5e highlights reel?

[Blicero]

R Scott Bakker's Second Apocalypse gets mentioned here sporadically, and it is very good and very depressing. It's supposed to be nine (?) books total, I think, divided into three trilogies. The first trilogy is complete. The second has two books out. Unfortunately, the author has had real life money issues, so his writing pace has slowed quite a bit.

KJ Parker writes excellent fantasy. Unfortunately, his/her three main trilogies (the Fencer trilogy, the Scavenger trilogy, and the Engineer trilogy) all feel really similar. Of the three, I would recommend the Engineer trilogy. It's about an engineer who accidentally-on-purpose destroys the known world.

There are a couple of threads in MPSIMS where people recommend fantasy novels.

[Akiosama]

I enjoy the Stormlight Archives, as well as the Dresden Files if you include Urban Fantasy.

Don't forget Mistborn - that series was pretty good too.

And in the same vein, Brent Weeks' Night Angel Trilogy was a decent read, too.

Personally, I'm also a fan of Lois Bujold, but something tells me those might not be as much along the tastes of some people here...

My 2 yen,

Akiosama

[fectin]

virgil: As far as Jim Butcher goes, I suspect that Codex Alera would be a closer match, both for being high fantasy (albeit not-Roman instead of not-medieval) and for being finished.

I liked Codex Alera. It reminds me a lot of Stormlight Archive, in a good way. After reading it, I recently heard a rumor that he wrote it on a bet that he couldn't successfully combine pokemon and roman legions. I choose to believe that rumor, and consequently am deeply impressed.

[Korwin]

Having long ago tortured myself by reading WoT (up through Crossroads of Twilight, I believe), and having read the first few books of Sword of Truth (like, the first four) before I just got too damn bored...what good fantasy series are out there? I've read LotR, of course, and I love it. But those are basically the only things that immediately spring to mind when I think High Fantasy Epic. Well, that and the Sword of Shannara, which I have been warned away from. So. What else is out and available, and most importantly, good?

I'll second:

• Stormlight Archives
• Lord of Light
• Chronicles of Amber
• Mistborn

for fantasy books (Well, Lord of Light is technically an scifi fantasy, dressed as fantasy)

[FatR]

Having long ago tortured myself by reading WoT (up through Crossroads of Twilight, I believe), and having read the first few books of Sword of Truth (like, the first four) before I just got too damn bored...what good fantasy series are out there? I've read LotR, of course, and I love it. But those are basically the only things that immediately spring to mind when I think High Fantasy Epic. Well, that and the Sword of Shannara, which I have been warned away from. So. What else is out and available, and most importantly, good?

Read various fantasy cycles by Michael Moorcock. Even if you won't like them (quality varies wildly, like with most authors who write as work), making yourself familiar with probably the single biggest source of inspiration for DnD won't hurt.

Zelazny is another fantasy classic. I personally don't like the majority of his books, but anyone who considers himself a fan of fantasy should at least take a look.

Tad William's Memory, Sorrow and Thorn trilogy is a rare thing: an example of LotR-derivative classic high fantasy that is actually awesome and inventive.

Glen Cook's Black Company cycle is quite good at the start, but eventually gets milked to death by the author. Thankfully, the first five books are self-containing, and you can just stop there.

David Farland's Runelords series have pretty entertaining concepts for epic fantasy, which made me follow them, but honestly aren't written that well.

The same I can say about Brandon Sanderson's books. Interesting and new ideas, not the best execution, take a look if they will be to your taste.

I heard that Malazan books are full of crazy high-powered stuff, but never got around to reading them.

Sword of Shannara and anything by Eddings are shit. Raymond Feist's Riftwar books are shit. DnD books are shit with a few rare exceptions.

[Maxus]

virgil: As far as Jim Butcher goes, I suspect that Codex Alera would be a closer match, both for being high fantasy (albeit not-Roman instead of not-medieval) and for being finished.

I liked Codex Alera. It reminds me a lot of Stormlight Archive, in a good way. After reading it, I recently heard a rumor that he wrote it on a bet that he couldn't successfully combine pokemon and roman legions. I choose to believe that rumor, and consequently am deeply impressed.

Appears to be true.

Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylKRYe0ZWHo

[Korwin]

I heard that Malazan books are full of crazy high-powered stuff, but never got around to reading them.

Ah, yes. "Malazan books of the Fallen"
They are long books and the serie* is finished. (And I liked them).

* There are other books in the same world, but the serie is finished.

[Username17]

A problem as far as "high fantasy literary sources for roleplaying games" is that in literature high fantasy means something completely different from what it means in role playing games. As far as literature is concerned, "high fantasy" is when the story takes place in a wholly fabricated fantasy world, while "low fantasy" is fantasy that takes place in our world with a few fantastic elements. This means that material such as Narnia and Thomas Covenant are neither high fantasy nor low fantasy, because they have both our world and a fantasy world and jump back and forth.

In role playing games, "high fantasy" constitutes games where the fantastic elements are sufficiently high powered to encompass mythic or superheroic stories rather than being particularly grounded at the "human" level, while "low fantasy" means that there is raelizarm and stuff. This means that while Lord of the Rings is the archetypical high fantasy literature, representing those events in a game would take a low fantasy game. Same for Conan, Game of Thrones, and like 90% of the other stuff people talk about when they mention high fantasy source material for RPGs. The reverse is also true, where you have things like Supernatural and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where various demons can turn the sun off and destroy the world and shit (making it require high fantasy rules) but it's all still low fantasy literature because it takes place in what is nominally Earth.

So Vampire: Dark Ages is a high fantasy game. Vampire: Dark Ages tie-in fiction is low fantasy literature. Game of Thrones is a high fantasy book series. The Game of Thrones RPG is a low fantasy game. And so on.

Wheel of Time is one of the very few book series I can even think of which is both a high fantasy book series and also attached to a high fantasy game system.

-Username17

[Hadanelith]

Thanks for the recommendations, folks. Now I have a reading list. Here's hoping a few of my friends have some of those. Or maybe I should actually dig out my library card. I'm sure it's around here somewhere...I think...

[jadagul]

Not going to argue about whether Wheel of Time is a good series, because that's a stupid argument to have. I will say that the biggest complaint is that books 8 and 10 kind of fizzle at the end. What's actually going on there is that books 8-9 are really one novelistic arc and books 10-11 are really one novelistic arc--most first-halves-of-books work poorly standalone. So those are much better read in one go than as books with three-year-separated release dates.

But that's beside the point, which is that, as Frank just said, Wheel of Time actually has a model for high-level D&D in a way a lot of high fantasy I've read doesn't. It has high-level magic-users, high-level gishes, and high-level martial combatants (arguably no high-level characters who are mundane, per se, but that's the point). The rogue levels into supernatural controllable luck, a personal anti-magic field, super-powered social skills, and high-powered leadership/army shenanigans. The ranger levels into divination and astral scouting, playing with the alternate universe in general, and eventually essentially-unblockable teleportation.

And the series actually deals with the implications of the level spectrum being that high, and the fact that an army of a hundred magic-users can steamroll an army of a hundred thousand orcs with zero casualties.

[fectin]

I really like an idea Lago floated a while back that high fantasy is when individuals can challenge society's monopoly on force. It aligns a lot ,ore cleanly with what people seem to "feel" the distinction is.

[Laertes]

I really like an idea Lago floated a while back that high fantasy is when individuals can challenge society's monopoly on force. It aligns a lot ,ore cleanly with what people seem to "feel" the distinction is.

That's a nice distinction, actually.

[Username17]

I really like an idea Lago floated a while back that high fantasy is when individuals can challenge society's monopoly on force. It aligns a lot ,ore cleanly with what people seem to "feel" the distinction is.

That is a good definition for the difference between high fantasy and low fantasy in RPGs. But you just have to remember that the definitions for books are totally not that at all, and if you ask for "high fantasy" at a bookstore you'll go home with a bunch of books like Curse of Chalion, Assassin's Apprentice, and Jhereg. Which is not a bad way to spend your time, but will give you weird ideas if you want to talk about high fantasy in a gaming context.

-Username17

[radthemad4]

I think I've heard the terms 'high magic' and 'low magic' used to refer to the prevalence and/or highest level of magic in an rpg/setting/campaign. Sticking to that might be easier when talking about rpgs specifically.

[OgreBattle]

In those terms is the bible high or low fantasy? The common man has no access to magic, but there's also nation-destroying magic that can turn rivers into blood and send death angels to kill all the first born in a single night.

[Laertes]

The common man has no access to magic, but the protagonists (Moses, Jesus, David) totally do have access to it.

[TiaC]

The common man has no access to magic, but the protagonists (Moses, Jesus, David) totally do have access to it.

Yes, but only through fellating God. The bible is one of those campaigns where the characters are put in impossible situations and everything gets done by the DMPC.

[Lago PARANOIA]

While individuals occasionally do some rather impressive magic in the Holy Bible, the vast majority of it is concentrated in the hands of someone's dumbass Mary Sue who has a creepy interest in virgins, sex slaves, incest, and burning things. This is especially true in one of the sequels, where the Mary Sue bans any magic cooler than walking on water and later ragequits by squirreling away a few thousand homosexual and asexual men in his gaudy floating castle after killing everyone else.

[TheFlatline]

Okay first of all, that NineInchNall guy saying "Path fo Daggers" got the worst fan reaction surely has no idea what he is talking about. "Crossroads of Twilight" is by far the most hated book and quite possibly the worst fantasy novel of all time. It makes "Path of Daggers" look like a masterpiece in comparison, which is incredible given that "Path of Daggers" also blows dirty anus.

I skipped all of Winter's Heart except for I think the last 100 pages or so.

Then I skipped all of Crossroads of Twilight after trying to read it twice and failing. I actually missed almost nothing. I was like "oh Faile was rescued cool that side plot sucked".

Sanderson did a pretty good job considering what he had to workwith. The Gathering Storm sucked pretty hard actually, but Pillars of Midnight picked up significantly (highlights: Perrin finally shucking his emo bullshit and becoming the badass we knew he was, simply *willing* balefire away in the dream world, and Sanderson finally finding Mat's voice and bringing back the character we all liked in time to go into the silver tower), and A Memory of Light was... satisfying. I don't know how it could have held itself up against 13 previous books, but it was a fitting end. Although I regret that Jordan didn't live to write the last battle, because he is a better war author than Sanderson was.

Crossroads of Twilight however is 900 pages of people reacting to 30 pages of action in book 9. Totally irrelevant and focusing on the worst sub-plots of the series.

[Laertes]

The common man has no access to magic, but the protagonists (Moses, Jesus, David) totally do have access to it.

Yes, but only through fellating God.

Doesn't that just make them pact warlocks?

The bible is one of those campaigns where the characters are put in impossible situations and everything gets done by the DMPC.

Elminster syndrome.

[radthemad4]

While individuals occasionally do some rather impressive magic in the Holy Bible, the vast majority of it is concentrated in the hands of someone's dumbass Mary Sue who has a creepy interest in virgins, sex slaves, incest, and burning things. This is especially true in one of the sequels, where the Mary Sue bans any magic cooler than walking on water and later ragequits by squirreling away a few thousand homosexual and asexual men in his gaudy floating castle after killing everyone else.

Yeah, I preferred the Old World of Testament.

In those terms is the bible high or low fantasy? The common man has no access to magic, but there's also nation-destroying magic that can turn rivers into blood and send death angels to kill all the first born in a single night.

In literary terms: low fantasy. In RPG terms: high fantasy. If you're talking about the terms I mentioned, I'd go call the Bible a low magic setting as magic is not commonplace.

[Emerald]

I think I've heard the terms 'high magic' and 'low magic' used to refer to the prevalence and/or highest level of magic in an rpg/setting/campaign. Sticking to that might be easier when talking about rpgs specifically.

It works as long as you clarify what you mean by "low magic," since it can refer to four separate but related concepts: magic is weak, magic is rare, magic is dangerous, and magic is difficult (or multiple of the above, of course). Possibly also other versions, but those are the most common.

The LotR trilogy is the first sort: the Fellowship is loaded down with magic items and magic is everywhere, but the magic items are on the order of "magical flashlight" or "slightly better than average climbing rope" or "really filling bread" and the spellcasters don't really use more than cantrips most of the time.

The Bible is the second sort: the protagonists and BBEGs can do anything God allows, but no one else has magic.

Call of Chulhu is the third sort: anyone can attempt to cast a spell and have it work, as long as you don't mind learning a few dead languages beforehand and possibly going insane at the end.

Plot rituals are the fourth sort: the druids can awaken the Earth Hunter if they spend every night from the summer solstice to the Harvest Moon chanting very specific and exacting hymns, and you can brew up a potion of perfect mind control if you can bottle up a child's innocence and the sigh of a mountain.

The main reason low magic D&D games tend to crash and burn in my experience is that when a DM pitches a low magic game the players might hear version 1 ("We can finally play an all-martial party now that we won't have to worry about full casters or casting monsters utterly screwing us") or version 2 ("Sweet! We'll all take caster classes and rule the world as Wizard Lords and Priest Kings!") when the DM meant version 3 ("Roll Spellcraft DC 20 to cast this 1st level spell and then roll d% to avoid Sanity loss and permanent maiming") or version 4 ("Sorry, magic is NPC-only in this game"). For that reason I tend to avoid saying "low magic" as much as possible and go for more detailed terms.

[Username17]

I think I've heard the terms 'high magic' and 'low magic' used to refer to the prevalence and/or highest level of magic in an rpg/setting/campaign. Sticking to that might be easier when talking about rpgs specifically.

The big distinction between low magic and high magic is how common magic is, rather than how powerful it is. So in a high magic setting, you can expect peasants to have some magic in their homes and to be able to buy magical equipment in marketplaces and stuff. In a low magic setting, the peasants have no magic and you can't buy a magic sword. But a high magic setting could have magic items and spells that are comparable to or even weaker than mundane skills just as a low magic setting might have a few casters who can individually overthrow the world.

Indeed, the very most relatively powerful magic people are in low magic settings, because those are the guys who cannot be defeated by other people in their setting. Koschei, for example, has the magical power that he cannot be killed except through specific magical means. Since he lives in a low magic setting, that pretty much means he automagically wins against everything. If he lived in a high magic setting, his magical resilience would entitle him to be CR3.

-Username17

[fectin]

if you ask for "high fantasy" at a bookstore you'll go home with a bunch of books like Curse of Chalion, Assassin's Apprentice, and Jhereg. Which is not a bad way to spend your time, but will give you weird ideas if you want to talk about high fantasy in a gaming context.
-Username17

Concur. However, those terms are so poorly defined for literature that I would rather port over and explain Lago's take than try to operate in the existing framework (such as it is). You already pointed out Narnia, and while there are plenty of similar examples (for maximal fun, classify Silverlock or Alice in Wonderland), the real problem is that as defined, it's a distinction utterly without difference. Gaslamp fantasy is gaslamp fantasy, whether set in Britain or in I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Britain.

[jadagul]

Okay first of all, that NineInchNall guy saying "Path fo Daggers" got the worst fan reaction surely has no idea what he is talking about. "Crossroads of Twilight" is by far the most hated book and quite possibly the worst fantasy novel of all time. It makes "Path of Daggers" look like a masterpiece in comparison, which is incredible given that "Path of Daggers" also blows dirty anus.

I skipped all of Winter's Heart except for I think the last 100 pages or so.

Then I skipped all of Crossroads of Twilight after trying to read it twice and failing. I actually missed almost nothing. I was like "oh Faile was rescued cool that side plot sucked".

Sanderson did a pretty good job considering what he had to workwith. The Gathering Storm sucked pretty hard actually, but Pillars of Midnight picked up significantly (highlights: Perrin finally shucking his emo bullshit and becoming the badass we knew he was, simply *willing* balefire away in the dream world, and Sanderson finally finding Mat's voice and bringing back the character we all liked in time to go into the silver tower), and A Memory of Light was... satisfying. I don't know how it could have held itself up against 13 previous books, but it was a fitting end. Although I regret that Jordan didn't live to write the last battle, because he is a better war author than Sanderson was.

Crossroads of Twilight however is 900 pages of people reacting to 30 pages of action in book 9. Totally irrelevant and focusing on the worst sub-plots of the series.

Things happen in Crossroads, but it's all pushing pieces around. Crossroads is mainly just getting characters into the right places for Knife of Dreams to happen, and Knife of Dreams was awesome because it was finally the point where a bunch of the long plot arcs got wrapped up. It's a shame Jordan couldn't find a way to move all those pieces around more economically; but that's what I meant when I said that Crossroads was only the first half of a book.