>>4047122
>It's in the extreme "low" end of fantasy's low vs high scale
Just like OP’s mom

>>4047122
We need our top RPG definition guys working around the clock on this ASAP as many threads as it takes

>>4047122
>Low Fantasy
>High Fantasy
First we need to actually define what these terms means. Personally, I use the on Earth or not on Earth definition of fantasy. In this case low fantasy is fiction set on earth while high fantasy is fiction not set on earth. So, Calradia is a very High Fantasy setting. Albeit, very Generic. There have been some mods that have given their own takes on the setting and lore. Banner Kings is pretty good in this aspect. I like how BK has many cultures within its major ethnic groups that translates to different regions of a kingdom specializing in different ways of combat. Vlandia for example not only had its make horsey boys, but also had a Rhodok inspired Troop tree. Or how there was a middle Kingdom that was a bit of a grab bag of cultural exchanges because it was an Imperial faction that many peoples crossed through.

>>4047122
>women can fight as well as men
>they get a buff to starting int
It's fantasy

>>4047122
Would you say Mount and Blade or X-com are more of an RPG, OP?

>>4047137
They're the Atlas of /vrpg/ holding up the sky

>>4047122
yes

>>4047122
Arguments about semantics like this are completely pointless. 'Fantasy' is a broadly-defined and non-rigorous definition created to describe works of fiction. It does not matter whether you call Mount and Blade fantasy. Mount and Blade is. People on both sides of this debate are in agreement on what Mount and Blade is (parahistorical realism, no magic/mythical creatures, fictional world). They disagree whether the term 'fantasy' applies to what Mount and Blade is. This quibbling over the semantics of language when you already understand the meaning behind the language is incredibly retarded.

>>4047302
'rvke

>>4047122
The Rhodok crossbow howitzers make it high fantasy though