Fantasy, Authenticity, or Simplicity?

[Al]

DMs, I summon thee!

Right, now you're here, I'd like to pose you an interesting question. In your worlds (DMs who use published settings please leave ), do you prefer Fantasy, Authenticity or Simplicity? By which I mean, how fantastical is your fantasy? Which of the following three categories would you fall under:

FANTASY: Your world is totally different and unique. You invent your own titles, terminology, time and measurement systems, calendar and even cosmology. People who use 'miles' or 'July' in their homebrew setting are dull and unimaginative.

AUTHENTICITY: You base your homebrew off the time-honoured Medieval Europe (or Asia or wherever) + Magic. There are athelings and churls, people use medieval sayings and slang, and the mindset is medieval on social issues and the like.

SIMPLICITY: You use a modern outlook and modern measurements. Your world is fantasy, but for simplicity's sake you try to keep most things modern. You see no point forcing your players to measure distances in cubits or speak in Old Englishe.

Please vote now!

 

[Phowett]

Fantasy, of course.

 

[Mr Fidgit]

fantasy for me

 

[BluWolf]

I try simplicty.

While I want the world to be strange a fantastical I want my players to concentrate on the challenges, adventure and moral issues, not learning new math or concepts of macroeconomics.

 

[Painfully]

It's a bit of a silly question don't you think? Most people use all three of your poll choices in some combination.

 

[Vaxalon]

I agree, Painfully, but we do focus on one or another.

Personally, I use as little simplicity and authenticity as I can get away with. They're necessary evils. Fantasy is my goal.

What I do is start simple and somewhat authentic, and raise the fantasy level with campaign events.

 

[Tonguez]

My current Homebrew (set in Mythic Polynesia) uses Authentic Simplicity so I use authentic cuiltures, histories and language but simplify for the sake of gameplay.

Previous Homebrews have ranged from Fantasy to Simplicity and all tend to have some real world paralels (afterall there is nothing new under the sun)

ps. Was watching "A History of Britain" last night and they were covering the Colonial Period in both America (Ruddy taxes and the Boston Tea Party et al) and then the East India Companys reign in India (and its Company = Government system)

Anyway while watching all I could think was wow what a cool setting that would be! (PCs as Bachelor-Clerks and Company 'extortionist' leading small armies against the might of the Moghuls and the dark power of the Thugees!)

Anyway I know Septentrionalis sortof covers the American colony has anyone got RPG info on 17th century India and the colonial period in general?

 

[BBrendolfus]

Hey Tonguez I was watching the same thing (as I scrambled to put together todays adventure).

Anyway, I chose simplicity but that is not solely the case.

Our world has a 400 day year, no months, 4 seasons split up by irregular festivals.

Medieval Europe doesn't really fit in a world with civilised folk having near full literacy, libraries, banks and republics. Renaissance Europe + Greek city state rivalry, surrounded by menacing barbaric humanoids intent on crushing the life.

Corruption is a great 'villain' I am finding, no manner of swords can vanquish it as another fills the void.

 

[Umbran]

I think I tend on the Simplicity side. I'd prefer my players to concentrate on characterization, story, and plot, not on exactly how historically correct or weird the game is.

I use my share of fantastic elements, but I don't use them "just because". Fantasy for the sake of being fantastic isn't constructive, IME.

 

[Ace]

Simplicity is the watchword for me.

Except... I have a meta game reason why parts of the game world are very 20th century.