barsoomcore said:What's the downside to using Roman Africa? I don't see any problem there.
The more specific the setting, the easier it is for players to get engrossed. A "typical, generic" setting is going to be just that -- generic. That is to say, bland. Put em in Roman Africa. Make it as authentic as you like.
Just DON'T expect them to do any research. Do it for them. Provide them with the key things they need to know.
Well, to answer that, let me point out some of the problems I ran into in my last campaign (with experienced players, set in Rokugan).
I always like to put my PCs in positions of authority or prestige, where they have the opportunity to make real changes in the world around them (big fish in a small pond). In this particular campaign, the PCs were magistrates, which are a combination of judge and police officer.
The problems I encountered were mostly cultural. Although I did provide a great deal of guidance ("Ninjas are a myth. Honest."), they were not comfortable with a lot of the cultural differences. Some example places where it came up would be bribes, treatment of the lower classes, insulting people (and the line between "safe" insults and "fighting words"), etc.
Don't get me wrong, none of these were game-wrecking problems. But I could tell that we slowed down, the players got a lot more tentative and uncomfortable making decisions, and the occasional "this is the response you're about to get, is that what you intended" conversation detracted a bit from the feeling of being competent and in control.
You can probably see where I'm going with this, which is that these things are already problems for people who are new to the game. New players already tend to clam up and not want to make any decisions for fear of being wrong. I'm just concerned that dealing with an unfamiliar setting will raise that learning curve. I want the experience to be confidence building and comfortable for my new players, so they get hooked and I maintain my pizza and soda supply.

. . . . . . . -- Eric