What do you want from a fantasy setting? (+)

[Thalaba]

No purpose behind this thread except curiosity and to generate some discussion.

My own taste (currently) steers away from 'traditional' fantasy as it usually seems to be defined. I like to explore the fringes. Some settings I've enjoyed that were a little more off the graph were the setting for Mechanical Dream and Tekumel.

Similarly, I like fantasy settings that are not technologically 'medieval'. This is one of the reasons why the original Runequest has always appealed to me. I also like Jorune.

Thirdly, I like my settings to feel real. This is a hard one to describe - probably what feels 'real' varies from one person to another. For me, this means that the setting must have a plausible rationale behind it, must be internally consistent, and must be fairly detailed. Published settings that feel 'real' to me include The Known World of Artesia and Middle Earth. There are a lot of things about Glorantha that I really admire, but somehow it's always fallen a little short for me on feeling 'real' - I'm not sure why, maybe the names, but there's something. I do find that settings which are 'historically informed' feel more 'real' to me.

Next, I find that I like settings that are serious. Comedic settings don't do much for me.

I don't like settings much which focus on good and evil or similar extremes (although Lord of the Rings would be an exception, I suppose). I prefer if the people in the setting are all kinds of shades of grey. I don't think "because he's evil" should ever be someone's motivation. For me, how 'good' and 'evil' are defined should vary a lot from one culture to the next, from one person to the next, and from one day to the next.

Lastly, I like to explore 'adult themes' (for lack of a better word). I don't want the setting to shy away from horrors, sex, betrayal, sacrifice, culture shock, etc. I want all that stuff in there.

My group is currently playing in my homebrew setting, which captures most of this:

1. It draws on Middle Eastern and Indian myths and history for inspiration.

2. It's technologically late Bronze Age and tries to be historically correct in this regard (although some fudging happens).

3. We have to usual fantasy races - only humans, monsters, or demons.

4. I think that drawing on a lot of historical sources helps the setting feel real. I've also spent a lot of time drawing up the various cultures of the game and giving them myth. Glorantha and Artesia have lent a lot in this regard - each culture has it's own 'what the priest said' type description and this really helps the players bring the cultures alive, IMO. They don't all believe in the same gods, myths, cosmology, physics, or other truths about the world. They disagree on a lot of these things and argue their character's point of view in game. That's really entertaining for me to watch as a GM.

5. I try to introduce morally ambiguous ideas into the game and we've explored such things as racial tensions, domestic abuse, corruption, theological disagreements, grabs for power, and even genocide. At the same time, we've also explored love, pregnancy, etiquette, kindness, and other forms of more interpersonal relationships. Now these, I suppose, are not necessarily a function of the setting, but I think the setting plays a hand in facilitating this kind of game.

Anyway, that's my bag. In ten years I might like something very different. What do the rest of you think? What do you want in a fantasy setting? What about those of you who don't normally go for fantasy - what would it take to get you into a fantasy setting? My curiosity knows no bounds.

Thalaba

[rust]

I rarely design or play fantasy settings. The closest I come to fantasy are (pseudo-) historical

settings where some of the people's fantastic believes about nature and its magic are true.

To give an example, one of the settings I have used with several systems is Asornok. It is a

realm and culture of Inuit like arctic hunters in today's Nunavut region, mainly on Baffin Island.

Most of the Asor tribe's culture is based on the culture of the real world Inuit, with some ideas

which I consider both interesting and plausible added. The Asor believe in the magic of their

anganoka, their female shamans, but what they consider magic is mostly applied psychology

and applied knowledge of nature, and only the fact that they do not understand how it works

makes it "magic".

The neighbours of the Asor are the Greenlanders, the Norse settlers on Greenland, and the re-

lations of the two cultures are the focus of the game: Raids and skirmishes, but also cultural

exchange and occasional love affairs and marriages. The Greenlanders are as historical as I

can describe them with the informations available to me, including their belief in their own kind

of magic, both traditional Norse magic and Christian miracles.

What interests me in such a setting is the "What If", for example what happens when the cha-

racters enter this fictional world and influence it. I do not care who wins what fight or kills what

monster, except if it has consequences for the balance of the two societies and their near and

far future. In a way, I see a setting as a kind of "pseudohistorical experiment" where the indi-

vidual motives and decisions of the characters interact with the setting I designed and change

it one way or the other - I am obviously a simulationist.

I suspect this is why my fantasy settings are never "true fantasy" with all the flash bang magic,

the dualism of good and evil and all that. This is simply not plausible enough for my kind of si-

mulation, it has too many inbuilt simplifications and contradictions to feel real and to develop in

any way I could consider remotely realistic. Of all the published fantasy settings, only some few

were interesting for me, for example Harn and Tekumel, but also the Arthurian world of Pen-

dragon.

[fmitchell]

I do like fantasy, but I'm sick of Tolclones and D&D wannabes: elves, dwarVes, orcs, quadratic magic-users, dungeons, dragons, etc. I prefer low-magic swords-and-sorcery, planetary adventure, historical fantasy, alternate historical fantasy, and non-European settings. In other words, some of the rules cited above:

- PCs and most NPCs are human.

- "Demihumans" are rare or nonexistent; those who do exist almost never interact with humans, and might even be incomprehensible or implacably hostile to humanity.

- PCs more time with political intrigue, investigations, and exploration and less in dungeon delves and monster hunts.

- Magic isn't simply "point and chant": maybe it's a chaotic and corrupting force (e.g. Warhammer), or a subtle and pervasive force (e.g. RuneQuest), or a supplication to greater powers, or hour(s)-long ritual, or mystically enhanced martial arts ... something other than a man in a pointy cap conjuring fireballs.

- The world isn't recycled from Tolkien, or even Howard; its authors did historical and literary research and/or built their world from distinctly different principles.

Examples of games and worlds that meet my criteria: Glorantha, Barbarians of Lemuria, Tekumel (not my cup of tea, but original), Shadows of Yesterday, Pendragon, and Reign. Honorable mentions to Warhammer Fantasy, which took D&D elements and created an anti-D&D, and GURPS Banestorm, which at least explains why medieval humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, goblins, and reptilemen all live on the same world.

[GianniVacca]

As the OP wrote: I like my settings to feel real. This is a hard one to describe... Indeed hard to describe

[rust]

As the OP wrote: I like my settings to feel real. This is a hard one to describe... Indeed hard to describe

A setting feels real to me when it has no obvious contradictions and its people base their deci-

sions on plausible interests and motives and use all the means available to their cultures - not

just warfare, but also diplomacy, economic means and so on.

If people act in this way, there is no simple black and white, there are many shades of grey and

the simplistic extremes remain exceptions. The enemy leader will prefer an annual tribute to a

war and only go to war if the tribute is not paid, a famine is more likely to cause a raid into a

wealthy neighbour's lands than any religious differences, and so on.

Another point important to me could be described as "Murphy's Law in history", those unfore-

seen events and developments that disturb or destroy plans and make the difference between

a constructed plot and a realistic one.

For example, the Mongols retreated from Europe's borders because their leader back in Mon-

golia died, Napoleon's abilities as a strategist were reduced by the stomach cancer that ruined

his health, the Japanese embassy in Washington blundered and delivered the declaration of war

after the Pearl Harbour attack, and so on.

[samwise7]

I don't want any humans in my fantasy setting. I like weird non-standard races (I've had my fill of Elves, Dwarves, etc.)

[Thalaba]

What interests me in such a setting is the "What If", for example what happens when the cha-

racters enter this fictional world and influence it. I do not care who wins what fight or kills what

monster, except if it has consequences for the balance of the two societies and their near and

far future. In a way, I see a setting as a kind of "pseudohistorical experiment" where the indi-

vidual motives and decisions of the characters interact with the setting I designed and change

it one way or the other - I am obviously a simulationist.

That setting sounds quite interesting. Simulationist would be a good word for me, too I guess. It's probably what draws a lot of us to BRP.

I suspect this is why my fantasy settings are never "true fantasy" with all the flash bang magic,

the dualism of good and evil and all that. This is simply not plausible enough for my kind of si-

mulation, it has too many inbuilt simplifications and contradictions to feel real and to develop in

any way I could consider remotely realistic. Of all the published fantasy settings, only some few

were interesting for me, for example Harn and Tekumel, but also the Arthurian world of Pen-

dragon.

Hmm - this is an issue of semantics, maybe. You say you're settings are "never 'true' fantasy with all the flash bang magic etc." but I reject the notion that those things define 'true fantasy'. I'll grant that they're a very popular form of fantasy, but I think there's room for a lot of different kinds of fantasy.

And yes, Harn - I'd forgotten about that one. I really like that one, too.

I- PCs and most NPCs are human.

- "Demihumans" are rare or nonexistent; those who do exist almost never interact with humans, and might even be incomprehensible or implacably hostile to humanity.

- PCs more time with political intrigue, investigations, and exploration and less in dungeon delves and monster hunts.

- Magic isn't simply "point and chant": maybe it's a chaotic and corrupting force (e.g. Warhammer), or a subtle and pervasive force (e.g. RuneQuest), or a supplication to greater powers, or hour(s)-long ritual, or mystically enhanced martial arts ... something other than a man in a pointy cap conjuring fireballs.

- The world isn't recycled from Tolkien, or even Howard; its authors did historical and literary research and/or built their world from distinctly different principles.

Examples of games and worlds that meet my criteria: Glorantha, Barbarians of Lemuria, Tekumel (not my cup of tea, but original), Shadows of Yesterday, Pendragon, and Reign. Honorable mentions to Warhammer Fantasy, which took D&D elements and created an anti-D&D, and GURPS Banestorm, which at least explains why medieval humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, goblins, and reptilemen all live on the same world.

I'll subscribe to your newsletter. Reign and Warhammer Fantasy are two more I like - and that despite the fact that Warhammer bends or breaks at least three of my 'rules'. I'm not really familiar with BOL. When it first came out it was pdf only so I ignored it. For some reason I'm under the impression that the BOL game world is only very lightly described. Would you say it's evocative? That reminds me of another setting which IS lightly described, but very atmospheric - The Dictionary of Mu - which I enjoyed.

Another point important to me could be described as "Murphy's Law in history", those unfore-

seen events and developments that disturb or destroy plans and make the difference between

a constructed plot and a realistic one.

That's a pretty good effort at describing realism. Regarding this latter point about 'unforseen events', is this not rather a function of GM style (being willing to let the dice fall how they may) rather than a function of setting? Although granted the GM's style would have a lot to do with how much players enjoy the setting. I guess it's a question of 'interpreatation' of the setting, rather than 'presentation' of the setting.

I don't want any humans in my fantasy setting. I like weird non-standard races (I've had my fill of Elves, Dwarves, etc.)

So, other than that, pretty much anything goes?

[Bygoneyrs]

Hmmm in my campaign players can play only Humans, Serface Dwarves (living in a mostly human society) or Halflings. Now Elves are Fae and are a NPC only race. I also use Giants, and many other monsters as well too, but they are all considered as NPC or Monster races for me. I usually set my campaign in a country that I have designed called Jhorgule where I have based my campaign over the last 25 + yrs as the setting. I set the culture as human mostly culture in a Knight and shinning armor setting, with loads of politics to play off of. The players are 3rd sons of some nobel and serve the Crown and Kingdom. I play up religion alot, the old ways used the older gods...Norse/Celtic flavor, and fight the new religion of "Und" a single god based off of Christian church with Saints and Angels that do the Gods bidding vs a fallen fallen one "Ullrich" and Demons that do his bidding.

Actually I do alot of things differently using Holy Points for religious folk, and Mana points for spell casters. I add in many different elements and try to hype up Roleplaying and problem solving, as well as a good old monster hunt too. I look to have fun and have my players have fun too.

Penn

[Bygoneyrs]

For me I design NPC or monster races based off of a pic such as this. To me there is a great range of high mountains, and this works out nicely for a race of Yeti. Mostly a large creature with very simple culture with primitive tool use and primitive language. It makes for a nasty villian that come out of the high mountain ranges from time to time and cause all sorts of issues. It is different than standard Orcs or Ogres, but adds more flavor and fluff to the game making it alot more fun.

Penn

[Daxos232]

lol Thalaba I'm designing a setting similar to what your describing. I wanted to make a customized world and I only have the BRP book and Runequest 2 core rulebook. Neither of which have a defined setting so I picked out the rules i wanted from the two and have been working on the setting. I was going for a bronze age setting with the use of iron just recently discovered. I'm hoping when I finish to be able to put it in the downloads section for free. I've been working on it for 2 months now.

[rust]

Regarding this latter point about 'unforseen events', is this not rather a function of GM style (being willing to let the dice fall how they may) rather than a function of setting?

I think the history of a setting, the description how it came to be as it is now, is a very impor-

tant part of a setting, and this history should include a number of "unforseen events" to make

the setting feel real.

The mighty emperor who leads his army into enemy lands, but dies of a pneumonia after a

bath in a cold river, which causes his mighty army to disperse and return home as if defeated

in battle, adds the kind of colour and depth to a setting that I consider realistic.

But such events should in my view also be a part of the rules used for the background events

of a living, plausible setting - unpredictable good and bad events that happen without any in-

volvement of the characters and demonstrate that the world would keep turning even without

them.

Whether it is a famine or an excellent harvest, an epidemic or the discovery of a new medicine,

the death of a king or the birth of a prince, is less important than the event's total independen-

ce from the activities of the characters and their inability to influence most of those events, al-

though they might have to deal with the event's consequences.

"You need a horse for your trip to Nan Madol ? - Well, the sailors from An Ashok brought the

Purple Plague to our coast two months ago, and it killed many of our horses. You better buy

a mule, because the border guards of Nan Madol will surely turn you away if you come ri-

ding on a horse that might carry the Purple Plague to their lands."

[Atgxtg]

One of my favorite "unforseen events" was in Megazone 23. Someone crashes through the wall of a building and winds up in...space.

Makes a great bit for a RPG.

[Thalaba]

I usually set my campaign in a country that I have designed called Jhorgule where I have based my campaign over the last 25 + yrs as the setting. Penn

That's a long time! So has the campaign world changed much over all that time as you've changed, or would you say it has stayed the same? Was your taste different when you started?

The political aspect (at least on the level of a kingdom) is something I've never really done. It seems to me like a unique challenge, and something I struggle with a bit. I find that the players sometimes come into a foreign land on a quest and often the first thing they want to so is have an audience with the local king to elicit his help. I struggle with this because I think it would be unrealistic. Getting that audience ought to take a lot of politicking, and getting the requested help even more. Got any advice for a noob on how to run politics?

Your religion set-up reminds me of the one in Artesia. Do you get clashes between old and new religions?

I like to make sure the creatures we have are new and interesting, too. Sure, we face a few old standards, but I either put them into a place where they are totally in context or I give them a twist to make them fit the context.

[Thalaba]

lol Thalaba I'm designing a setting similar to what your describing....I've been working on it for 2 months now.

Cool! I look forward to seeing it, then. Mine's probably about three years old and continues to grow every week as the players explore new places I never thought they would go and ask questions I never thought they would ask.

I think the history of a setting, the description how it came to be as it is now, is a very impor-

tant part of a setting, and this history should include a number of "unforseen events" to make

the setting feel real...

But such events should in my view also be a part of the rules used for the background events

of a living, plausible setting - unpredictable good and bad events that happen without any in-

volvement of the characters and demonstrate that the world would keep turning even without

them.

This is a really interesting point (and good examples). Are you advocating for lists of random events to be included with published settings? That never occured to me before, but it sounds like a great idea. I can't think of any published settings that I've seen that have this, but I really like it.

[rust]

Are you advocating for lists of random events to be included with published settings? That never occured to me before, but it sounds like a great idea. I can't think of any published settings that I've seen that have this, but I really like it.

Some systems have such random event tables. Examples would be Harnmaster, the AD&D

Birthright setting or Mongoose Runequest Empires.

I use such tables as inspirations for the tables I write for my settings, tailored to the speci-

fic setting in order to create "historical" events that fit into the campaign. Such tables work

best if they are modified every now and then, deleting events that already took place in or-

der to avoid implausible repetitions and adding new events based upon the way the cam-

paign has developed in the meantime.

For example, if the Duke of Marbath has died of a fever, his heir was killed in a riding acci-

dent a year later, and now his brother drowned in a shipwreck, it is time to give the family

a break and remove the "Sudden death in Marbath's ruling family" event from the list for a

couple of years - or use these random events for an adventure, for example with the charac-

ters secretly hired by the new young duke to investigate the strange series of deaths.

[Bygoneyrs]

When I work on "plot lines" for my campaign, I don't leave it up to chance and some random chart. I sit and think about what I as the DM/GM would like to have or had happen to flush out what ever I needed for my plots developement. I am sorry but to often over the years I have heard of DM/GMs that seem to not do their own homework or planning and want to use some other "tool" to think for themselves to get some things decided or planned. I don't like that and for me half of the fun is working out the details to all this fluff stuff and seeing it all come together to make a completed plotline for my own campaign. Now all I can say is maybe I have been doing this all so long (DM/GMing) that is is like second nature to me and I no longer give it a second thought. I enjoy the planning and design, I make the time to design what ever it is that I might need, and if ever I get to something durring game play that I do not have flushed out...I am very good at "Winging It". I take good notes and go back and flush out what is needed so I can wrap it all intogether and flush it all out, for future reference if need be.

Just my 2 cents for whatever that is worth...

Penn

[rust]

When I work on "plot lines" for my campaign, I don't leave it up to chance and some random chart.

A roleplaying referee, like any writer, has a certain personal style, and very few of us are good

enough authors to write more than a few setting histories and plot lines that are fresh and ori-

ginal - after a while the players will know a referee's "handwriting", and his stories will become

predictable, with fewer and fewer surprises for his long time players.

One way to prevent this is to include ideas and events from other sources, and preferably ones

that are determined randomly and not chosen by the referee according to his style and taste.

This forces the referee to try something new, hopefully something his players would not have

expected.

[Bygoneyrs]

I go with the plot style that just about anything can and is a new plot to pursue. My players hate me because of that, since the plots they skip aways come around and bite them in the butt in the future and I find a way to let them know it as well too<VBG>!

Keep them all guessing..plots within plots within plots

Penn

Edited March 10, 2010 by Bygoneyrs

[threedeesix]

When I work on "plot lines" for my campaign, I don't leave it up to chance and some random chart.

I like random charts, and so do my players. Random charts let the players know that it's their world as well as mine. That if they go tromping around through the woods, they may encounter a wild bear, not because I decided to throw a bear at them, but because they just happened upon a wild bear.

I am sorry but to often over the years I have heard of DM/GMs that seem to not do their own homework or planning and want to use some other "tool" to think for themselves to get some things decided or planned.

Speaking as someone who writes up random encounters and events for all his campaigns. It's far harder to do that than to just decide on one or two events to throw against the party, as I'm writing up several that may not even be used until much later in the campaign, if at all. This goes for yearly world events as well. You make it sound like if I roll that "a massive meteor crashes into a region of the game world and spreads a plague of chaos through the realm", I was too lazy a GM to come up with the idea myself. When in actuality, I would use it as a springboard and flesh it out further, taking as long as it would have in the first place. But in addition to that, I came up with the random table and detailed all of the possible events, far from taking the easy way out.

I'm not saying that I don't agree with your method of play, just that mine still forces the GM to "think for themselves". And as I come up with all the charts and tables myself, is actually harder than just deciding what happens.

Rod

Edited March 10, 2010 by threedeesix

[Atgxtg]

Random charts are tools. Nothing more.

Using them can add spice and send adventures off in directions that the GM never would have considered or prepared for. That is often a good thing, as it keeps the plots from getting into a rut.

I remember years back, I was rolling up a village for D&D. The dice were rolling poorly and all the villagers were low level, nothing above 2nd, except for the 12 level fighter (!!) I rolled (dice are random). Now my first impulse was to toss this out and reroll, but instead I opted to keep the 12 level fighter and flesh him out a bit to explain why such a seasoned warrior was living at this village.

In the end I came up with a retired old soldier who settled down in the village, when aging took his STR down below the point where he could use most of his combat feats. The locals thought he was rich. He ended up becoming the most used contact for the PCs.

So charts & tables can be a good thing. As long as they are used creatively. If something "whacky" comes up, it might be worth thinking out how or why it could be that way. The result could be a richer campaign.

[Bygoneyrs]

I am sorry Rod I didn't mean to make it sound so negative, I just like to see DM/GMs plan things out more themselves. I don't like random anything but then that is all my style. It works for me though, because all my players have remained playing within my campaigns now for between 13-15 yrs and I have (7) total players. I run two different campaigns every other week, one is Traveller based and the other is Fantasy based.

Penn

[threedeesix]

I am sorry Rod I didn't mean to make it sound so negative, I just like to see DM/GMs plan things out more themselves. I don't like random anything but then that is all my style. It works for me though, because all my players have remained playing within my campaigns now for between 13-15 yrs and I have (7) total players. I run two different campaigns every other week, one is Traveller based and the other is Fantasy based.

Penn

No problem Penn, I didn't mean for my response to seem so "defensive", and it didn't until I re-read it. I too have a long time loyal group. Two members have been players in campaigns of mine since 1978. The other four joined over time, one drafted through marriage. However, I can't say that I have had a single campaign last more than 4 or 5 years, and usually considerably shorter.

Rod

Edited March 10, 2010 by threedeesix

[Bygoneyrs]

Hey sometimes my fingers type things my mind wasn't saying...LOL...or is it visa versa...LMAO! If ever I type something "strongly" just slap me with a "fish" and tell me I am being to "strong willed" and I will shut up...LOL! I can be a "block-head" at times....plus I have "lots" of typos, AND I can't spell to save my LIFE<g>!

Penn

[cjbowser]

I used to be a big "random tables suck" kind of guy (with the exception of Rolemaster Critical Hit Tables :shocked: ). However, I now like the way random tables can get me to think about the same-old, same-old in new and different ways. I was playing around with the random tables in the GW Stormbringer book last year and they really helped me shape what I was working on at the time.

So now I am very much a fan of tightly woven plots greatly augmented by random tables.

[Eisenmann]

I like playing in Middle Earth. I like fantasy that's got bog standard elements that have descended from Middle Earth. I like Swords & Sorcery. I like stuff that is completely different. I like settings that, as has been already said, feel real with an internal consistency with room to make adventure.

cjbowser, same here about random tables. These days I play with the Mythic GM Emulator. The random tables enhance the game by enhance spontaneity.