TTRPG Settings: A Canny Valley of Playability?

[nevin]

now the boxed set they released of the otherside of the world was never that popular. It was a very difffernt place. Minotaur player characters and crazy tinker Gnomes, with the equivilant of the Roman empire in the middle of it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think for me it largely depends on the context and how the setting and its designers try to evoke the desired effect.

So, let's take a very unfamiliar setting. While its strangeness may make it hard to grasp, and therefore challenging to use, if the concepts are interesting enough and work well with the game to promote a fun experience, then I'd happily play in such a setting.

The same with a too familiar setting. If it's got something compelling to make playing there worthwhile....some compelling thing that matters to me more than the familiarity bothers me, then I'd be fine with that, too.

The concern in both cases would be that the compelling element.....the interesting thing that may overcome the strangeness or familiarity.....is noticeable enough to hook a person before they dismiss the setting as either too strange or too mundane.

So I do think a visceral kind of immediate reaction, akin to the one in the uncanny valley, can be a very relevant factor here.

 

[Umbran]

If someone can't logically explain their dislike of a setting, as above, I'd call that an emotional response.

Without arguing that - do you think all emotional responses are created equal? I don't. "Uninterested" may be an emotional respose, but it isn't like, "Ew! That... too historical!"

 

[GMMichael]

I'm not well-versed in uncanny valley studies, but I'm sure some participants had creepy, crawly bug reactions, but most didn't.

 

[Aldarc]

Without arguing that - do you think all emotional responses are created equal? I don't. "Uninterested" may be an emotional respose, but it isn't like, "Ew! That... too historical!"

I do have a strange discomfort surrounding some settings that IMHO fall into the uncanny valley of faux-Europe: e.g., 7th Sea's Théah. Someone else I found has described it similarly: "Too Close to Home: 7th Sea and the Uncanny Valley."

While not uncanny valley per se, I also found a similar idea in a blog post: "Tekumel Shock Syndrome Turned up to 11". (Warning: the author does pedal a bit of RPG Pundit.)

 

[pemerton]

one thing we often ask is why (for example) "Sci-Fi" TTRPGs aren't very popular. There are a few that are based on well-known properties (Star Wars, Star Trek) and a few others here and there, but none that have broken through to the mainstream in the same way that the fantasy one do.

I don't think this premise is correct. In the late 70s/early 80s, the second-biggest RPG after D&D was Traveller. Then RuneQuest.

And there's at least an argument that Glorantha is a counter-example to @Aldarc's thesis, being a very detailed setting based on a close reading and engagement with realworld mythology and history, but one of the most enduringly popular of RPG settings.

So, let's take a very unfamiliar setting. While its strangeness may make it hard to grasp, and therefore challenging to use, if the concepts are interesting enough and work well with the game to promote a fun experience, then I'd happily play in such a setting.

I only know it from the accounts of others, but there's at least an argument that the BitD setting (Duskvol?) fits this description.

 

[pemerton]

I do have a strange discomfort surrounding some settings that IMHO fall into the uncanny valley of faux-Europe: e.g., 7th Sea's Théah.

My feeling here is that the issue is more about purpose and utility.

A Hyborean Age approach - which we see with GH, FR and many other RPG worlds - allows emulating real-world tropes while ignoring real-world timelines.

Actually playing in the real world - eg Ars Magica, Prince Valiant - allows all the benefits of the real world ie names, maps, histories etc, with the overlay of whatever fiction one is creating.

Pseudo-earth that achieves neither the flexibility of the Hyborean Age nor the utility of the real world seems kind of pointless.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I don't think this premise is correct. In the late 70s/early 80s, the second-biggest RPG after D&D was Traveller. Then RuneQuest.

And there's at least an argument that Glorantha is a counter-example to @Aldarc's thesis, being a very detailed setting based on a close reading and engagement with realworld mythology and history, but one of the most enduringly popular of RPG settings.

....

I would agree with you that the premise is incorrect, but I think it has more to do with the investment of time and effort by the DM and group to make other settings successful.
D&D had a really low bar to DM, get some graph paper, draw some rooms and connecting corridors and populate with monsters, treasure and traps. They even had rules/an algorithm for it in Basic D&D and most tables would be happy.
The setting imposed no restrictions. It is Disney medieval with no effective authority. If the DM or groups wants actual Medieval social structure, go ahead, Classical world, knock yourself out.

RuneQuest is the Anti-D&D, it is for those people that took one look at D&D world building and said "that would never work" and I never played Traveller but I think that the character background stuff was a key to its success. I have made use of detail back story generators before and they can be a) great fun in their own right, and b) really add to a campaign because they tend to generate plot points, question marks in the characters background that can be used to tie the PC's in to the plot.

The other thing, the default D&D playstyle - murderhoboing, if you will, does not work with many settings. It works in D&D, the Old West - the Movie version, Certain times and locations in Traveller (If I remember the lore correctly), Post Apocalyptic. Ironically it does not work in a realistic medieval Europe - too many local authorities. Unless one of the PC is a local noble, in which case the campaign rapidly escalates to a wargame.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I've watched many great scifi games die over the years and it's always been my theory that SciFi games were close enough to reality that people just didn't like them. I never really considered the uncanny valley but maybe that's it. When people play fantasy it's definitely not real. When they play Sci Fi or low magic nitty gritty games It feels like it could really happen and that turns them off.

I do think in the west the majority of gamers are interested in Arthurian,Charlemagne style knights and or pulp fiction style Oriental samaurai and Ninja style campaigns.

I've run far more sci-fi campaigns (50+ sessions) than I have fantasy.

The weakness of sci-fi settings is, IME, the learning curve required. Fantasy settings generally are cookie cutters, with just cosmetic differences; you can brief a new player in very few words. But sci-fi settings require players to have to absorb a lot more background information. To run sci-fi campaigns, you need mature players with a strong commitment to the hobby.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't think this premise is correct. In the late 70s/early 80s, the second-biggest RPG after D&D was Traveller. Then RuneQuest.

Citation to sales? I don't think it exists, but I'd love to see a source for TTRPG sales from the 70s and early 80s.

In addition, I was speaking generally over time.

It's an interesting thesis; I suggest engaging more with the author of the post to the extent you want to help the OP refine it.