How "different" does a new setting have to be?

[Uruush]

Me: "Does the world have a rich history? Are the campaign-specific creatures, spells, feats, and classes balanced? Does the setting have good adventuring opportunities? Are the illustrations eye-pleasing, or do they make your eyes bleed just by looking at them?"

I find myself curious about the settings being discussed in your conversations, if only so I can avoid them. Midnight's Eredane has a rich history, campaign specific creatures and feats, and the classes are balanced. The adventuring opportunities are to taste - you either will like the style, or you won't, and the illustrations are magnificent. I've never played FR or Greyhawk, but I'm just as likely to enjoy source material, high or low magic if the writing and mechanics are good. (I do own The Silver Marches and I think it's very nice) Snobbery is ubiquitous, but low-magic snobs are no more odious than others, I think.

 

[PJ Mason]

Actually, it was something like this that originally brought the question to my mind. I've seen this comment a lot and know some people want a campaign world without dwarves, elves, etc. However, when Unearthed Arcana came out someone posted that they heard there would be different races present and were disappointed that the races were the same old stuff.

So, he doesn't want elves, etc. and he doesn't want animal connected races, dragon like races, psionic races, etc. What does he want? Apparently something so far out there, no one has seen it before.

Now, I know if I saw a setting like that, I'd put it right down. I don't want to have to learn about a dozen new "different races" and try to keep straight which one is which. ("Now which race was the one with an extra arm, no depth perception and a fear of water?")

It's seems to me that at least some of the players who are looking for something wildly different are looking for someone to publish a game world that only a few dozen people would be interested in. Who would publish that, except as a vanity project?

I'm in the first group. I've had 20 years of elves, dwarves, halflings, and knightly/wizard-robed humans. Enough already, you know?. I really liked the races in Arcana Unearthed. Now if only it had a setting to go with them.
I also liked the clan templates for humans in games like Oriental Adventures, where all humans AREN'T the same game-wise. A setting could have just the human race, add several racial packages and i would be happy. No need for formless blob races! Although if it meant getting rid of elves and dwarves, i'd give them a try!

 

[tetsujin28]

It needs to be way different. Empire of the Petal Throne/Exalted/Dragonfist different.

 

[Eosin the Red]

I fall into the Different to be Different is bad. I dislike mainstream D&D with lots of spells and monsters. I like a more human oriented game and human villians. A game like 7th Sea is exactly what I am looking for when it comes to different. Thought I also like MIDNIGHT, BIRTHRIGHT, Wheel of Time, and I will hopefully enjoy the new Song of Fire & Ice game coming out this year.

It could just be me though

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

I just wish world settings would be published that don't include dwarves, elves, halflings, and gnomes.

Try Talislanta.

• It's a wild and wierd world with a rich history and tons of adventure to be had

• Non-Eurocentric fantasy races and creatures

• The rules are d20-based (easy to adapt or better yet just switch over)

• The magic system is non-Vancian

 

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

It doesn't have to be different to be good.

But it probably does to get me to actually play it.

I'll take a "niche" setting that offers a change of pace even if it doesn't get a while lot of support and "dies" soon. Fine by me - if the few books are good quality, I don't need 1000's of pages of material published every year.

With the proliferation of setting material available, why not run a different campaign setting every year or two? Variety is good. It's not like we live in the age of Greyhawk or homebrew anymore. It turns out that most campaigns in practice don't get run for more than ten total levels anyway...

FR and Greyhawk are commonly used for comparisons, because they are more widely known. (! Duh? !) Most people could probably also use Dawnforge/Scarred Lands/Arcanis/Kalamar for comparing "standard" Fantasy settings. They are all basically the same thing.

BUT: Planescape - Oathbound - Dark Sun - Iron Kingdoms - Dragonstar - and to a lesser extent, Midnight - Those type of settings have something to offer a bit off the "FR/Greyhawk" path.

Bring on the different.

 

[tetsujin28]

And what's interesting is that the 'different' worlds were the first ones to be published. The Greyhawk setting didn't really take off (and indeed, was hardly mentioned) until the (very) early '80s with the release of the Gazzateer (one of the worst products ever), Forgotten Realms later on in the decade. The tendency towards 'generic' settings was, I think, heavily influenced by these releases, as they had all of TSR's money behind them.

In contrast, Empire of the Petal throne (one of the weirdest settings, ever) was a complete setting by its release in '75, Glorantha in '77 with RQ I. Not to mention other oddballs like Arduin. I remember the gameworlds that my friends wrote up being far more weird, until GH/FR came on the scene.

 

[Aeolius]

I already have Greyhawk. I don't want another setting.

 

[Ed Cha]

Relying on gimmicks and thinking they are truly new ideas is pretty typical it seems. I think as long as it's a quality setting then that's all that matters. Everyone trying to be different for the sake of being "different" makes everything all the same soon enough. I get pretty annoyed when I read a review of a book and it says all these good things about it, but then goes on to say it "lacks originality though". What does that mean?

For example, Mortality.net's recent review of "Classic Play: Strongholds and Dynasties" did that. While I thought Kithmaker did an excellent job at the review (very thorough and well-written, in fact), he goes on to make this comment about it lacking originality. I haven't read the book (though I've ordered it), but the title does say "Classic Play" so does it need to have all these funky flavor-type stuff?

Another thing that is a pet peeve of mine is naming orcs and elves something else than they really are just orcs and elves. When you read a book full of "new" races with funny names, but realize they're just the same old races typically found in most fantasy settings, it makes the book unnecessarily a strain to read. I guess that's called "flavor", but maybe it's unnecessary "flavoring", in my opinion.

 

[Turjan]

Another thing that is a pet peeve of mine is naming orcs and elves something else than they really are just orcs and elves. When you read a book full of "new" races with funny names, but realize they're just the same old races typically found in most fantasy settings, it makes the book unnecessarily a strain to read. I guess that's called "flavor", but maybe it's unnecessary "flavoring", in my opinion.

This is an excellent remark. I think that's why all publications featuring new races did not succeed. There is only a limited number of ways how humanoid races can be portrayed, and if it's just a human/orc/elf with a single weird ability or some cultural differences, there's really no need to create funny names that nobody can remember. Maybe, those people who want new names in their game are afraid of stereotypes that cannot be removed from the heads of their fellow players. If the elves in your campaign don't get thousands of years old (as in mine), this may be hard to swallow for one or the other. But, then again, it's nothing original; we saw this already in Dark Sun. No need to rename the elves, then .