Vanilla fantasy... what is it? Does the OSR shun it?

[Simlasa]

I was reading one of Melan's blog posts where he ruminates about 'vanilla fantasy' and why it gets a bad rap... why there aren't more/better examples of it in OSR-land these days.

It's not like I am unfamiliar with the term (or 'bog standard fantasy' either), but he got me wondering.
I've chased after the 'weird' and 'gonzo' in my games for years. No elves, no dwarves, no fucking halflings, EVER!. But I purposefully set our school club's B/X game in a pretty 'vanilla' fantasy world, at least on the surface... and I'm finding it more of a challenge than I expected, in a good way.
For a start, many of my favorite sources of inspiration are just too damn bizarre for what I'm doing... and for the 12-13 yr olds exploring it.
So now I'm looking for the GREAT sources of vanilla fantasy... Tolkien is probably one... but I doubt Dragonlance or Game of Thrones or any of those other dodecathologies are. It's stuff I've avoided reading since... well, right after I finished Lord of the Rings I turned to Sword of Shannara... and was mighty disappointed.

Appendix N is full of fun stuff but is it 'vanilla'? Is Jack Vance considered 'vanilla' these days? Are fairy tales? Warhammer has a lot of the 'standard' elements, but is it 'vanilla'? Too gritty?
What are the delineating factors? Where is the line crossed?

And what are some good sources of OSR 'vanilla'? I'm afraid my game purchases have been pretty much devoid of it for some time.

 

[Mankcam]

Perhaps Greyhawk to Forgotten Realms to Ebberon to Shannara?

That's the flavour that I would think, but its hard to say; it's gonna be a contentious call.

 

[TristramEvans]

I tend to define "vanilla fantasy" as conforming to the expectations of classic fantasy literature (as opposed to pulp fantasy literature, which I think Appendix N leans more towards). So, Tolkien and post-Tolkienesque obviously, but also the Arthurian legends, tales of Robin Hood, and the European Fairy tale cannon.

 

[Mankcam]

I don't think its a particular type of fantasy, as opposed as it is a 'tone' of fantasy.

For example, I wouldn't place Tolkien's writings in 'vanilla fantasy', especially with the sheer amount of lore in the Middle Earth Legendium.

But those authors who copied Tolkien's high fantasy too much definately feel like 'bog-stock vanilla fantasy' in flavour.
Raymond E.Feist 'Riftwar Saga' (& beyond) would be a popular example, as also would Terry Brooks 'Shannara Chronicles' and Robert Jordan's 'Wheel of Time' series. 'The Earthsea Saga' and 'The Dragonlance Chronicles' as well.

I think this type of heroic high fantasy became more popular in D&D in the mid to late 1980s, after the Satanic Panic hysteria in the USA. It was a good way for D&D to survive, and be more teen-friendly (hence the santised flavour, the 'vanilla' tag).

Before then high fantasy was a big part of D&D, but Sword & Sorcery was as well, which skirted the edges of darker or more adult tones.

I think the OSR movement is a return to earlier game mechanics, but also it is often a return to the earlier flavour of D&D dirtcrawler fantasy (very much Fritz Leiber meets Jack Vance; with liberal dashes of Howard, Moorcock, Tolkien, Le Guin, Donaldson, and even also Weird Tales authors like Lovecraft and Derleth).

 

[Trippy]

Forgotten Realms is vanilla fantasy, in that it incorporates all the clichés of a fantasy setting without any particular feature that is unique or specific to itself, while at the same time working as a perfectly serviceable setting for gamers to build their own stories in. It basically means 'generic fantasy'.

Other fantasy settings, like Warhammer, for example have a lot of sources but still have a particular style or flavour that gives it a characteristic feel when playing in it, while you could point to certain setting tropes that specifically originate with it - like Troll Slayers, for example.

'Vanilla Fantasy' can be a nebulous term, of course, but at the same time doesn't necessarily have to be pejorative.

 

[Voros]

Good 'vanilla' fantasy tends to be YA oriented, like Robin McKinley, Alan Garner or Louise Cooper although perhaps some would find them too Celtic/Anglo to be 'vanilla.'

 

[David Johansen]

Perhaps it's the European Middle Ages setting flavour.

 

[TristramEvans]

Perhaps it's the European Middle Ages setting flavour.

Eh, not the REAL Middle Ages, which were incredibly bizarre and interesting, but the Hollywood version of the Middle Ages, especially during the Technicolor Era

 

[Giganotosaurus]

I'd say that vanilla fantasy settings are English legends with a tiny bit of Scandinavian and Celtic myths mixed in, along with the same old Orcs thrown in for good measure. If I were to pick any setting to call vanilla I'd have to say the original D&D's Greyhawk setting, because it has all the tropes of vanilla fantasy but is also a sort of blank slate for the players to make their own.

That being said I've always saw vanilla fantasy as a fantasy setting that has yet to grow into a unique fantasy setting. I've always felt that every fantasy setting starts out as vanilla setting but eventually is fleshed out into more and more of its own unique setting.My own experience with this was when I started out on making my own fantasy setting. Originally it started out as little more than a copy of the Forgotten Realms, but as I continued to develop and refine it I added or changed elements to my own satisfaction. Eventually I had a truly (in my own humble opinion) awesome setting with crab people fighting war machines that killed by sound.

 

[AsenRG]

For example, I wouldn't place Tolkien's writings in 'vanilla fantasy', especially with the sheer amount of lore in the Middle Earth Legendium.

But those authors who copied Tolkien's high fantasy too much definately feel like 'bog-stock vanilla fantasy' in flavour.

Raymond E.Feist 'Riftwar Saga' (& beyond) would be a popular example, as also would Terry Brooks 'Shannara Chronicles' and Robert Jordan's 'Wheel of Time' series. The Dragonlance series as well.

Yeah, these - except for the Tekumeli influence in the Riftwar Saga, and the more trading-oriented shenanigans in later books. Those are too strongly flavoured for vanilla.

Eh, not the REAL Middle Ages, which were incredibly bizarre and interesting, but the Hollywood version of the Middle Ages, especially during the Technicolor Era

Yeah, this as well. If it has any original thinking, it probably doesn't belong and you should check what the later Forgotten Realms sourcebooks say instead.
They don't call it "bog-standard fantasy" for no reason!

And that's the real reason why the OSR authors avoid it, even though it's strongly D&D-influenced.

 

[The Butcher]

I have often found that so-called “vanilla fantasy” is less defined by a set of specific tropes, than by the lack of surprise or risk-taking.

In the context of D&D, settings like Greyhawk, Mystara/The Known World and the Forgotten Realms — which regularly get name-checked when “vanilla” comes up — seem to be a grab bag of high fantasy, sword-and-sorcery, and dashes of myth and history (filtered through a pop-culture lens).

But I often find that there’s fun and wonder lying beneath the Ren Faire surface. These days I’ve been reading Ed Greenwood Presents: Elminster’s Forgotten Realms — a system-agnostic setting book which goes into some depth about the workings of the world, and frequently alludes to Ed’s own campaign notes in a very conversational style.

Like I wrote in a recent status, the combination of Ren Faire romantic high fantasy aesthetics and ethics (places like Waterdeep, Silverymoon and Cormyr are clearly bastions of good) with S&S elements (everybody thinks of Robert E. Howard, but Ed is clearly a Fritz Leiber guy) might be neither fish nor fowl; but it doesn’t mean it’s devoid of a certain platypus-like charm or efficacy.

Or it might be the decades of D&D videogames talking.

 

[S'mon]

Most of the OSR stuff I use is more or less vanilla fantasy.
Basic Fantasy RPG and its adventures - 100% vanilla fantasy
Dyson's Delves - vanilla fantasy with a swords & sorcery tone, much like OD&D & Greyhawk. Melan/Gabor Lux writes in this style too.
Stonehell Dungeon - vanilla fantasy with a 'weird fantasy' tone, especially on the lower levels.

So maybe the cool kids of the OSR shun vanilla fantasy, but I don't buy their stuff. The stuff I get has a lot of vanilla in it.

 

[RunningLaser]

I love Vanilla Fantasy when presented in the broadest strokes.

 

[robertsconley]

I don't shun it. I embrace the vanilla fully. Doesn't mean it has to be boring. Basically the trick is what people are interested in the most are other people. With vanilla fantasy I spend less time explaining the assumptions of the setting and more time on the interesting bits.

Exotic can be great but the consequence is you have to explain things or contrive a situation where the lack of knowledge is part of the premise of the campaign i.e. barbarians fresh off of the boat.

Ask Adam and Brendan on how boring they found my depiction in the Deceits of the Russet Lord adventure I ran or the Adventure in Middle Earth sessions.

 

[Nick J]

I was reading one of Melan's blog posts where he ruminates about 'vanilla fantasy' and why it gets a bad rap... why there aren't more/better examples of it in OSR-land these days.

It's not like I am unfamiliar with the term (or 'bog standard fantasy' either), but he got me wondering.
I've chased after the 'weird' and 'gonzo' in my games for years. No elves, no dwarves, no fucking halflings, EVER!. But I purposefully set our school club's B/X game in a pretty 'vanilla' fantasy world, at least on the surface... and I'm finding it more of a challenge than I expected, in a good way.
For a start, many of my favorite sources of inspiration are just too damn bizarre for what I'm doing... and for the 12-13 yr olds exploring it.
So now I'm looking for the GREAT sources of vanilla fantasy... Tolkien is probably one... but I doubt Dragonlance or Game of Thrones or any of those other dodecathologies are. It's stuff I've avoided reading since... well, right after I finished Lord of the Rings I turned to Sword of Shannara... and was mighty disappointed.

Appendix N is full of fun stuff but is it 'vanilla'? Is Jack Vance considered 'vanilla' these days? Are fairy tales? Warhammer has a lot of the 'standard' elements, but is it 'vanilla'? Too gritty?
What are the delineating factors? Where is the line crossed?

And what are some good sources of OSR 'vanilla'? I'm afraid my game purchases have been pretty much devoid of it for some time.

I don't think Appendix N literature can be considered vanilla (at least not most of it) its roots seem pretty firmly planted in the pulp fiction of Weird Tales, planetary romance, and pre-genre sci-fi. However it's interesting that you mention Vance, and that Melan/Gabor Lux talks about Vance's Lyonesse in the very blog post you linked to:

Vance’s Lyonesse, an outsider’s take on high fantasy, is an excellent example, with its take on myth and legend, the way it handles good and evil, its range from dynastic struggles to smaller adventures, and its enormous cast of characters from characteristic Vancian oddballs to others drawn from a more romantic sensibility (Lyonesse features a clash of widely different aesthetics, making for a very enjoyable dissonance).

This was the first set of novels that sprang to mind of "Vanilla done right." It's taking all of the tropes and twisting them just enough to make them seem fresh and new (it probably helps that Vance is maybe one of the greatest fantasists of all time and a immensely inventive writer who had a style all of his own, so he could actually pull it off).

If it's specifically OSR sources that you're looking for, Gavin Norman's Dolmenwood setting strikes me as a being somewhat "vanilla" - at least on the surface: castles, faeries, a deep dark woods, a mystical cabal of sorcerers, witches etc., but there's just enough of a twist and subversion of expectations that it feels more layered and more interesting the more you dive into the details. I think a lot of Zzarchov Kowolski's stuff often reads more like a subversion of Fairy Tale tropes than vanilla fantasy, but his adventures like 1,000 dead babies, or Gnomes of Levnec and Down in Yon Forest have elements that borrow heavily from vanilla fantasy expectations.

 

[tenbones]

I've read most, if not all of Appendix N. I think one of my favorite examples of modern "Vanilla fantasy" in the *best* traditions of what bog-standard D&D is to me (and isn't on the Appendix for obvious reasons) is Raymond E. Feists "Magician" series.

Not only does it nod to Tolkien, and Leiber simultaneously which provides a lot of the foundational flooring for "Vanilla fantasy" across traditional fantasy genres of High and Low - it also maintains a total ripoff of Tekumel as an semi-antagonist culture *simultaneously* in one huge syncretic fantasy pastiche that honors all of it.

I remember reading it in early 80's when it dropped, and it completely grounded my ideas of what D&D could be (it's everything at the same time as much as you want at any moment). Sure other stuff has come and gone - but Feist sits pretty firmly next to Tolkien, Leiber, Vance, Howard, with a *ginormous* nod to Barker for his Tekumel influence in showing me that "Vanilla" is relative.

I would also argue that 5e doesn't really do "vanilla" fantasy. It does knock-off vanilla fantasy because it doesn't really present an active setting where these elements have a home. Instead it just flavors adventure-paths with hints of those elements like calling Fanta Cola "Coke+".

Oh "Vanilla fantasy" exists and it's good. It just doesn't really exist in D&D contextually.

 

[King Ghidorah]

Re: Appendix N: Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions is about as vanilla fantasy as it gets (dimensional-travel twist and snippets of pseudo-physics aside), but a fine read and one of the cornerstones of D&D.

If you're OK with young-adult"works aimed at the age 12-13 demographic you mentioned, I consider Lloyd Alexander's The Chronicles of Prydain to be both vanilla fantasy and an exceptionally well-crafted bildungsroman series.

 

[robertsconley]

Feist's Midkemia series is based off of his friend's tabletop roleplaying game. It is set in the campaign's past.
Midkemia Press
So it isn't surprising that it feel very D&Dish. But works because of the characters. And while Kelewen is akin to Barker's Tekumel there are numerous differences as well. To me it like the bitching about the Swords of Shannara vs Tolkien. Yeah you can see how Shannara relates to Lord of the Ring but there are so many details that are different it is own thing.

 

[tenbones]

Feist's Midkemia series is based off of his friend's tabletop roleplaying game. It is set in the campaign's past.
Midkemia Press
So it isn't surprising that it feel very D&Dish. But works because of the characters. And while Kelewen is akin to Barker's Tekumel there are numerous differences as well. To me it like the bitching about the Swords of Shannara vs Tolkien. Yeah you can see how Shannara relates to Lord of the Ring but there are so many details that are different it is own thing.

Yep. That's why it's such great homage to all of it.

 

[Justin Alexander]

I was reading one of Melan's blog posts where he ruminates about 'vanilla fantasy' and why it gets a bad rap... why there aren't more/better examples of it in OSR-land these days.

The OSR is at its best and its most tantalizing when it is exploring and reinventing material that was dropped from mainstream gaming; when it looks back to the roots of the hobby and explores the road less taken.

Vanilla fantasy, pretty much be definition, is not the road less taken. It's the interstate highway where all the traffic is. Google Maps has photographed it in exacting detail a jazillion times.

 

[Edgewise]

I feel like "vanilla" is a purely pejorative term. I struggle to think of anything I'd apply that label to which doesn't suck. Lord of the Rings might qualify, but I feel like that's because it has been positioned as the quintessential fantasy story.

That being said, a campaign in a vanilla fantasy setting can be a lot of fun if it's run right. I just feel like the flavor of the setting wouldn't be part of the reason that it was fun, but as you say, it might make it a lot more accessible.

 

[TristramEvans]

I don't see "vanilla" as pejorative in the context of fantasy gaming. Maybe in literature, but cliches in media I find have underestimated value in a roleplaying game.

 

[Trippy]

I don't see "vanilla" as pejorative in the context of fantasy gaming. Maybe in literature, but cliches in media I find have underestimated value in a roleplaying game.

Right. In some ways, having a vanilla fantasy setting is an advantage in a roleplaying game, because there is less setting baggage to manage and less flavour to perfect in the telling.

I would argue, however, that Tolkien's Middle Earth is not a vanilla fantasy, despite being heavily referenced in literature, rpgs and all sorts of media. From the original source, however, it has a very distinct flavour and, certainly when it was written, it was quite unique in what it was trying to do. It's just it's been hugely influential since then - to the point that referencing it is considered clichéd.

 

[Voros]

Re: Appendix N: Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions is about as vanilla fantasy as it gets (dimensional-travel twist and snippets of pseudo-physics aside), but a fine read and one of the cornerstones of D&D.

If you're OK with young-adult"works aimed at the age 12-13 demographic you mentioned, I consider Lloyd Alexander's The Chronicles of Prydain to be both vanilla fantasy and an exceptionally well-crafted bildungsroman series.

I think Anderson's book is too mock epic, mythic and dreamlike in tone to count as 'vanilla' in my opinion. Alexander is a good example but I suspect it is less vanilla as it is early enough to not be just an exhausted genre exercise which is what many mean by 'vanilla.'

 

[spittingimage]

might be neither fish nor fowl; but it doesn’t mean it’s devoid of a certain platypus-like charm or efficacy.

I have nothing to contribute to the discussion; I just want you to know that metaphor is mine now. I promise to treat it well.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I don't see "vanilla" as pejorative in the context of fantasy gaming. Maybe in literature, but cliches in media I find have underestimated value in a roleplaying game.

Generally, when RPGers like a cliche they just call it a "trope" instead.

 

[AsenRG]

I feel like "vanilla" is a purely pejorative term. I struggle to think of anything I'd apply that label to which doesn't suck.

According to Google, it's also the term for "people that are not into BDSM". #TheMoreYouKnow...but anyway, that meaning doesn't have to suck!

But regarding fantasy, you're right. And that's how I've been using it in this thread, pejoratively.

Why? Simple, it's called fantasy because fantasizing is part of it, imagining impossible or improbable things is also part of it. But vanilla fantasy is formulaic: there's elves, dwarves, orcs, small-people-race-that's-totally-not-hobbits-please-don't-sue-me-Tolkien-Estate, wizards, clerics that are totally not-wizards but somehow cast the same way, and probably use maces (unless they're evil, then they use flails)...you know the drill.
End result, you rein in your fantasy (see the last post before this one by Justin Alexander if you need proof)...and thus, what you have in the end is closer to an accounting sheet minus the numbers that make it matter!

And that's why I steer clear of it. I figure that's why the OSR is avoiding it as well!

 

[David Johansen]

I think it's a useful device in a roleplaying game. The players don't want to sit down and listen to, or worse still read, two whole minutes of exposition. I've always liked the GM advice in Sword Bearer, put the normal generic fantasy in the middle of the map and ramp up the weirdness the farther you get from it.

 

[Zak Smith]

It's a mistake to define the generic according to specific things.

Star Trek isn't generic, Star Wars isn't generic, Flash Gordon isn't generic, Dune isnt' generic--but something which only includes what those different properties have in common with each other is generic.

So whether Tolkien, or Celtic Myth, or Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms is '"vanilla" isn't the point--if you only have a knight and a dragon and a good village and a bad sorcerer you are constructing things only out of what they have in common and so thats definitely vanilla.

Genericness is that place in the middle where all those circles overlap and no risks are taken.

 

[TristramEvans]

Right. In some ways, having a vanilla fantasy setting is an advantage in a roleplaying game, because there is less setting baggage to manage and less flavour to perfect in the telling.

That isn't quite how I meant (though not disagreeing with you). Let me see if I can explain without being too long-winded.

I'm sure most of the older folks here remember an arcade game from the 80s called Dragon's Lair. It was the first game to take advantage of laserdisc technology to present what was essentially an animated cartoon by Don Bluth studios where players would have to make the correct decisions after each animated sequence (indicated by a flashing light) to move on to the next animated segment or else receive the "you've died" animation. Once you knew the sequence, you could make it through it in about half an hour, and it was a pretty bog-standard "vanilla" fantasy story of a knight (Dirk the Daring) navigating a trap-laden castle to rescue Princess Daphne from a Dragon (the sequel, Time Warp, was far more imaginative).

Anyways, Dragon's Lair was popular enough to get a cartoon added to the Saturday Morning lineup, and the conceit of the show was that directly preceding each commercial break, the show would end on a cliffhanger for Dirk or Daphne, and the Narrator, with his booming voice would interrupt the show and ask "What Would You Do?"

I remember little else about the show, other than the animation being subpar and the princess being de-sexified for kids (in the arcade game she basically floated around in lingerie), but this has always stuck with me and I have always believed these moments in the show respresented the essence of Roleplaying games and what makes them different from any other form of entertainment. You are, playing your character, placed in these situations that you've read about in books or comics, seen in media, but only ever as a passive observer or, at best (with video games or choose-your-own adventure books) allowed limited branching paths of choices with determined outcomes. For every person who has watched a horror film and thought the horny teenager made a stupid decision, for everyone who watched an action film and thought about how they would deal with the OP baddie, for everyone who has read a mystery and thought "the answer is so obvious, that's not how I would go about this at all", RPGs provide the means to put those inclinations to the test.

And this is why I think "cliches" or "tropes" are meaningless terms when applied to RPGs, because no matter how often a situation or event has been presented in genre media, for the players it's the first time they've slayed a dragon and rescued a princess. It's the first time they've saved the universe with a group of ragtag adventurers from a black-clad space tyrant. It's the first time they've had a shoot-out at high noon at the OK corral. Roleplaying is a different experience than passively enjoying the choices someone else makes, and thus the notion of "cliches" really just doesn't apply for the most part.

I would argue, however, that Tolkien's Middle Earth is not a vanilla fantasy, despite being heavily referenced in literature, rpgs and all sorts of media. From the original source, however, it has a very distinct flavour and, certainly when it was written, it was quite unique in what it was trying to do. It's just it's been hugely influential since then - to the point that referencing it is considered clichéd.

I consider Tolkien "vanilla fantasy", not when it came out, bt now, because it's influence was so overarching and omnipresent over almost all Epic Fantasy that proceeded it over the last century that it is the standard, the default that most people think of. Again, this is why I don't see "vanilla fantasy" as a pejorative, I simply see it as "the expectation". When a person thinks of an elf or a dwarf they think of Tolkien's interpretation of these things. When the picture a wizard, chances are they're thinking of something very close to Gandalf. It's the default expectation, which is why it's vanilla. Comforting, familiar, easy on the taste buds, a classic taste that will never go out of style.

 

[Mankcam]

Genericness is that place in the middle where all those circles overlap and no risks are taken.

That's a really good description; sums it up perfectly

 

[Trippy]

I consider Tolkien "vanilla fantasy", not when it came out, bt now, because it's influence was so overarching and omnipresent over almost all Epic Fantasy that proceeded it over the last century that it is the standard, the default that most people think of. Again, this is why I don't see "vanilla fantasy" as a pejorative, I simply see it as "the expectation". When a person thinks of an elf or a dwarf they think of Tolkien's interpretation of these things. When the picture a wizard, chances are they're thinking of something very close to Gandalf. It's the default expectation, which is why it's vanilla. Comforting, familiar, easy on the taste buds, a classic taste that will never go out of style.

Well, that's a different thing then to being 'generic', and is more a case of being 'archetypal'. However, I would point out that the way in which Gandalf performs magic is generally not how it tends to get done in most fantasy rpgs.

 

[TristramEvans]

Well, that's a different thing then to being 'generic', and is more a case of being 'archetypal'.

I guess? Maybe I'm seeing the distinction as a bit more fuzzy along the lines.

However, I would point out that the way in which Gandalf performs magic is generally not how it tends to get done in most fantasy rpgs.

True, I would actually suggest that stereotype evolved based primarily on Dungeons & Dragons, where magic became a combat-orientated thing in popular imagination.

 

[The Butcher]

I'm sure most of the older folks here remember an arcade game from the 80s called Dragon's Lair.

God, I hated that game. such great graphics, such crap gameplay. Ruined the whole "long cutscene where you have to press the right button on cue" experience for me, forever (God of War, I'm looking at you).

I consider Tolkien "vanilla fantasy", not when it came out, bt now, because it's influence was so overarching and omnipresent over almost all Epic Fantasy that proceeded it over the last century that it is the standard, the default that most people think of. Again, this is why I don't see "vanilla fantasy" as a pejorative, I simply see it as "the expectation".

I bake when I have the time, which is almost never these days, and I think it's pretty funnh that something as amazing as vanilla has become shorthand for "boring" in the English language. There's a reason vanilla became popular.

There's also probably an analogy in there on how real vanilla beans are awesome (and pricey) and the artificial vanilla essence that gets poured into everything can't really compare but I leave it as an exercise to the reader.

 

[RunningLaser]

And this is why I think "cliches" or "tropes" are meaningless terms when applied to RPGs, because no matter how often a situation or event has been presented in genre media, for the players it's the first time they've slayed a dragon and rescued a princess. It's the first time they've saved the universe with a group of ragtag adventurers from a black-clad space tyrant. It's the first time they've had a shoot-out at high noon at the OK corral. Roleplaying is a different experience than passively enjoying the choices someone else makes, and thus the notion of "cliches" really just doesn't apply for the most part.

I like what you wrote here Tristram.

 

[tenbones]

It's a mistake to define the generic according to specific things.

Star Trek isn't generic, Star Wars isn't generic, Flash Gordon isn't generic, Dune isnt' generic--but something which only includes what those different properties have in common with each other is generic.

So whether Tolkien, or Celtic Myth, or Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms is '"vanilla" isn't the point--if you only have a knight and a dragon and a good village and a bad sorcerer you are constructing things only out of what they have in common and so thats definitely vanilla.

Genericness is that place in the middle where all those circles overlap and no risks are taken.

This is precisely why D&D is its own brand of Fantasy. There *is* a "vanilla" factor to D&D. It is perpetuated throughout the fantasy genre as it pertains to film, comics, video-games as a baseline for what largely is considered "common" by your own (which I agree with) definition.

I don't think it's wrong to specify those things in play together as generic - the *real* issue is the quality of those things in play. There are clearly examples of quality vanilla fantasy that clearly is drawing from the Cosmic Vanilla Bean Plane of Existence and it happens to be done very well for what it is: Pure Vanilla Goodness. And they are rare (just like good vanilla ice-cream is rare - but it does exist).

And Elf, a Dwarf, a Halfling and a couple of Humans walk into a Tavern...

 

[tenbones]

Bad Vanilla is what the non-discerning mistake for being "a good example".

Good Vanilla puts it all into a deeper (by that I mean - challenging) context.

 

[robertsconley]

This is precisely why D&D is its own brand of Fantasy. There *is* a "vanilla" factor to D&D. It is perpetuated throughout the fantasy genre as it pertains to film, comics, video-games as a baseline for what largely is considered "common" by your own (which I agree with) definition.

Except like Tolkien in regards to Epic Fantasy, D&D came to set the standard for the public perception of what fantasy is. Although to be clear that did happen directly. It happened via the route of fantasy novels and more importantly computer games like World of Warcraft. If you drew diagram of the various fantasy CRPGs and MMORPGs within the overlap would lie classic D&D.

That is until the Lord of the Rings movies came out and did a partial reset in the early 2000s.

 

[Krimson]

Generally, when RPGers like a cliche they just call it a "trope" instead.

With the added side benefit of being able to look it up on TVTropes, with examples of the trope in use, that you can use, adapt, modify, invert, or completely ignore at your leisure.

 

[Shipyard Locked]

(the sequel, Time Warp, was far more imaginative).

And how!