Back in 2010 Kenneth Hite asserted this:

Quote from: Kenneth HiteThat's why, for the longest time (and still), my fundamental setting design policy was: "Use Earth." It's better mapped, better documented, and just plain weirder than anywhere else. At least start with Earth. But more importantly, as I've said on half a hundred panels and plenty of times in print, saying "Kragar the Liberator was secretly in the pay of the drow" is just not compelling. Nobody really cares, even if they dutifully read the forty pages on Kragar the Liberator earlier in the book. But saying "Abraham Lincoln was secretly in the pay of the drow" is compelling. The players (and GM) bring something to the table when I say "Abraham Lincoln" or "King Arthur" or "Hitler" that they don't when I say "Kragar the Liberator" or "Kragar the Lost" or "Kragar the Mad."

(Link for those who want to read the post this quote comes from: http://princeofcairo.livejournal.com/152308.html)

In 2012 he expanded on and firmed up this opinion with the first segment of this podcast:
http://www.kenandrobintalkaboutstuff.com/index.php/episode-4-purely-medicinal/

Now, this is obviously a controversial statement for a tabletop designer, but is he wrong? How do you feel about it?

Completely agree.  Real world history matters, and is culturally resonant to everyone.

Conversely, it is not always the most gameable, so fictional rpg settings definitely have their place.

This can be negated not using bog standard RPG window dressing.

The real world is always going to be more 'creative' than a designed setting - because this stuff happened/happens for real. Read any history book or even look at an atlas of world history and you're going to get more detail than you could ever get from a created setting, well, because its all happened. Actually setting your game in the real world, however, has its own problems. For a start, mention Abraham Lincoln and everyone at the table has their own preconceptions about him, baised either on fact or fancy - but they'll be there, he was real. That might get in the way of game in a way that 'Kragar the Liberator' won't. We won't have preconceptions about Kragar because he's never existed.

Just a thought.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;904145Now, this is obviously a controversial statement for a tabletop designer, but is he wrong? How do you feel about it?

As a loyal follower of The Emperor of the Mankind I strongly disagree and I suggest that the heretic should be punished severely until he repents for his transgressions. Then, he should be beheaded and his skull spend the rest of eternity as a servo-skull floating here and there... Ahem.

Just joking.

There's obviously plenty of reason in what Mr. Hite claims, but IMHO the possibility to escape our reality and become part of an imaginary world, even underdeveloped one, renders this claim false. This doesn't apply to just any setting, but there are a few I'd gladly trade for any Earth-like without any hesitation.

Quote from: mightyuncle;904147This can be negated not using bog standard RPG window dressing.

I cannot parse the meaning of this sentence.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;904145Back in 2010 Kenneth Hite asserted this:



(Link for those who want to read the post this quote comes from: http://princeofcairo.livejournal.com/152308.html)

In 2012 he expanded on and firmed up this opinion with the first segment of this podcast:
http://www.kenandrobintalkaboutstuff.com/index.php/episode-4-purely-medicinal/

Now, this is obviously a controversial statement for a tabletop designer, but is he wrong? How do you feel about it?

I think it is always good to remember that the real world is an option and you don't always have to make a new setting....but I also like fantasy and created worlds for a reason. You can definitely use the real world and real world history as a canvas for adventure and setting. Maybe people too frequently make fantasy settings, but I wouldn't want to take other options off the table. Basically there is plenty of room for both approaches. Strictly adhering to one or the other to me seems like limiting your options.

Quote from: Old One Eye;904152I cannot parse the meaning of this sentence.

Sorry, posted before morning coffee. What I meant was that more times than not, keeping the setting initially fairly mundane and small and eventually throwing a truly weird bit in the mix was a better way to draw players into a campaign than what either Kragar or Abraham have to offer. Whether the setting is Earth, a simulacra, or something entirely alien doesn't matter much to me considering those kinds of "historical" events barely ever play into the goings on of the campaign at hand. So in a roundabout way I agree with Hite but I dont think the issue is about real vs imagined history, the issue is about the relationship between mundane and weird.

Quote from: mightyuncle;904147This can be negated not using bog standard RPG window dressing.

Disagree unless you can provide an example of a fake setting that is as resonant as reality.

What's a Kenneth Hite and why do we care again?

Yes. Earth is richer, deeper, and often more immediately relatable than even the most vanilla fantasy setting.

That does not mean it's the right setting for every game. But I love using it. For some genres it's the only setting for me.

Like just about every GM, I frequently work with thinly-veiled calques of Earth cultures. It's a fine line to walk and your aims have to be crystal-clear. The Hyborian Age works for Conan to have an adventure in Ancient Babylon this week, and Medieval France the next (the same philosophy applies to several RPG settings from D&D's The Known World/Mystara to Godbound's Arcem). WFRP works because it's unapologetic, bald-faced, uniquely 1980s British satire of fantasy and Medieval stereotypes (that's how I run it anyway).

Conversely, 7th Sea's Théah does not work for me because the additions made to 17th Century Europe (namely, noble houses who openly work hereditary magic) take the genre (swashbuckling) into a direction I'm not crazy about, raising a bunch of questions that detract from the things I want to explore*, while at the same time robbing me and my PCs of the fun of interacting with characters we might know from history. I'm sure it must be real fun to work for the Emperor of Montaigne but I'd rather be chillin' with Louis XIV, know what I mean? I've done swashbuckling fantasy but I've kept the supernatural element subdued and mostly riffing off folklore and/or pop culture conventions.

* I realize that Hyborian Age-type patchwork worlds where the Shire shares a border with Ancient Egypt and another with Medieval Scandinavia don't make a lot of sense either — I've been working on the Godbound map precisely to ease the insufferable consistency nerd in me, because damn, what's Ethiopia doing on the same latitude as the Vikings? — but itbugs me less because it feels easier to ignore. Noblemen all being wizards who can teleport or shapechange or whatever gets way more in-your-face.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;904151As a loyal follower of The Emperor of the Mankind I strongly disagree and I suggest that the heretic should be punished severely until he repents for his transgressions. Then, he should be beheaded and his skull spend the rest of eternity as a servo-skull floating here and there... Ahem.

Just joking.

There's obviously plenty of reason in what Mr. Hite claims, but IMHO the possibility to escape our reality and become part of an imaginary world, even underdeveloped one, renders this claim false. This doesn't apply to just any setting, but there are a few I'd gladly trade for any Earth-like without any hesitation.

EPT is actually a great example of why Bite is correct. There is such a huge barrier to giving a shit about the fake cultures and history in EPT that many can't be bothered with it at all. Too many silly names and people that mean nothing. Too much work to even begin to understand the setting. You just disproved yourself.

Quote from: Matt;904158Disagree unless you can provide an example of a fake setting that is as resonant as reality.

This is a matter of personal taste but I responded pretty positively to the Dying Earth books of Jack Vance and Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe. I guess that kind of agrees with your point since they're both set on Earth though. Most of actual history (not centered around rulers and war) is as mundane as one can imagine.

Quote from: Matt;904161EPT is actually a great example of why Bite is correct. There is such a huge barrier to giving a shit about the fake cultures and history in EPT that many can't be bothered with it at all. Too many silly names and people that mean nothing. Too much work to even begin to understand the setting. You just disproved yourself.

There are so many unquantifiable variables in your statement, that I wouldn't even know where to begin discussing it. However my "it's about my taste" premise makes my point impossible to disprove.

I agree with a lot Hite's supporting points, but I don't agree with his conclusion. Yeah, there are lots of cool things about running a game in the real world. I really enjoy some historical and modern day games. It's just that there are a lot of good points about a fictional setting as well. I don't know why I would limit my options that way.

There is also a flaw in his idea that fictional characters always have less weight than historical ones. President John Tyler was real. Darth Vader is not real. Which one is going to get a bigger rise out of the average player?