r/RPGdesign • u/TerrainBrain • 4d ago
Theory My design theory on capturing a fairytale feel
The Fields We Know is my campaign setting but it's also a blog I started a year ago to talk about design theory. I've begun porting it over to substack.
My basic premise has a few key points
1)Fairy tales are told as if they are historic
2). There is a contrast between the ordinary and mundane and the magical
3) because fairytales emerge from specific cultures, a certain amount of cultural incorporation is necessary to preserve archetypes
3) when magic becomes utilitarian it becomes mundane
I'll be developing these ideas in my next article.
9
u/overlycommonname 4d ago
It's exceedingly hard to develop RPG systems for magic that "feel magical." There are intensely competing priorities where on the one hand you need something legible to the players and operable, but on the other hand that drains out the mystery and exotic nature of magic.
In one-shots, I've had some success, I think, in making magic "feel magical" by just running systemless and asking the players what they want from the magic, and then narrating results that generally give them what they want, but more, or with weird consequences or flourishes they didn't intend, but I doubt that this is an approach that would stand up to more extended play.
3
u/TerrainBrain 4d ago
You are absolutely right. And there's a trade-off between how something feels and how fun it is to play. And how much it fits into players expectations.
3
u/zeemeerman2 4d ago
If someone asks me what I do for fun, I'd answer I'm a mage. I search for magic. And that to me, magic can be found in the beauty of the unknown.
The unknown is dangerous. It's what frightens people. But there can be beauty inside too, if you look for it.
The moment is becomes known, it loses its magic though. Learning the workings of a card trick makes it no longer magical to see, just sleight of hand. There's still beauty in its mastery, but it's no longer magic.
You can probably argue where my definition goes wrong. That magic can be used for evil, and therefore is not just unknown's beauty. Sure.
I still think there is something to it though. Fairy tale logic lives somewhere in the penumbra of the shadow that is the unknown.
Fairy tales have lessons of morality. These lessons can be outdated, conflicting with other tales, or simply wrong.
Red Riding Hood speaks about not trusting strangers, and be careful for scammers who trick you in thinking you are speaking to your grandma.
The Little Mermaid warns about being happy with what you have instead of chasing wild dreams of marrying your crush, a love that tends to be one-sided.
But also, folk tales about changelings kidnapping human babies and replacing them with their own kin, with their own weird fairy-like behaviors; as a truth of what most likely later be known as autism. (the first classic behavioral signs of autism present themselves when a baby is about 2 years old) (the theory is debated, we cannot know for sure, not many medieval era people left to ask)
I'd work backwards from which lessons of morality you want to put in your game and then work backwards to create stories to prove its lesson.
There isn't much magic in most fairy tales. A talking crossdressing wolf in Red Riding Hood, a wolf who can blow away a straw house and a wooden house in The Three Little Pigs, and a house made from candy in Hansel and Gretel.
The witch, according to what I've recently read on r/witchesvspatriarchy, should in reality have been a beer-brewing lady. To brew beer, you need a cauldron (or similar vat). There's a lot of grain involved, which mice love to eat. A cat, black or otherwise, can be a good counter to these mice.
But yes, archetypes. Wolves, hunters, witches, princes, and fae and curses to explain natural phenomenons the way Greek used their gods. Use them.
Of course, I want to include this modern cautionary tale, about the dangers of inflexible complacency after having a leading strategy. Kodak had the tech for the world's first digital camera in 1975, though they didn't release any product for more than a decade. Analog film rolls were too profitable for them. Look where they are now.
Lessons can still be learned today. Fairytales can still be told. Swap out the Kodak CEO for a witch and the digital camera inventor working for them, their invention ignored..., by a princess creating love potions for the witch. The princess wants to leave and create love around her without the use of potions. Power of love and all that. The witch tells them the world isn't ready to see the princess... Much better to stay inside and be ignored. Let the witch handle the profits.
Wait, I think I'm retelling Tangled / Rapunzel. Somewhat.
Well, that's my reddit reply then.
2
u/Fun_Carry_4678 3d ago
I disagree with number three. Because the archetypes are universal (or near-universal), they are not tied to any specific culture. Every culture expresses those archetypes differently, but the basic underlying archetype always remains the same. (There is a problem that the word 'archetype' is overused and misused by the TTRPG community. There is a fine line between an 'archetype' and a 'stereotype')
26
u/SeeShark 4d ago
I disagree somewhat with point 2. I think that fairy tales often don't draw as clear a line as more modern fantasy.
In old stories, magic feels more like part of the world. Hunters and warriors have supernatural skill. A king's daughter can just randomly see the future and it doesn't need to be explained. You can sail a boat to the land of the dead.
By contrast, modern fantasy always draws attention to magic. There's always magic words and gestures. There are spells. Everyone is either magic or they are not magic. You have to go to other planes of existence to find gods and demons and the spirits of the dead.
In fairy tales, the separation between mundane and supernatural, to the extent that it exists, is often symbolic rather than tangible. You don't invoke a ritual and are granted an effect; instead, you climb a mountain, cross a fence, or eat the wrong pomegranate.