What's so special about being special?

[Umbran]

Don't you get bored?

I wouldn't. As far as I'm concerned, the most special setting in the world does not mean I'll have an interesting game.

My fun is normally in the plotlines, and character interactions. I can run a bunch of games in the "same-old, same-old" setting, and have each one be different by virtue of who the characters are, and what they choose to do.

 

[EricNoah]

Some people get comfort and pleasure from the routine (I know I do), but others may have eaten the same darned meal so many times that they will just choke on it if they have to take another bite.

I think the ideal setting will have a mix of the routine/cliche (if you will) and the weird/fantastical. That way different players can have something that will satisfy them. Player A who doesn't have the time and likes the ability to say "I'm an elf" and know that everyone at the table gets what that means and doesn't need the DM to describe the orcs and dragons is out for one kind of experience from the game. Player B might want something novel, something different simply because it's fun to try new things, or maybe because it requires something different from him when it comes to roleplaying.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I like my settings to be run-of-the-mill, standard, quasi-Euro-medieval-Tolkienish fantasy. My players and I don't have a lot of time to invest in the game, so we like to be able to sit down and get playing. Reading background material and learning non-standard classes and races isn't for us.

Who says different can't be easy?

Races fit into one of five broad archetypes, generally speaking. Classes fit into four.

If you've got that, you've got more than enough variation for a few years of adventuring fun.

 

[Orius]

I like my settings to be run-of-the-mill, standard, quasi-Euro-medieval-Tolkienish fantasy. My players and I don't have a lot of time to invest in the game, so we like to be able to sit down and get playing. Reading background material and learning non-standard classes and races isn't for us.

Do I need to read 50 pages of setting material to be able to DM the thing? No thanks then. Give me elves and dwarves and wizards and let's go!

It's easier to get into that's for sure. Meeting in the tavern and then going for a crawl in the local dungeon might very well be cliched, but it's also a fast way of getting into the game. It's not too hard to develop a character when nothing is set in stone, whereas long setting descriptions and character backgrounds can be limiting at some point. And some gamers might be satified with just that, as a D&D game is more than just a bunch of dice rolls.

This approach is okay if you're starting a new campaign and everyone isn't interested in anything in particular and justs want to get into the game. That's a bit bare-boned for me, and I prefer my settings to slant a little more toward sword and sorcery rather than high fantasy, but D&D has little trouble handling that. Probably I'd just allow the regular standard class/race combos with one or two extras for a little variety. I'd have a handout describing the setting that's only a page or two long, give them enough information so they can choose where they want to go. Create a few starting locations for a campaign, some small towns with the local dungeon or a big fantasy city depneding on what they want to do, and have a few different cultures for them to sample. About a half dozen thumbnail descriptions of campaign locations should be enough for them to get into a new setting and campaign. Instead of some big overbearing metaplot, just set up a sandbox and let the players dive right in, letting their actions drive the campaign.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm with the OP. Partially.

Sometimes I enjoy a weird non-traditional fantasy jaunt. Sometimes I like Ravenloft's dark horror or Planescape's "fantasy +11" vibe. Sometimes I want something not even fantasy(ish) and end up in Star Wars with lightsabers and rodians (and don't get into how SW is fantasy, its a different bird than D&D fantasy and that's what counts).

HOWEVER

I love having a classic elves/dwarves fighter/wizards game alongside these weird outings. I find I can focus a lot more on the plot and character development in a "boring" game than in some odd concoction where gnomes are 20 feet tall and eat nothing but tar.

So sometimes I might crave the taste for chicken shawarma with falafel & baba ganoosh, but I'm always in the mood for a good cheeseburger.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

It's good that the OP has something that he/she/it/they like. It gets a lot more boring to be searching for something you like and not finding it.

 

[Jhaelen]

I like my settings to be run-of-the-mill, standard, quasi-Euro-medieval-Tolkienish fantasy. My players and I don't have a lot of time to invest in the game, so we like to be able to sit down and get playing. Reading background material and learning non-standard classes and races isn't for us.

Do I need to read 50 pages of setting material to be able to DM the thing? No thanks then. Give me elves and dwarves and wizards and let's go!

Well, I would have stopped playing a long time ago if it hadn't been for different settings. I _hate_ vanilla tolkienesque settings with a vengeance - Forgotten Realms being the worst offender in my book.

I'm a big fan of homebrew settings:
That way no one needs to read anything about the setting:
As the DM everything's in your head (and notes), anyway, and the players learn about your world as they go along. What's more fun than exploring a strange new world?

 

[avin]

I like my settings to be run-of-the-mill, standard, quasi-Euro-medieval-Tolkienish fantasy.

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew!

I'm aware of the numerous tastes about styles, roleplaying, setting, etc on Enworld but the one I find most boring is the tolkien-like games, so I'm not with the OP this time.

I like to create worlds where red haired elves are psionics, ogres and orcs are cousins and dwarves are lumberjackers and don't like under mountains. Things like that.

 

[tuxgeo]

I like my settings to be run-of-the-mill, standard, quasi-Euro-medieval-Tolkienish fantasy. My players and I don't have a lot of time to invest in the game, so we like to be able to sit down and get playing. Reading background material and learning non-standard classes and races isn't for us.
< snip > . . .

So: the Northern thing, then. Icelandic Saga. The earliest recorded mention of people named "Frodo" and "Gandalf."
Another benefit of such settings is the ease of finding old, metal miniatures of those races from Ral Partha and Grenadier and Heritage and Asgard Armoury and whatever else; if your players would like to paint their own minis, Elf/Dwarf-ville is the way to go.
And . . . I'm posting this here in order to not belabor the point with a new thread: "What's so spatial about Spelljammer?"

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I am without a doubt a fan of the non-traditional setting. A large portion of that being I am a fan of tons and tons of different genres, so I tend to combine many of them together which creates more non-traditional feel.

I also find it much easier to make such settings since there is less of a specific precedent so I have room to just go crazy and make a more broad group of plots, NPCs, etc.