I'm going to abstain from voting. I think the first part is "generally true", but the "few rare exceptions part" I don't agree with. I think the poll question makes the original quote seem to have a different meaning from what Hite meant and from what I'd say about it. And "as interesting" is of course entirely subjective and dependent on the interests of each person.

That is, the real world certainly does have more developed detail than any one imagination can invent about a fantasy world. The real world itself does have more content and more detail and more history and more resources available and so on. But it also has some disadvantages. I rarely use the real world because I like detail and accuracy, and the real world has so much detail and I'm rarely satisfied that I know enough or my sources are good enough and whatever, and so I can get stuck on research and keeping track of what the source is (real or my variant) and tracking inconsistencies between them. Also, some players will already have a lot of knowledge about certain things, sometimes more than I do, which can pose some challenges. Those can be overcome, but they can also make me somewhat uncomfortable in ways that aren't a problem if I've invented the world. Invented worlds can of course include things that don't need to consider much of anything about the real world.

Quote from: Baron Opal;904308True, but  "Jefferson Davis was secretly in the pay of the dero" can be quite chilling.

Aren't those the lunatic and psychic dwarves?  I think "secretly mind controlled" works better and put that way I think I just found a new bit of inspiration.

Quote from: Baron Opal;904308True, but  "Jefferson Davis was secretly in the pay of the dero" can be quite chilling.

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;904326Aren't those the lunatic and psychic dwarves?  I think "secretly mind controlled" works better and put that way I think I just found a new bit of inspiration.

In D&D, yes. Outside of RPGs, they were more like robots.

Hite's statement is accurate along the two very specific axes he mentions:

- Amount of documentation available
- Immediate resonance from dropping certain well-known names

(Although the latter starts to get a little hazy around the edges. From most of the people you're likely to find at a gaming table, you're probably going to get an equal amount of resonance from mentioning Captain Kirk or Luke Skywalker or Gandalf the Grey as you are from any given historical figure.)

Along any other axis of measurement which applies to the real world, however, there's no clear win. And it would seem fairly obvious that there unique axes of "interesting" which are only available in wholly original settings.

There are also several ways in which the "real world" can actively detract from the interest of a campaign world. For example, without any further context the phrase "Abraham Lincoln is secretly in the pay of the drow" strikes me, personally, as being so insipid that any campaign featuring it would have immediately dug itself a huge deficit of interest from which it would have to dig its way out.

Tekumel is one of the extremely rare RPG worlds that aren't just Earth renamed. How many game worlds have humans, dogs, horses, hawks, lions, elephants, etc, etc? I don't care if you rename them they are still the same Earth creatures. And even then you don't have to look very far before the thing starts to fall apart. Evolution simply does not account for fantasy worlds, physics often must work very differently, lots of holes if you are of a mind to look for them. It can crack my suspension of disbelief pretty quickly when a squadron of cavalry charages down a steep slope into set pikes and wins. And I try very hard to not even begin thinking about ecosystems...

Hite is absolutely right that no fictional world will ever match the depth of our real world. But that is really a "who cares?" statement. Most gamers couldn't care less about how many taxa of moths there are in the kingdom. Does it really matter who the Nth great-grandfather of the innkeeper was? In the real world I could just go on Google and look that stuff up if I really needed to know it.

As for the Drow, I prefer the Svartalfar.

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

Resonant with who? I love history. I've read far more history and historical fiction than I have fantasy. But that's pretty unusual among gamers. Most people who you might sit down to play an RPG with know far more about Westeros than they do about the War of the Roses.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;904283Just as a sidetone, has Hite put out any more thoughts on this subject since 2012? That is forever-ago in the world of social media.  It is very possible his thoughts on the topic have evolved and changed.

IIRC, they mention it once in a while on the podcast, yes. I don't get the feeling he has budged much.

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.

Eh, it's utterly dependent on the setting and the individual reading it.  40K has lots of silly names and people that mean nothing, and I love that setting to *death.*  I can root around in background minutiae for hours and hours and be happy.  

I have tried Tekumel before and I just bounce right the fuck off it.  And I'm completely certain there are people who can swim in Tekumel lore, rattling off the 42nd descendent of Azhcb'asdkh the Small Chested, but eyes glaze over at the distinction between the different companies of a Space Marine Chapter.

And on point, I don't really agree with Hite on this point, but Earth *can* be a great setting.  If I'd rather be imagining the worlds of the Koronus Expanse, though, Earth just ain't gonna cut it.

Kenneth Hite = moron.

Next question.

Quote from: DavetheLost;904344How many game worlds have humans, dogs, horses, hawks, lions, elephants, etc, etc? I don't care if you rename them they are still the same Earth creatures.

I've run fantasy games with the usual Dark Ages Europe levels of technology and social development, but set during the Miocene.

Quote from: Omega;904353Kenneth Hite = moron.

Next question.

Given Hite's resume, this seems unfairly dismissive. He may be wrong, but he's by no means stupid.

Quote from: DavetheLost;904344How many game worlds have humans, dogs, horses, hawks, lions, elephants, etc, etc?

Tekumel has humans, while Star Wars (a well known campaign setting) doesn't have earth animals. Though any other world setting will typically have some type of herd animals of various sizes, predators (solo and/or pack) of various sizes, flying creatures (including predators), and some (almost always humanoid) species for the PCs to be.

Quote from: daniel_ream;904357I've run fantasy games with the usual Dark Ages Europe levels of technology and social development, but set during the Miocene.

That actually sounds fun. Terrorbirds and Entelodonts?

Quote from: Bren;904359Tekumel has humans, while Star Wars (a well known campaign setting) doesn't. Though any other world setting will typically have some type of herd animals of various sizes, predators (solo and/or pack) of various sizes, flying creatures (including predators), and some (almost always humanoid) species for the PCs to be.

How are there no humans in Star Wars?

Yup.  Smilodons, shovel-toothed elephants, giant killer beavers.  I wanted unusual fauna that could still fit into the beasts of burden/dangerous predators niche.