Interesting question, though to be honest a lot of what I would say I have already said in This article on Formulae in books which I wrote for fantasybookreview.co.uk, the site I write book reviews for.

I probably would say the same as what I said there, though rather than trying to paraphrase myself I'll just be lazy and let anyone who is interested go and read it, then come back hear   how much everyone disagrees with me .

Dark, I think yours answers it much better than mine:)

Hey folks! Dragomier, I honestly see cliches and other predictable resources as pieces of a bigger pusle. They may or may not be used, it is up to you, but the thing is, you have to know those pieces are sometimes well known, so it requires more creativity to use them in a way they will be predictable, well placed, but the whole writing still original.
It is like hearing your favorite song, you probably heard the same thing 10 times or more, but it still amazes you.
Best regards, Haramir.

Glad you liked the article.
I've not read any dragon lance or forgotten realms yet.

I admit I tend to stay clear of D&d inspired stuff, since there seems to be on average more of a chance of getting something  formula and thus rather dull and predictable as I described in my article, though of course that isn't always the case, and even something formula can work if the writing is up to the task.

I also discussed a bit of this in my various book reviews which you can find here

I actually enjoy writing these and need to get back to doing them as I haven't done one for a few weeks, actually I expect I'll be starting my own writing projects soon enough.

I'm not sure silvermoon. One reason I wrote my above article on "formulae" rather han specifically clichés or tropes is  it is far easier to define a formula, ie something that is  to create an expected result, than a cliché.

For example, one trilogy my lady and I read very recently was Robin Hobb's fitz fool series. One of the major plots in that series is that the main character's daughter is kidnapped. This on it's surface seems like the most cliché of clichés. Helpless little girl, big manly father and rescue bate.

yet I have rarely seen a plot so intensively portrayed. Bee, the kidnapped child had a huge part to play, almost half of the book was her story. She had huge interactions with her captors which ranged from helplessness to victimisation, to trying to escape, to understand what actually she had been kidnapped for, and finally not just growing up, but taking a massive amount of agency and actually exacting a pretty extreme revenge on the people who kidnapped her and having to change because of it, (really she could give Aria stark a series run for her money in the hard as nails nine year old girl steaks).

mean while, her father didn't just swoop in and do a rescue but had his own evolution to go through, meeting other characters, going through journeys and enacting changes to himself and the world.

This was a case where Hobb did use a formula, but certainly I would never have accused of being clichéd.

On the other hand,Peers Brown, one of the worst writers I've come across recently did! make an effort to have the women in his books be super tough, ---- right until said woman suddenly became helpless in time for the big manly hero to save her.
this certainly was! a cliche, and what is more, a cliche which went directly against the portrayal of the characters in the previous section of the book (for the full story, see my reviews of Peers brown's trilogy which were pretty dire imho).

Hope some of this makes sense.