Quote from: soltakss;909582
After all, Middle Earth and Glorantha are not versions of Earth but have a lot of committed gamers.[/QUOTEWell, actually, Tolkien at one point stated that "Middle Earth is Europe" also Eriol the Mariner sailed from Europe to Middle Earth (the Island of Tol Eressea) and back again.

Similarly Robert Howard's Conan and Kull stories are set on Earth, but in a time now lost to history.

Quote from: The Butcher;909594Evil cult ressurects ancient general and his armies to cnquer a nation? Standard fantasy adventure. In my Day After Ragnarok Game, the Black Dragon Society ressurects Baron Roman von Ungern-Sternberg and hs White Russian army, to do battle with nascent Communist China on Imperial Japan's behalf.

Bit of a quibble, but I really, really doubt that Baron Ungern is going to resonate with any more players than will Bargle the Infamous, Heinrich Kemmler, or Jar-Eel the Razoress. I'd say Feanor is also a bit obscure for the average gamer.

The only reason the "Mad Baron" resonates with me is that some years back our wargames club did a "Back of Beyond" campaign.  I am almost certain that my RPG group would think that the Russian Civil War and the Russian Revolution were one and the same.

Feanor would be utterly unrecognized. Thorin Oakenshield might have been a stretch before the Peter Jackson movies.

But, citing obscure figures neither proves nor disproves Ken Hite's point. How much resonance does the sound of tinkling bells and the scent of cinnamon have for most gamers? The world that one comes from is realized to a depth that rivals, perhaps even exceeds Middle Earth.

Quote from: DavetheLost;909599Well, actually, Tolkien at one point stated that "Middle Earth is Europe" also Eriol the Mariner sailed from Europe to Middle Earth (the Island of Tol Eressea) and back again.

Similarly Robert Howard's Conan and Kull stories are set on Earth, but in a time now lost to history.

And yet, they both have their own cultures that might vaguely resemble real world ones...

Not at all coincidentally. This also probably has no small impact on their popularity.

once we met stalin in our CoC game. we were soviet officers who lost some top scientist we were supposed to guard. koba took us to lunch and didn't say anything about our snafu. at the end of the lunch he just said: drink and eat since you are shit at protecting motherland

that encounter probably cost us more sanity than seeing cthulhu.

later we found those damn eggheads in dreamlands. i bet they never expected to hear words 'NKVD comrades' uttered in ulthar.

btw, george macdonald fraser of flashman fame once said that once he read sabatini as a kid he understood that history is the greatest adventure story.

Quote from: ostap bender;910583that encounter probably cost us more sanity than seeing cthulhu.

Cthulhu's got nothing on Stalin in terms of raw terror.  Good point.

Quotehistory is the greatest adventure story.

Absolutely

Quote from: Madprofessor;910594Cthulhu's got nothing on Stalin in terms of raw terror.  Good point.



Absolutely

it is funny because we have met, in game of course, hitler (buffoon) and gengis (shrewd barbarian) and caligula (lunatic) and mad kings and whatevers, but somehow stalin was the most frightening because we assumed that he, without any doubt, knew everything we knew and that he was, in some way, in some very bizarre way, just. in objective historical materialistic sense of the word.

it was terrifying

Sounds like you had a good GM, Ostap!

Quote from: ostap bender;910599it is funny because we have met, in game of course, hitler (buffoon) and gengis (shrewd barbarian) and caligula (lunatic) and mad kings and whatevers, but somehow stalin was the most frightening because we assumed that he, without any doubt, knew everything we knew and that he was, in some way, in some very bizarre way, just. in objective historical materialistic sense of the word.

it was terrifying

“Five times mercy, High Ones, we beseech you...Mercy, High Ones. Not justice, please, not justice. We would all be fools to pray for justice.”
-Bujuold, from The Curse of Chalion

There is a false premise at work here.
I agree that using the real world as a base is simple, detailed and all that stuff but ... the reality is that Abraham Lincoln wasn't in the pay of the Drow so the world of your invention in which he was is almost by definition more interesting.

Because you can take the world with a level of interesting at say 'Y' and you can add more interesting things so that the new interest quotient is now 'Y+1' any world in which you build on the real world is more interesting that the real world and since you can do that in an infinite number of ways there must be an infinite number of invented worlds that are more interesting than our real world.

I would also add that the interesting part about Abe working for the Drow is that Abe is a guy all the players are familiar with at least on a base level and they have a base understanding of the world in which he lived, however the same is probably true of Tryion Lannister, Luke Skywalker or Batman. So you can probably hook into that expanded contextualization by just using a popular setting. So a game set in the Star War universe when Vader is expanding the empire or a game set in Hogwarts, or a game set in Westeros probably achieves the same aim as a game set in 1930s Shanghi and may in fact be more accessible and therefore more interesting to some of the players.

Also magic....

Quote from: jibbajibba;911166There is a false premise at work here.
I agree that using the real world as a base is simple, detailed and all that stuff but ... the reality is that Abraham Lincoln wasn't in the pay of the Drow so the world of your invention in which he was is almost by definition more interesting.

Because you can take the world with a level of interesting at say 'Y' and you can add more interesting things so that the new interest quotient is now 'Y+1' any world in which you build on the real world is more interesting that the real world and since you can do that in an infinite number of ways there must be an infinite number of invented worlds that are more interesting than our real world.

This raises the point that Kenneth Hite's "The Real World" usually has a large amount of the fantastical dolloped on top. Any campaign framework I have seen of his, either in writing or on his podcast is at least Y+1, if not Y+2 or more.

QuoteI would also add that the interesting part about Abe working for the Drow is that Abe is a guy all the players are familiar with at least on a base level and they have a base understanding of the world in which he lived, however the same is probably true of Tryion Lannister, Luke Skywalker or Batman. So you can probably hook into that expanded contextualization by just using a popular setting. So a game set in the Star War universe when Vader is expanding the empire or a game set in Hogwarts, or a game set in Westeros probably achieves the same aim as a game set in 1930s Shanghi and may in fact be more accessible and therefore more interesting to some of the players.

Also magic....

I agree with this completely. Any popular fictional setting can easily draw players in with at least as much effectiveness as the real world. I will point out that two of your examples, Batman and Hogwarts, are actually Y+1 settings, with the fantastical on top of the real world.

Even RPG settings can acquire the same weight among fans over time. I'm sure there are gamers that find Glorantha, Faerun or Creation to be more familiar and evocative than 1930s Shanghai.

Yes and no of course!

Some of good examples for the Yes:
 - CoC - aa yeeah, it does not get better than that. Earth + supernatural/aliens.
 - WoD - same, Earth + vampires, etc.
 - Mythic Britain - historic setting + mythic lore
 - Hyborian Age - this is Earth too, right? The lost age in our history books. Some 20000 B.C.E

And there are many more great settings.

But we would lost so much great stuff if we do not consider made up worlds:
 - Westeros!
... you know the rest


I think the most important aspect of a game setting is not, if it is based in real or made up world, but whether or not it is well know. I think any setting that is based on popular literature is very good choice.

For me, the answer is a definite and resounding NO!

I have thought about this for some time.
I get what Ken is saying and I agree. However, this is not a Yes/No question.
There are things that happen in the real world we would not think of (or that would seem unrealistic in the context of a game).
A real world setting is also not always playable.

There is something about invented settings that might not be as interesting, but due to the simplicity of conveying the setting quickly, makes it essential to gaming. That gives the setting value at the game table. I don't want to force an essay, a documentary, or a history lesson, just so they understand the complexity of a real world setting worth exploring.

More interesting? Yes.
Better for gameplay? Not necessarily.