Embracing the standard fantasy tropes

[Jürgen Hubert]

I frequently see deliberate efforts in designing a fantasy setting to reject the "standard" fantasy tropes. Many setting designers put a lot of time and effort into making sure that their world is completely different than the others out there, using entirely new races, magic systems, and so forth.

But I am sometimes wondering if all that effort isn't counterproductive at times.

Often, the "new" invention is just something old in a new guise - all that changed were the names, or possibly some minor features. In such cases, the whole reason for introducing something "new" becomes somewhat dubious.

In rarer cases, the author actually does come up with something genuinely new - but in that case, he will have to spend a lot of time explaining everything about it so that the players and the game master can use it effectively in their campaigns. And too much of such novelty, and you might end up with a setting that is universally lauded for its design, but which hardly anyone plays - since it requires too much time for most players to understand. Tekumel is probably the best example for this.


On the other hand, elves, dwarves, orcs, halfings and so forth all have a rich myth body attached to them. Almost every gamer knows something about these beings - and many know a lot. The same goes for the quirks and details of the D&D rule system - they are familiar to many, if not most gamers.

By starting out from all these familiar tropes with Urbis, I do not have to explain the basics. That dwarves are skilled craftsmen, that elves often live in the forests, or that fireballs are a great way to kill lots of enemies. By assuming that all these are well known, I can built on it all and expand the world into new and strange directions - which simply wouldn't be possible if I had to explain the fundamentals all over again.


In a way, by embracing the standard fantasy and D&D tropes it becomes possible to create a far richer and detailed setting than if you decided to reinvent everything from the ground up - assuming, of course, that you have the same amount of time to create either setting. But it should not be forgotten that the players also often only have a limited amount of time they can invest in learning about a setting - and here settings that use the familiar tropes have a clear advantage.


Your thoughts?

 

[Whisper72]

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Although some small deviations are cool to give a setting something 'special', too many deviations from the 'norm' only make the 'suspension of disbelief' issues so large that the actual 'experience' and 'feel' for the campaign world is lost.

I think this is also one of the reasons why there are so few oriental settings for example, why it was never as popular as more mainstream settings. Most players have little understanding of the Real World east, let alone adding fantasy into the mix. This makes it too difficult for players to 'immerse' into the world and truly 'roleplay'.

In my opinion, a setting that is too different from what the players know leads to less immersion, more distance from the setting and more rollplaying.

Just IMHO etc.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Different just to be different is bad. Different as a result of planning, consistency, and a unique vision can be just as good and fun as something more traditional. (Without wanting to spark an argument, but I think Eberron is too much 'different to be different').

But personally, I find something unique but new (like, say Midnight, or Oathbound) to be far more approachable than gaming in the Forgotten Realms, where while it might be more traditional it has years of backstory baggage to deal with. Even when I ran games in the Realms, I ignored genericized 90% of it.

 

[TerraDave]

I frequently see deliberate efforts in designing a fantasy setting to reject the "standard" fantasy tropes.

Your talking about urbis, right?

 

[Orryn Emrys]

Over the years, I've made precious few forays into fantasy settings that were extremely "untraditional". I have found that this is not because I don't like the ideas presented in those settings... quite the contrary. Some of them are very cool. But, precisely as the OP has outlined above, I needn't concern myself with reestablishing player expectations. The more material about a setting we can assume between us, the players and myself, the more material I can add to enrich the flavor of the setting without violating their most basic expectations.

Mind you, I have run a few Arcana Unearthed/Evolved games that simply rocked. My players loved it, and so did I. But we always come back to more traditional D&D...

 

[Doug McCrae]

One thing I think is pointless is different versions of the PHB races. Like the ancestor-worshipping elves in Eberron, or the cannibal halflings in Dark Sun. If you want to do a new race of small cannibals that's fine, but why call them halflings? Either stick with the PHB races as is or come up with something totally new. This same-name-but-different-attributes bit serves no purpose and is needlessly confusing.

 

[hong]

All swords are katanae, whether they know it or not. This rule has never failed me.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Your talking about urbis, right?

Actually, if you take a closer look at Urbis you should find that remarkably few of the standard fantasy tropes are missing.

 

[Mallus]

I frequently see deliberate efforts in designing a fantasy setting to reject the "standard" fantasy tropes.

And by 'reject' they usually mean 'vary slightly'. Which is fine, BTW.

Many setting designers put a lot of time and effort into making sure that their world is completely different than the others out there, using entirely new races, magic systems, and so forth.

Who doesn't like new content? I mean, outside of the autistic community.

But I am sometimes wondering if all that effort isn't counterproductive at times.

I think too many rules subsystems in the same game are counterproductive.

Often, the "new" invention is just something old in a new guise - all that changed were the names, or possibly some minor features. In such cases, the whole reason for introducing something "new" becomes somewhat dubious.

By this logic, the creation of any new or and music becomes 'somewhat dubious', seeing as the vast majority of work is built upon the stuff that came before it and doesn't represent a radical departure.

Perhaps we should have stopped at the Dutch Masters and the Gregorian chant. Seriously though, do you believe something has to be 'wholly new' in order to justify it's creation, especially since we're talking about a hobby. It's not like we're frittering away grant money.

In rarer cases, the author actually does come up with something genuinely new - but in that case, he will have to spend a lot of time explaining everything about it so that the players and the game master can use it effectively in their campaigns.

Some people enjoying learning about new stuff that's kinda similar to old stuff they already have. This explains the popularity of fantasy fiction. Wait, make that genre fiction. Or most fiction, come to think of it. Nothing new under the sun and all.

Tekumel is probably the best example for this.

Tekumel is a niche product. Are you arguing against the creation of niche products? I imagine that Forgotten Realms leaves a lot of M.A.R. Barker fans rather cold.

On the other hand, elves, dwarves, orcs, halfings and so forth all have a rich myth body attached to them.

Rich and often contradictory, to the point where the names are almost reduced to cyphers to which almost anything can be attributed. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

By starting out from all these familiar tropes with Urbis, I do not have to explain the basics. That dwarves are skilled craftsmen, that elves often live in the forests, or that fireballs are a great way to kill lots of enemies. By assuming that all these are well known, I can built on it all and expand the world into new and strange directions - which simply wouldn't be possible if I had to explain the fundamentals all over again.

I did something similar with my homebrew, coincidentally enough, called CITY, Except that I tried to keep the familiar archetypes while ditching as much of the racial baggage that I didn't want as I could. So I have a skinny, pointy-eared magically adept race called the Shirac, who could be summed up as 'Sufi elves, with a dash of Jedi'. In fact, they began life simply as the 'sand elves'.

But it took too much effort to differentiate them from iconic elf, so I decided to approach things from the opposite direction. I looked at the archetype behind 'elf' and tried to describ the superset that 'elf' was a subset of, namely, skinny, mystic pointy-eared being. So while my Shirac aren't elves, they're derived from the same archetype that elves are. Or so I said at the time I was writing my homebrew. Of course, I was also drinking a lot then, so take what I say with a grain of salt, and perhaps a lime.

In a way, by embracing the standard fantasy and D&D tropes it becomes possible to create a far richer and detailed setting than if you decided to reinvent everything from the ground up - assuming, of course, that you have the same amount of time to create either setting.

See above. I agree with the general sentiment. It's nice to work off of a shared base of references, but I disagree that entities like 'elf' or 'hobbit' should be treated as tropes or universals.

But it should not be forgotten that the players also often only have a limited amount of time they can invest in learning about a setting - and here settings that use the familiar tropes have a clear advantage.

So what you're saying is 'Know your players'. Fine. And some groups want nothing but published settings.

Your thoughts?

You're right about the value of playing with tropes, but err on side of caution when it comes to the extent to which you can and should play with them. A lot of people take great pleasure in customizing their games of choice. So what if they come up with totally original content. Sometimes a few palette swaps or a racing stripe down the side is enough. And you shouldn't begrudge them that.

 

[TerraDave]

Actually, if you take a closer look at Urbis you should find that remarkably few of the standard fantasy tropes are missing.

I am just kiddin around. But, "mostly rural" isn't a standard fantasy trope?