I thought this subtopic on black orcs deserved its own thread, as its unrelated to the main topic. I think it's obvious that D&D is more popular than other RPGs -- that's not interesting. I'd prefer to focus for what has worked for people in practice.

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 27, 2024, 12:03:43 PMThe pattern I've seen in my time with the RPG world is that there is a demand for more out-there and creative concepts, but they have a hard time sticking. You see complaints like Chris' (with which I hugely sympathize) all the time. I believe there's even a TV Tropes entry for "my elves are different". Most DMs go through a phase of trying to make their homebrew settings as unlike classic D&D as possible, but inevitably they always go back to the Tolkien/Gygax standards after a while.

I tend to attribute this to the limitations of the medium. I'm sure I've said this before, but the big difficulty with RPG world-building is getting 4-6 people around the table to all imagine close enough to the same thing. If as a DM you try to describe things to your players that they aren't already familiar with, you up the chances of confusion at the table, and increase the amount of game time you have to spend on exposition. When non-standard fantasy settings are successful, it's usually by importing other extremely well known tropes from horror, scifi or history.

Quote from: SHARK on June 27, 2024, 02:35:30 PMTalislanta was absolutely creative, fresh, and very much *not* in the traditional, Tolkien bubble. But you know what? Exactly. My players were momentarily intrigued--but ultimately, they balked at Talislanta. Why? Not identifiable. Too many weirdly coloured races, strange animal races, offbeat, mystical religions. They simply could not get into it.

Hell, you don't even have to imagine a Fantasy world to get that kind of rejection. NYAMBE, an awesome D&D game setting for 3E, was entirely set in an African-like setting. You could, of course, make Nyambe part of any world you desired. You could run entire campaigns with Nyambe Characters, set in the Nyambe setting. Very innovative, creative, and different.

Nyambe also *failed* pretty hard. The Ars Magica company, the Nephew people, the owners, originally embraced publishing Nyambe with lots of fanfare and applause. Within a year or two, Nyambe was unplugged and died. Why? Lack of sales. No one wanted to buy Nyambe or play games in Nyambe. They did Nyambe up good, too. Hardcover book, full colour, maps, great layout, all the good stuff. Yes, I bought it cheerfully. Fantastic book, awesome options, creativity, and all the while being *different*--while also familiar, as it was D&D. Still, sadly, Nyambe failed.

I'm not familiar with Talislanta, but it's been a very successful line. I've played plenty of other non-D&D fantasy, like Ars Magica, Amber Diceless, Harnmaster, historical (and alt-historical) fantasy, and others.

I also bought Nyambe, but I didn't find it very playable out of the box. There is no sample adventure, and no sample PCs. There is a 6-page GM-only "secrets" section, but many of the things listed as "adventure hooks" are mostly high-level motives for adventure like a war between two countries, but not a fleshed-out adventure hook (i.e. what do the PCs do about the war).

I think the bigger issue is that it tries to bite off too much at once. There are probably fifty new core words to play the game - new core races like Ngoloko and Unthlatu, new core classes like Gamba and N'anga, a dozen countries, plus new equipment, monsters, etc. I think Chris Donut did a tremendous job of creating a detailed world, but he didn't bridge it well to be accessible.

Things that have worked for me include:

1) Reduce new terminology and concepts. Using an existing system and/or keep new weird options limited. Spears of the Dawn only has 5 countries and 4 classes, which is simpler than Nyambe's 12 countries and 16 classes.

2) Reduce the scope of the game. If it is a very different setting, instead of covering the whole continent shallowly, I'll keep adventures within a small territory or city. It helps to keep adventures centered on a narrow home base.

3) Mixing in some familiar elements with the unfamiliar can be a bridge. I haven't picked up the Pundit's Silk Road material yet, but it seems like a good opportunity to have a mix of European and Central Asian elements. The Silk Road stuff had supplements unlike Arrows of Indra, so I'd guess it aroused greater interest. I did similar with my old Vikings & Skraelings campaign, about alternate-history 1300s northeastern America with vikings - so PCs were mostly Nordic but were interacting with a lot of Algonquian and Iroquoian peoples.

4) Even if many/most of the setting pieces are wholly unfamiliar, using a known genre can help give context. Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies is a weird floating-island steampunk world, but using swashbuckling stereotypes and tropes helps make it easier to play.


I'd be curious about how people might have done similar in their games, or other strategies they've used to play unfamiliar settings/cultures.

I was ultimately unsuccessful in trying to convince my regular group of players to try Coriolis when we were looking into a new space opera game. They didn't necessarily object to the system--it was the "Arabian Nights in Space" vibe that didn't win them over. Thankfully everyone enjoyed Twilight Imperium enough to try Genesys/Embers of the Imperium, because I had already told them I'd be sitting out if the group decision went back to Star Wars.

I think it's something of a chicken and egg situation. It's hard to get people to play something in a drastically different setting without supporting material and adventures, but the supporting material adventures likely won't be economically viable if the game doesn't have many players.

Spears of the Dawn was definitely simpler, but I felt it was still rather sketchy. I might be in the minority, but a bunch of random tables aren't terribly helpful when the setting is so different. (The same applies to Pundit's Arrows of Indra, which was a great game, only with no support).

But ultimately what I did was just end up setting down an African inspired kingdom (mostly Ancient Ethiopian) on the edge of my main continent and used the mosnters from Nyambe and SotD (as well as Charles Saunder's article on African monsters in Dragon)

D&D had a relatively easy time because much of D&D derives from Tolkein, whatever Gary said about it, and Tolkein had deep roots in European myths.  So folks in civilizations coming from Europe already had the premises, themes, and stories written into the cultural roots and souls, and D&D connected with these deep-set ideas.  Things like Talislanta, which are entirely fictional, and Nyambe, which emulate African ideas don't have these deep connection to American and European minds, so it's a lot more work to learn the setting, and less compelling to boot.  Perhaps a way to make this work is to use the myths and themes we're familiar with with a thin veneer of another setting or culture to make it look exotic and interesting.  It worked for Star Wars after all.

Greetings!

Well, I realize that my player groups are Americans, so, I embrace the traditional historical foundations for heroic fantasy and myth. In my own Thandor world, most of the players choose more or less standard characters. Occasionally, someone will play a character from some exotic land--such as an African-type homeland, Indian, or Asian-flavoured homeland. I also drop in various NPC's that are weird and exotic.

Then, well, I get my own "Variety Fix" by sending the group off on crazy, epic journeys into strange, foreign lands, such as African-themed, Indian-themed, or Asian-themed. That all works very well.

Honestly, though, being inspired by history and mythology, there are areas that you might think of as being stock and routine--but they may not be. They may be far more exotic than one would anticipate. For example, I have had player groups get involved with savage, Germanic tribes, or become involved with adventuring in far off, Norse-like Viking lands. Viking, Germanic barbarian tribes, and Slavic tribal cultural environments have demonstrated to myself and my players that they can also be exotic and different--and provide unexpected surprises, even for people that are more or less immersed in European folklore and mythic traditions.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I am very invested in this question, though as my previous comments probably show, I don't have a satisfactory solution.

My interest is less in the practice of swapping out one set of historical-cultural references for another, and more in doing more purely fantastical and out-there stuff (so less Nyambe, more Talislanta). I've been craving a pure-fantasy/science fantasy campaign for about two years now, and in that time I've latched onto and subsequently abandoned the notion of running games in Talislanta, Lovecraft's Dreamlands, the Ultraviolet Grasslands, Carcosa and Calidar, as well as been picking away at my own weird cosmic fantasy setting. These ideas have not gone forward for various reasons, but the difficulty in getting players to get their heads around a non-standard setting is a commonality.

The only technique I've hit on for this which I think would likely to work, is one borrowed from other mediums. That is, matching the players' ignorance to their characters. You see this a lot in Sword & Planet fiction, where the protagonist is just a regular dude who gets transported to the weird world, and the reader gets to learn about the setting along with the POV character. In an RPG, you could do the same trick of making your characters strangers to the setting, or another approach would be making a setting which presents itself as a relatively normal fantasy world, with all the weirdness going on in the background, where it's only going to be encountered when adventuring, and the PCs aren't meant to understand it. That latter approach would also allow you to drip-feed the unusual elements of a setting, which should make them easier to convey to players.

Point 1: new terminology is not an issue

speaking not from an RPG background, but rather from a avid reader of fiction, Dune, by Frank Herbert hits you with soo much new terminology and linguistics and yet it's all instantly understandable, to the point they became common in all other sci-fi, when you hear Las-gun you instantly know what they mean, or Thopter, or  spice melange.

I don't believe made up terminology and names are what can drag an weird alien setting down, it's that they should be couched in what humans expect and sprinkling real terms to anchor them.

Point 2: for Point two I simply agree, limiting the scope of a game means they don't have to drink the whole setting in at once, which is helpful.

Point 3 and 4 I have no comments on as it'd be redundant based on on whhat I had to say apout point 1.

Quote from: Mishihari on June 29, 2024, 03:12:29 AMThings like Talislanta, which are entirely fictional, and Nyambe, which emulate African ideas don't have these deep connection to American and European minds, so it's a lot more work to learn the setting, and less compelling to boot.  Perhaps a way to make this work is to use the myths and themes we're familiar with with a thin veneer of another setting or culture to make it look exotic and interesting.

I think it's also critical to create interesting stakes which the players can become invested in and care about, both on a large scale for the setting and on a smaller scale for adventuring heroes. When all the countries and cultures feel too strange to identify with, for example, it makes it hard to care about what they might be going to war over or who wins.

A sense of history and change over time is also critical, I think. To meaningfully change the world (the quest for which is ultimately what a lot of RPG campaigns wind up turning on) you have to have a sense of how it's changed before and a sense of the big movement arcs of history, and seeing how present cultures connect to previous ones.

One of the smartest ideas I thought the game SkyRealms of Jorune included, to pick another fairly well known "weird fantasy" setting, was to make the process of gaining citizenship (and the pitfalls to avoid in the process) a key PC action motivator, as well as putting the rediscovery of Earth tech at the heart of the setting's politics -- this gave adventuring parties looking for treasure a key way to become movers and shakers in the setting simply by doing what RPG adventurers always do.

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 29, 2024, 09:34:47 AMThe only technique I've hit on for this which I think would likely to work, is one borrowed from other mediums. That is, matching the players' ignorance to their characters. You see this a lot in Sword & Planet fiction, where the protagonist is just a regular dude who gets transported to the weird world, and the reader gets to learn about the setting along with the POV character. In an RPG, you could do the same trick of making your characters strangers to the setting, or another approach would be making a setting which presents itself as a relatively normal fantasy world, with all the weirdness going on in the background, where it's only going to be encountered when adventuring, and the PCs aren't meant to understand it. That latter approach would also allow you to drip-feed the unusual elements of a setting, which should make them easier to convey to players.

I tried that in the early aughts in a homebrew campaign I called Water Uphill World, where the PCs were kids transported into a fantasy world (like Narnia). Also, I ran a dozen sessions or so of Lacuna Part I, where the PCs are agents conducting missions inside a dream world (like The Matrix mixed with Dreamlands).

I felt like Lacuna worked better because the PCs had very clear missions they were assigned. Even though they later started questioning Control, the missions gave them a clear hook to act on. Trying to run this more like a sandbox can be difficult, because the players can feel disempowered and lost by not understanding what is going on and depending on NPCs who know much more than them.

If I was doing this again, I'd make sure the PCs had some key actionable / tactical secrets that let them in on the bigger plot. i.e. Even if they didn't know what Weyerandan culture is, they know that the Weyerandan governor named Yukop secretly is plotting rebellion and is gathering an army of goblins (and other stuff).

Quote from: jhkim on June 30, 2024, 02:03:47 AMI felt like Lacuna worked better because the PCs had very clear missions they were assigned. Even though they later started questioning Control, the missions gave them a clear hook to act on. Trying to run this more like a sandbox can be difficult, because the players can feel disempowered and lost by not understanding what is going on and depending on NPCs who know much more than them.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Players have a hard enough time self-starting when they're familiar with all the setting assumptions. Stick them in a world when they have no idea what's going on and they're sure to flounder.

If familiarity was an issue, then you'd see a lot more Americana settings. Instead, American gamers are mostly obsessed with emulating Tolkien's Middle Earth, not Baum's Oz. Oz is quintessential American fantasy, but gets overshadowed by European fantasy in America. Instead of cowboys, rifles, and fearsome critters, our fantasies are full of knights, swords, and orcs. Why do Americans overwhelmingly prefer to ape an ahistorical pastiche of medieval Europe over their own mythic history?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 30, 2024, 01:08:17 PM...Why do Americans overwhelmingly prefer to ape an ahistorical pastiche of medieval Europe over their own mythic history?

Because even today the majority of Americans are of European decent.

European mythic history is our mythic history.

Yes we have a unique American mythology as well, but it is of a more recent era. Which is just less popular rpg fodder across the board. I mean, how big are rpg's set during the napoleonic and Victorian eras really?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 30, 2024, 01:08:17 PMIf familiarity was an issue, then you'd see a lot more Americana settings. Instead, American gamers are mostly obsessed with emulating Tolkien's Middle Earth, not Baum's Oz. Oz is quintessential American fantasy, but gets overshadowed by European fantasy in America. Instead of cowboys, rifles, and fearsome critters, our fantasies are full of knights, swords, and orcs. Why do Americans overwhelmingly prefer to ape an ahistorical pastiche of medieval Europe over their own mythic history?

American folklore just isn't as fertile ground as European folklore is, and most Americans aren't all that connected to it. There's a lot of reasons for this: It derives from a much shorter time period, and a lot of it is imported from the old world. It's also very regionally particular, so a person not from Appalachia isn't likely to have grown up with Appalachian folk tales, etc, and as a general matter, a post-enlightenment society doesn't produce the richness of mythology that a pre-enlightenment one does.

There have been a few popular wild west settings, and some marginally successful colonial ones, but even most American fantasy writers have chosen to go back to their European roots when writing fantasy. If there's something that I'd say defines American fantasy as distinct from European (particularly English) fantasy, it's that it tends to lean more on sci-fi elements rather than folkloric ones. That tradition starts with guys like Edgar Rice Burroughs and then carries on through the Weird Tales era into more mid-century writers like Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, or even guys like Stan Lee, and then from there into people like George Lucas and Stephen King.

I don't think you could call Wizard of Oz "quintessential American fantasy" when most Americans aren't aware of it beyond the 1939 movie. Honestly, if you want to know what the quintessential American fantasy is in terms of  "American-ness" and cultural impact, it's the comic book superhero and his antecedents in pulp characters like the Shadow. Outside of that, I'd say the most "American" RPG setting is either Call of Cthulhu, which combines the essentially American genres of cosmic horror and the noir/hardboiled detective story, or Cyberpunk which is again a combination of noir/crime fiction with sci fi.

I would chalk it up to Tolkien's popularity more than anything else

A big issue with games that have crazy settings is the players lack of books they can read. 

Typically, only the GM buys the rulebooks with the lore in it.

You can get into games like D&D easier because the setting is well known.  Hell, it is damn near it's own trope most people know.  A D&D campaign will be vaguely medieval Europe alagory, but with the superstitions all turned on.

Or specific settings like Star Wars, where players all know it from other media. 

But, an RPG with a complex and intricate lore is going to be a bit of a sell to get players to invest in it.  Sometimes, it works.  Rifts for example.