Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What do you mean by “low fantasy”? It’s not really a matter of cynicism.

 Manchu wrote:
What do you mean by “low fantasy”? It’s not really a matter of cynicism.

Careful - there are legions of pages where people try and work out the difference between low and high fantasy. Even worse for Warhammer groups because Old World was at once low and high depending on what angle you viewed it at and on how you define low and high.



In VERY general terms "low" fantasy typically means a setting where there are limited to no elements that are not present in our real world. So things like magic, non-natural creatures, dwarves etc... Often the two can be intertwined in the same setting, for example Game of Thrones has a world setting that at one point was "high", which then transitioned toward increasing "low" during the start of the books and then transitioned again back toward "high" as the story progressed.

Alongside low and high you've a concept of reality, which we must remember is not "real" reality but rather the romantic/school education/TV perception of old times that the common person has. Ergo some factual elements, intermixed with exaggeration and perhaps 10-20 years behind the actual study of the age in question. Often with a mashing of whole segments into one time period - eg "the Romans" the "medieval period" the "Egyptians" are, for many people, thought of mentally as one generation, when in actuality they spanned many generations and had great variety both over the span of time and the span of territory that they covered.

So low is often generally seen as copying/fitting that structure more so than high, this is often because low has no elves or magic so you don't get golems walking down the streets thus the story is seen (if not actually) to have realistic elements and depictions.


Cadfiel could even fit into "low" fantasy as it has a few tiny elements of mystical belief within it here and there, even if the actual story shows that its nothing of the sort.



On the subject of Warhammer Old World, just to touch on it, many who see it as a low fantasy setting tend to do so because way back when it started most armies were fairly "basic" in appearance. Spearmen, archers, cavalry were the core of most armies. Most were using sword and spear and bow. Yes you had dragons, but the majority of many armies was core infantry style battles. Magic was present but it wasn't "showy", a wizard was all robes and staff. Yes even though it had orks and lizardmen the perception was "low". It also played into the fact that most armies were using real looking weapons so that leaned into the "realistic" elements that seep in which sometimes gets used by people to describe "low" fantasy.

Of course if you read the lore you saw that mages were throwing out huge spells; that magic was VERY powerful and that the setting had insane extremes way outside of low fantasy. In part the setting developed more and more into high, especially in the lore, but the actual models and style took time to catch up. By the time you hit AoS we've got wizard models balancing on rocks; dragons that are huge and more "fantasy" than the "old school serpents" and the portrayal of the setting in marketing and more is 100% leaning on the high end.

Are you saying topics like rape and slavery are more commonly featured in low rather than high fantasy?

Neither - what elements comprise a story is based purely upon the authors desires as a writer in what kind of story they write. Even if they write a very low magic, historically accurate representation of Rome they can tone down, overlook or focus on regions and characters where slavery hardly appears

My first contact with Warhammer was with Rpg rather than the wargame, and Rpg leaned strongly towards low fantasy with characters being regular people, more likely to die of a disease or go insane than meet a dragon or a mage more powerful than a hedge witch.

New 4th ed. WFRP rulebook really captures this gritty, dark, desperate feel of the Warhammer world.

Oh yes I'd forgotten the RPG (which is mostly because I never got involved with it or really know what it was back then). Again another great example of how the setting could easily be seen as very low magic. Indeed even in many of the books those living in big urban areas of the Empire might well have zero to little concept of Chaos or Orks or anything really. A mage might sweep through the upper reaches of town but they won't be casting spells or anything. So very much low-fantasy


Heck they don't even believe in the UnderHive.

Yup, a starting mage in WFRP can do such amazing things like lighting a candle from a small distance or protecting himself from the rain Most of his usefulness for the party comes from the fact that he can read& write which is a rare skill

Cyel wrote:
Yup, a starting mage in WFRP can do such amazing things like lighting a candle from a small distance or protecting himself from the rain Most of his usefulness for the party comes from the fact that he can read& write which is a rare skill

That reminds me of a totally random thing I saw once talking about how reading and writing in ancient times was more common than we thought. However there were "grades" of reading and writing. So it was more like the common person wasn't incapable of reading or writing, just that their level of understanding was exceptionally basic. So they might be able to do a simple "fence stick" mark for counting or sign their name with an X or such. They understood the concept of reading and writing, but they couldn't write an essay or read a complex document; nor read the Bible (as originally that was in Latin or a form of it).

 Manchu wrote:
The modern world seems infinitely more horrific to me than the medieval one.

Yeah I'm sure you would have loved the Black Death, cholera, typhoid, dysentery, diphtheria, polio, TB, getting forced to work in the same job as your parents with no chance at any other life, getting conscripted to fight in a war because your Lord decided they want a bit more land, dying at the age of about 35 if you were lucky enough to make it past childhood, dying because you lost your hand in an accident and there was no real medicine to heal it, dying because you had a bad crop and there are no stores because agriculture is garbage.
I'm also sure you wouldn't miss electricity, clean water, a sewage system, modern medicine, and indoor heating. The modern world has serious problems but pretending the middle ages were better is just flat out wrong. At best you're dealing with social issues like racism, bigotry or watching democracy fall apart in front of you instead of immediate danger like those I listed above.

Every single one of those dangers still exists and modernity has merely stifled them, inequitably and unjustly, at the cost of exploitation and alienation that has found its ultimate expression in bureaucratic mass murder and global environmental devastation. Your whiggish history doesn’t touch me in the slightest.

It's probably not going to go anywhere good if we get into the "what was the worst time/place to be alive" game.


Considering the thread has generally had the very same responses all through (talk and mediate with your group and if you don't fit them leave) and we are now drifting into multiple separate topics - it might be time to move on/lock

What’s interesting to me is how an idyllic escapist world, created through medieval allusion, apparently needs to be intruded by modern-themed horror. Perhaps the idyllic world is deemed worthy of saving, unlike the real one? Perhaps the idyllic world is simply under attack for being idyllic?

Answering the title without having read the whole thread…
But yes, of course it should be ”allowed”, people should be allowed to do whatever they want in their gaming sessions.

But i wouldnt want to play in a group who enjoy going into details of things such as torture or rape. I get no joy from it and wouldnt fit in any group who does.

Its a sign of disrespect however to first ask if its okay, get no for an answer and still go ahead with it.

Maybe an idyllic world doesn't easily offer powerful emotional investment and tough moral choices (which are the heart and soul of a worthy RPG) but a harsher, more realistic world does?

 Manchu wrote:
Every single one of those dangers still exists and modernity has merely stifled them, inequitably and unjustly, at the cost of exploitation and alienation that has found its ultimate expression in bureaucratic mass murder and global environmental devastation. Your whiggish history doesn’t touch me in the slightest.

I agree that we're at the point now where the thread has deviated heavily from the OP's question and should be locked, but I have to ask. Do you genuinely believe that global living conditions are actually worse now than they were at any point in the past?

I think every era has its own problems and that we do not live and have not lived through history on a conveyor belt inevitably carrying us to Better Times.

To Cyel’s point above, the insertion of modern horror into idyllic escapist settings probably shows that we are all aware of this, at least subconsciously, and grappling with the disappointment of the promised utopia never arriving by invading a gentler world with our troubles and frenzies.

 Manchu wrote:
I think every era has its own problems and that we do not live and have not lived through history on a conveyor belt inevitably carrying us to Better Times.

I can agree with that.

Going by usual "common sense and decency". The first time that possessed player tried that sort of gak, close friend/companion or not, the rest of the party would have banded together and outright killed him or died trying.

And no, they wouldn't have resurrected him after that either. Not unless they had a cure that 100% would remove his possession.

So, unless everyone else was alignment Chaotic Evil, then the player wouldn't have been allowed to pull this sort of gak because he would be killed by the rest of his companions no questions asked.

You just don't get to hide behind some "possessed" nonsense excuse. A good alignment simply won't condone such actions in a party no matter what drivel is used as an excuse.

Just for clarification, I was not there at the point of character creation, but I think this was a DM comprimise. You get this super awesome magic bow of supreme damage (tm) but it bears a terrible sppppoooooookey curse, yada yada yada, smash cut to ranged fighter is now a blood thirsty psychopath. Not a bad DM comprimise, but I would have stopped when the player took it too far.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Not a bad DM comprimise, but I would have stopped when the player took it too far.

That strikes me as a very balanced conclusion, honestly.

I have deleted some posts that veer way off into contemporary American political discussion. I realize this topic touches on real-world issues but posters should try to more closely relate those points to the topic of what is/isn’t appropriate in fantasy roleplaying. Thanks!

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Just for clarification, I was not there at the point of character creation, but I think this was a DM comprimise. You get this super awesome magic bow of supreme damage (tm) but it bears a terrible sppppoooooookey curse, yada yada yada, smash cut to ranged fighter is now a blood thirsty psychopath. Not a bad DM comprimise, but I would have stopped when the player took it too far.

What was the point of it all anyway? So that the player can roleplay being a psycopath muderer and rapist? ... Plus the DM doesn't seem interested in treating this rationally either. In which world would a psycopath be allowed to go around killing and raping people in a city? He would have been found out, and captured , and tried and executed long ago. If not by the city, then by other adventurers or mercenaries. It sounds like he just went psycho at times. So, there is no attempted to cover up. No sneakiness about it. He just goes nuts, pick a random place and starts a rampage.

He might get away with it once. But multiple times in a city? Defies belief. And none of the rest of the party roleplays how they deal with it based on their alignment? Is the entire party evil align? Like imagine if you are neutral good, or lawful neutral. And you know that one of your companions in your party does this. What kind of misguided sense of loyalty will permit you to put up with this ? At the very list, you will actively work as an informant with the city or other mercenaries in order to catch and take this guy down.

By now, he has done this several times? And he got away with it each time? Does he revert into a sane person and intelligently "cleans" up all the dead bodies and blood and then leaves stealthily?

1) He should have been caught and brought to justice by now. Saying he hasn't is basically dumbing down and making the entire city too weak. If this is a DnD world, then cities there are used to dealing with at least up to mid level adventurers. Saying he gets away with this from lv 1 to 6 defies belief. And this is considered capital crimes, serial killer even. So, the city would spend the resources to investigate this and capture the person very seriously. No country or city I know of irl treats serial killers with kids gloves.

2) The actions of the entire party with him is in contrary to their alignment. And all of them should now suffer the consequences of misplaying their alignment. Condoning such evil acts by doing absolutely nothing while being aware of it makes the entire party culpable.

3) That none of them even covertly worked to take this guy down also defies belief. All it takes is for you to privately take the DM aside. Tell him "I am going to secretly inform the city authorities. And give them all the relevant information on when and how the guy goes nuts". The next time he pulls this crap, he will walk into some random houses, and instead of finding a family to rape/murder, he will be faced with an entire team of the city guard backed up with magic, that will take him down if not kill him outright. And this is perfectly in alignment with any good/neutral aligned character that does not condone such evil acts.

4) If none of the party knows about this. Then why was there even a need to roleplay this out with the entire part watching? He might as well privately roll whatever he wants with the DM so that the rest of the party doesn't know. Letting the entire part see this seems to imply everyone knows, and then its on the group to do something about this. (Or at least inform the city guards).

5) A lot of DMs treat their players with kids gloves and let them get away with stuff. But you have to draw a line somewhere. Robbing a merchant does not come with zero consequences. A tavern brawl is probably easily smoothed away, but murdering someone in cold blood is not. Serious crimes happening in a city warrant a serious response logically. The player doesn't "get away" with it just because he is a player.

Slow the judgement train there Mr. Toppumhat. I (my character) was not present when this "occurred", nor was any of the party. The party had gone to sleep at an inn, and while we were all out, The character in question's meter hit go time, and they woke up, went back, and did their crazy gak.

None of us knew about it in character until after it had occurred, and one of our party started to investigate, but didn't learn anything before two of the younger players pulled us into a fight with something else.

There are literally a hundred ways this all could have been dealt with or "discovered" in game by the players, but I felt like the DM was covering for the fighter, and didn't want interparty conflict, so they just kept the story moving. All bad DM decisions. Thankfully I left the group, and no longer have this problem. But I wanted to post the experience here and get perspective on if I was a prude, or if this was actually over the line.

The responses have been, illuminating.

So basically, the DM indulged in and gave in to the players. He had a good friend who wanted to roleplay murder and rape of innocents while hiding under the guise of "I was possessed, so I wasn't in control of my actions, so its not my fault, its not really me". And the DM indulged him.

1). Like I said, given this wasn't known by the group, he didn't even need to have the person roll out this part of the encounter in front of the entire group. In fact, it should be handled privately. This was basically indulging in the guy's fetish because it obviously wouldn't have been fun if just he did that.

2). Again like I said, if you made a proper "logical" world. There are consequences to such actions. The said player doesn't get to walk away and blame it on being possessed. Given he got possessed several times, he should have been caught by now (even if his party was unaware). Such "rampages" are hard to hide and obscure. Too much evidence left behind. And this is a magic world we are talking about. Lots of spells available that can find out what happened and pin point the guilty one, not to mention actual physical evidence. Justice should have caught up to him a long time ago. Again, the DM indulged in the player and just let him get away with it.

Probably best that you left the group. Given the way the DM indulged this player. Things wouldn't have changed.

Using rape and murder as a plot device/story hook is different from indulging in a person's private fetish. You can make a villain seem even more evil and monstrous by having his evil acts impact on your players. It adds more emotional impact when they finally face him in battle and take him down. But its all on how the DM handles such things. And having the players indulge in it never adds to the story. Its just giving in to their fetish.

Now, I bet there has always been groups of players out there who decided to heck it and just murder and loot everyone around them instead of trying to get long with NPCs. But again, its how the DM handles such outbreaks of childishness. Because unless you were playing a evil character to begin with, such actions are just the real person wanting to indulge in a murder spree because he can get away with it (since its just a DnD roleplay game).

Murderhobo is a meme for a reason.

I can honestly say, with the exception of Straahd, (which tends to invite edgier folks) I've never had rape even come up at a table. If the player had just murdered the old lady and was like, I'm insane. I would have been like, alright, these bracelets are for our mutual safety, and I need you to talk to this cleric over here. When the player/DM started talking about sexual violence, I was like, how do you expect us as the people around the table to still be okay with playing with you? Did you expect us to be like, Cool Rape dude! Here's d12 inspiration! I am betting it didn't even cross his mind that we would not be okay with it.

Yeah, better not to play with people who don't consider the feelings and emotions of others.

I am glad you left that group.

So, the rub is I left the group, but am still close friends with my military friend who happens to be the BF of the DM. He wants me to join another group they are putting together, and I am unsure how to express my truth regarding their games, and my personal comfort levels.

The game will be a new Cyberpunk Table top spinoff, which I am already hinky about considering the tones and subject content of the game is essentially drugs and sex 24/7 with spashes of GTA5 level murder sprees.

Just say that you enjoy RPG games greatly, but that their style of storytelling and gameplay is very different to how you like to play.


No confrontation, no awkwardness or anything. Just the straight up honest answer that what they want and what you want are different and that that is ok.

To quote the doctor from Ted Lasso:

The Truth will set you free, but first it'll piss you off.