What matters to you the most in a fantasy world?

[Groovy]

Not really sure where to post this...

The question is basically as per the thread title - what matters to you the most in a fantasy world?

It doesn't have to be just one thing, I'm curious about all fantasy world aspects that matter to players (and/or readers of fantasy literature). I've read somewhere that possibly the main reason that Middle Earth has enjoyed such enduring popularity is that Tolkien has taken the trouble to create believable languages as a part of his world-building activities instead of quickly trying to put them together in order to sell a book. I love Le Guin's world of Earthsea mainly because of its economy of style - it is a fully realised world created with a minimal amount of writing.

So I'm curious what makes a fantasy world come alive for you?

[parcaleste]

Well, it is a wide answer... like the world Steven Ericson and Ian Esslemont created in "The Malazan Book Of The Fallen". Well thought, various and each with it's crazy strenghts races, fighting for supremacy between each other or just to survive in an crazy world, each with it's own God and at least one main "magic school", with amazing heroes that you actually CARE about, some of them Demigods or Gods, lot of them just regular folks, even from the infantry, logical (and well (in the case of Ericson - amazingly) written) story/stories, battles of epic (and not so epic) proportions, politicking, stabbings in the back, love stories, if you will.

Did I missed something?

[iLiVeInAbOx05]

For me, I like something that is believable, ie. the world seems realistic, all characters in the world, whether important to the story, or just some guy / girl walking down the street, all have their own personalities and interactions (believable / realistic actions / interactions). The choices the character make stem from their personalities and situation, and aren't just there as placeholders to move the plot in the direction the writer wants to go.

I don't really like the Middle Earth world because the actions and interactions between characters seem unrealistic at times and are extremely predictable. Also, it could be that I just don't like his writing style / world building style.

I prefer the more modern and realistic character personalities and interactions in A Song of Ice and Fire. I absolutely love the world GRRM has built, with the many many MANY unique characters in the story. I also LOVE how there isn't really a clear good and bad side to things. The waters are murky and even the characters that are mostly the "good guys" can do not so good things.

I guess I really enjoy reading fantasy that is not predictable and where many characters have the potential to influence the overall story. I also like a good overall, lengthy, story

Edit: This is from a reading point of view but also applies to what I like from stories that are being told in games.

[Kalah]

Avoiding clichés is a big issue for me. I'll excuse Tolkien for his since he was the first to write a fantasy novel, and the fact that he set up the quintessential "good vs. evil" struggle as the main story, but I see a lot of clichés in games. The Heroes series is just one where you get the traditional "good vs. evil" setup, naturally with the "good" side being all light and heavenly beautiful, and the "evil" side being dark, ugly and corrupted. I liked the Heroes IV Death campaign for the very reason that Gauldoth was not black/white evil.

[Panda Tar]

Perhaps I should I add my input?

I like a broad range of stuff when it comes to fantasy and fiction. Usually, I don't tell apart one from the other.

Although I grow a bit weary of too descriptive writing, such as those from Tolkien, those are the books in which is was easier to keep in mind the whole concept and world in background, so you 'created only once', rather than occupying your mind in creating settings all the time. GRR Martin also describes a lot his world, although the physical world is not as much described as in LotR settings. G.R.R. Martin spend much of his descriptions on banners, houses, names, characters. J.K. Rowling balanced a bit more these two situations, not overstaying too long on visual descriptions, but describing behaviors. S. King also has a good descriptive ability – for behavior –, but I find him more likely to be good at describing internal struggles, languages than anything. Sir Arthur Cohan Doyle, however, is the one that I felt most akin in style of all of those, similar to mixture of them all. Although he transmits clearly the world itself in the story and its characters, you'll learn their nature and you won't feel like reading something written so long ago. Information is passed clearly and smartly over. But in a sense, I like all these styles of writing, because they are justified in a way or another.

As for story and plot, it must be convincing. It's that simple. For such thing to happen, no matter how ludicrous the world is described, or how unreal the characters are, or how unthinkable languages and cultures might appear, it must be immersive, it must make one understand the bearings (understanding must be flexible), makes one wonder and compare reactions and problem-solving, or, in a more emotional output, make us want to be there or make us feel a fraction of the feelings that are being presented. Giving those things, I endure stories even when they are predictable, although I prefer being surprised when a book is proposing such thing. For example: in Harry Potter, you knew who the villain was and potential friends and many other floating characters. However, some plots in the main plot were amusing given they weren't obvious (when first reading). In LotR, you also had the antagonistic forces, but you had some little surprises here and there with some events that created momentum, an emotional climax. In The Mist, you had a dreadful situation, monsters in the mist, but the surprising event and development happened in the social relationship between people trapped in the market. In the world of Ice and Fire, as our friend already described above, everything is rather unpredictable, given that it is realistic. You won't see everyone dying honored deaths, good vs evil - you'll see fighters dying due a flu, violence against women and children, many plots anywhere, hardship, survival. In all those settings, in my perception, they were all immersive and convincing in their own way.

I am also in favor of completely different things, different views on a known subject, unpredictable stuff and even more harsh approaches of any given subject. Although I may not like the ending result, I enjoy having the experience to reading and learning something anew, something that was not around my sense in which may, in a further situation, even change my grasp upon any given subject, or bring a chained effect of realization, an eureka effect , of something pretty unusual.

As for the stories I am writing, I'm trying to organize the feeling similar to the one I felt most akin to: A.C. Doyle, perhaps more inclined to describing characters and behaviors than describing places, but perhaps not as much cruel as G.R.R. Martin.

[Gargoyle84]

I liked the Heroes IV Death campaign for the very reason that Gauldoth was not black/white evil.

By real world standards, Gauldoth would be at least as evil as a war criminal from the Yugoslavian wars. That he sometimes picks the not completely genocidal option here and there, for practical purposes - well, how would that sound as an excuse to a RL war criminal?

[iLiVeInAbOx05]

By real world standards, Gauldoth would be at least as evil as a war criminal from the Yugoslavian wars. That he sometimes picks the not completely genocidal option here and there, for practical purposes - well, how would that sound as an excuse to a RL war criminal?

Well, we're not actually talking about real life war, are we? We're talking about the undead campaign (you know, the bad guys, right?) of HOMM4. What he meant (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) was that when playing the campaign of the "bad guys," it wasn't completely cut and dry evil.

Keep in mind the topic: What you like most in FANTASY.

[Gargoyle84]

Sure, but I think a better way to put it would be that Gauldoth was pragmatic, and likeable to due to his unexpected (for an undead hero) pragmatism, not that he was less "evil".

[Kalah]

"Less evil", did I use those words? Read my post again.

[Groovy]

Thank you for all the feedback.

For what it's worth, here is a list of criteria that I thought would be worth taking into account. Please feel free to expand your answer if any of them strike you as unfortunately MIA.

• Scale of the world
• Its originality
• Its coherency, simplicity and internal consistency (believability)
• Number of languages, their size and internal consistency
• Number and diversity of species and races
• Exotic lands and locations
• Use of myths, legends and prophecies
• Number of powerful artefacts with rich history
• Originality and sophistication of magic mechanics
• Imaginative, enthralling and/or instructive storytelling with memorable characters
• General attention to detail
• Ease of expansion (with future games and/or novels)