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.
...

You keep using that word (interesting). I don't think it means what you think it means. Evidence: Try to watch some of Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies.

I have yet to see adding Drow make me more interested in anything. Usually it makes me much less interested.

While I agree that you can get a lot of quick developed interesting familiar context by adding some familiar things, particularly things from the real world, I also think that can backfire, particularly when it's added in a not-particularly-interesting or not-well-considered way.

Quote from: Skarg;911215You keep using that word (interesting). I don't think it means what you think it means. Evidence: Try to watch some of Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies.

Personally, I enjoyed the mockbuster a lot better than the bigger budget but even more stupid and inane Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Which is not to say that Abe vs. Zombies was good...

QuoteI have yet to see adding Drow make me more interested in anything. Usually it makes me much less interested.

Much, much less interested. It wouldn't really be an exaggeration to say that Drow are the anti-interest of gaming.

QuoteWhile I agree that you can get a lot of quick developed interesting familiar context by adding some familiar things, particularly things from the real world, I also think that can backfire, particularly when it's added in a not-particularly-interesting or not-well-considered way.

Clearly people vary greatly on how much they want a setting to be coherent or to make sense. Some folks seem perfectly happy with a game where "Look, it's a flying giant robot!" or "Drow are the secret puppet masters controlling key leaders throughout all of earth's history!" or "Magic!...Magic!!...Magic!!!...MAGIC!!!!" is the order of the day.

Others of us...not so much.

Why are we harping on the word 'Drow'?  The intent is the same if you change it to Old Ones, Cultists, Bob the Magic Mailman or some other element that adds a fantastic edge to the detail.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;911232Why are we harping on the word 'Drow'?

Because Drow (especially that Drizzler guy) are the poster child of adding anti-interest in RPGs. Drow demonstrate that sometimes adding more to a given setting doesn't give you SETTING+1 or  SETTING+2. Instead it gives you SETTING-1 or SETTING-2, and sometimes even SETTING-∞.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;911232Why are we harping on the word 'Drow'?  The intent is the same if you change it to Old Ones, Cultists, Bob the Magic Mailman or some other element that adds a fantastic edge to the detail.

Because Drow are Objectively Awful. Didn't you get the memo? Even those one or two people on the planet that do enjoy them (couldn't be more than that. They are Objectively Awful) are delusional and very motivated psychotics that are going around forcing their inclusion.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;911232Why are we harping on the word 'Drow'?  The intent is the same if you change it to Old Ones, Cultists, Bob the Magic Mailman or some other element that adds a fantastic edge to the detail.

Well, the way I see it, not all fantasy elements are equally "interesting."  

There are real cults and cultists. Cthulhu mythos stuff is a carefully crafted representation of the fear of the unknown, a very real thing. Dragons are part of our inherited cultural mythology, also real.  We have a relationship based in the real world to all of those things.  The same cannot be said for Drow, or Dragon kin.  If I say the word "Merlin" it evokes something different, and more meaningful, than "the half-tiefling battle magus ranger, Graxtor, from whatsitland with his tri-bladed pole-star."  

Fantasy is only fantastic through its relationship to reality.  It's relative.  As you move the creation farther away from its association, it loses its meaning.

Drow are boring fantasy elements because they are empty of anything we can relate to.

Game of Thrones is good fantasy because it's 95% history analogue, the remaining 5% is strikingly fantastic in contrast.
Middle Earth was "a Mythology for the English," as Tolkien gathered British folklore, myths and legends and unified them.
REH's favorite genre was historical fiction.  The Hyborian Age was invented as a less restrictive proxy.  Again, the weird worked because of of the contrast with what was essentially a historical analogue.
Elric is surrounded by phantasmagorical weirdness, but the character is very human, and that's what we relate to and what makes the strangeness so strange rather than just goofy.
Star Wars (IV) is "The Hero With a Thousand Faces" story told with spaceships and lightsabers.  It's the story here that's believable, human and real, and what makes the fantasy work.

I don't know if I agree with Hite or not (haven't yet voted), but fantasy needs its foundation in the familiar, human experience, or reality or its just drivel... err I mean ... Drizzit.

Quote from: Madprofessor;911251Well, the way I see it, not all fantasy elements are equally "interesting."  

There are real cults and cultists. Cthulhu mythos stuff is a carefully crafted representation of the fear of the unknown, a very real thing. Dragons are part of our inherited cultural mythology, also real.  We have a relationship based in the real world to all of those things.  The same cannot be said for Drow, or Dragon kin.  If I say the word "Merlin" it evokes something different, and more meaningful, than "the half-tiefling battle magus ranger, Graxtor, from whatsitland with his tri-bladed pole-star."  

Fantasy is only fantastic through its relationship to reality.  It's relative.  As you move the creation farther away from its association, it loses its meaning.

Drow are boring fantasy elements because they are empty of anything we can relate to.

Game of Thrones is good fantasy because it's 95% history analogue, the remaining 5% is strikingly fantastic in contrast.
Middle Earth was "a Mythology for the English," as Tolkien gathered British folklore, myths and legends and unified them.
REH's favorite genre was historical fiction.  The Hyborian Age was invented as a less restrictive proxy.  Again, the weird worked because of of the contrast with what was essentially a historical analogue.
Elric is surrounded by phantasmagorical weirdness, but the character is very human, and that's what we relate to and what makes the strangeness so strange rather than just goofy.
Star Wars (IV) is "The Hero With a Thousand Faces" story told with spaceships and lightsabers.  It's the story here that's believable, human and real, and what makes the fantasy work.

I don't know if I agree with Hite or not (haven't yet voted), but fantasy needs its foundation in the familiar, human experience, or reality or its just drivel... err I mean ... Drizzit.

One important reason for all of this is that good gaming settings are ones in which the players can wrap their heads around well enough to RP people from that setting as quickly as possible. The real world is not always the best for this. Getting players up to speed well enough to RP natives of, say, Westeros of Hyboria is pretty easy. Get a few basic ideas in place and you're good to go. Doing this for say, 11th century France in which NPC actually respond to the PCs as 11th century French people would have is a lot harder since a lot of the stuff that makes the past so alien to modern people gets glossed over in history-inspired fiction like Howard and Martin.

This:


Is a lot easier for players to get a handle on than this:


SO many of the things that make actual feudalism confusing for modern people just don't exist in Westeros. In an RPG in the real world you have to edit out a lot of these confusing bits as well and it can be confusing is not everyone is on the same page as to how much you've Hollywoodized the historical setting.

This is why using familiar things like Zeus and Merlin work well in a lot of games. A cliche is worth a thousand words. Nobody needs to have "Zeus" explained to them (unless you're trying to represent historically accurate Greek religion in which case you're going to get a lot of confused players, but people get the archetype of Zeus fine in just one word).

This is why sci-fi RPGs are always harder for me than fantasy ones, since it takes a lot more time to figure out simple stuff like "what can you buy in the local store" or "how is the local fortress probably guarded" in sci-fi than in fantasy.

Quote from: Daztur;911300This is why using familiar things like Zeus and Merlin work well in a lot of games. A cliche is worth a thousand words. Nobody needs to have "Zeus" explained to them (unless you're trying to represent historically accurate Greek religion in which case you're going to get a lot of confused players, but people get the archetype of Zeus fine in just one word).

Good point. The older I get, the more my eyes glaze over instantly when looking at a new fantasy pantheon, or worse, a calendar with made-up months and days.

Quote from: Baulderstone;911305Good point. The older I get, the more my eyes glaze over instantly when looking at a new fantasy pantheon, or worse, a calendar with made-up months and days.

That's why I'm thinking of using gods like:
-The Man in the Moon
-The Queen in Splendour
-The Lady in Green

New ones but really easy to remember and get the hang of.

Quote from: Daztur;911325That's why I'm thinking of using gods like:
-The Man in the Moon
-The Queen in Splendour
-The Lady in Green

New ones but really easy to remember and get the hang of.

Yeah, simple and iconic is the way to go with original deities.

Quote from: Baulderstone;911346Yeah, simple and iconic is the way to go with original deities.

I find that using the Indo-European pantheon of various other cultures tends to work pretty well.  We're all familiar with what "God of War" "God of Thunder" "Goddess of Lust and Battle" mean, you just tart them up in different skins.

Quote from: daniel_ream;911356I find that using the Indo-European pantheon of various other cultures tends to work pretty well.  We're all familiar with what "God of War" "God of Thunder" "Goddess of Lust and Battle" mean, you just tart them up in different skins.

I'd consider those to simple and iconic.

The worst offenders are gods that exist to fill game mechanics that you often see in D&D settings. Every alignment, clerical domain, humanoid and demi-human needs their own god, and you get a huge mess with little mythic resonance.

Quote from: Daztur;911300One important reason for all of this is that good gaming settings are ones in which the players can wrap their heads around well enough to RP people from that setting as quickly as possible. The real world is not always the best for this. Getting players up to speed well enough to RP natives of, say, Westeros of Hyboria is pretty easy. Get a few basic ideas in place and you're good to go. Doing this for say, 11th century France in which NPC actually respond to the PCs as 11th century French people would have is a lot harder since a lot of the stuff that makes the past so alien to modern people gets glossed over in history-inspired fiction like Howard and Martin.

SO many of the things that make actual feudalism confusing for modern people just don't exist in Westeros. In an RPG in the real world you have to edit out a lot of these confusing bits as well and it can be confusing is not everyone is on the same page as to how much you've Hollywoodized the historical setting.

This is why using familiar things like Zeus and Merlin work well in a lot of games. A cliche is worth a thousand words. Nobody needs to have "Zeus" explained to them (unless you're trying to represent historically accurate Greek religion in which case you're going to get a lot of confused players, but people get the archetype of Zeus fine in just one word).

Agreed.  After my post and yours, I think "familiarity" is a much better term than "reality."  So I'll modify my claim: the quality of a fantasy element depends on its relationship to the familiar.  Most of us have an impression of history, mythology, humanity and reality (no matter screwed up they may be).  These things are intimately familiar to us.  "Odin" has a stronger relationship to those (generally shared) impressions than "Gruumsh."  And even though many gamers may know more about the one-eyed orc god then they do about the "real" Odin, Odin is still a part of our common mythology and more potent in our imagination than something made from scratch to which we have nothing to relate.  You are right that few gamers know much about what life or feudalism was really like in 11th century France, but they probably have a very deep-rooted impression that is shared and real enough to make for good fantasy.  

QuoteThis is why sci-fi RPGs are always harder for me than fantasy ones, since it takes a lot more time to figure out simple stuff like "what can you buy in the local store" or "how is the local fortress probably guarded" in sci-fi than in fantasy.

I often find fantasy more believable than sci-fi.  I am not sure why.  Maybe it's because some of the pretenses are dropped.  Fantasy authors don't ask me to believe that there really were dragons, but many sci-fi authors will ask me to believe that travel through black holes to other galaxies is a reasonable possibility that really could exist, and probably will in another hundred years of exponential technological development (bull crap)... uh, but that's another argument. Let me just put the lid back on that can o worms.

Quote from: Baulderstone;911305Good point. The older I get, the more my eyes glaze over instantly when looking at a new fantasy pantheon, or worse, a calendar with made-up months and days.

I often actually prefer to use monotheism with lots of cults, dogma, repression and contending interpretations.  I have a religion that I have used in multiple settings simply called "the Saints" or "saint worship."  There is a one true god (called "god") who is unnameable and unknowable and who is primarily venerated through "saints," long dead avatars or ancestors of great deeds, renown, or piety.  Saints are messengers or vessels who curry the prayers of the faithful and the blessings and tempests of the almighty. Churches all worship "god" but they may favor one saint over another, and different saints have different aspects, deeds, points of emphasis, or sacred writings or followers.  Everyone is unified in one great confusing holier-than-thou cluster-fuck.  I also generally have "the old gods," persecuted by the Saints, mostly daemons and such worshiped by fey, sorcerers, and simple folk in remote places.  Of course many "old gods" are venerated as saints as well.

Yeah, and made up calendars and star signs are annoying.

Quote from: Baulderstone;911407I'd consider those to simple and iconic.

How so?  Most Westerners are only familiar with the Norse and Greco-Roman pantheons.  The Canaanite pantheon has El, the distant sky-mountain god, and Anath, the goddess of lust and battle.  These aren't gods most roleplayers are going to be familiar with, but they intuitively understand the domains, how the gods relate to each other, and which one you might want to pray to at any given moment.