How "different" does a new setting have to be?

[Geoffrey]

I really like the following worlds:

Tekumel (the world of Empire of the Petal Throne)
Talislanta
Umbragia
Diamond Throne (Arcana Unearthed)
Jorune

Admittedly, all these are niche products. What type of non-traditional fantasy world could succeed widely?

A fantasy version of Earth.

All PCs are humans and all the Earth's mythologies and legends are true. Stat everything. Such a world would be VERY different from the published norm: Races, classes, magic, and monsters would all be different from the D&D default. BUT they would all be familiar, since they would all be drawn from our own planet's myths and legends.

IMO, anyway.

 

[Turjan]

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.

Right. That's the approach I prefer myself. That's why I liked Dark Sun .

"(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?"

Hehe, yes. I agree with you that this is still one of the major problems within D&D. If a character of a nonhuman race likes to wear a different necklace from the standard race, they create a new race.

I can understand why people so often see elves as "humans with pointed ears."

You forgot the snotty attitude . I still think that the PHB elves are a big misconception. And this in several different ways. Both things you mentioned with elves, near immortality and affinity for magic, are somewhat void, because this high starting age is not playable and doesn't make sense, and because elves have been stripped of their affinity for magic for the sake of the "give everything to everyone" attitude that makes up the very core of D&D3E. There are better choices for magic users than elves nowadays.

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?

I think, to get "your" type of fantasy, you have to stick to homebrew. At least, I try to achieve these things there.

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?

Hehe, I'm always interested in campaign worlds, because I like to see different takes on old themes. Btw, in my homebrew I tried to achieve that by _reducing_ the number of races. My elves are a mix of elven, gnomish and dwarvish traits, with different cultures who might despise each other, but are all sure to be "elves" as opposed to humans. I made a similar summation of orcs and goblinoids, who sport lots of different nations, tribes, clans and cultures, too. Sure, you will find several stereotypes in this mix, but they are not as rigid as in standard D&D. You wouldn't like it, though . My elves don't get particularly old - if they don't want to go the lossy path of fey .

 

[Acid_crash]

Hello to all, my first post on these boards.

I like different settings myself, as I can only speak about myself. To me, Greyhawk, FR, Dragonlance, are all just plain boring, especially GH. I know they are the first, and original, and maybe that's why everybody compares current settings to those old mainstays which have survived for countless years. I am a new breed I guess when I can stand back, see what they have to offer, then look and see what the new settings have to offer me. Loyalty to the old is fine and good, but the three I list above are, and this is just me, the same kind of game in different worlds. I toss Scarred Lands into that group also, but like I said its just me. And before anybody tells me how different they are I already know that key differences they have, but their feel to me is the same...complete boredom.

Then I look at Midnight, Dark Sun, Planescape, Dawn Forge, Diamond Throne (Arcana Unearthed), Oathbound, Iron Kingdoms...to me, they are just plain cool. I realize that of all these Dawn Forge is most similar to GH, FR, and DL, but it has this cool factor to it that would actually get me to play it. I will also get Eberron because it just seems cool. These feel to me just like kickbutt settings that really can grab me and my limited attention.

After all this rambling, the only conclusion is that everybody likes different things for their own reasons, and everybody should play what makes them happiest.

 

[Wormwood]

A fantasy version of Earth.

All PCs are humans and all the Earth's mythologies and legends are true. Stat everything. Such a world would be VERY different from the published norm: Races, classes, magic, and monsters would all be different from the D&D default. BUT they would all be familiar, since they would all be drawn from our own planet's myths and legends.

Wow.

Just imagining the flame wars such a project would produce makes me drool with anticipation.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Wow, what a cool thread! This is a subject that interests me a great deal, not just because I've done a fair amount of design work for campaign settings in 3E, but also because I am interested in jumping over to novels sooner or later. I've worked on a forthcoming Forgotten Realms book, several Oathbound books, and some of my own stuff.

Personally I like a variety of different game styles. I like high magic, low magic, in-between magic, high fantasy, gritty, and alien. Yes, I like it all, and what's more is that I want the ability to switch between them in the same campaign without messing up the continuity of the campaign. Yeah, I want the impossible and I know it.

Without talking about the Forgotten Realms (the book I worked on isn't out until August, so maybe we can talk about that one once it's released), I can talk somewhat about Oathbound and my own homebrew. The first, most striking difference is that they're almost diametric opposites. My homebrew is called "Galovinius" and is essentially fairly low magic and the campaign style somewhat emulates the swashbuckling heroics and political intrigue of the four musketeers. Occasionally I dig up some major magic or a BBEG to throw at the party, but in this world the characters spend quite a bit of the time caught up in some sort of big political power play. In the last campaign the characters started out by trashing a kobold stronghold, spent some time tracing the sale of lotus extract (highly illegal in my world) back to its source and by the end of the campaign (skipping several key elements) a bannished god was killed and the silver elves (essentially the albino elves of my world) ended up subjugated by the main empire of this world due to their aggression. The next campaign that starts up in a week takes off where this one left off. Now the silver elves will once again be unhappy with the empire, and they will make alliances to try to win their freedom. Some of their new allies will be good and others will not be. I could go on and on about this, but I call it good here.

The other campaign setting that I've been involved with developing in one form or another since late 2001 is Oathbound. Oathbound is almost the opposite of my homebrew. Where the main PC races in Galovinius are humans, elves, and dwarves, in Oathbound there are species aplenty that are drawn from a number of worlds. Where my home campaign is low magic, Oathbound is very specifically high magic. I suppose the political complexity is there in both settings, which is one of the reasons Oathbound continues to interest me, but it isn't about promoting the stability of an empire for the benefit of the million or so people that live there, but rather characters getting caught up in various types of power plays. With Galovinius I always design things relatively conservatively, keeping with many established fantasy conventions where with Oathbound I try to push the limits and be as original as I possibly can - I've been guilty of a liberal use of tentacled creatures in the past. The nice thing about Oathbound is that you can pull in any element from any campaign setting and make it work in this world. Likewise, you can take a few elements from Oathbound and craft an entire campaign world around them. Also, because its a capstone setting, your characters can come to the setting, play here for a while, and then leave. Or, if the group really likes it, they can run the entire campaign exclusively in the setting.

One of my favorite campaign settings of all time is Spelljammer. It includes many elements that I enjoy - lots of "aliens", a swashbuckling adventure style, and the ability to add some elements that are normally strictly science fiction. I ran an adventure in one campaign where a monstrous race was towing an enormous asteroid towards the Forgotten Realms with the intention of smashing it down on them in an obvious effort to destroy the world. I had another where the party's ship was captured by illithids and they had to bust their way out of a gold mine asteroid and reclaim their ship and their gear armed with nothing more than pick axes.

So how different do I want it? I suppose different enough that I can identify where the distinguishing differences are. If I'm in the mood for a traditional fantasy game, I usually go to either the Forgotten Realms or Galovinius since I know them both pretty well. If I want something really out there, its Oathbound or Spelljammer. Like someone mentioned earlier, what I don't like is when they create the standard D&D races with different names. Why not just say that the elves, dwarves, etc. in this world fill X niches?

What do I want in a new campaign setting? I want something that supports a classic style of play and has an interesting twist. I want to be able to run a dungeon bash adventure followed by ... whatever else that is unique to this setting.

Of course the topic that hasn't been addressed yet is different genres. I definitely like the post apocalyptic and the space opera genres. For that reason I'm a big fan of RPG Obects' Darwin's World as well as the Babylon 5 RPG. Both settings enable me to tell completely different types of stories in completely different universes.

 

[Afrodyte]

Right. That's the approach I prefer myself. That's why I liked Dark Sun .Hehe, yes. I agree with you that this is still one of the major problems within D&D. If a character of a nonhuman race likes to wear a different necklace from the standard race, they create a new race.You forgot the snotty attitude .

I didn't. I just edited it out before I posted. I don't think the text box allows that many characters.

I still think that the PHB elves are a big misconception. And this in several different ways. Both things you mentioned with elves, near immortality and affinity for magic, are somewhat void, because this high starting age is not playable and doesn't make sense, and because elves have been stripped of their affinity for magic for the sake of the "give everything to everyone" attitude that makes up the very core of D&D3E. There are better choices for magic users than elves nowadays.

As do I, and when I get around to it, I may just rewrite them. I won't go into "they live in trees and are aloof towards other races" mode, but try to think about how they think and their psychology. I made up some different elf cultures (no different stats), and they are pretty different from each other. I'll try to PM or email them to you. I'm working, on and off, on creating something that more firmly establishes that magical affinity and immortality. In fact, I came up with a fey racial class that can emulate elves quite nicely. But racial classes are not well-liked. I may have to redesign the basic race set-up so that I can give a few more bonuses without stressing so much, or having to do this see-saw thing with ability adjustments and racial traits. The basic idea I'm toying with is that each race gets a bonus to a stat (predetermined) that can potentially start out higher than 18. Humans get a +2 to any stat, but even with the bonus, the max is 18. I'm also reworking some of the racial traits to allow more versatility but toning down some areas (like racial weapon proficiencies). If I really set my mind to it, I'd have it more like d20 Modern where you get occupational packages too. But, in lieu of occupation, you'd have things like this: race (innate abilities), upbringing (some learned abilities), and class (vocational/occupational abilities).

I've rewritten gnomes too. Strange for me, considering I never gave them much thought until now. Rather than just little pranksters with a penchant for tinkering and illusions, I made them the very spirits of genius. It goes a bit deeper than that, but it's the idea guiding everything I did with it.

I think, to get "your" type of fantasy, you have to stick to homebrew. At least, I try to achieve these things there. Hehe, I'm always interested in campaign worlds, because I like to see different takes on old themes. Btw, in my homebrew I tried to achieve that by _reducing_ the number of races. My elves are a mix of elven, gnomish and dwarvish traits, with different cultures who might despise each other, but are all sure to be "elves" as opposed to humans. I made a similar summation of orcs and goblinoids, who sport lots of different nations, tribes, clans and cultures, too. Sure, you will find several stereotypes in this mix, but they are not as rigid as in standard D&D.

I can dig this. I agree that reducing the number of races is a good start. I think it cuts down on repetition. It makes each race unique.

 

[Turjan]

I made up some different elf cultures (no different stats), and they are pretty different from each other. I'll try to PM or email them to you.

I'd really appreciate that, thanks ! Unfortunately, I only have handwritten records, and they are not in English, either. But I'll try to type a short translation of some main aspects .

 

[Mach2.5]

When I say that I look for a capaign setting to be 'different', I don't simply mean that the setting simply introduces a small twist element to a race, class, or culture. When I want different, I want something that I myself would have never before imagined. I most enjoy settings that are as far left of center as you can get. To heck with relying on familiarity. I can come up with my own homebrews based on what I am already familiar with. The settings I've most enjoyed were Jorune, Dark Sun, Shadow World, Deep Blue . . . these were all cut from a different mold, not just a retooling of the same old elements (been tracking down Talislantia material since it seems to fit with what I'm looking for as well). Don't simply put a slight spin on the old and the overused and repackage it wholesale. Slight twists are what I will do to the setting to make it work for me anyhow. If its possible, when describing a setting to someone to say "Well, its like (insert setting), but there's a twist . . . (explain twist).", then I really don't want anything to do with it except to purchase the product from a collector's standpoint.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

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.

(...)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."

I've done some work to explain the nature of the various "standard" races within the context of Urbis. You can read the essay here. Please tell me if that's what you are looking for - I tried to make the "normal" races as interesting as possible.

Preferably without adding any new elven subraces...

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.

I've been trying to get away from with this Urbis - in the end, it's not medieval fantasy, but pseudo-industrial fantasy, if that's making any sense...

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.

I'm trying to avoid that, too - the origin of the universe of Urbis is a mystery, although there many, many theories. In general, the universe works according to some rough analogies of our "Laws of Nature", with magic thrown into the mix - and like modern-day physics, nobody has a good idea how everything really started. And the gods are more like "astral parasites" that feed on the emotions of sapients than true Creator Deities that existed since the beginning of time (and I'm currently pondering the idea that the more powerful a deity becomes, the less sapient it is, until all that's left is an abstract force that only displays intelligent behaviour if its worshippers project some onto it...).

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.

While mages as such aren't necessarily the ruler of any given city-state in Urbis (no more so than the military rules any given country in our world, the existence of
Nexus Towers means that wizardly powers are absolutely vital for the economic prosperity, defense, and very survival of the cities - and as such, wizards are firmly embedded in the local power structure everywhere.

Societies that decide to kick all wizards out rarely last long, as they suddenly become defenseless before their neighbors...

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?

Well, I'm working on it, and I'd love to hear your comments...

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

If its possible, when describing a setting to someone to say "Well, its like (insert setting), but there's a twist . . . (explain twist).", then I really don't want anything to do with it except to purchase the product from a collector's standpoint.

I'd summarize Urbis like this:

"It takes D&D magic to its logical conclusion.

Oh, and it has some really big cities, too... "

How's that for a sales pitch?