tetsujin28
First Post
And that's why EPT is so damn cool. No elves, no dwarves, no anything like them.
How "different" does a new setting have to be?
- Thread starter Glyfair
- Start date
In any setting, SOMETHING has to be different. If you have the standard races, maybe the way they relate to each other is different. Maybe there's a couple of different abilities or outlooks that each race has. If you don't have standard races, then you really need to go above and beyond the call of duty to make them stand out in players and DMs minds. Elves, dwarves, halfling, and the like of decades of familiarity built into them. A lot of people may want to try something new, but will they want to stick with it if a whole range of character ideas don't flood into their minds?
Perhaps magic works a little different in the setting. Or there are new rules that have a flavor that makes the characters of the setting distinctive. Whatever it is, there needs to be something that makes the setting stand out and inspire, or else all why bother? There's already Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Kalamar, and Scarred Lands. What would anybody need that isn't already accomplished by these settings?
Any setting needs a selling point, and it needs to be distinctive from others to some degree.
Perhaps magic works a little different in the setting. Or there are new rules that have a flavor that makes the characters of the setting distinctive. Whatever it is, there needs to be something that makes the setting stand out and inspire, or else all why bother? There's already Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Kalamar, and Scarred Lands. What would anybody need that isn't already accomplished by these settings?
Any setting needs a selling point, and it needs to be distinctive from others to some degree.
Frostmarrow
First Post
Sometimes there is more flavor in the crunch than there is in the fluff. A campaign world, just as a movie or a play, needs conflict. A scenario, just as a book, needs somebody to go get something. There are just seven stories and they are retold time and time again. (Or so they say.) However, to create flavor you simply change the crunch.
If you want a game where platemail clad warriors combat monsters with two handed swords you see to it that twohanded swords and platemails are better than everything else. If you want knights riding into combat with lances you create a way to pocket your horse when it's not needed. If you want wizards and sorcerers fighting evil with magic missiles from their fingertips you see to it that there is a spell that everyone knows, hits automatically and does decent damage.
If you want different flavor just make maces or axes the best weapons, chain hauberk the best armor and burning hands the best spell.
(Or perhaps you make swordaxe the best weapon and mudball the best spell.)
If you want a game where platemail clad warriors combat monsters with two handed swords you see to it that twohanded swords and platemails are better than everything else. If you want knights riding into combat with lances you create a way to pocket your horse when it's not needed. If you want wizards and sorcerers fighting evil with magic missiles from their fingertips you see to it that there is a spell that everyone knows, hits automatically and does decent damage.
If you want different flavor just make maces or axes the best weapons, chain hauberk the best armor and burning hands the best spell.
(Or perhaps you make swordaxe the best weapon and mudball the best spell.)
Last edited:
Eosin the Red
First Post
Why is different, better?
My game is entirely [95%] human and goblinoid. All PCs but 1 over the last 10-15 years have been human. I have 8-10 ethnic stocks but they are all human. I have angelic beings who occasionally mate with humans but the offspring are still more human than anything else.
There is debate about the number of stories that can be told some say seven, some say 36 some say 11, but we can agree that the number is finite. Why then does it make a story "better" to change the villain into a half beholder mage red dragon ooze? That is just laziness and poor writing skills relying on gimmicks instead of good story telling. MOST, not all D&D these days is about lazy companies that do not want to take the time and effort to write a compelling story or compelling characters. Instead they slap various templates and prestige classes in to the book in an effort to make you believe that "crunch" is substance.
How often do top ten lists of villians include the wild monsters of D&D? Good villians are not just about the amount of power they posses and the amount of "bad$$$ness."
I guess I prefer to look at this question from the other angle...Why do people think dodads and new gigets make something better? MIDNIGHT has a strong following because it did not fall into the dodad trap, they told a basic story and put a spin on it. The story definetly is not for everyone but its appeal is not in its crunch but in the fluff. BIRTHRIGHT is another good example...I know of BR GURPs, HERO, Ars Magica, Rolemaster, and Modern. It does not have that kind of appeal because of the crunch or because it is so different, but because it is the same with a little extra ummph! thrown in.
My game is entirely [95%] human and goblinoid. All PCs but 1 over the last 10-15 years have been human. I have 8-10 ethnic stocks but they are all human. I have angelic beings who occasionally mate with humans but the offspring are still more human than anything else.
There is debate about the number of stories that can be told some say seven, some say 36 some say 11, but we can agree that the number is finite. Why then does it make a story "better" to change the villain into a half beholder mage red dragon ooze? That is just laziness and poor writing skills relying on gimmicks instead of good story telling. MOST, not all D&D these days is about lazy companies that do not want to take the time and effort to write a compelling story or compelling characters. Instead they slap various templates and prestige classes in to the book in an effort to make you believe that "crunch" is substance.
How often do top ten lists of villians include the wild monsters of D&D? Good villians are not just about the amount of power they posses and the amount of "bad$$$ness."
I guess I prefer to look at this question from the other angle...Why do people think dodads and new gigets make something better? MIDNIGHT has a strong following because it did not fall into the dodad trap, they told a basic story and put a spin on it. The story definetly is not for everyone but its appeal is not in its crunch but in the fluff. BIRTHRIGHT is another good example...I know of BR GURPs, HERO, Ars Magica, Rolemaster, and Modern. It does not have that kind of appeal because of the crunch or because it is so different, but because it is the same with a little extra ummph! thrown in.
Jürgen Hubert
First Post
This is a very interesting thread for me, and I've considered many of the same points while developing Urbis.
There are some rather radical deviations from "standard" D&D fantasy worlds that are quite obvious from the start. Society is based on the Industrial Age instead of the Middle Ages. Towering cities dominate the landscape instead of lots of small villages, and a part of the very life force of their inhabitants is drained to power all sorts of magical wonders and items, making huge crop yields and tightly packed cities possible. Truly, a world of thaumaturgical marvels and wonders...
Yet I was constantly reminding myself that I didn't want to make the setting so exotic that it became hard to grasp for players new to it. I didn't want it to be like, say, Blue Planet - a beautiful and detailed setting that's so hard to summarize that many gaming group shy away from it.
So I made up my mind to only use the rules from the d20 SRD - and next to no additions or substractions. All the monsters and races from the SRD have their place in Urbis, and I've only added new creatures to replace the ecological niches usually occupied by the likes of the mind flayers or yuan-ti (which aren't in the SRD). And I've also used real-world cultures liberally as basis for various regions - for example, the halfling homeland - the Siebenbund - is very obviously based on Switzerland.
I've tried to add enough of the exotic to make the world fun - but enough of the familiar to make the world gameable.
Have I suceeded? You tell me - I still need lots more feedback before I publish this...
There are some rather radical deviations from "standard" D&D fantasy worlds that are quite obvious from the start. Society is based on the Industrial Age instead of the Middle Ages. Towering cities dominate the landscape instead of lots of small villages, and a part of the very life force of their inhabitants is drained to power all sorts of magical wonders and items, making huge crop yields and tightly packed cities possible. Truly, a world of thaumaturgical marvels and wonders...
Yet I was constantly reminding myself that I didn't want to make the setting so exotic that it became hard to grasp for players new to it. I didn't want it to be like, say, Blue Planet - a beautiful and detailed setting that's so hard to summarize that many gaming group shy away from it.
So I made up my mind to only use the rules from the d20 SRD - and next to no additions or substractions. All the monsters and races from the SRD have their place in Urbis, and I've only added new creatures to replace the ecological niches usually occupied by the likes of the mind flayers or yuan-ti (which aren't in the SRD). And I've also used real-world cultures liberally as basis for various regions - for example, the halfling homeland - the Siebenbund - is very obviously based on Switzerland.
I've tried to add enough of the exotic to make the world fun - but enough of the familiar to make the world gameable.
Have I suceeded? You tell me - I still need lots more feedback before I publish this...
Last edited:
MaxKaladin
First Post
I think a big part of the problem is that everyone wants something different but, but what that "something" is turns out to be different for everyone. They don't want everything to change. That would make the setting too unfamiliar when they're looking for the familiar with just enough unfamiliar thrown in to make things more interesting. That makes it really hard to come up with something different that will gather enough fans to make it really successful. The discussion here about races is a good example. We had people who liked the alternate races in AU and those who didn't. Among the latter were those who thought it didn't go far enough while others would probably lose interest if they did go farther in changing the races.
Bendris Noulg
First Post
Consider the thread currently about Dawnforge. One of the posters, when asked to describe the setting, didn't describe it at all. Rather, he cut out a lot of [A] is like in the Realms, and [C] is like [D] in Dragonlance, etc. Every region was given a comparison to another setting rather than being described. Granted, this might have just been a poor choice on the part of the poster (indeed, his camparisons may not be accurate). But like I asked in the thread, what would draw me to a re-hash of campaign elements that were already overdone before 2E was released?
Does it have to be so different as to be "alien" in feel/flavor? No, not at all (though I invite it... Bring on the pulp!). But if the high points of a setting is that it's got similarities with other settings, then why would this be remotely interesting? Iron Kingdoms, Oathbound, Midnight... Each of these has something new to bring into the table, a new twist that, while perhaps not "original", is presented in a manner that creates an original location for adventures to occur. Birthright is very classical fantasy (with a few sacred cows tossed in for no reason other than to not tick people off), but it presents a new facet of the game not seen before (the 2E version of the seeting), that being the aspect of ruling domains in a "you and the land are one" manner akin to the legend of Arthur, and thus (when it was originally released) was a fresh-breath to the game.
Guess people shouldn't expect "too much"; heck, even the Great Flood wasn't original. But there's a definate difference between "let's auto-gen a map, build countries Frankenstein-like from a bunch of overused ideas, and hide the shallowness in lots of kewl powerz giving crunch" and "let's make a plausible setting that isn't 'just like' something else".
On the subject of "niche" settings, I say "bring it on". I would happily buy a one-book campaign setting (aware that there would be no future support unless it just got insanely popular) provided that the flavor is intrigueing/inspiring and the OGC is clearly identified. Heck, I already have such in my collection of material. Necopolis is a good example. A gazatteer, lengthy mini-campaign, well written PI, and lots of new OGC, all in one book. I'd have a book case of stuff like that if it even aimed for the same quality Necromancer delivered. A setting that's presented richly enough to immerse into with minimum effort, undeveloped enough that I can do quite a bit with it, and unsupported as a product line so I never need to worry about someone whining about how I need to update to Necropolis 3.7 so my group gets assimilated by New Sacred Cow of the Year.
Hell, until 2E's mass-production box-sets, one-book start ups were common for Campaign Settings. Grayhawk was a small-book gazetteer (a follow up to Blackmoore, I believe, which was just a tad before my time) that was used to fill in the background material of modules, Dragonlance was a series of 12 modules (War of the Lance, beginning to end-of-the-story-people!!!), Ravenloft was one module, and the Forgotten Realms was fluff material that Ed Greenwood drew from his homebrew world (!!!) to give his Dragon articles a higher word count (or to make up an excuse for where all his Twinkies and Pepsi went).
Does it have to be so different as to be "alien" in feel/flavor? No, not at all (though I invite it... Bring on the pulp!). But if the high points of a setting is that it's got similarities with other settings, then why would this be remotely interesting? Iron Kingdoms, Oathbound, Midnight... Each of these has something new to bring into the table, a new twist that, while perhaps not "original", is presented in a manner that creates an original location for adventures to occur. Birthright is very classical fantasy (with a few sacred cows tossed in for no reason other than to not tick people off), but it presents a new facet of the game not seen before (the 2E version of the seeting), that being the aspect of ruling domains in a "you and the land are one" manner akin to the legend of Arthur, and thus (when it was originally released) was a fresh-breath to the game.
Guess people shouldn't expect "too much"; heck, even the Great Flood wasn't original. But there's a definate difference between "let's auto-gen a map, build countries Frankenstein-like from a bunch of overused ideas, and hide the shallowness in lots of kewl powerz giving crunch" and "let's make a plausible setting that isn't 'just like' something else".
On the subject of "niche" settings, I say "bring it on". I would happily buy a one-book campaign setting (aware that there would be no future support unless it just got insanely popular) provided that the flavor is intrigueing/inspiring and the OGC is clearly identified. Heck, I already have such in my collection of material. Necopolis is a good example. A gazatteer, lengthy mini-campaign, well written PI, and lots of new OGC, all in one book. I'd have a book case of stuff like that if it even aimed for the same quality Necromancer delivered. A setting that's presented richly enough to immerse into with minimum effort, undeveloped enough that I can do quite a bit with it, and unsupported as a product line so I never need to worry about someone whining about how I need to update to Necropolis 3.7 so my group gets assimilated by New Sacred Cow of the Year.
Hell, until 2E's mass-production box-sets, one-book start ups were common for Campaign Settings. Grayhawk was a small-book gazetteer (a follow up to Blackmoore, I believe, which was just a tad before my time) that was used to fill in the background material of modules, Dragonlance was a series of 12 modules (War of the Lance, beginning to end-of-the-story-people!!!), Ravenloft was one module, and the Forgotten Realms was fluff material that Ed Greenwood drew from his homebrew world (!!!) to give his Dragon articles a higher word count (or to make up an excuse for where all his Twinkies and Pepsi went).
Glyfair
Explorer
Bendris Noulg said:
To tell the truth, I think this is somewhat what an setting should do to be original. It's not something new, it's something that's done differently.
Take a classic example. Christmas stories weren't something new & ghost stories weren't something new. However, Dickens combined them into a Christmas ghost story that has stood the test of time. I'm sure at least part of that is that it's a unique combination of elements (that it's well done, by a classic author is a larger part, to be sure).
To me, Eberron is something that fits this bill. The pulps and cliffhangers can make an excellent fantasy setting. It may not be to the taste of some, but it certainly has familiar elements combined in a new fashion.
Turjan
Explorer
Okay, since it was me who made these comparisons, here's just a short answer. Sure, some of the comparisons I made were not completely accurate; unfortunately, the majority were. I don't see anything exciting in an approach, where you take Cormanthor out of the Forgotten Realms, turn the clock back a bit and have the elves still live there ("Dawn Elves"), whereas the Dark Elves (called Night Elves) are not liked by their cousins (this take on the story is admittedly a bit different) and recede to a large cavernous system underneath the forest, where they fell for the tricks of some evil spider goddess (hmm... sounds somewhat familiarBendris Noulg said:
); ah yes, then you rename this to Sildanyr . Okay, there are _some_ original elements here. But anyway, I still believe that my comparison to Cormanthor was by no way a "poor choice", but pretty accurate.I also stick to my verdict, that Dawnforge tries to pick the highlights from numerous successful D&D settings (plus a few other sources like a recent successful fantasy movie
) and mix them to a potpourri, then strips them of a few complaints coming out of the player community; maybe even the DM's will be happy: no more lengthy alignment change explanations anymore, if a player wants to play a good-aligned Drizzt clone . Anyway, I never said Dawnforge was a bad setting. It just isn't original.Which leads me to your question, why anyone wanted to play a re-hash of campaign elements that were already overdone when 2E was released. Layzness, I suppose. You always wanted to play that cool race or a citizen of that cool place in the FR, but your DM didn't allow you to, because this would mean he had to deal with an evil character? No problems now. Leave the FR as they are, take Dawnforge.
It doesn't take that much to make people happy. Sometimes it's the small ideas that are the key to success
.
Afrodyte
Explorer
To answer the original question, for me it seems not so much doing things differently as in "no elves, dwarves, or gnomes" or something like "magic is magic, no divine/arcane split," but changing how the different elements work in the game.
For instance, let's take races. I emphasize races moreso than other elements because it is one of the central aspects of actual play (as opposed to just reading) because it forms (or should form) the main aspect of a character's identity. If it doesn't, then the existence of different races is meaningless (except, maybe, for the case of certain classes like paladins and druids).
Consider the treatment of elves in various settings. I like elves. I'm deeply infatuated with elves. I like the idea of a class of beings so similar to humanity but with 2 major differences: magic and immortality (well, sorta). But I get tired of seeing so many settings rehash the same tired old elf cliches. It seems that the only way people seem to know how to create substantial differences between races is to create subraces. I wouldn't mind this if there were cultural, linguistic, and ideological differences to go along with them, to at least show potential seeds of conflict. But, no. In virtually every setting that features elves, they share the same lifestyles, beliefs, interests, and attitudes; their differences between are cosmetic and mechanical rather than cultural. I concur with this guy when he says, "(The) more ethnic groups you create within your race, the more interesting (and believable) the race will become as a whole. Think how many ethnic groups there are within our own race. Why should fantasy races be any different?" As much as I'd like to see fantasy RPGs move away from Tolkien, this is one element of Tolkien's works that I'd like to see more of: even within so-called races, language and culture creates great diversity.
I think it comes more from not knowing what elves (or any race) are in the context of the setting than anything else. Oftentimes I see settings just describe different aspects of the setting, not really going into any detail about the role it plays in the greater scheme of things. Once again, I hearken to Tolkien. As much as fantasy novels and games are influenced by him, this is one thing I wish they were more careful about. One thing I like about Middle Earth is that, even without Tolkien directly stating it, I saw that each of the Free Peoples had a role unique to them that was reflected in their psychology, attitudes and abilities. However, in many RPG products, you don't get this. At most, you get likes and dislikes and a few attitudes, but no sense of where they come from or why it matters. Usually, these read more like instructions on how an individual player should play an individual character "correctly." You get no sense of what makes an elf and elf, or a dwarf a dwarf, or a gnome a gnome, etc, in any game. You just get . . . data. Without that thematic grounding, the most you can do is play by a bunch of details that don't mean anything to the player in the context of the setting. I can understand why people so often see elves as "humans with pointed ears."
Now let's examine the worlds. Once again, I don't think the problem is medieval fantasy, but doing the same type of medieval fantasy. The basic setup is often so predictable that as soon as you start reading, they jump out at you. You have a continent that is roughly similar to medievel Europe (at least, cosmetically), and the area is divided into a few nations, one of which is obviously the most powerful and influential culturally. Humans are dominant except for isolated enclaves in the forests (elves) or mountains (dwarves), although gnomes and halflings don't have a place to call their own, so they assimilate into human cultures. You have a history that presents a unified cosmology that opens with the creation of the world and describes in so many words how the world came to be what it was. Interestingly, there is no uncertainty, no mystery, no differences of opinion or focus. You often have a special class of people called adventurers, and this status trumps whatever cultural, national, or ideological differences they may have. Playing up these flavorful elements is usually more because of the DM's efforts than anything put forth in the setting.
What I consider different for a setting is creating different patterns or developing different ways to address certain elements. What about a game that centers around a cosmological question and different people's reactions to them? What about a game that addresses the idea of mankind by showing humans as the deviant rather than the norm? How about having cultures that are truly different, with different currency, different belief systems, different languages, and different social structures? Feudalism and monarchies are everywhere these days. How about some clans, tribes, matrilineal societies, democracy, theocracy, or even a meritocracy? The DMG presents a magocracy as a distinct possibility, yet I have never seen a world published that explores that idea. What about worlds that feature varying degrees of magic and technology for various cultures? In such a setting, what about elf cultures that embrace science and technology, and human cultures that embrace magic? Or, if you want to get radical, present a world that is medieval in its attitudes and beliefs as opposed to the fact that people wear chainmail and fight with swords and bows. There is a wealth of potential ideas and themes that can be explored more fully in settings, but rarely do they go beyond the formula.
I think what I'd like to see more than anything else is a new take on old ideas. Of course, I could try to do these myself, but who has the time, and who would be interested?
For instance, let's take races. I emphasize races moreso than other elements because it is one of the central aspects of actual play (as opposed to just reading) because it forms (or should form) the main aspect of a character's identity. If it doesn't, then the existence of different races is meaningless (except, maybe, for the case of certain classes like paladins and druids).
Consider the treatment of elves in various settings. I like elves. I'm deeply infatuated with elves. I like the idea of a class of beings so similar to humanity but with 2 major differences: magic and immortality (well, sorta). But I get tired of seeing so many settings rehash the same tired old elf cliches. It seems that the only way people seem to know how to create substantial differences between races is to create subraces. I wouldn't mind this if there were cultural, linguistic, and ideological differences to go along with them, to at least show potential seeds of conflict. But, no. In virtually every setting that features elves, they share the same lifestyles, beliefs, interests, and attitudes; their differences between are cosmetic and mechanical rather than cultural. I concur with this guy when he says, "(The) more ethnic groups you create within your race, the more interesting (and believable) the race will become as a whole. Think how many ethnic groups there are within our own race. Why should fantasy races be any different?" As much as I'd like to see fantasy RPGs move away from Tolkien, this is one element of Tolkien's works that I'd like to see more of: even within so-called races, language and culture creates great diversity.
I think it comes more from not knowing what elves (or any race) are in the context of the setting than anything else. Oftentimes I see settings just describe different aspects of the setting, not really going into any detail about the role it plays in the greater scheme of things. Once again, I hearken to Tolkien. As much as fantasy novels and games are influenced by him, this is one thing I wish they were more careful about. One thing I like about Middle Earth is that, even without Tolkien directly stating it, I saw that each of the Free Peoples had a role unique to them that was reflected in their psychology, attitudes and abilities. However, in many RPG products, you don't get this. At most, you get likes and dislikes and a few attitudes, but no sense of where they come from or why it matters. Usually, these read more like instructions on how an individual player should play an individual character "correctly." You get no sense of what makes an elf and elf, or a dwarf a dwarf, or a gnome a gnome, etc, in any game. You just get . . . data. Without that thematic grounding, the most you can do is play by a bunch of details that don't mean anything to the player in the context of the setting. I can understand why people so often see elves as "humans with pointed ears."
Now let's examine the worlds. Once again, I don't think the problem is medieval fantasy, but doing the same type of medieval fantasy. The basic setup is often so predictable that as soon as you start reading, they jump out at you. You have a continent that is roughly similar to medievel Europe (at least, cosmetically), and the area is divided into a few nations, one of which is obviously the most powerful and influential culturally. Humans are dominant except for isolated enclaves in the forests (elves) or mountains (dwarves), although gnomes and halflings don't have a place to call their own, so they assimilate into human cultures. You have a history that presents a unified cosmology that opens with the creation of the world and describes in so many words how the world came to be what it was. Interestingly, there is no uncertainty, no mystery, no differences of opinion or focus. You often have a special class of people called adventurers, and this status trumps whatever cultural, national, or ideological differences they may have. Playing up these flavorful elements is usually more because of the DM's efforts than anything put forth in the setting.
What I consider different for a setting is creating different patterns or developing different ways to address certain elements. What about a game that centers around a cosmological question and different people's reactions to them? What about a game that addresses the idea of mankind by showing humans as the deviant rather than the norm? How about having cultures that are truly different, with different currency, different belief systems, different languages, and different social structures? Feudalism and monarchies are everywhere these days. How about some clans, tribes, matrilineal societies, democracy, theocracy, or even a meritocracy? The DMG presents a magocracy as a distinct possibility, yet I have never seen a world published that explores that idea. What about worlds that feature varying degrees of magic and technology for various cultures? In such a setting, what about elf cultures that embrace science and technology, and human cultures that embrace magic? Or, if you want to get radical, present a world that is medieval in its attitudes and beliefs as opposed to the fact that people wear chainmail and fight with swords and bows. There is a wealth of potential ideas and themes that can be explored more fully in settings, but rarely do they go beyond the formula.
I think what I'd like to see more than anything else is a new take on old ideas. Of course, I could try to do these myself, but who has the time, and who would be interested?
Similar Threads
