Fantasy Tropes/Cliches that Annoy You

[PhoenixPhyre]

At least in D&D, that's partially because what they're calling a long sword should probably be called an arming sword, or a spatha, or one of several other names depending on the setting; and then there's a whole range of swords that they've crammed into "two handed sword" that might need to be differentiated.

Serious question: why? What purpose would it serve? Historical accuracy? That's meaningless when you're talking about other worlds with different histories. To soothe the pedants? Nothing will ever do that, and it's meaningless bloat for 99% of the players. You've never given a reason why this is important to anyone without an obsessive need to avoid polysemy.

In reality, D&D weapons (at least in 5e) are much more descriptive weapon groups, not actual individual weapons. You could build a decision tree to distinguish them.

For hilted weapons (as opposed to hafted weapons):

* how many hands are usually used to wield this?
** 2, can't be done effectively with less --> Greatsword. Examples: Highland claymore. Longsword.
** 1 or 2 for better control --> Longsword. Examples: Arming sword. Katana.
** 1, hilt too short for two or balance off when using two. Breaks down by dominant use (cutting or stabbing, most can do both, but only the dominant use is listed), with length as a criteria as well.
*** long stabby: rapier. Examples: Rapier, smallsword.
*** long slashy: scimitar. Examples: cutlass, scimitar, (cavalry) sabre
*** medium stabby: shortsword. Examples: gladius hispanus.
*** short stabby: dagger. Examples: dirk, stiletto.

Missing are 1h medium slashy weapons, but I'd be fine with saying a shortword-class weapon could do either, as I'd be fine with letting a longsword-class weapon do piercing. In 5e, the differences between the physical damage types are near as to non-existent, so no big deal.

That is, Max_Killjoy, you're confusing descriptive categories with individual weapons that have similar names. Longswords are called that because they're longer than shortswords. Similar trees can be built for the hafted weapons (including polearms, axes, and various crushing weaponry). Some categories may not have real-life examples; some real life examples are ambiguous. The resolution of the game system isn't high enough (nor should it be) to disambiguate meaningfully.

[CharonsHelper]

Mostly based on hormone levels (Which gets relevant for treating people with hormone conditions), but yeah, there are those.
The point being mostly "differently", not "One works, one doesn't". Sliding scale is something entirely different than the innate spiritual difference implied in "Only women can be magicians" (iirc, 7th sea was quite guilty of it), which really, really doesn't sit right with me either.

Plus... male & female brains are connected differently. Females have way more connections between the two hemispheres. I remember reading that it's the main reason that women are more likely to recover from damage that strokes cause.

[Deepbluediver]

At least in D&D, that's partially because what they're calling a long sword should probably be called an arming sword, or a spatha, or one of several other names depending on the setting; and then there's a whole range of swords that they've crammed into "two handed sword" that might need to be differentiated.

A language's primary function is to convey meaning- and it doesn't stay the same over time. Just listen to the Cantebury tales when read in the original middle English. If your argument is that a term is confusing then you should clarify it with the author or game-designer, but for many people what we're trying to get across is an idea, not a specific identity. If I'm reading the Illiead and it says "Achilles stabbed a guy with his shortsword", I'm not going to pitch a fit and claim that it should read "Achilles stabbed a guy with his xiphos" instead. I'm reading the story in english, not greek, and unless I've studied ancient weaponry exclusively, the latter version is probably MORE confusing.

As wikipedia said- the term "longsword" has been used to describe quite a few different weapons across the ages. If the idea that the author is trying to convey is a match for what the audience pictures when they hear the term, that should be all that really matters. Arguing that the modern usage doesn't match the historical usage is kinda pointless IMO, given how many different words that same argument could be applied to.

Missing are 1h medium slashy weapons

A kukri, cutlass, or machete would probably fit the bill.

[Max_Killjoy]

** 1 or 2 for better control --> Longsword. Examples: Arming sword. Katana.

Of course they're categories, it would take up an entire book if you tried to list out every specific variation on the sword.

And your "1 or 2 hands" category would be on the money if you didn't list "arming sword" as an example.

Arming sword:



Compare with:

[Max_Killjoy]

A language's primary function is to convey meaning- and it doesn't stay the same over time. Just listen to the Cantebury tales when read in the original middle English. If your argument is that a term is confusing then you should clarify it with the author or game-designer, but for many people what we're trying to get across is an idea, not a specific identity. If I'm reading the Illiead and it says "Achilles stabbed a guy with his shortsword", I'm not going to pitch a fit and claim that it should read "Achilles stabbed a guy with his xiphos" instead. I'm reading the story in english, not greek, and unless I've studied ancient weaponry exclusively, the latter version is probably MORE confusing.

As wikipedia said- the term "longsword" has been used to describe quite a few different weapons across the ages. If the idea that the author is trying to convey is a match for what the audience pictures when they hear the term, that should be all that really matters. Arguing that the modern usage doesn't match the historical usage is kinda pointless IMO, given how many different words that same argument could be applied to.

Even if we take the historical ambiguity as a given, isn't it then better to use the more precise current meaning?

If the function of language is to convey meaning, then why defend the more confusing, vague, and obtuse usage?

[Deepbluediver]

Even if we take the historical ambiguity as a given, isn't it then better to use the more precise current meaning?

If the function of language is to convey meaning, then why defend the more confusing, vague, and obtuse usage?

"Precise" isn't necessarily the best metric to use. If you're writing for a broad audience, you want the term that quickly conveys your idea to the greatest number of people. I believe most people reading would interpret "longsword" as meaning a large-ish one or one-and-a-half* handed sword, and so long as that's what the author means, that's fine. Technically something like a katana might also fit that description, and so long as it's not crucial to specify for the story, then the choice of what term to use is at the author's discretion. Your work won't benefit if the readers have to stop and look up terms several times a paragraph.

*I use this term to refer to swords that are light enough to be used one-handed but have a long enough handle to be wielded two-handed, but maybe that's just me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Even if we take the historical ambiguity as a given, isn't it then better to use the more precise current meaning?

If the function of language is to convey meaning, then why defend the more confusing, vague, and obtuse usage?

Because precision isn't everything. By insisting on having a single, unique definition for each word you're impeding communication by bloating the language. And confusing people who were communicating just fine, to no benefit.

And the modern definition isn't more precise--it's falsely precise. You're trying to standardize non standard things. It's the same as reporting a measurement of temperature to 10 decimals when the instrument is only good for 1.

[Alcore]

I actually find the most objectionable part of Max's stance to be that in D&D and the handful of other games I've played, there is no printed statistical difference between an arming sword and a longsword, so I'm not incentivized to care. Which is to say that I'm fine with a system drawing the distinction between the two if they take the care to make them meaningfully different tools.

Another problem is people lacking the knowledge of different weapons. Dagger and 'punching dagger' (which has a host of separate names) was considered the same weapon weilded differently by one GM i knew. I had to convinse him with pictures.

[8BitNinja]

Another problem is people lacking the knowledge of different weapons. Dagger and 'punching dagger' (which has a host of separate names) was considered the same weapon weilded differently by one GM i knew. I had to convinse him with pictures.

The rules should state enough for the use of weapons for the purpose of the game. I shouldn't have to be an expert in medieval warfare to know how to use a sword in D&D, whatever sword that may be.

[Bohandas]

Another problem is people lacking the knowledge of different weapons. Dagger and 'punching dagger' (which has a host of separate names) was considered the same weapon weilded differently by one GM i knew. I had to convinse him with pictures.

The punching dagger's the one that looks like someone started making a pair of brass knuckles and got really really carried away, right?

[Beleriphon]

The punching dagger's the one that looks like someone started making a pair of brass knuckles and got really really carried away, right?

Not quite although it doesn't really matter. A punch , or push dagger, its a blade with a t-shaped handle that fits in the palm. Try looking up push dagger.

You're thinking of the katar. That said, both in any game rules should probably work the same way.

[Jay R]

Even if we take the historical ambiguity as a given, isn't it then better to use the more precise current meaning?

You're assuming a level of current precision that doesn't exist in general, and that changes very quickly. I've had arguments on the meaning of the word "rapier" between people who are both deeply into the art of rapier combat. But one groups wants to use it only to mean the longer, thinner, non-edged rapier of the seventeenth century, claiming that the sixteenth century rapier hadn't developed into the "true rapier" yet. Meanwhile, the other group didn't include the seventeenth century, and so used the word the way it was used in the sixteenth century.

"Sidesword" is now a common English word describing a certain sixteenth century weapon. But it was never used before the 21st century. If we were having this discussion twenty years ago, that term would not be available. It comes from the Italian phrase "spada da lato" (sword having been carried), which was never a specific weapon in Italian - it probably was the equivalent of the English term "sidearm", which doesn't define a specific pistol, but merelty whatever pistol you're wearing at your side.

So we can't choose between historical ambiguity vs. the more precise current meaning. It's a choice between historical ambiguity vs. somebody's current precision in one context that is not accepted in another, and which changes about as fast as it becomes commonly understood.

If the function of language is to convey meaning, then why defend the more confusing, vague, and obtuse usage?

Both are equally confusing. One is more vague, the other is more changeable.

[Alcore]

The punching dagger's the one that looks like someone started making a pair of brass knuckles and got really really carried away, right?

Eh..... Kinda?

Spoiler:

Show

-or-

Also called a Katar. (Usually the bottom one which looks martial)

The rules should state enough for the use of weapons for the purpose of the game. I shouldn't have to be an expert in medieval warfare to know how to use a sword in D&D, whatever sword that may be.

i did not imply that. Only that the appearance and shape was vastly different from perceived shap. The GM i spoke of thought a punching dagger looked like a normal dagger. Basically a knife. Your kitchen likely has a variety of examples.

[pwykersotz]

At least in D&D, that's partially because what they're calling a long sword should probably be called an arming sword, or a spatha, or one of several other names depending on the setting; and then there's a whole range of swords that they've crammed into "two handed sword" that might need to be differentiated.

( And the idea that one's concern or lack thereof for this should arise from game stats in a handful of games... )

To be honest though, my only interest in medieval weaponry at all is its relation to the games (video and RP) that I play. I have a bizarre set of areas that I care to delve deeply into, but weapons are not that. I want to know enough to play the game, and maybe a little more to add some extra flavor. But anything else is overkill for me.

I'm going to guess that this area of my expertise is sufficiently byzantine for you, I may be wrong: It would be like playing a game of Tron and getting bogged down into the differences between cross-connnects, evc-maps, and ethernet flow maps which are all represented as a simple road. Functionally all of them do the same thing. Do you truly want to learn the nuances of these various types of device connectivity when it adds nothing to any other aspect of your life and has no bearing on the running of the game? I certainly wouldn't.

[Max_Killjoy]

To be honest though, my only interest in medieval weaponry at all is its relation to the games (video and RP) that I play. I have a bizarre set of areas that I care to delve deeply into, but weapons are not that. I want to know enough to play the game, and maybe a little more to add some extra flavor. But anything else is overkill for me.

I'm going to guess that this area of my expertise is sufficiently byzantine for you, I may be wrong: It would be like playing a game of Tron and getting bogged down into the differences between cross-connnects, evc-maps, and ethernet flow maps which are all represented as a simple road. Functionally all of them do the same thing. Do you truly want to learn the nuances of these various types of device connectivity when it adds nothing to any other aspect of your life and has no bearing on the running of the game? I certainly wouldn't.

I'd want to learn about them because even if they're all represented by roads, what sort of roads and how they're laid out could be at least aesthetically different, and add depth to the setting. Plus, I just like knowing stuff.

[Floret]

Plus... male & female brains are connected differently. Females have way more connections between the two hemispheres. I remember reading that it's the main reason that women are more likely to recover from damage that strokes cause.

To be noted: "On average"; those aren't absolutes, and it isn't definitively something inherently biological, but might just be because through different societal treatments certain connections do get stronger than others (Because they get used more often).
...I am not trying to argue that there are no differences, I probably know better than most people that there are; but none that would actually justify the level of separation necessary for "One group can magic, the other can't" without also stating "The two are inherently (spiritually) different categories", which, IRL, they just... aren't, not to any such degree.
(And, still, for Fantasy settings, the differences that are there would for me be just too much of a hassle to actually put much thought into the worldbuilding in that regard. Not for humans, at the very least. Humanoid animals based on animals with larger differences, maybe.)

[Bohandas]

I'll repost something I posted elsewhere--I have an unabashed kitchen sink setting.

A major goal was to figure out why my setting is a kitchen sink (mostly). I want to figure out a reasonable place for all the races and classes in the official 5e D&D published materials. The setting itself is composed of the dream of a being who has become the "glue" that holds the setting together in the form of a great pseudo-mechanical interplanar construct. That is, the entire bubble universe is literally there because a being greater than the gods wanted it to be. It (the Dreamer) also wants to see how things change without its intervention, so once created it follows strict (but decidedly irrational-seeming) self-imposed rules.

Sounds kind of like a mix of Gods of Pegana and Alice Through the Looking Glass

[Bohandas]

Regarding people complaining earlier about stories where magic is too easy or doesn't have a cost, I have to say that I disagree with the idea that that is universally bad. For example, one of my favorite horror movie series is The Evil Dead, and the plot of those films is absolutely dependent on the ability of the characters to cast a spell not only accidentally, but also without knowing it.

[Max_Killjoy]

Regarding people complaining earlier about stories where magic is too easy or doesn't have a cost, I have to say that I disagree with the idea that that is universally bad. For example, one of my favorite horror movie series is The Evil Dead, and the plot of those films is absolutely dependent on the ability of the characters to cast a spell not only accidentally, but also without knowing it.

That does make magic hideously, hilariously dangerous, however.

[Deepbluediver]

That does make magic hideously, hilariously dangerous, however.

A whole setting where people go around trying to NOT accidentally do magic? Sounds like a blast.
Imagine someone getting home from work, and finding out that their new baby spoke his first word today. And that word was "Power Word: Stun".

[pwykersotz]

A whole setting where people go around trying to NOT accidentally do magic? Sounds like a blast.
Imagine someone getting home from work, and finding out that their new baby spoke his first word today. And that word was "Power Word: Stun".

Or dimension door.

[Xuc Xac]

Regarding people complaining earlier about stories where magic is too easy or doesn't have a cost, I have to say that I disagree with the idea that that is universally bad. For example, one of my favorite horror movie series is The Evil Dead, and the plot of those films is absolutely dependent on the ability of the characters to cast a spell not only accidentally, but also without knowing it.

But they paid a significant price for casting that spell, didn't they? And in "Army of Darkness", the spell was pretty short (only three words) but getting it even slightly wrong had pretty severe consequences.

[Minty]

"Historical accuracy" in non-historical fiction. I don't care if the style of dress doesn't match the architecture, as long as you're not setting your story in a particular locale (both time and space) of Earth's history.

I see this as less a matter of historical accuracy than one of thematic consistency. If you derive the majority of your setting from a single time and place in history, expect people to find the exceptions jarring. If you're going to have knights and feudal lords in castles adorned with heraldry, and a ton of other stuff that is explicitly medieval, expect raised eyebrows if there are also random steam trains in there, because your other elements have already established the theme as medieval Europe and steam trains obviously don't fit that theme.

If you want to chastise people for not treating your setting as ahistorical, then put the work in and make your setting from whole cloth instead of being lazy and lifting stuff ready made from history, where it might come with thematic expectations attached.

[VoxRationis]

I'm inclined to agree with Minty. When people say something's "historically inaccurate" in a fantasy world, they're not talking about "There wasn't a unified Italy in 1775," because that would be nonsensical. They're saying things like, "You've established this world as being confined to a Hellenistic tech level, but this trap uses an electric eye as a trigger," or "Why does the city watch in this society work exactly like 20th-century cops in Brooklyn? You said the social structure was like High Medieval England."

[Malimar]

I see this as less a matter of historical accuracy than one of thematic consistency. If you derive the majority of your setting from a single time and place in history, expect people to find the exceptions jarring. If you're going to have knights and feudal lords in castles adorned with heraldry, and a ton of other stuff that is explicitly medieval, expect raised eyebrows if there are also random steam trains in there, because your other elements have already established the theme as medieval Europe and steam trains obviously don't fit that theme.

A setting with knights and feudal lords and castles and heraldry but also steam trains sounds awesome though.

[Jay R]

I see this as less a matter of historical accuracy than one of thematic consistency. If you derive the majority of your setting from a single time and place in history, expect people to find the exceptions jarring. If you're going to have knights and feudal lords in castles adorned with heraldry, and a ton of other stuff that is explicitly medieval, expect raised eyebrows if there are also random steam trains in there, because your other elements have already established the theme as medieval Europe and steam trains obviously don't fit that theme.

If you want to chastise people for not treating your setting as ahistorical, then put the work in and make your setting from whole cloth instead of being lazy and lifting stuff ready made from history, where it might come with thematic expectations attached.

Unfortunately, thematic inconsisitency caused by the ahistorical lifting from incompatible sources was built into D&D from the original version, which included:

1. the phoenix, the hydra, basilisks, and gorgons from Greece,
2. the hippogriff from Rome (Virgil),
3. kobolds from Germanic folklore,
4. ogres from France,
5. zombies from the Caribbean,
6. mummies from Egypt (actually, from 20th century horror movies)
7. trolls and frost giants from Norse mythology,
8. ghouls from Arabic folklore,
9. manticores from Persia,
10. gargoyles from architecture,
11. pixies from Cornwall,
12. were-tigers from Asia,
13. gnomes from Paracelsus,
14. elementals from animism and/or Paracelsus,
15. gnolls from Lord Dunsany,
16. hobbits, ents, and balrogs from J. R. R. Tolkien,
17. Law and Chaos from Michael Moorcock,
18. and the magic system from Jack Vance.

etc.

[Minty]

Unfortunately, thematic inconsisitency caused by the ahistorical lifting from incompatible sources was built into D&D from the original version, which included:

1. the phoenix, the hydra, basilisks, and gorgons from Greece,
2. the hippogriff from Rome (Virgil),
3. kobolds from Germanic folklore,
4. ogres from France,
5. zombies from the Caribbean,
6. mummies from Egypt (actually, from 20th century horror movies)
7. trolls and frost giants from Norse mythology,
8. ghouls from Arabic folklore, hobbits,
9. manticores from Persia,
10. gargoyles from architecture,
11. pixies from Cornwall,
12. were-tigers from Asia,
13. gnomes from Paracelsus,
14. elementals from animism and/or Paracelsus,
15. gnolls from Lord Dunsany,
16. ents, and balrogs from J. R. R. Tolkien,
17. Law and Chaos from Michael Moorcock,
18. and the magic system from Jack Vance.

etc.

You don't have to have every last D&D race and monster existing in your own setting all at the same time; you just pick and choose the ones that best fit your game.

Off-the-shelf settings like Forgotten Realms that include everything, don't really strike me as history's greatest examples of worldbuilding. They're too much of a thematic kludge to try and accommodate any type of game you might want to play.

[Deepbluediver]

I see this as less a matter of historical accuracy than one of thematic consistency. If you derive the majority of your setting from a single time and place in history, expect people to find the exceptions jarring. If you're going to have knights and feudal lords in castles adorned with heraldry, and a ton of other stuff that is explicitly medieval, expect raised eyebrows if there are also random steam trains in there, because your other elements have already established the theme as medieval Europe and steam trains obviously don't fit that theme.

If you want to chastise people for not treating your setting as ahistorical, then put the work in and make your setting from whole cloth instead of being lazy and lifting stuff ready made from history, where it might come with thematic expectations attached.

I get what you're saying (I think)- if something shows up that you weren't expecting at all and in a way that makes it conflict with your pre-existing knowledge, it can feel quite jarring. But unless you're trying to make a psuedo-historical setting based on real world history, the only consistency that should matter is your setting's internal consistency.

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that everyone's suspension of disbelief will break at different points, if I'm making up my own fantasy world, I should be able to mix-and-match whatever elements I want, under the assumption that technology and culture just evolved differently in my world. If I want to have knights in plate-armor riding around on chariots, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. If I establish a city as having an egyptian theme, but then I want to throw in leiderhosen and oktoberfest, I can. Adding stuff to the setting as I go isn't inconsistent so long as I haven't already contradicted myself in some other way. That's what makes it fantasy.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I see this as less a matter of historical accuracy than one of thematic consistency. If you derive the majority of your setting from a single time and place in history, expect people to find the exceptions jarring. If you're going to have knights and feudal lords in castles adorned with heraldry, and a ton of other stuff that is explicitly medieval, expect raised eyebrows if there are also random steam trains in there, because your other elements have already established the theme as medieval Europe and steam trains obviously don't fit that theme.

If you want to chastise people for not treating your setting as ahistorical, then put the work in and make your setting from whole cloth instead of being lazy and lifting stuff ready made from history, where it might come with thematic expectations attached.

No. Perceived themes aren't binding on the author, not in any way, shape, or form. Only self-claimed themes. If a work doesn't claim to be based on (or set in) a particular time and location on Earth, any expectations you bring in are your own fault. Especially in an RPG setting, where the weird is normal. Judge a work on its own standards + utility, not on claims you'd prefer it to make. Don't blame that rake for being a bad shovel. That's the reader's fault, not the writer's.

Edit: and the default for fantasy (at least non-Earth-based fantasy) is non-historical fiction. That's why we separate the genres of historical fantasy from general fantasy. Genre conventions and ideas aren't guaranteed to transfer across unless explicitly imported by the author.

And aesthetic is different than theme, or setting. I have one culture that has an architectural and clothing (and some names) based on Old Khmer and modern South-east Asia. Most of the people there are light haired--they're largely of high-elven descent. The technology level across the whole setting ranges from magitek crystal spires and togas (not literally togas, but...) to dirt-grubbing subsistence farmers. That's because it's in the aftermath of a world-shattering cataclysm. Some parts survived better than others. There are remnants of old magic about. One example is a bunch of kobolds who are using stolen high magitek from an ancient research facility to make alcohol.

Before the cataclysm, one area was largely medieval, another had magic-powered trains and AI automatons. Others were more medieval (castles, knights and such). In none of this was there any inconsistency. Only in the narrow minds of people who refuse to put their preconceptions aside for a bare moment.

I get what you're saying (I think)- if something shows up that you weren't expecting at all and in a way that makes it conflict with your pre-existing knowledge, it can feel quite jarring. But unless you're trying to make a psuedo-historical setting based on real world history, the only consistency that should matter is your setting's internal consistency.

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that everyone's suspension of disbelief will break at different points, if I'm making up my own fantasy world, I should be able to mix-and-match whatever elements I want, under the assumption that technology and culture just evolved differently in my world. If I want to have knights in plate-armor riding around on chariots, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. If I establish a city as having an egyptian theme, but then I want to throw in leiderhosen and oktoberfest, I can. Adding stuff to the setting as I go isn't inconsistent so long as I haven't already contradicted myself in some other way. That's what makes it fantasy.

Exactly. Technology, sociology, and culture are all strongly path-dependent. What happened on Earth does not affect, nor control, what happens on other worlds. Just like any resemblances in a novel to anyone living or dead are accidental or in the minds of readers, any references to historical "facts" are coincidental. Heck, the "minerals" they're mining in my setting may be called iron, copper, etc, but they're not elements and compounds like on Earth. They're varieties of solidified earth-aspected anima, the same substance as makes up living beings and is created from the dreams and growth of souls. Why should the technology progressions be anywhere the same?

[Bohandas]

Unfortunately, thematic inconsisitency caused by the ahistorical lifting from incompatible sources was built into D&D from the original version, which included:

1. the phoenix, the hydra, basilisks, and gorgons from Greece,
2. the hippogriff from Rome (Virgil),
3. kobolds from Germanic folklore,
4. ogres from France,
5. zombies from the Caribbean,
6. mummies from Egypt (actually, from 20th century horror movies)
7. trolls and frost giants from Norse mythology,
8. ghouls from Arabic folklore, hobbits,
9. manticores from Persia,
10. gargoyles from architecture,
11. pixies from Cornwall,
12. were-tigers from Asia,
13. gnomes from Paracelsus,
14. elementals from animism and/or Paracelsus,
15. gnolls from Lord Dunsany,
16. ents, and balrogs from J. R. R. Tolkien,
17. Law and Chaos from Michael Moorcock,
18. and the magic system from Jack Vance.

etc.

A few things:
*typo: you put hobbits on the section of the list
*ghouls, while originally from the middle east, came to the game via american horror, same as mummies.
*it was always my understanding that the gnolls started out as a completely unrelated gnome-troll hybrid that eventually got scrapped but the name got kept for another monster because it was so catchy
EDIT:
*also was law v. chaos Moorcock first or was it in the principia discordia first. I thought that Moorcock's books were from the 1960's and the principia was from the 1950's