704891
Many Easter eggs, nods, and an unpublished moved that places the origin of the humans in the star wars galaxy on people trying to escape from a world leading up to thx 1138.

In short, there's a lot to support a connection between star wars and earth.

>>51704950
>Gets exposed as troll
>"I win"

Man, this is some next level trolling.

>>51704960
*Novel

>>51704958
not a troll, especially if you're using the same definitions as me for High and Low fantasy

let's not mix up the troll in this thread (don't be a Fudd)

>>51704978
Dude, it's pretty obvious you're a troll. Even if you weren't, no one on /tg/ actually thinks Star Wars is sci-fi.

>>51704971
well it's good you turned off the cartoons

but you're a sore loser now...

not sure what you're hoping to gain by staying here since everything you've said has been proven wrong by every other anon here and it looks like you've run out tricks besides just straight trolling (which still isn't getting you much), but... I guess if you want to be a sore loser I can't stop you

I wonder how you'll troll this post though? maybe another repeat of one of your last two posts?

>>51704960
But there's even more to not support it.

And Occam's Razor.

>>51705034
I've literally just been copying you for the past couple of posts.

>>51705017
could have fooled me with all the space ships and talk of intergalactic politics (wait, this is getting dangerously close to talking about midich... let's not say the word)

but if you are trying to say Fantasy should be included in its genre (if not its only genre) then are you saying it's High or Low fantasy?

>>51696359
That guy is a bit overdressed for S&S

>>51704978
Hey, you never answered my question asshole. Why should I use the official definition?

>>51705048
Again, it's Science Fantasy you retard.

And it's neither High or Low Fantasy. Because the criteria for the "official" definition is dumb and useless.

>>51704609
Oh, so Beowulf doesn't take place on Earth anymore?

>>51705082
Ask Gamble.

>>51705045
yeah, that's what gave away your defeat

wish I could say good game but I've been jaded ever since the troll from the last major Tolkien elf threat (arguing about whether or not they were super strong/super fast, etc.)
Damn that troll was legendary. No one has ever wasted as much time on the internet as that guy, I guarantee it

>>51705090
thread*

>>51705090
Keep telling yourself that bud. In the meantime, you should also accept that Gamble was an idiot.

>>51705059
two answers:
1) you should always use what the correct definition of a word is (or the correct word for the definition you mean) if that's the meaning you're trying to convey

2) you should use the correct definition of these particular words (high and low fantasy) because otherwise having a discussion about them can't happen; the reason for this is that if people who are talking don't agree on what a word or words they're all using means then they can't have a conversation about it (or them if multiple words)

hope that made sense, pretty sure you can fill in the blanks if I missed anything - you seem like a fairly smart person

>>51705102
I wasn't part of the SW discussion, who is Gamble?

The one thing that I'll take away from this thread is that watching two trolls try to out troll each other is actually really boring.

>>51705119
sorry, I just stated 2 and then restated it;
my point is just that you can't have a private language and communicate with others who assume you're speaking the same language as them

this topic is a discussion in logic, philosophy, linguistics, psychology, etc. (see private language)

>>51705119

Both your points are irrelevant because no one actually uses the "official" definition of High and Low Fantasy. And if I actually wanted to have a discussion about some version of High and Low Fantasy, it sure as hell wouldn't be the official one. What a shitty definition.

>>51696326
Sword & Sorcery is more pulpy and puts more of an emphasis on the adventure itself rather than the characters.

>>51705141
I'm not a troll, the other is

and yes, watching me hack away at a troll is pretty boring - but at least now you can be sure what high and low fantasy are:
>>51702012
>>51702535
>some exceptions in given examples as per further discussions in this thread, e.g. star wars

>>51705140
The idiot who came up with the "official" definition of high fantasy and low fantasy.

>>51705164
>no one actually uses the definitions of the words
I can't converse with someone this stupid

>>51705175
I'll have to look into that but as far as I know it goes beyond a single author's definition - like WAY beyond

these are universal definitions of genre

>>51705175
Is THAT why these stupid arguments about high/low fantasy are more of a recent (and english-only) phenomenon?

>>51705168
Oh, the other thing I'm taking away from this is that I should never use your definition of High and Low Fantasy.

>>51705141
I don't think they're even trolls. The lowercase no punctuation guy is just an idiot, and the other dude probably is too.

>>51696326
High fantasy; the fantasy level of the setting is high.
Low fantasy; the fantasy level of the setting is low.

>>51696326
Low fantasy means low power and very rare magic.

>>51705188
no, these definitions have been around for a while

>>51705192
have fun being wrong every time you try to use those terms then because nothing else good will come of that

>>51705193
They're both idiots but lower case no punctuation guy comes across as a bigger one because of his lower case and no punctuation.

>>51705220
are you also the troll samefagging?

if not, I can't believe how stupid you're being

>and if you are the troll then you've already lost - this is just REALLY pathetic

>>51705180
Okay, no one who MATTERS. If I go down to my FLGS tomorrow and have a discussion about High and Low Fantasy with anyone there, none of them are going to be using your definition.

Face it, the official definition is bad.

>>51705217
Considering the fact that I've been having discussions using the wrong definition for years? Gladly.

>>51705187
>these are universal definitions
>he says, without irony, in a thread of people telling him otherwise

>>51705119
>>51705160

>Use the official definition because it's the official definition

Do you know what tautology is?

>>51702012
>High Fantasy: a fantasy story that takes place in an entirely fictional setting
>Examples:
>The Silmarillion
>Conan
Those two take place on Earth in the past, genius.

>>51705239
And Gamble is a bitch.

>>51705257
>in a thread of people agreeing before all getting sick of the troll and leaving and now one troll samefags his pathetic night away
ftfy

>>51705274
yes, are you that fucking lazy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_language_argument

you're a faggot

>>51705287
>thread of people agreeing

One guy agreed with you. Everyone else has been telling you that the definition is stupid.

>>51705278
see >>51705168

>>51705306
lol no, it's just you I think

>>51705278
>>51705307
also we cleared the conan and tolkien thing up long ago; ctrl +f tolkien and conan in this thread to read up on it

>>51705296
Look, idiot, the question being asked is "If the official definition was not the official definition, what would be the merit for using it?"

>you're a faggot

We're all faggots here. You, however, are an idiot.

>>51705296
As someone observing, it's not language spoken by a single person.

If I hear high and low fantasy, the first definition to come to mind is the one on the scope of the story. Then how much magic.

"Is it earth" only comes up because I've seen other people argue your position in these threads.

I've never seen anyone use that definition in real life.

>>51705338
no one is asking that question idiot/faggot

>>51705351
And, for reference, I'm the guy arguing that the terms are too ambiguous and should be abandoned for that reason.

>>51705356
I am. I've been asking you that question for a while now. You're just too fucking stupid to understand that.

Now, do you have an answer?

>>51705351
that's mostly because there isn't really an education for this sort of thing but there are formal definitions and people not knowing them or misusing the words doesn't change that (especially because they're not referring to or reorganizing what the definitions of those words relates to - i.e. the setting of the story)

I think what would be more accurate for what you're describing is a setting's power scale (e.g. city busters, planet busters, universe busters, etc.)

>>51702106
Then give some better sources if we are should believe some anon on the Internet more than wiki.

>>51705386
so one might say, 'the magic in star wars is planet busting' or 'the magic in harry potter is only (usually) wall busting'

this defines how much effect magic can have (in destructive terms) but doesn't confuse what type of setting it is or how/if it relates to what we know about the real world

>>51705386
Then, clearly, the official definition doesn't matter.

>>51705398
that is indeed a sound challenge but I'm afraid as just some anon on the internet I can't provide any scholarly sources because I don't know of any (despite the troll in this thread repeating the words 'academic' and 'literary' over and over again to make everyone think this was some book definition)

there might very well be scholarly sources that back up what we all know to be true but it may also be that it started as a convention in fantasy writing and that the scholarly source is based on that (in which case asking me is pretty much the same because I'm not telling you something different - I'm agreeing with these definitions)

>>51705338
>>51705356
Not to mention that even scholars don't agree on what qualifies as high fantasy. Some say if you leave earth or earth is too weird it's high fantasy. Some say if earth exists in canon that's enough to be low fantasy.

I'd suggest "high/low *magic* fantasy", "personal/epic fantasy", and "Terran/nonterran fantasy".

No ambiguity.

>>51705417
you're getting sucked into the trolling in this thread

the troll has gotten you to deny a word's actual definition (or two words if you count both high and low fantasy)

>>51705443
You, I like you.

>>51705436
It is a book definition you're using. One codified by Gamble and Yates, according to wikipedia.

>>51705443
you can't try to keep fighting after having been down so long

die with dignity troll

>>51705470
I would question the voracity of those Wikipedia sources (on those specific two pages)

>>51705473
Wait, now I'm the troll? Earlier you said you liked me, and quoted me several times, while arguing with the guy who rejected the official definition.

I think you're so crazed your jumping at shadows.

Apparently we are all the troll, guys!

>>51705463
No, I just don't care about the official definition. It's useless for day to day discussion. All you've said this entire thread is "this is the official definition, use it" without giving a logical reason why we should. The official definition is bad and actively hinders discussion. It would be best if it was replaced.

>>51705443
no, pretty sure scholars agree - it's the troll in this thread who disagrees with the scholars (and who is now convincing you to do the same)

>>51705503
Nah man. I'm quoting the parts of the Wikipedia article that agrees with you.

>>51705496
yeah, sorry, I misread the post

troll is probably dead

>>51705511
then not only did I misread but I also misunderstood the entire purpose of the post

I'm also surprised to learn there's something on the low fantasy page that agrees with me (high fantasy page has some correct stuff but I didn't check the sources during this thread)

>>51705443
With these clear terms,

Conan is clearly low-mid magic, personal, Terran, sword and sorcery fantasy.

No ambiguity.

Let low and high fantasy die the death they deserve, we can do better.

>>51705515
Hey asswipe, If the official definition was not the official definition, what would be the merit for using it?

Answer the question.

>>51705546
Not the "asswipe" but, the other definitions are not a much better replacement. There's two of them. The term is sloppy and muddy and unspecific because of multiple definitions.

All 3 of them are better represented by less ambiguous terms.

>>51705546
your question is meant to invoke a tautology which you can't argue with

here's the correct answer:
a word has meaning and we call that meaning a definition. if you don't know the definition of a word or believe a definition which is wrong for a word then you can't use the word properly, i.e. in conversation (in practice this is where an adult might interrupt a kid and say, no sweetie - the joker loathes batman, he doesn't love him)

>>51705562
Seeing as Low and High have generally been power level descriptors, they can stay that way. However, adding more qualifiers would make it more effective.

>>51705562
I said this in an earlier post but I'll repeat the point here: sword and sorcery is not a setting, it's a type of story
high/low fantasy denotes a setting type

>>51705593
no, it is not a power level description - it's a setting description

>>51705587
My question is meant for you to stop squirming around and give me a straight fucking answer. Your refusal to do so indicates you're either a Troll or a complete Idiot.

I don't care about the Terran/non-Terran definition. I just want to know why I should use it and I want you to give me a reason that isn't "because it's the official definition". Either Answer the question or fuck off.

>>51705635
I just gave you a straight answer...

>>51705617
No, it's a power level descriptor.

>>51705635
>>51705640
also you seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding the relation between words and meaning

sit back and read everything again and maybe it will start to make sense

>>51705605
Sword and sorcery does have setting implications as well as story ones.

Namely, magic and civilization are both evil and corrupting.

You might also have an argument to claim it has inherent tech level restrictions. It's not sword and sorcery once you add guns, for instance.

And it has story implications in being personal level focused and very pulpy.

>>51705647
of what?

>>51705640
Unless you're >>51705562 you just avoided the question again.

Let me rephrase it again: Why should High and Low Fantasy denote Setting instead of power level or story type?

>>51705659
damn, those are good points...

>always genuinely surprised when an actual non-troll responds

>>51705635
His only reason you should use it is because it's official. That's the only reason that matters to him.

>>51705670
Nope he's not me. Note the punctuation and uppercase letters.

My position is you shouldn't use the terms at all.

>>51705662
The setting's power, duh. If you were smarter, you might have realized that.

>>51705670
because that's what those words MEAN

we have different words to describe things like power level and types of story

and regardless, try as you might, as much as you want it to mean power level or story type - it simply doesn't! it's like wanting 'computer' to mean 'monitor'

>>51705662
Presumably the power level of the magic.

>>51705689
and of what sort of setting now?

>>51705684
Sorry, was just making sure.

>>51705708
Presumably any fantasy setting, regardless of whether it's Terran.

>we have different words to describe things like power level
Yeah, high and low.

>>51705706
same question >>51705708
how would you describe the setting?

my point to both of you is that you now have to come up with new words for things because you dropped using some words and repurposed other ones that don't mean what you claim they mean

File: 1286680556594.jpg (15KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x200px

>>51705727
we already have words to describe everything you're talking about

you just need to learn the correct words instead of arguing that they now mean what you misunderstood them to mean

>>51705727
I dunno about him, but I'd use the nonambiguous terms I mentioned
>>51705443, half an hour ago.

here are the correct definitions for High and Low fantasy >>51702012
>again, given some exceptions on the examples which can be debated

>>51705695
Oh my fucking god, you're retarded. You are genuinely retarded. That is the only explanation for this situation.

Fuck off. The official definition is bad and should never be used. Try and wrap your head around that.

>>51705743
And as I demonstrated when describing the setting of Conan.

With unambiguous terms.

>>51705743
yes actually, those are fairly good - but we've got even better ones; the right ones! the ones that are already full of meaning and linguistically efficient!

>>51702012
>Harry Potter
>low fantasy

>>51705760
>somebody who thinks HP is high fantasy
lol

>>51705758
the terms everyone who knows what they're talking about already uses too!!! (apparently)

>>51705758
>>51705748

No. Fuck off with your shitty definition. No one likes it, no one uses it and you're the only person who seems to want to use them.

>>51705736
>>51705736
>>51705736
I can't restate this enough

>>51705758
The official terms are ambiguous due to disputed definitions, and as such are ineffective tools for communication. Ergo, I am now taking the stance that the literary terms have no functional merit, and will simply not use them going forward, and when someone else uses them I will prompt them to clarify if they mean magic power, story scope, or Terran status.

>>51705789
I've never beaten a troll this bloody before

have you even taken a piss this whole time?

>>51705770
According to Gamble it is, because Hogwarts is extraplanar.

>>51705794
nobody disputes them except people who don't know the terms (i.e. trolls and people who are verging on trolling if they don't admit they don't know the meanings of the words they're using)

>>51705794
also these terms are not ambiguous - Low and High fantasy refer only to setting

>>51705814
Wait, how is this even the official definition? Multiple other sources label High and Low Fantasy via Different criteria.

>>51705794
My terms need no explanation. You should both abandon your goofy positions and join me in using unambiguous terms.

>>51705814
Doesn't matter *who* is disputing them. What matters is you can't use them (with any of he 3 definitions) without some fucker disputing whichever definition you chose.

>>51705824
They're ambiguous in that many people use he terms to describe one of two different aspects of the setting, or to describe an aspect of the story.

>>51705807
it's not extraplanar, it's a spell that hides it from view

>>51705794
It's kinda obvious he's a troll now, huh?

>>51705831
GURPS Fantasy does.

Wikipedia mentions both definitions, and mentions academic dispute over which ones count as high and low under the literary definition.

>>51705831
I'm not saying you have to but by any chance can you name some sources which disagree (that are not people in this thread)?

>>51705758
>linguistically efficient
Uh, no. The casual definitions are the efficient ones, because they actually follow the meaning of the words in use. I suggest you look up the definition of High and Low, because I'm not certain you actually know what they mean.

Your terms are neither well known or commonly accepted, because people who actually understand english don't fucking use them.

>>51705842
no, I think he really believes that - it's the guy who is saying the terms are ambiguous (which i disagree with and I think he would if he fully understood this - but he's not trolling)

>>51705837
Is it only hidden? Then I'm not sure I understand why anyone would argue it's not Terran.

(See how clear things are when you don't use this high/low shit)?

>>51705853
no, and stop trying to posit a 'common use' version of a word

>>51705867
the clarity came from knowing the setting, not because I explained the original terms (which you should have known)

>>51705867
>>51705873
also I'm not sure why anyone who isn't trolling would actually believe HP is high fantasy - that's ridiculous even if you're mistaken about the definition of low fantasy (does anything in HP see 'high'?)

>>51705886
seem*

>>51705868
Whatever. People are going to keep using the common version of the terms and there's nothing you can do to change it.

Hell, I'll probably deliberately educate people on how the "official" version is wrong.

>>51705860
It's ambiguous because there are multiple definitions and this argument happens every goddamn time someone uses the term, correctly or otherwise.

Unless you can make a consensus where people use the word according to the same definition, many people will continue to use it incorrectly, and the ambiguity will ensue.

High and low are not specific enough terms to prevent such alternate meanings.

>>51705873
Clarity came from me saying Terran instead of low. Because again, people often think low fantasy = low magic.

>>51705886
It's mid magic for the most part. Maybe high in a few instances.

But as pointed out, some scholars claim weird Earth, alternate history, leaving earth, etc, makes for high fantasy as it's not "earthy enough".

>>51705911
>people
you mean you? I'm fine with that. it's just your own definition and it's wrong, so good luck

>>51705758
>putting A Song of Ice and Fire and MtG into the same pile is linguistically efficient
Sure if the goal of the definition is to not tell anything of worth about the setting.
The official definitions are useless. If someone wants to know something about a setting its most of the time of no importance if it has the earth in it or not, because most of the time that does not tell anything about the setting.
Almost as if you had a genre definition in music that puts classical and rock music in the same pile because hey, they both have stringed instruments.

>>51705916
but 'terran' is also ambiguous because SW is (in fantasy terms) low fantasy but you wouldn't know that unless you said low fantasy

>>51705930
Nah man. It's not just him.

I've seen this argument 5 times this year, two of which were outside 4chan.

File: High.png (19KB, 642x278px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 642x278px

>>51705868
"High Fantasy" ISN'T a word, but "High" certainly is.

>>51705931
high and low fantasy have nothing to do with the worth or value of a story or setting

it's just what type of setting it is...

>>51705938
then somebody really should edit that Wikipedia article

>>51705937
Terran tells me if it takes place on earth, not whether earth exists in canon.

Not ambiguous.

As for whether earth exists in canon?

I don't need a term for that. Star wars is not Terran, even if earth exists in canon, because it doesn't take place on earth.

The fact that earth exists in canon is not particularly relevant to the game, setting, or story.

Same with forgotten realms. Only matters of your wondering why there are Terran pantheons in setting, or you're reading the ancient history of some nation or another and you find out they came from Earth.

>>51705931
We do that in real life. It's called "metal".

>>51705980
Somehow power metal and black metal and nu metal and doom metal are all metal, despite having nothing in common besides the instruments used.

File: 1398461777956.gif (4MB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 800x800px

>>51705965
well the strangely enough I think we probably agree on our use of terms; if anything you just prefer additional terms to further specify

as for your understanding of star wars I'm afraid you'll have to get back to arguing with that other anon - I can say nothing for how to distinguish SW's genre in terms of fantasy (for me I side-step the issue and call it sci-fi, even though it's got some fantastical stuff in it)

>>51705980
>>51705998

>>51706031
well then*

>I hate having to edit

File: _____.png (14KB, 1015x611px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 1015x611px

>>51705945
>it's just what type of setting it is...
I did not say that it has anything to do with the worth or value of the setting but that the official definition fails to make any meaningful distinction
Read carefully, I said that it does not tell anything of worth about the setting. As in it fails to tell what type of setting it is. It only tells you whether it has an earth or not. Which does not tell much about the setting. It fails to give any meaningful information. That's why the official definitions are BS.

>>51705980
Not really. The Metal genre does not encompass both this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRxofEmo3HA and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgzGwKwLmgM

>>51705998
Let me draw that for you really quick.
See how Subgenre 1 and Subgenre 2 are quite distinct?

>>51705743
Drop high and low fantasy, and use
>>51705443. If you need to say "earth exists in canon but is not the actual setting of the game/story", then the odd time that comes up, do that.

>>51705954
As for Wikipedia, Wikipedia requires cited sources. What they're using now has cited sources. If you want to change it you need to somehow shut down their sources with more authoritative ones.

>>51706031
We agree on the official definitions of the word. Where we disagree is how much that matters when people don't mean the official definition when they use it. If you're misunderstood more than half the time you use an official definition of a term (that's my experience in this case) the term is worthless, and you need a better term.

>>51706056
Their distinction despite a shared ambiguous term was my point. People say "metal" like you know what that means. But it could mean too many different things for it to be a useful term without further qualifiers.

>>51706088
And with that I go to bed. Like I should have done 2 hours ago. Later.

>>51697965
Ironically Elric is often described in the books as wearing a large amount of (gaudy) clothing or wearing heavy armor.

>>51706102
Actually, one final paying point for you both. Something to ponder.

Which is more important, the "official" definition, the "functional" definition, or clarity?

I say it's clarity.

>>51706170
Fucking autocorrect.

Parting point*