Game News Project Eternity Kickstarter Update #56: Paladins and Wild Orlans

[Lancehead]

He didn't do character design in [..] New Vegas.

Sawyer did, actually. He wrote Hanlon, Gannon, and initial concepts of the companions.

 

[abnaxus]

Anyway, you want realistic race relations in a high fantasy world? How about this:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...=17931&perpage=40&pagenumber=11#post414911273

Anthropologically (pre-history), most academics who care to theorize believe that pale elves (Glamfellen) left the northern hemisphere at least 12,000 years ago. Some theorize it happened even earlier, up to 50,000 years ago. Almost every theory about why they left and why they traveled all the way to the southern polar region is pure guesswork. Culturally, they bear almost no resemblance to the Sceltrfolc (wood elves) who live in Aedyr and they have no cultural similarities to the Sceltrfolc who live in Eír Glanfath. There are a few elements of Glamfellen grammar and vocabulary that have common roots with Eld Aedyran and are not found in other surrounding languages (e.g. the languages spoken by boreal dwarves), but the similarities end there.

Culturally, Aedyran wood elves are largely indistinct from Aedyran humans (most of whom are ethnically Thyrtan, "Meadow Folk"). They've been living near and migrating with each other for thousands of years -- so long that their related parent languages (Eld Aedyran and Hylspeak) have mostly disappeared from common use. Aedyran humans and elves remain physiologically distinct because they cannot reproduce. However, their cultures have become so intermingled that they had to develop legal concepts to deal with what are effectively culturally-accepted concubines (human-elf and elf-human), haemneg. The Aedyran imperial family is an oddly-tangled union of a reigning human emperor or empress with a secondary set of powers controlled by an elven concubine.

Glanfathan Sceltrfolc are physiologically very similar to Aedyran Sceltrfolc, but culturally they share no similarities. They speak a completely unrelated language, are mostly organized into semi-nomadic tribes, and tend toward suspicion and xenophobia. Like the orlans alongside whom they live, Glanfathan elves believe that they are the stewards and protectors of the ruins in Eír Glanfath -- though they know they did not create them. Aedyran Sceltrfolc tend to loathe and outwardly disparage Glanfathan Sceltrfolc, though there is no real animosity between Sceltrfolc and Glamfellen. They have minimal contact. Outside of boreal dwarves and some far-traveled aumaua, very few people have any contact with Glamfellen.

Physically, wood elves look like bog-standard fantasy elves. Glamfellen are borderline albinos, slightly taller than wood elves, and the males can (and often do) grow facial hair. Some have epicanthic folds, but it is not universally common (as it is with boreal dwarves).

And people complained about Kingdoms of Banalur being generic.

 

[serch]

I believe that the whole soul recycling will give this setting an interesting, original spin. Also, it's pretty obvious that they are giving the world some serious consideration. They just don't take a decision about some cultural, natural, geographical, metaphisical thingie and leave it there in total isolation from the rest of the setting. They are thinking about the consequences for the rest of the nodes of each decision they make. So elves and humans form a single, integrated culture and mixed pairs are sterile, how would a society react to that, what norms it would develop? What about souls, will a human reincarnate into an elf in his next life so he can properly tap that ass? That gives profundity to the setting which is more important than originality.

 

[Grunker]

tuluse and Lancehead:

Why are you arguing points I never made? My central point is that the deviations of Project Eternity's fantasy setting are very small and insignificant. You're saying I claimed 1) That high fantasy settings can't vary fundamentally (which I didn't, actually I said the exact opposite) and 2) that it's the existence of elves and other tropes that makes PE standard high fantasy (again, which I didn't - I stated the exact opposite).

What makes Project Eternity and Elder Scrolls and so on standard high fantasy settings where I can't be bothered to take a specific interest in the setting is that there are little to no meaningful variations that shift the theme in a central way from other settings.

You make the suggesting, Tuluse, that "oh, PE is different because it's a colonization setting!" but those are a dime a dozen in Fantasy worlds. Most recently the entire world of Pathfinder's Golarion has been focused on that shit, and Golarion is as standard a setting as they come. The Kingmaker adventure series from Pathfinder is focused completely on colonization of a woodland landmass much like Dyrwood. Other examples are Magic the Gathering's Zendikar or Forgotten Realms and early Maztica/Cormanthor/Tethyr.

You keep making these claims in a way that makes it obvious you haven't dealt much with fantasy settings outside of video games. Either that, or you're placing entirely too much faith in insignificant details.

And for the umpteenth time, nothing is wrong with playing it safe in a standard setting, per se. It means your audience knows the ins and outs of the world so you can focus on story. It just means you can't really elevate your setting material beyond "oh, that."

As for what serch says, the concept of souls might very well be new, but there's two things at work here:

1) One original concept does not make an original setting. It makes a standard fantasy setting with one original concept. Wholly different high fantasy worlds like The Witcher or Shadowrun have worlds that play by entirely different rules and investigate wholly different themes than standard settings, banal as they may be otherwise (like Shadowrun is). They simply don't function in the way other settings do.

2) Souls as engines for magic, afterlife etc. have been done to do death in RPG settings. It remains to be seen whether Obsidian will actually do something different here.

The bottom line is though, that PE will have standard elves, haflings, humans and even genasi, and they will all interact in an environment that plays by the same rules, fundamentally, as every fantasy setting and their grandmothers.

Infinitron: I've played P&P for almost 15 years. I've seen so many variations on Forgotten Realms I could build an airplane with the pages I read.

Touché

 

[Lancehead]

Grunker, I'm refuting your claims that PE's setting is uninteresting because it's little more than slight (insignificant) variations from standard fantasy. My argument is that the attractiveness of a setting in a videogame comes from how well the setting is used in the actual story where the player has agency.

 

[Grunker]

Grunker, I'm refuting your claims that PE's setting is uninteresting because it's little more than slight (insignificant) variations from standard fantasy. My argument is that the attractiveness of a setting in a videogame comes from how well the setting is used in the actual story where the player has agency.

But this claim is completely false. The setting doesn't have to be good or interesting for the story to be. Baldur's Gate had a fairly welltold story, but the setting was BSB. You can tell great and deep stories within the most banal and insignificant frames. Sometimes the frame is, indeed, just there for a common frame of reference and one or two new parameters to draw on (like souls).

But interesting characters and an interesting plot - the backbone of a good story - does not magically make the setting around them better. Claiming otherwise is making up some non-existing link between the two.

 

[Lancehead]

Grunker, I'm refuting your claims that PE's setting is uninteresting because it's little more than slight (insignificant) variations from standard fantasy. My argument is that the attractiveness of a setting in a videogame comes from how well the setting is used in the actual story where the player has agency.

But this claim is completely false. The setting doesn't have to be good or interesting for the story to be. Baldur's Gate had a fairly welltold story, but the setting was BSB. You can tell great and deep stories within the most banal and insignificant frames. Sometimes the frame is, indeed, just there for a common frame of reference and one or two new parameters to draw on (like souls).

But interesting characters and an interesting plot - the backbone of a good story - does not magically make the setting around them better. Claiming otherwise is making up some non-existing link between the two.

I wasn't talking about what's required for an interesting story, but for an interesting setting. There are many RPGs with tens of thousands of words long lore that is just relegated to some books you can find in the game, and is mostly irrelevant to what happens in the game. That makes for an uninteresting setting, however wild or unimaginative the lore is. BG is a pretty good example of that, by the way.

 

[Grunker]

Okay, then maybe I can concede to this:

the attractiveness of a setting in a videogame comes from how well the setting is used in the actual story where the player has agency.

but that doesn't really make the setting itself less banal or unoriginal. And so my point stands. It's true that stuff like Mask of the Betrayer shows how you can make even the most stale fantasy settings interesting because you put them into context, but that doesn't really make the setting less stale. It just means what was there was used optimally. And that's not a property of the setting, but of the story.

Which brings us back to the central point: nothing wrong with using a stale setting. That just doesn't make it less unoriginal.

 

[Rake]

Wholly different high fantasy worlds like The Witcher

From one side you sound like you have unrealistically high standards for fantasy settings, and from the other you say that.
Care to explain what was so different in Witcher setting? I have read the books and played the games(didn't finish 2) and the setting seems pretty standard to me.
You have elves,dwarves, you name it. Grimdark tendencies and politics don't make the world original.
The bestiary is somewhat original, but D&D also has a fuckton of monsters, some of them original.
From bit of info the Obsidian devs have said i actually expect PE to be more alien and interesting. But maybe it just seems that way and the final prodact will be ForgottenRealms 2.0 like you seem to think.

 

[Arkeus]

Hell, the Project Eternity setting seems a thousand times more original than the Witcher one... How many setting do you know where racial bias have to do with countries and not race (except for some exceptions like Orlans)?

The whole "we hate all elves/dwarves, they all either live in different countries or hate each other inthe same one" is so damn cliche...

 

[Grunker]

How many setting do you know where racial bias have to do with countries and not race (except for some exceptions like Orlans)?

Forgortten Realms, for one.

The Witcher, for another.

The whole "we hate all elves/dwarves, they all either live in different countries or hate each other inthe same one" is so damn cliche...

And fortunately not at all the basis for racial disparity in The Witcher, but then it seems you haven't read it and is just talking out of your ass.

Wholly different high fantasy worlds like The Witcher

From one side you sound like you have unrealistically high standards for fantasy settings, and from the other you say that.
Care to explain what was so different in Witcher setting? I have read the books and played the games(didn't finish 2) and the setting seems pretty standard to me.
You have elves,dwarves, you name it. Grimdark tendencies and politics don't make the world original.
The bestiary is somewhat original, but D&D also has a fuckton of monsters, some of them original.
From bit of info the Obsidian devs have said i actually expect PE to be more alien and interesting. But maybe it just seems that way and the final prodact will be ForgottenRealms 2.0 like you seem to think.

Firstly: The Witcher ain't high literature. I'm not claiming The Witcher is fantastic. We're discussing whether it's different from standard fantasy fare compared to, for example, Project Eternity.

Now, you manage to achieve first a strawman that my standards are unrealistically high (when I've provided a whole list of examples to the contrary) and then argumentum ad absurdum on The Witcher ("then EVERYTHING is just standard, isn't it?!?). You even manage to top it off with argumentum ad reductio by saying the philosophical discussions in Sapkowski are just attempts at being "grimdark and political" (I doubt Sapkowski even knew the term grimdark). Nice combo in four sentences.

The Witcher operates on a whole list of different themes compared to normal fantasy settings. It provides a framework for racial conflict that's fundamentally different from the Pointy-Eared White Supremacists of every other fantasy setting. Its story is focused entirely around a set of coherent themes from which it cannot deviate because these are written into the setting's core (The Time of Disdain being the culmination of the discussions it tries to raise). The Witcher ain't exactly high literature, but neither is trivial stuff like Shadowrun, but they are both different enough that any outsider would be able to detect the differences.

The Witcher blends arthurian myth, Polish medieval folk lore and high fantasy tropes. It uses tons of low fantasy elements in a high fantasy setting (or vice versa, as you like), much like the old Warhammer tried to do (but ultimately failed to). The Witchers themselves were entirely original as a concept back then - sort of reverse antiheroes - though they were unquestionable heroes, they utilized unquestionable evil methods. The duality of the witcher was not a typical anti-hero duality where a person that looks like a bad guy is really a good guy, but rather a case of good guys actually being very bad in a lot of ways.

There are actual depths and limits to The Witcher. Again I use Tolkien: "Settings are defined less by the possibilities than their limits." The Witcher has clearly defined limitations on its setting that make the setting interesting. The "standard" high fantasy setting does not - including PE. A few exceptions here as well - MtG and Planescape for example are interesting precisely because they investigate the core concepts of worlds without limits.

An example of The Witcher taking things to their logical conclusions is how elven culture has become more like some stone age cave-men lifestyle because they're forced to live in mountains. Elves in Sapskowi are seldom regal and noble (like in every other fantasy setting); they are ruthless and rash. They remind you more of afghan warrior clans than anything else. That's a fundamental difference, not just a cosmetic one, because it raises different questions.

"Standard" high fantasy settings do not erect these kinds of limits, and at the same time don't discuss them. The powers of entities in the world due to magic, for example, has a range of logical conclusions to the balance of powers in the world. This is rarely, if ever, discussed within the setting "because a wizard did it." That's fine. But it's also a staple of the standard.

The differences in The Witcher weren't just cosmetic or fluff - it was a question of theme and core differences to other worlds. The most important thing might be a question of knowing what to expect: Whenever I see a trope in The Witcher, like an elf or a knight, something happens in the setting or story that underlines that these are quite different elves or knights than usually. I never know what to expect in The Witcher because they don't "play by the normal rules." PE's do so far on every instance:

Now compare this to Project Eternity. It's "uniqueness" is wholly cosmetic or based in details. "We have no half-elves." "We have elvish concubines." "We are focused on colonization." None of these point to the substance of the setting - what questions are going to be explored here? In other words:

What can I explore in your setting that I can't in others?

The question for PE so far is answerable with "nothing," while the question in the case of the Witcher is that it allows for the explorations of many themes better than any other random fantasy world:

the World of the Witcher did not aspire to complete, gritty realism with a few strokes of fantasy here and there. Rather, it was a blend of obvious magic, monsters and exotic races and a world that had to abide by the rules of a medieval reality despite all its obvious supernatural elements. In this world, Sapkowski centred his stories on the character Geralt – a neutral observer of a world in decline, a man who did not want to be involved in the troubles of a world slowly killing itself, but who would constantly have to fight the urge to act and try to save what was left of it, or at the very least some of the people in it. In Geralt, Sapkowski created not only a metaphor for his own outlook on the world, but a metaphor for modern, democratic politics. Each individual human looking at what he or she sometimes perceives as collective acts of stupidity and self-destruction, and a refusal to take part in it. At the same time however, through Geralt we bear witness to how we are each more responsible for the state of things than we might be willing to admit, and that distancing yourself from the collective is both difficult and may not always be the right decision. The main point of Geralt's adventures, though, seems to be that Sapkowski does not want to answer whether the moral correct decision would be for Geralt to abide by the rules of neutrality that bind him, or whether he should embrace his wish to act and take responsibility for the world, even though he perceives most of the people in it as self-destructive. Indeed, perhaps the answer to Geralt's paradox of neutrality is case-dependent.

Regardless, the thematic underpinnings of The Witcher are well-defined, and they lend themselves to a world that is filled with things and concepts we think we know, but surprises us with the fact that we really don't.

 

[Infinitron]

Grunker, we don't know enough yet about PE's setting to compare it with Witcher's setting.

There isn't yet one single finished and published work using the PE setting, only tidbits that Josh Sawyer has dropped on various Internet forums.

I think we can reasonably assume it won't be as "original" as Dark Sun or Planescape, but it could definitely be more original than the Witcher.

 

[Grunker]

Grunker, we don't know enough yet about PE's setting to compare it with Witcher's setting.

There isn't yet one single finished and published work using the PE setting, only tidbits that Josh Sawyer has dropped on various Internet forums.

I think we can reasonably assume it won't be as "original" as Dark Sun or Planescape, but it could definitely be more original than the Witcher.

The Witcher is as original as Dark Sun and Planescape. You missed the point if you think otherwise. Even if it wasn't, based on what we know so far, I would still claim that we can do this:

I think we can reasonably assume it won't be as "original"

for the Witcher as well. Just look at the description of elves I linked. Josh is saying: "Yep, they're pretty much standard fare." Anyone with ambitions to originality would never claim that shit.

In fact, why are we even arguing this? Obsidian said themselves during the Kickstarter that they were going with quote-unquote "a familiar fantasy setting" because they wanted it to be instantly recognizable.
I'm basically just agreeing with Obs here.

 

[Infinitron]

The Witcher is as original as Dark Sun and Planescape.

lol

 

[sea]

Infinitron: I've played P&P for almost 15 years. I've seen so many variations on Forgotten Realms I could build an airplane with the pages I read. Obisidian's variation so far isn't more or less banal or different than most of them. The setting is a sloppy, playing-it-safe part of this game. Please don't do the same as retarded fantasy fans who points out six or seven details that don't matter in the wider scope of things and claims Obsidian's setting is totally awesome and new because their elves have smaller ears or some shit like that.

Kinda. The issue is, if you are going to do any sort of fantasy game that has magic, warriors, priests, monks, etc. then there is a certain theme expected to go along with it and which is marketable. Sure, anyone could do something completely off the rails... but if you show wider RPG audiences your crazy tribal warfare world where magic is a result of licking toads and eating ritual mushrooms, or whatever, you're going to exclude people who otherwise might be on board with your game. Obsidian has never made any attempt to hide that Project Eternity is meant to be a spiritual follow-up to Baldur's Gate, setting included.

Furthermore, while I know a lot of us are tired of generic settings, setting is only important for what it enables in the story and gameplay. You can have a generic setting but a fantastic story - just that most devs never get that far. The Witcher is a good example of that. I have a lot more trust in Obsidian to make the most of a generic setting than I do in virtually every other developer.

EDIT: Wrote this before reading your follow-ups, so there's some overlap with what you said already. Derp.

In light of that I will say I mostly agree with Grunker. I also think what needs to be stressed is that what makes an original setting, to a degree, is what it enables in storytelling that is distinct from other settings. Although you can do small-scale, very personal stories in almost any setting, if you want to go for the globe-spanning epic focus of most RPGs, the setting suddenly becomes a huge limiting or enabling factor.

Planescape is an impressive and very different setting not because of what it is in an aesthetic sense, but what it allows those using the setting to do that other settings cannot. The aesthetic is an important element but unless those aesthetic elements are also crucial to the core themes of the setting (and story) then it's still not too relevant beyond surface appeal. Planescape has fantastic and original art; fantastic art is not "setting."

 

[Scruffy]

i actually sort of like their idea of paladin. basically, a zealous defender of a cause, it doesn't matter what cause. a lot better than a church-y narrow-minded knight in shiny armor.

 

[Grunker]

Infinitron: Thank you for proving my point.

Infinitron: I've played P&P for almost 15 years. I've seen so many variations on Forgotten Realms I could build an airplane with the pages I read. Obisidian's variation so far isn't more or less banal or different than most of them. The setting is a sloppy, playing-it-safe part of this game. Please don't do the same as retarded fantasy fans who points out six or seven details that don't matter in the wider scope of things and claims Obsidian's setting is totally awesome and new because their elves have smaller ears or some shit like that.

Kinda. The issue is, if you are going to do any sort of fantasy game that has magic, warriors, priests, monks, etc. then there is a certain theme expected to go along with it and which is marketable. Sure, anyone could do something completely off the rails... but if you show wider RPG audiences your crazy tribal warfare world where magic is a result of licking toads and eating ritual mushrooms, or whatever, you're going to exclude people who otherwise might be on board with your game. Obsidian has never made any attempt to hide that Project Eternity is meant to be a spiritual follow-up to Baldur's Gate, setting included.

Furthermore, while I know a lot of us are tired of generic settings, setting is only important for what it enables in the story and gameplay. You can have a generic setting but a fantastic story - just that most devs never get that far. The Witcher is a good example of that. I have a lot more trust in Obsidian to make the most of a generic setting than I do in virtually every other developer.

Jesus Christ people read my-

EDIT: Wrote this before reading your follow-ups, so there's some overlap with what you said already. Derp.

In light of that I will say I mostly agree with Grunker. I also think what needs to be stressed is that what makes an original setting, to a degree, is what it enables in storytelling that is distinct from other settings. Although you can do small-scale, very personal stories in almost any setting, if you want to go for the globe-spanning epic focus of most RPGs, the setting suddenly becomes a huge limiting or enabling factor.

Thank you

i actually sort of like their idea of paladin. basically, a zealous defender of a cause, it doesn't matter what cause. a lot better than a church-y narrow-minded knight in shiny armor.

http://arcanaevolved.wikia.com/wiki/Champion

 

[Rake]

A lot of things

Agree in many things, disagree in some.
First of all the

the philosophical discussions in Sapkowski are just attempts at being "grimdark and political"

I was talking about the games, not the books.

It provides a framework for racial conflict that's fundamentally different from the Pointy-Eared White Supremacists of every other fantasy setting

Dragon Age does that too, just badly. All settings can provide framework for racial conflict that makes sense. That very few do than anything other "Pointy-Eared White Supremacists" is the fault of lazy writters/game devs and not inherent quality/restriction of the settings themselves. Correct me if i'm wrong.
PE will also have racial conflict, and i believe they will do it in a good way. That impacts the quality of the setting,not it's originality.

The Witchers themselves were entirely original as a concept back then - sort of reverse antiheroes - though they were unquestionable heroes, they utilized unquestionable evil methods. The duality of the witcher was not a typical anti-hero duality where a person that looks like a bad guy is really a good guy, but rather a case of good guys actually being very bad in a lot of ways.

Does that makes the setting original or as yourself said for PE

One original concept does not make an original setting. It makes a standard fantasy setting with one original concept

There are actual depths and limits to The Witcher. Again I use Tolkien: "Settings are defined less by the possibilities than their limits." The Witcher has clearly defined limitations on its setting that make the setting interesting. The "standard" high fantasy setting does not - including PE. A few exceptions here as well - MtG and Planescape for example are interesting precisely because they investigate the core concepts of worlds without limits.

You don't know the limits of PE setting. Ciri's planehoping could provide Sapkowski with the excuse for "and the kitchen sink" in his books. That he chose to impose limits to himself is good, but that doesn't say that Obsidian can't do the same themselves.

An example of The Witcher taking things to their logical conclusions is how elven culture has become more like some stone age cave-men lifestyle because they're forced to live in mountains. Elves in Sapskowi are seldom regal and noble (like in every other fantasy setting); they are ruthless and rash. They remind you more of afghan warrior clans than anything else. That's a fundamental difference

How is it any different than taking things to their logical conclusions by having elven culture more like some hunter-gatherer lifestyle because they're forced to live in deep forests? You could have them remind more of native american warrior clans than anything else. That's not so fundamental diference in my book. Not all settings treat elves like regal and noble by default. We don't know PE will have an elvenmagicalland(TM).

"Standard" high fantasy settings do not erect these kinds of limits, and at the same time don't discuss them. The powers of entities in the world due to magic, for example, has a range of logical conclusions to the balance of powers in the world. This is rarely, if ever, discussed within the setting "because a wizard did it." That's fine. But it's also a staple of the standard.

And why are you so sure PE will do that?

a neutral observer of a world in decline, a man who did not want to be involved in the troubles of a world slowly killing itself, but who would constantly have to fight the urge to act and try to save what was left of it, or at the very least some of the people in it. In Geralt, Sapkowski created not only a metaphor for his own outlook on the world, but a metaphor for modern, democratic politics. Each individual human looking at what he or she sometimes perceives as collective acts of stupidity and self-destruction, and a refusal to take part in it. At the same time however, through Geralt we bear witness to how we are each more responsible for the state of things than we might be willing to admit, and that distancing yourself from the collective is both difficult and may not always be the right decision. The main point of Geralt's adventures, though, seems to be that Sapkowski does not want to answer whether the moral correct decision would be for Geralt to abide by the rules of neutrality that bind him, or whether he should embrace his wish to act and take responsibility for the world, even though he perceives most of the people in it as self-destructive. Indeed, perhaps the answer to Geralt's paradox of neutrality is case-dependent.

You said that characters don't define the setting. You could take the consept of a character like Gerald and with slight changes have it work in a number of settings.

 

[MicoSelva]

The Witcher is as original as Dark Sun and Planescape.

It is, if You see it as a deconstruction of traditional (very traditional, as in Tolkien) fairy tales and high fantasy, but this is visible much more in the novels than in the game. Some of the original Witcher short stories have their plot derived straight from traditional fairy tales (Snow White and the Seven Dwarves or Little Mermaid, for example).

Granted, this approach was much more fresh and original in the late 80s (the first witcher story is from 1986) than it is now.

 

[Rake]

The Witcher is as original as Dark Sun and Planescape.

It is, if You see it as a deconstruction of traditional (very traditional, as in Tolkien) fairy tales and high fantasy, but this is visible much more in the novels than in the game. Some of the original Witcher short stories have their plot derived straight from traditional fairy tales (Snow White and the Seven Dwarves or Little Mermaid, for example).

Granted, this approach was much more fresh and original in the late 80s (the first witcher story is from 1986) than it is now.

ASOIAF and Abercrombie do the same. I still would say that it's the stories and characters that break the tropes and not the settings themselves.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

The Witcher is as original as Dark Sun and Planescape.

lol

Nobody should be able to get away with saying that lol.

 

[Arkeus]

How many setting do you know where racial bias have to do with countries and not race (except for some exceptions like Orlans)?

Forgortten Realms, for one.

The Witcher, for another.

And fortunately not at all the basis for racial disparity in The Witcher, but then it seems you haven't read it and is just talking out of your ass.

Please give examples of Elves co-ruling with humans then, and not just a one-time thing once.. seems i might have missed something.

Firstly: The Witcher ain't high literature. I'm not claiming The Witcher is fantastic. We're discussing whether it's different from standard fantasy fare compared to, for example, Project Eternity.

Now, you manage to achieve first a strawman that my standards are unrealistically high (when I've provided a whole list of examples to the contrary) and then argumentum ad absurdum on The Witcher ("then EVERYTHING is just standard, isn't it?!?). You even manage to top it off with argumentum ad reductio by saying the philosophical discussions in Sapkowski are just attempts at being "grimdark and political" (I doubt Sapkowski even knew the term grimdark). Nice combo in four sentences.

The Witcher operates on a whole list of different themes compared to normal fantasy settings. It provides a framework for racial conflict that's fundamentally different from the Pointy-Eared White Supremacists of every other fantasy setting. Its story is focused entirely around a set of coherent themes from which it cannot deviate because these are written into the setting's core (The Time of Disdain being the culmination of the discussions it tries to raise). The Witcher ain't exactly high literature, but neither is trivial stuff like Shadowrun, but they are both different enough that any outsider would be able to detect the differences.

The Witcher blends arthurian myth, Polish medieval folk lore and high fantasy tropes. It uses tons of low fantasy elements in a high fantasy setting (or vice versa, as you like), much like the old Warhammer tried to do (but ultimately failed to). The Witchers themselves were entirely original as a concept back then - sort of reverse antiheroes - though they were unquestionable heroes, they utilized unquestionable evil methods. The duality of the witcher was not a typical anti-hero duality where a person that looks like a bad guy is really a good guy, but rather a case of good guys actually being very bad in a lot of ways.

WHAT THE HECK. All of this stuff is like the extremely boring old cliches you see everywhere (except for the polish myths, but that comes from being made there...).

Seriously, what the hell are you talking about, this being original?

An example of The Witcher taking things to their logical conclusions is how elven culture has become more like some stone age cave-men lifestyle because they're forced to live in mountains. Elves in Sapskowi are seldom regal and noble (like in every other fantasy setting); they are ruthless and rash. They remind you more of afghan warrior clans than anything else. That's a fundamental difference, not just a cosmetic one, because it raises different questions.

"Standard" high fantasy settings do not erect these kinds of limits, and at the same time don't discuss them. The powers of entities in the world due to magic, for example, has a range of logical conclusions to the balance of powers in the world. This is rarely, if ever, discussed within the setting "because a wizard did it." That's fine. But it's also a staple of the standard.

Please tell me you aren't serious.... Almost any fantasy setting has such limits. Hell, PE has shown them already.

Now compare this to Project Eternity. It's "uniqueness" is wholly cosmetic or based in details. "We have no half-elves." "We have elvish concubines." "We are focused on colonization." None of these point to the substance of the setting - what questions are going to be explored here? In other words:

What can I explore in your setting that I can't in others?

The question for PE so far is answerable with "nothing," while the question in the case of the Witcher is that it allows for the explorations of many themes better than any other random fantasy world:

the World of the Witcher did not aspire to complete, gritty realism with a few strokes of fantasy here and there. Rather, it was a blend of obvious magic, monsters and exotic races and a world that had to abide by the rules of a medieval reality despite all its obvious supernatural elements. In this world, Sapkowski centred his stories on the character Geralt – a neutral observer of a world in decline, a man who did not want to be involved in the troubles of a world slowly killing itself, but who would constantly have to fight the urge to act and try to save what was left of it, or at the very least some of the people in it. In Geralt, Sapkowski created not only a metaphor for his own outlook on the world, but a metaphor for modern, democratic politics. Each individual human looking at what he or she sometimes perceives as collective acts of stupidity and self-destruction, and a refusal to take part in it. At the same time however, through Geralt we bear witness to how we are each more responsible for the state of things than we might be willing to admit, and that distancing yourself from the collective is both difficult and may not always be the right decision. The main point of Geralt's adventures, though, seems to be that Sapkowski does not want to answer whether the moral correct decision would be for Geralt to abide by the rules of neutrality that bind him, or whether he should embrace his wish to act and take responsibility for the world, even though he perceives most of the people in it as self-destructive. Indeed, perhaps the answer to Geralt's paradox of neutrality is case-dependent.

Regardless, the thematic underpinnings of The Witcher are well-defined, and they lend themselves to a world that is filled with things and concepts we think we know, but surprises us with the fact that we really don't.

Those thematics underpinning are exxxxxxtremely cliches are usual, though.

 

[tuluse]

Having only played the video games, I found The Witcher setting to be as traditional high fantasy as it gets. What was added, elves and dwarves living in ghettos?

Arcanum's human manifest destiny was more interesting from a setting standpoint.

 

[Grunker]

Please give examples of Elves co-ruling with humans then, and not just a one-time thing once.. seems i might have missed something.

The Witcher: Dol Blathanna in Nilfgaard. But even if that didn't exist, there are almost only nations warring against each other in The Witcher. The struggle of elves vs. humans is pretty much a story of apartheid, it's not a territorial conflict.

Forgotten Realms: There are examples, but your question was of territorial disputes and countries warring instead of races. It's like that in almost all of Faerûn, there's very little racial disparity except the Drow vs. Elf conflict on the surface. Cormyr vs. Sembia, Tethyr vs. Amn, Barbarians vs. Ten-Towns and so on and so forth. Harpers vs. Zhentil Keep. Mulhorand vs. Thay. Gilgeam vs. his own population.

I was talking about the games, not the books.

I wasn't. I was talking about the setting.

Dragon Age does that too, just badly.

Dragon Age took this directly from The Witcher and settings that aped it, making them - you guessed it - not original!

All settings can provide framework for racial conflict that makes sense. That very few do than anything other "Pointy-Eared White Supremacists" is the fault of lazy writters/game devs and not inherent quality/restriction of the settings themselves. Correct me if i'm wrong.

By your logic, any setting can do anything, which I guess is correct in some theoretical, irrelevant framework. The Witcher provides a framework for how it works which is both original and functional.

PE will also have racial conflict, and i believe they will do it in a good way. That impacts the quality of the setting,not it's originality.

I agree - and by doing so I'm not going against anything I've written previously

Does that makes the setting original or as yourself said for PE

The Witchers and the underpinnings that govern them is the framework for an entire thematic discussion within the setting.

Elven concubines in PE are not.

You don't know the limits of PE setting. Ciri's planehoping could provide Sapkowski with the excuse for "and the kitchen sink" in his books. That he chose to impose limits to himself is good, but that doesn't say that Obsidian can't do the same themselves.

Listen here: Obsidian themselves said this would be a standard fantasy setting, and they gave (good) reasons for that. You're the one contesting the only thing we know. We're both speculating - I'm just doing it based on what Obsidian has said.

Not all settings treat elves like regal and noble by default

Most do. Those that are standard high fantasy settings.

And why are you so sure PE will do that?

Because Obsidian told me so. A good example is what they've wrote on deities so far, which looks like carbon copies of the "real deities" from Forgotten Realms et al.

You said that characters don't define the setting. You could take the consept of a character like Gerald and with slight changes have it work in a number of settings.

Geralt's moral struggle is an example of the struggle of The Witcher (the outsider looking in on society) and that struggle is the key to that quote - not Geralt.

The Witcher is as original as Dark Sun and Planescape.

It is, if You see it as a deconstruction of traditional (very traditional, as in Tolkien) fairy tales and high fantasy, but this is visible much more in the novels than in the game. Some of the original Witcher short stories have their plot derived straight from traditional fairy tales (Snow White and the Seven Dwarves or Little Mermaid, for example).

Granted, this approach was much more fresh and original in the late 80s (the first witcher story is from 1986) than it is now.

ASOIAF and Abercrombie do the same. I still would say that it's the stories and characters that break the tropes and not the settings themselves.

You would be incorrect.

Almost any fantasy setting has such limits.

You must be trolling.

 

[Rake]

Having only played the video games, I found The Witcher setting to be as traditional high fantasy as it gets. What was added, elves and dwarves living in ghettos?

Arcanum's human manifest destiny was more interesting from a setting standpoint.

The books explore some interesting themes, but i'm not as sure as Grunker that this is an inherent quality of the setting. I also found Witcher traditional.