Yeah, Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire does. That's why I like it, and part of why it's so popular (the other part being Peter Dinklage ). But in RPGs, it's rarely the case.
In fact, I'd say Westeros very closely resembles Britain, even down to the big wall keeping out the wildlings (the Scottish ). GRRM was heavily inspired by the Wars of the Roses, as this video shows:
But this is slightly OT...needless to say, I prefer settings with low magic, and where the heroes are ordinary people who do amazing things, rather than "chosen one" types with special powers and so superior to everyone else that one wonders why he isn't basically Emperor of the whole world yet.
Well, in the last couple of years the BBC has given us The White Queen, The Hollow Crown, Wolf Hall, and The Last Kingdom; and there is The Vikings from Amazon.
The White Queen, The Last Kingdom, and The Vikings (despite its appalling costumes) are not fantasy. They're historically based, so they don't really count. Same with The Musketeers. I haven't seen The Hollow Crown or Wolf Hall but maybe I'll check them out some time.
I must say, though, the longbow held by the guy in the red jack does actually look a lot like mine! Although I suppose all 7' yew staves with horn nocks and flemish style strings are going to look similar.
The White Queen features magic that "works". The protagonist's witchy mother makes prophesies that someone with a bit of historical knowledge knows will come true. That makes it fantasy. The Last Kingdom is structured pretty much identically to a generic fantasy (yes you, Conan) story and the protagonist is entirely fictional. There really isn't any difference between that and any low magic fantasy set in a fictionalised "past".
Hollow Crown and Wolf Hall are less D&Dish (and you could argue that Henry V is a bit of a munchkin superhero), but they are both brilliant.
The White Queen, The Last Kingdom, and The Vikings (despite its appalling costumes) are not fantasy. They're historically based, so they don't really count. Same with The Musketeers. I haven't seen The Hollow Crown or Wolf Hall but maybe I'll check them out some time.
As @Fardragon indicates, these may be historical 'Settings' but they are fantasy, in much the same way that Robin Hood, King Arthur and Sherlock Holmes are fantasy despite the backdrop of history. If you want further proof, ask any historian if there is evidence of a Sontaran setting up shop in a Norman Castle in the 1500's or if any Terileptil bodies were found during the great fire of London. Some of the best fiction takes place to a historically factual background.
As a note, The Last Kingdom also has an element of 'low magic'. The one gal eats animal entrails and has visions of 'The future'.
If a story is fictional or has fictional characters, it is 'a fantasy' as in it is not reality. Therefore any story surrounding fictional characters is by definition 'Fantasy'. Lord of the rings is Fantasy. Star Trek is fantasy. Twilight is (really bad) fantasy. A text book on World War 2 would be (mostly) historical.
I think that you are defining 'Fantasy' as in 'Fantasy vs Science Fiction vs Romance vs historical etc'. in that instance, 'The last kingdom' is still Fantasy for precisely the reason I indicated, that there are low magic elements in the story. I can't speak for the others because I don't watch them but suspect that Vikings is probably more closely associated with Fantasy than with a historical volume.
I think of this less as a tangent and more as definitional. In order to be able to communicate properly, we forumites need to agree upon defining terminology which is what we are doing here.
You are right in that I'm defining "fantasy" as a genre of fiction, specifically, one that contains fantastical elements (i.e. things that never have, and never will, exist in reality). It doesn't have to be medieval...it just has to contain things that don't exist.
Fiction is anything that isn't fact, but to know what fiction to read, that's why we have genres. Fantasy is fiction that contains fantastical elements. Sci-fi must contain technology that is at least imagineable (I would define things like Star Wars and Warhammer 40k as "fantasy in space" rather than "sci-fi"). Crime thrillers must contain people doing crime, romances must contain people falling in love, etc. If we blur the lines too much, we might as well scrap all genre titles entirely, and simply define every story ever written, whether it's Treasure Island, Pride and Prejudice, or Twilight, as "a book".
As for The Last Kingdom...I know you'll likely disagree (and that's okay I suppose), but I don't consider "doing things that people used to do and making predictions" to be fantastical. People did consume animal entrails and think it gave them insight into the future. Make enough predictions and some of them are likely to come true. It doesn't mean magic is involved.
Besides, Bernard Cornwell is famous for writing a genre that's generally known as historical fiction...he also wrote Sharpe, and that's hardly fantasy (although Sean Bean not dying is pretty fantastical in itself! ). I've read several of his books...apart from his main characters being overly heroic, he does try to stay quite true to history.
TL:DR - if it ain't got monsters, magic, strange creatures, or the like, it's not fantasy, but a different type of fiction.
As hinted at, I think we are largely aligned vis-a-vis the actual definition.
As far as 'The last kingdom', the scene I described is not 'her thinking that she had a vision', she actually flashes on a scene that happens later on. I suppose we can dicker around about if people believe that psychic phenomenon actually happens or not, but for me that bit was pure Fiction and absolutely bordering on Fantasy in my book. But it is perfectly fine if we agree to disagree on that point.
to be honest, I actually like these kinds of discussions far more than "Keeping to the thread". While that is important (and we must observe the rules here I suppose), it is usually when to forumites actually delve into the 'Why' they take a certain stance that things get fun and enlightening. But maybe that's just me.
As hinted at, I think we are largely aligned vis-a-vis the actual definition.
As far as 'The last kingdom', the scene I described is not 'her thinking that she had a vision', she actually flashes on a scene that happens later on. I suppose we can dicker around about if people believe that psychic phenomenon actually happens or not, but for me that bit was pure Fiction and absolutely bordering on Fantasy in my book. But it is perfectly fine if we agree to disagree on that point.
to be honest, I actually like these kinds of discussions far more than "Keeping to the thread". While that is important (and we must observe the rules here I suppose), it is usually when to forumites actually delve into the 'Why' they take a certain stance that things get fun and enlightening. But maybe that's just me.
Have I ever told you I love your take on things usually? You're like a mentor figure to me when it comes to that. Ever since the Gold Box Games discussion I've really enjoyed your view on subjects.
The difference is down to marketing. Bernard Cornwell and the BBC market their work as "historical" because in the UK parts of the establishment still think fantasy is "for children" and "not respectable". However in terms of story structure, characters, magic that works, etc, The Last Kingdom is indistinguishable from any of dozens of generic fantasy novels.
@Squire , I loved that video. I had no idea. I'll never look at Game of Thrones quite the same way again. And I learned something about European history. Thank you so much for sharing that.
I think Hasbro should do a new D&D cartoon possibly set in Forgotten Realms with a cast of new characters but with some references to Drizzt and Elminster in it.
I think Hasbro should do a new D&D cartoon possibly set in Forgotten Realms with a cast of new characters but with some references to Drizzt and Elminster in it.
I think Hasbro should do a new D&D cartoon possibly set in Forgotten Realms with a cast of new characters but with some references to Drizzt and Elminster in it.
I think Hasbro should do a new D&D cartoon possibly set in Forgotten Realms with a cast of new characters but with some references to Drizzt and Elminster in it.
I think Hasbro should do a new D&D cartoon possibly set in Forgotten Realms with a cast of new characters but with some references to Drizzt and Elminster in it.
@ShapiroKeatsDarkMage I am of course not sure wether or not it was your intention, but what I got (and apparently a bunch of other folks) was that apparently being female is a charater type, that the other characters can not be female and/or that the female characters have to be human or elven aka "the pretty ones".
I think Hasbro should do a new D&D cartoon possibly set in Forgotten Realms with a cast of new characters but with some references to Drizzt and Elminster in it.
While this sounds like an amazing idea, have you ever checked out the Dragonlance cartoon? I was so prepared to love it that it was quite a let down when I actually saw it. I mean, 'Dragonlance'. Awesomeness. Throw in Keifer Sutherland as Raistlin and Lucy Lawless as Goldmoon? What's not to like, right? Only.....
As far as it goes I hope that they wait until the Warcraft movie comes out and see what works and what doesn't.
Comments
I must say, though, the longbow held by the guy in the red jack does actually look a lot like mine!
Hollow Crown and Wolf Hall are less D&Dish (and you could argue that Henry V is a bit of a munchkin superhero), but they are both brilliant.
As a note, The Last Kingdom also has an element of 'low magic'. The one gal eats animal entrails and has visions of 'The future'.
Why are we even arguing about the classification of fantasy now anyway? Howcome every discussion I get involved in always goes off on a tangent?
If a story is fictional or has fictional characters, it is 'a fantasy' as in it is not reality. Therefore any story surrounding fictional characters is by definition 'Fantasy'. Lord of the rings is Fantasy. Star Trek is fantasy. Twilight is (really bad) fantasy. A text book on World War 2 would be (mostly) historical.
I think that you are defining 'Fantasy' as in 'Fantasy vs Science Fiction vs Romance vs historical etc'. in that instance, 'The last kingdom' is still Fantasy for precisely the reason I indicated, that there are low magic elements in the story. I can't speak for the others because I don't watch them but suspect that Vikings is probably more closely associated with Fantasy than with a historical volume.
I think of this less as a tangent and more as definitional. In order to be able to communicate properly, we forumites need to agree upon defining terminology which is what we are doing here.
Fiction is anything that isn't fact, but to know what fiction to read, that's why we have genres. Fantasy is fiction that contains fantastical elements. Sci-fi must contain technology that is at least imagineable (I would define things like Star Wars and Warhammer 40k as "fantasy in space" rather than "sci-fi"). Crime thrillers must contain people doing crime, romances must contain people falling in love, etc. If we blur the lines too much, we might as well scrap all genre titles entirely, and simply define every story ever written, whether it's Treasure Island, Pride and Prejudice, or Twilight, as "a book".
As for The Last Kingdom...I know you'll likely disagree (and that's okay I suppose), but I don't consider "doing things that people used to do and making predictions" to be fantastical. People did consume animal entrails and think it gave them insight into the future. Make enough predictions and some of them are likely to come true. It doesn't mean magic is involved.
Besides, Bernard Cornwell is famous for writing a genre that's generally known as historical fiction...he also wrote Sharpe, and that's hardly fantasy (although Sean Bean not dying is pretty fantastical in itself!
TL:DR - if it ain't got monsters, magic, strange creatures, or the like, it's not fantasy, but a different type of fiction.
As far as 'The last kingdom', the scene I described is not 'her thinking that she had a vision', she actually flashes on a scene that happens later on. I suppose we can dicker around about if people believe that psychic phenomenon actually happens or not, but for me that bit was pure Fiction and absolutely bordering on Fantasy in my book. But it is perfectly fine if we agree to disagree on that point.
to be honest, I actually like these kinds of discussions far more than "Keeping to the thread". While that is important (and we must observe the rules here I suppose), it is usually when to forumites actually delve into the 'Why' they take a certain stance that things get fun and enlightening. But maybe that's just me.
A human as the hero.
A half-elf as the lancer.
A Dragonborn and a dwarf as big guys.
A elf and another human as the chicks.
And a tiefling as the sixth ranger.
Wat?
I am of course not sure wether or not it was your intention, but what I got (and apparently a bunch of other folks) was that apparently being female is a charater type, that the other characters can not be female and/or that the female characters have to be human or elven aka "the pretty ones".
As far as it goes I hope that they wait until the Warcraft movie comes out and see what works and what doesn't.
http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Fraktur_(Earth-616)