TheRPGSite

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?

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 is absolutely nothing universal in what you are saying. There are also gamers who love to obsess over the minutia of fictional settings. There are also games who recoil from historical gaming completely.

I agree with him but only up to a point.
Using the real world as a substrate is a very direct way to having Players know the world and feel confident moving through it... but add enough bizarre elements (like Lincoln being an agent of the Drow) and Terra Firma becomes Uncanny Valley, and that familiarity becomes suspect. You end up back in the dungeon with a ten foot pole, checking for traps.
And there's more pressure on a GM to 'get it right' regarding trivial details the Players might be familiar with.

Also, setups where Hitler/Kennedy/Obama is a vampire/alien/Cthulhu cultist get old real fast.


Real world settings generally are more interesting, but imaginary settings are often more fun.

I think it's important to point out that his actual thesis is that players are in charge of CHARACTER, GMs are in charge of PLOT, and the designer's job is to design the SETTING in such a way that buying into it is worthwhile and easy.  The article linked to is one about ways for designer to make that easy for players.

In lieu of some magic wand that makes players buy in, and makes them read up on it, then he says use the real world, because historical personages and events already come with a certain weight and pre-knowledge by the players.

That's what he's saying, to a degree, and in that I agree with him.

Nope.

There's a reason why Fantasy RPGs out sell modern or science fiction ones.

Quote from: Matt;904159What's a Kenneth Hite and why do we care again?

Let me google that for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Hite

Kenneth Hite is a long-term RPG writer who also writes fiction.  He's half of the team (with Robin Laws) who do the excellent gaming podcast "Ken and Robin Talk About Stuff", and is an extremely widely read person.  He wrote the well-reviewed series "Suppressed Transmission" for Pyramid magazine (when it was an electronic magazine you had to subscribe to - you can find two collections of it for sale by Steve Jackson Games).  He wrote several editions of GURPS Horror, GURPS Cabal, and contributed to a number of GURPS anthology books such as Alternate Worlds and Y2K.

He's recently written Trail of Cthulhu, Bookhounds of London, Night's Black Agents and the Dracula Dossier.  Non-fiction wise he's written "Tour de Lovecraft", where he went through every Lovecraft story and had something interesting to say about them, and apparently 'The Complete Idiot's Guide to US History', which I think I need a copy of.

If you don't know who he is, I suggest learning more about him - if nothing else, the podcast is free, and worth listening to.  (It's won several awards, IIRC.)

Mildly disagree. Real world stuff is more important, since it really happened. But I find fictional settings far more entertaining and engaging, because I'm not tied down to real world details.

And I'm not a fan of wargaming or RPing in historical settings. The more a setting is historical, the less interested I am. I'm not quite sure, but I suspect part of it is that it's making light of real world events. I've never been able to explain my reaction in a definite way though. It's more a feeling than an intellectual argument.

So playing in Vietnam as a soldier is high on my "No thanks" list, playing in the Vietnam with zombies and robots is a bit better, and playing in the Vietnam analogy in space is even better.

BTW

QuoteBut saying "Abraham Lincoln was secretly in the pay of the drow" is compelling

I'm not sure if I'm picking on a bad example, but that shit is just dumb. I'd laugh at the GM and go play a video game instead.

Taken out of context like this, the statement is clearly and totally wrong.
Essentially, all settings we ever deal with, is invented, more or less, including those that builds on our reality.
The only way to actually even attempt to interact with the real world, is by living .... and we do that daily to an extent that we want to fantasise about other things.

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.

"Huge barrier?"

Well, no.  It's a matter of a game designed for gamers interested in diving into a dense, non-Western culture.  Some gamers can handle that, and are able to put the work in to do so.  I gather you can't.

Now that's alright.  Not every musician is Mozart, not every diner serves tournedos of beef under bouillabaisse sauce, not every car fancier's into restoring 1930s Packards.  There's nothing wrong with preferring a Big Mac to 3-star Zagat ratings, with turning the TV to reality shows instead of PBS, with preferring Stephenie Meyer to Tolstoy or Bunuel.  To each his own.

I had to vote "No", because "interesting" is one of those words that is meaningless outside a context. You have to define what you are interested in to determine if something is interesting. The context Ken Hite seems to be using here is "stuff players can develop a strong emotional response to quickly", and yeah, SOME real-world examples will have strong player buy-in, as will fictional examples based on those examples. But others won't. Just try running a Sumerian historical campaign for players who don't give a crap about Sumeria.

Another reason why Ken Hite is wrong:

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

Heaven. Hell. Purgatory. Hades. Olympus. Asgard. Faerie. Hell, even the example Hite gave of "King Arthur" is fictional, even if certain elements may have traced back originally to one or more real people. There are a lot of fake settings that have been created in many cultures over thousands of years that have had a strong resonance, possibly stronger than the real world in many cases. Our world is built on the resonance of fake worlds. One could even argue that certain literary settings, like Middle Earth, have a strong resonance for some people, enough that people are willing to memorize chronologies and learn fake languages. Maybe not as strong as the moments of history with the strongest emotional triggers, but much stronger than, for example, Sumerian history.

The best alien invasion stories take place in the Earth setting.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;904208The best alien invasion stories take place in the Earth setting.

Not quite:
Once the aliens invade, the setting is no longer "the real world".

Quote from: Christopher Brady;904184There's a reason why Fantasy RPGs out sell modern or science fiction ones.

To play in Fantasy Earth Europe settings.

Quote from: Catelf;904214Not quite:
Once the aliens invade, the setting is no longer "the real world".

Once any game starts, no matter its setting, it creates its own world. The game setting is a frozen start date in time for a campaign's beginning to branch from.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;904217To play in Fantasy Earth Europe settings.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/5erTFOF4CNIMo/giphy.gif)

Quote from: talysman;904206I had to vote "No", because "interesting" is one of those words that is meaningless outside a context. You have to define what you are interested in to determine if something is interesting. The context Ken Hite seems to be using here is "stuff players can develop a strong emotional response to quickly", and yeah, SOME real-world examples will have strong player buy-in, as will fictional examples based on those examples. But others won't. Just try running a Sumerian historical campaign for players who don't give a crap about Sumeria.

Ding!  Winner.

And some players don't really want to develop a strong emotional response at all; they're just playing a game.

"No invented setting is as interesting as the real world."
No.

The old saw "Truth is stranger than fiction" is an axiom.  Reading history books or just listening to interesting real life stories, you always come across things so crazy that if they were put into fiction...no one would believe it.  Fiction, not being real (and everyone knowing it's not real), has to kind of prove itself in a way reality does not.

It is true that using Earth gives you a level of detail you won't be able to get yourself without an immense amount of work, but there are settings out there that have resonance mainly due to their success.  Star Wars, Star Trek, Middle-Earth, The Hyborian Age, Westeros are all settings that to certain degrees and in certain ways can reach the "instant grok" that Earth provides.  Hell, Kenneth Hite is a Cthulhu scholar, he should know more than anyone that if any setting anywhere, real or imagined, happens to include a scrap of text, radio transmission, fragmentary holo recording that talks about the "Stars coming Right", players are going to be affected.

A completely home-designed setting is obviously more difficult to get players to that state with regards to setting so that your ability to rely on resonance and internalized identification to have players interface with plots and setting happenings without a lot of "here's what all that means" discussion or text.

You obviously can't start out that way.  You start with a rumor "Drolgnac the Unspeakable has been seen in the North" means nothing until somehow the players characters have heard that this is some kind of massive dragon akin to Ancalagon the Black, a mythical living WMD. (However, the whole point of a Skill System is to describe the character not the player, so using a successful Dragon Lore skill roll to explain to the player the significance and how much of a "Oh Shit" moment this would be if true.)

However, based on the choices of systems he writes for and associates with, I kind of doubt these days at least, that he runs a long-term (as in years) RPG setting.  If you do run a long term campaign, then players' knowledge of the setting grows just as the character's inside the setting grow  Also, if someone's character has died, or perhaps several, the player keeps the setting knowledge and internalization they have gained with other characters.

If you play a long campaign, with the same players, they will reach the Grok level you need for a single name to explain everything.  If you're talking about single sessions or single story arcs, or a WotC/PF "We'll start when summer hits, we'll retire at 20th when school starts" campaign, then obviously you need to come with a setting the players have already internalized or else you're doing a lot of explaining or they're doing a lot of reading or they're using skills to figure stuff out, and the players are playing catch-up to the character's knowledge.

Show Don't Tell takes a while when it's a brand new world and the less relatable to existing knowledge it is, the longer it will take.

So his actual point, that plots and setting are easier when the players already have instant understanding based on real life knowledge, is correct, but only easier.  It's not impossible to reach the same level with a public IP setting or a homebrew setting, just more difficult or time-consuming.

If that is the case, then why is there such little escapist fiction that is truly set in the real world without adding fantastical elements? Why so few games?

And those that exist largely revolve around violence (wargames, those military action novels)

The real world is boring.

Quote from: JeremyR;904233If that is the case, then why is there such little escapist fiction that is truly set in the real world without adding fantastical elements? Why so few games?

And those that exist largely revolve around violence (wargames, those military action novels)

The real world is boring.

The real world is familiar to players is all. That's why there are so many human characters in games, and DMs compare their fantasy stuff to real stuff when describing it so players understand its use. If a Monty Python joke is heard at the table, apparently the fiction isn't working enough to escape from the real world.

Quote from: JeremyR;904233If that is the case, then why is there such little escapist fiction that is truly set in the real world without adding fantastical elements?

Are you forgetting romance novels? parlor room mysteries? espionage thrillers? IMO those are also 'escapist fiction'.

Quoteas 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.

Maybe he's just playing it wrong or something. For me the whole point of  playing an rpg is that it is compelling!

Quote from: Simlasa;904236Are you forgetting romance novels? parlor room mysteries? espionage thrillers? IMO those are also 'escapist fiction'.

Yes, I'm quite curious what his definition of "escapist" fiction is, given the stonking great pile of Robert Ludlum, Clive Cussler, Lindsay Davis, Ellis Peters, Simon Scarrow, Jack Whyte and Janet Evanovich[1] novels currently bulking up my Pile of Shame.

I have noticed that most gamers don't really read anything other than games, and the particularly anemic subgenres of fantasy/SF that games have an incestuous relationship with.

To get back to the point: wholeheartedly agree, two thumbs up, with bells on.  I got into ancient & medieval history because I wanted more verisimilitude in my fantasy.  Then I realized by comparison just how anemic and shallow the vast majority of fantasy literature actually is.  And that goes double for fantasy game worlds.

[1] Just shut up

Quote from: Simlasa;904236Are you forgetting romance novels? parlor room mysteries? espionage thrillers? IMO those are also 'escapist fiction'.

A lot of Broadway musicals. :D

The world of Krod Mandoon resonates pretty strongly. Top that. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;904217Once any game starts, no matter its setting, it creates its own world. The game setting is a frozen start date in time for a campaign's beginning to branch from.

A point I almost brought up earlier was that Ken Hite's problem is misdiagnosed. The problem with fantasy worlds like Tekumel, Harn, Yrth, Greyhawk, Eberon, and the Forgotten Realms is also the problem with Sumer, MesoAmerica, or 16th century France: you have to have a serious commitment to study the setting in detail to make it work. Hite thinks the solution is drawing on history or current events, but if your players don't have the same depth of knowledge on the real world elements you pick, they aren't going to want to read up on Sumerian history any more than they would want to read up on Tekumel.

The wall of text approach to setting only works for a small number of people, for that reason. Doesn't matter how real the setting is, you just have better odds of picking something the players may have heard of, vaguely. What works better is picking a couple really well-known people, places and events from history and legend, filing the serial numbers off, and letting the setting grow naturally through play. "This fantasy kingdom is basically Camelot, and there's a boy king who has just taken the throne." Even if you change all the names, once you tell players this much, that gives them a basic grasp of what is going on. In play, you can diverge wildly from the King Arthur story, but the players will have lived through it, absorbing the changes in small pieces, so it will mean more to them than either something totally made up OR something from history.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;904235The real world is familiar to players is all. That's why there are so many human characters in games, and DMs compare their fantasy stuff to real stuff when describing it so players understand its use. If a Monty Python joke is heard at the table, apparently the fiction isn't working enough to escape from the real world.

I don't know, I've met lots of players who know more about the Enterprise** than they do about NASA, and others who know more about Middle Earth than Ancient Rome. I think it is a question of familiarity.

Real world can be great. But breaking from it and having the freedom to invent anything you want in a fictional setting can be fun too. I think he raises and interesting topic of discussion though. It is certainly worth thinking about why you are taking either approach.

**Edit: in fact now that I am thinking about it, I believe the Starship Enterprise would have more resonance with players if it appeared in a Camapaign than the actual USS Enterprise. Granted Star Trek takes place in the real world in the future...but the ship and the culture are all fictional (the universe of Star Trek equally so).

Quote from: Old One Eye;904146Conversely, it is not always the most gameable, so fictional rpg settings definitely have their place.

The problem with real earth settings is that the books only go into so much detail. Or the details in not in the form useful for a tabletop campaign. Then we are back to making shit up inspired by history.

I think what Hite is missing here is that people rarely make up a fantasy setting out of nothing. Instead we take what we know from life and history and weave into different combinations and with different names. Hite should know better as that what he does with his dozens of Suppressed Transmissions. He is insanely good at taking different threads from real history and weaving them together into something new.

And what he forgets that those of us with original setting do just that but label it differently.

Finally, as people been pointing out, the use of real history is no guarantee that the players will comprehend it any better than something totally made up. The onus is still on the referee to clearly explain the background of the setting in chunks that players can easily remember while playing a leisure game.

Also there is the problem that for some the use of real history will break immersion. I am sure that many of the players in Hite's campaigns and sessions expect his brand of weirdness with real world history. But I have run into players that just couldn't get into a campaign because it wasn't the image of real history they had in their mind. The differences were too jarring for them to enjoy it.

Where in contrast, these players may accept a fantasy setting much better because they don't drag their expectation into it.

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?

Just 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.

Quote from: talysman;904255A point I almost brought up earlier was that Ken Hite's problem is misdiagnosed. The problem with fantasy worlds like Tekumel, Harn, Yrth, Greyhawk, Eberon, and the Forgotten Realms is also the problem with Sumer, MesoAmerica, or 16th century France: you have to have a serious commitment to study the setting in detail to make it work. Hite thinks the solution is drawing on history or current events, but if your players don't have the same depth of knowledge on the real world elements you pick, they aren't going to want to read up on Sumerian history any more than they would want to read up on Tekumel.

I went and reread the LJ post (I'd read it and commented on it back in 2010.) And I should be fair and say that Hite does, in fact, mention the problem of players not wanting to read all that crap, which is why the first part of the article is gushing enthusiastically about the lore sheets in Weapons of the Gods and later the life-paths of Burning Wheel. He sees this as solving the wall of text problem by breaking setting down into much smaller chunks tied to the mechanics.

But, even though he also promotes Gygax-style random tables as the perfect solution to getting GMs to read setting material, he never gets away from expressing setting through text. Maybe it's because he's writing about and to designers, and a living setting that grows through play instead of being defined beforehand strikes him as anti-designer. But I think a designer can in fact design a setting that's meant to evolve idiosyncratically, becoming unique for each table.

Count me in among the skeptics. "Abraham Lincoln was secretly in the pay of the drow" sounds dumb in a way that "Kragar the Liberator was secretly in the pay of the drow" doesn't. It's dumb and cartoonish in the same way that Lincoln Zombie Hunter is dumb.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;904304Count me in among the skeptics. "Abraham Lincoln was secretly in the pay of the drow" sounds dumb in a way that "Kragar the Liberator was secretly in the pay of the drow" doesn't. It's dumb and cartoonish in the same way that Lincoln Zombie Hunter is dumb.

True, but  "Jefferson Davis was secretly in the pay of the dero" can be quite chilling.

I like historical settings. I use them almost all the time for Call of Cthulhu and I've been running 1620s Europe for Honor+Intrigue. BUT, I also like fictional settings.

Quote from: Baulderstone;904171There 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?

Counterpoint to Baulderstone.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;904202

QuoteBut saying "Abraham Lincoln was secretly in the pay of the drow" is compelling

I'm not sure if I'm picking on a bad example, but that shit is just dumb. I'd laugh at the GM and go play a video game instead.

Any sentence with the word drow in it is uncompelling.

Quote from: talysman;904206I had to vote "No", because "interesting" is one of those words that is meaningless outside a context. You have to define what you are interested in to determine if something is interesting. The context Ken Hite seems to be using here is "stuff players can develop a strong emotional response to quickly", and yeah, SOME real-world examples will have strong player buy-in, as will fictional examples based on those examples. But others won't. Just try running a Sumerian historical campaign for players who don't give a crap about Sumeria.

I've known a handful of gamers in 42 years of gaming who would give a crap about Sumeria. That said, I've run a number of settings (fictional and real) for people who didn't know or care about the setting ahead of time. I think Hite is simultaneously overvaluing the utility of real history for familiarity and engagement and underestimating the ability to provide setting to GMs and players in digestible amounts.

Quote from: talysman;904289But, even though he also promotes Gygax-style random tables as the perfect solution to getting GMs to read setting material, he never gets away from expressing setting through text.

It's odd that Hite discards the solution that actually works. A set of well created, location specific random encounter tables are a great way of making some of the nuts and bolts of the setting clear to everyone, GM and player alike.

QuoteBut I think a designer can in fact design a setting that's meant to evolve idiosyncratically, becoming unique for each table.

Indeed. Even if different GMs started with the same encounter tables, randomization and GM specific selective acceptance will lead to recognizable, but still noticeably different locales.

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.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;904366How are there no humans in Star Wars?

Oops. My bad. I left out a couple of crucial words. Star Wars does have humans. Doesn't have earth animals.

"Interesting" is not necessarily the same as "gameable."

Now somebody fetch me a beer.

Given the way it is phrased "generally true, allowing for a few rare exceptions" I'd say yes. Most fantasy worlds don't interest me anywhere near as much as the real world, but a very few do interest me.

Quote from: Trond;904377Given the way it is phrased "generally true, allowing for a few rare exceptions" I'd say yes. Most fantasy worlds don't interest me anywhere near as much as the real world, but a very few do interest me.

Where as to a lot of people I've gamed with (which I am stressing is not fact, but purely anecdotal), they don't care about the real world or history, but they can recite lore from a number of fantasy books and RPG settings, two of the biggest in my area right now:  The Forgotten Realms and Game of Thrones.

Quote from: Thornhammer;904348Eh, 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.

Couldn't agree with you more! I had the same issue you had with Tekumel with both 40K and WHFB, so I think you're right - it's all about what interests one. As for real world stuff, I could bore everyone to tears with my lore about the Great Western Railway and why the patent 'Instanter' coupling is so superior for goods wagons... :)

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?

It's controversial? Why:)?

There are settings that I like, some that I like a lot, but the best I can say about a setting is "it comes so close to the real world that it's almost indistinguishable";).

The real world is definitely more interesting that any fantasy setting (I particularly agree with Hite's statements about "Kragar the Barbarian").  But it's not necessarily better for roleplaying.  There are a number of issues faced with roleplaying in a real-world setting, like the need to really research the hell out of it and how to handle it when you get things wrong or a player knows more about the setting that the GM.  And not all interesting settings are easy to figure out how to game in.

As the question is precisely stated, I would have to agree.

However, the real world/Earth has certain limits. It is unparalleled as a singular source for ideas, but there is still many things you can't do with it. And you can gleefully pilfer Earth and make a not-Earth out of your favorite parts.

Quote from: Omega;904353Kenneth Hite = moron.

No. Just no.

I don't always agree with him, but I'd never make the mistake of thinking he is dumb. Not knowing you and having spoken and listened to Ken, making a statement like this paints you as the moron.

Quote from: Bren;904359Tekumel 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.

Tekumel even includes an in universe reason why it has humans (from Earth no less) but not other terrestrial species. I am not sure if Star Wars really gives us a reason why there are humans in that galaxy far, far, away, but given the profusion of other humanoid types humans are not outside the bounds of likely diversity.

Traveller did include a whole set of tables for generating animal encounters by ecological niche, but the results were completely lacking in flavor. No description and no real hooks to hang an adventure on.

The biggest problem I have with Tekumel is that so much of it has very little to connect to my culture. It is IIRC inspired in part by Earth cultures in Southern Asia and the Middle East, my culture is north eastern North American and north western European, not much help in understanding teh Empire of the Petal Throne. As for the fauna and flora, well, some of it is non-native to Tekumel, and the native stuff is not closely modeled on Earth forms, and it is all named in very foriegn languages. I want to explore Tekumel and dive into its richness. But it is so hard for me to keep it all straight.

Blue Planet gives us a foreign ecosystem, but at least all the creatures in the bestiary were apparently named by English speakers so the names have at least some resonance with me.

If you look at popular movies, books, TV shows, and games, I don't know how anyone can honestly say that we live in a society where the real world is regarded as more interesting than fantasy worlds. Does anyone really think a movie studio today would pony up $200 million to produce a film about Cortez conquest of Mexico - surely one of the most spectacular and dramatic events in history? When they could instead put that money towards another Star Wars sequel, a new Marvel franchise (Doctor Strange!), or a remake of the Princess Bride?

I agree with the basic premise of "No invented setting is as interesting as the real world."  Not because of the depth and intricacies of history (or the lack of it in most RPG settings)... but because over the last five thousand years, human beings have been so incredibly inventive when it comes to social structure, methods of war, supernatural superstitions, ways of worship, concepts of crime and punishment, what constitutes ethical behaviour and so on.

Leaving super science aside, there is no setting out there which does anything which humanity itself hasn't already replicated or believed was true. Most people have no concept of how weird some human cultures have been, or still are today in the most remote corners of the world.

Theocracies - we've already done it.
Organised cannibalism to gain magical power or protection - done it.
Employment or belief based caste systems - done it.
Weird methods of execution - we've done them all.
Worship of conjoined children as incarnated gods - done it.
Conditioned members of society to willingly accept human sacrifice - done it.
Circumcision (either sex) - seems to be a popular one humanity repeatedly returns to.
Forced cult or rank promotion on killing the person whose shoes you wish to fill - done it.
Consuming the ashes of dead relatives to pass on knowledge - done it.
Kidnapping your wife or husband to be, possibly forcefully - done it.
Status gains from bull jumping, lion slaying, or single-handedly tackling any other dangerous beast (monster) - done it.
Imparted magical powers by the eating/smoking/drinking of exotic substances, colour of skin, or by tattooing one's face - done it.
Fought wars of regional conquest by playing a sport or ritualised non-lethal combat - done it.
Forced manhood ceremonies by forcing suicidal idiocies like bungy jumping with vines tied around legs - done it.
Property only owned by women, not men - done it.
Throwing babies from temple roofs to bless them - done it.
Exhuming your dead to show love and deference to ancestors, by dancing or sleeping with them - done it.
Engaged in societal geriatricide when old folks become useless - done it.
Based an economy on disk of ivory, feathers or slabs of chocolate - done it.
Slaying kings or high priests when famines strike - done it.
Ritualised beating of men who seek the same bride until the last man standing - done it.
Burning, burying alive, or some other form of death for the wife and household when the husband dies - done it.
Taking weather auguries (or other societal actions) based on the behaviour of an animal - might sound familiar.
Binding heads, feet, necks, etc to deform the human body as a sign of beauty, rank or a means of granting magical power - done it.
Engaged in self mutilation to show grief/respect/solidarity - done it.
Refused marriage until the 'boy' kills somebody in battle first - done it.
Every possible form of political structure - well all those terms in the encyclopaedia came from somewhere.
And don't even get me started on the myriad of religions and associate methods of worship people have seriously believed in over the millennia...

If you start reading up on ancient and near-modern societies across the continents, you'll discover even stranger behaviour and social structures. This is why, for me, invented settings are simply bland and unimaginative when compared to what humanity has itself done in the real world.

Quote from: Omega;904353Kenneth Hite = moron.

Next question.

Do what now?

Quote from: Haffrung;904484If you look at popular movies, books, TV shows, and games, I don't know how anyone can honestly say that we live in a society where the real world is regarded as more interesting than fantasy worlds. Does anyone really think a movie studio today would pony up $200 million to produce a film about Cortez conquest of Mexico - surely one of the most spectacular and dramatic events in history? When they could instead put that money towards another Star Wars sequel, a new Marvel franchise (Doctor Strange!), or a remake of the Princess Bride?

TV and movie production studios have motivations other than making things interesting.  Honestly, if you can't figure out why no studio today would touch a Cortez' conquest of Mexico adventure pic with a ten foot pole for reason other than lack of interest....

The book Sleepless in Hollywood: Tales From the New Abnormal (https://www.amazon.com/Sleepless-Hollywood-Tales-Abnormal-Business/dp/1476727759) describes why movies get made these days.  It has everything to do with ROI and risk, not interest.

Quote from: DavetheLost;904482I am not sure if Star Wars really gives us a reason why there are humans in that galaxy far, far, away...

Star Wars doesn't provide a reason anymore than Flash Gordon explained why there were people on Mongo who looked and acted like humans.

QuoteTraveller did include a whole set of tables for generating animal encounters by ecological niche, but the results were completely lacking in flavor. No description and no real hooks to hang an adventure on.

Traveller rules were masters of the bland. Your character sheet was just a multiplace hexadecimal number. The GM had to add flavor.

Presumably explorers would have named things using some evocative names similar to mountain lion, Tasmanian Devil, the Tasmanian tiger or Tasmanian wolf (Thylacinus cynocephalus), Cape Buffalo, and the Komodo Dragon. If there is a native population toss in some critters with names derived from the native lingo like kangaroo which derives from the Guugu Yimithirr word gangurru, referring to grey kangaroos. The name was first recorded as "kanguru."

On first contact planets, the GM could come up with a good description and then let the PCs name critters they encounter.

QuoteThe biggest problem I have with Tekumel is that so much of it has very little to connect to my culture.

You say problem, I say feature...:D

Quote from: Haffrung;904484Does anyone really think a movie studio today would pony up $200 million to produce a film about Cortez conquest of Mexico - surely one of the most spectacular and dramatic events in history? When they could instead put that money towards another Star Wars sequel, a new Marvel franchise (Doctor Strange!), or a remake of the Princess Bride?

Isn't it time for yet another sequel in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise?

Quote from: Omega;904353Kenneth Hite = moron.

Next question.

Omega = Troll.

Next question.

"No invented setting is as interesting as the real world." Agree?

Yes. But I don't want a setting as interesting as the real world, we'll get caught up in all sorts of trivial details. It's the difference between a movie and a documentary. They're both good things, but they're different things.

I shall defer to JRR Tolkein on this topic (from in his Epic Rap Battle against George RR Martin).

We all know the world is full of chance and anarchy
so yes it's true to life for characters to die randomly
but new's flash, the genre's called fantasy
it's meant to be unrealistic, you myopic manatee!

Quote from: Spinachcat;904522so yes it's true to life for characters to die randomly

GoT is basically the War of the Roses with the serial numbers filed off.  And there's the rub: the War of the Roses is the same way.  If you read up on the history of it, there's tons of people who look like they're about to become the breakaway protagonist and then BAM murdered, poisoned or just dead of syphilis. You lose track of them all after a while.

The problem with the real world is I can't just make shit up and then make up more shit to cover up any inconsistencies and contradictions. That can cause problems at times like when I wrote up a dungeon located in the catacombs of Venice. *doh*

But still better the real world than serial numbers filed off knock-offs of the real world, those tend to be so bland with all of the interesting bits of history sanded down.

Quote from: Daztur;904557The problem with the real world is I can't just make shit up and then make up more shit to cover up any inconsistencies and contradictions. That can cause problems at times like when I wrote up a dungeon located in the catacombs of Venice. *doh*

What, the catacombs aren't kept dry by an ancient, complex system of pressurized aqueducts, prone to failure and flooding at critical moments such as the climactic fight with the villain?

Come on, man, you're not even trying.

Quote from: daniel_ream;904567What, the catacombs aren't kept dry by an ancient, complex system of pressurized aqueducts, prone to failure and flooding at critical moments such as the climactic fight with the villain?

Come on, man, you're not even trying.

Certainly. Just easier to do stuff like that if it's my world.

Setting isn't ever interesting by itself.  It's what you do with it that matters.  There's a thousand 'fantasy setting' games that are generic, and probably a good chunk of 'real world setting' that are just as bad.

His statement sounds like he's relying on references to reality to carry a game.  If Kragar the Liberator was made interesting, it'd be just as good.

But maybe I'm one of those guys that wants to just part from reality more often.

It is certainly a valid point. I voted No because the best RPG fantasy settings transport you (imaginatively). Designing a different world from separate principles can be really engaging. For me, the stand out original RPG settings are Glorantha -  a world made of myth, Earthdawn, a world of post apocalyptic heroic horror and Trollworld, where monsters are people too.

These have some of the fantasy staples (elves, dwarves), but are different enough from the standard Tolkien assumptions (and our world) to require creation from a new cloth.

That is not to say that Earth derived settings cannot be great. My personal preference is for the 'dark conspiracy' type genre for Earth set adventures, so Call of Cthulhu, Dark Conspiracy, World of Darkness and so on. Limitations can breed creativity, but being off the wall can also be very exciting.

I voted no, because I ran across the sentiment in Ars Magica back in the mid 90's. I ran several games set in the real world, and found that my players had more trouble figuring out where things were, how actual medieval culture worked, and how to act and what to expect. But when I pulled out an undefined fantasy setting, they could jump in feet first. Keeping in mind this was a diverse group, with ages ranging from late teens to early 50s. The real world comes with a lot of weight, detail and disappointments. This is why most fantasy settings mix elements of the real (animals we know, trees, European feudalism, armour and swords, etc.) with the fantastic. But outside of the "fantasy" genre, and as one comes closer to the modern day, the fantasy can take backseat to the real world because the players have more familiarity with yesteryear. Setting games in the 1920s isn't as hard because we have tons of cultural knowledge about life in the `20s (even if much of that knowledge is not accurate). The same goes for westerns, thanks to Hollywood cinema.

Quote from: Bren;904359Tekumel has humans, while Star Wars (a well known campaign setting) doesn't have earth animals.

Sure it does. Rats, king snakes, boa constrictors and monitor lizards are shown on screen, while dogs, ducks and falcons are mentioned.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;904521"No invented setting is as interesting as the real world." Agree?

Yes. But I don't want a setting as interesting as the real world, we'll get caught up in all sorts of trivial details. It's the difference between a movie and a documentary. They're both good things, but they're different things.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;904202Mildly disagree. Real world stuff is more important, since it really happened. But I find fictional settings far more entertaining and engaging, because I'm not tied down to real world details.

And I'm not a fan of wargaming or RPing in historical settings. The more a setting is historical, the less interested I am. I'm not quite sure, but I suspect part of it is that it's making light of real world events. I've never been able to explain my reaction in a definite way though. It's more a feeling than an intellectual argument.

So playing in Vietnam as a soldier is high on my "No thanks" list, playing in the Vietnam with zombies and robots is a bit better, and playing in the Vietnam analogy in space is even better.

BTW

I'm not sure if I'm picking on a bad example, but that shit is just dumb. I'd laugh at the GM and go play a video game instead.

George Lucas made a similar point.  (http://www.wired.com/2005/05/lucasqa/) Creating your own setting, your own characters and your own story allows the storyteller to avoid getting into tedious arguments about real life people, places and things.

QuoteIn addition to the experimental films that you say you want to make now, you've expressed an interest in making historical films.

 Yes, but I don't want to get into situations where people say, "That's not historically correct." History is fiction, but people seem to think otherwise. The thing I like about fantasy and science fiction is that you can take issues, pull them out of their cultural straitjackets, and talk about them without bringing in folk artifacts that make people get closed minded.

Give me an example of what you mean by a folk artifact.

Fahrenheit 9/11. People went nuts. The folk aspects of that film were George Bush or Iraq or 9/11 or — intense emotional issues that made people put up their blinders and say, "I have an opinion about this, and I'm not going to accept anything else." If you could look at these issues more open-mindedly — at what's going on with the human mind behind all this, on all sides — you could have a more interesting conversation, without people screaming, plugging their ears, and walking out of the room like kids do.

And you do that by — By making the film "about" something other than what it's really about.

Which is what mythology is, and what storytelling has always been about. Art is about communicating with people emotionally without the intellectual artifacts of the current situation, and dealing with very emotional issues.

Life and death.

Life and death, or "I really want to kill my father and have sex with my mother." It's hard to talk about that kind of thing in a family situation without somebody getting upset. But in art, you can deal with those issues. You begin to realize that other people have had the same experience or go down those same paths deep in their minds. Most stories are really told for adolescents, which is why Star Wars was aimed at adolescents. Societies have a whole series of stories to bring adolescents into adulthood by saying, "Don't worry, everybody thinks that way. You're just part of the community. We don't quite talk about it, but if you act on some of your notions, here's what will happen: Zeus will reach down and smash you flat like a bug or the entire Greek army will come and crush your city and burn everybody inside of it, including your heroes." These lessons are continually handed down from generation to generation. I love history, so I create an environment — in the past, present, or future — that allows me to tell the story, but in a way that's not incendiary.

Quote from: daniel_ream;904553GoT is basically the War of the Roses with the serial numbers filed off.  And there's the rub: the War of the Roses is the same way.  If you read up on the history of it, there's tons of people who look like they're about to become the breakaway protagonist and then BAM murdered, poisoned or just dead of syphilis. You lose track of them all after a while.

It doesn't help that everyone is named Edward, Henry, Richard, Anne or Elizabeth.

Quote from: Elfdart;906730Sure it does. Rats, king snakes, boa constrictors and monitor lizards are shown on screen, while dogs, ducks and falcons are mentioned.

:confused:







George Lucas made a similar point.  (http://www.wired.com/2005/05/lucasqa/) Creating your own setting, your own characters and your own story allows the storyteller to avoid getting into tedious arguments about real life people, places and things.[/QUOTE]

As a start, most definitely, just from sheer level of detail.

From there, you get into preconceptions and alt history debates that can all but drown out the campaign outright.

In the abstract he is right, by sheer volume and unexpected results. As a playable start it's great. After that... :confused: buyer beware. Know thine audience.

Quote from: Haffrung;904484If you look at popular movies, books, TV shows, and games, I don't know how anyone can honestly say that we live in a society where the real world is regarded as more interesting than fantasy worlds. Does anyone really think a movie studio today would pony up $200 million to produce a film about Cortez conquest of Mexico - surely one of the most spectacular and dramatic events in history? When they could instead put that money towards another Star Wars sequel, a new Marvel franchise (Doctor Strange!), or a remake of the Princess Bride?

You're going to have to amend that to Hollywood movie studios. I've already seen movies (and some even soap operas!) about the Conquest of the Aztecs and the Conquest of the Incas on Spanish language TV. Given how India, Korea, Japan, China, Vietnam, and Latin America already use their film studios, I'm just going to have to disagree with you and defer to the reality.

(Unless you're niggling on the very specific dollar amount there in an attempt to ignore scale of market magnitude, insisting everyone be on Hollywood scale standards. And then I'd be disappointed in your poorly defined argumentation.)

Bren, watch the cave scene in TESB and observe the snakes and lizards inside. They are earth creatures.

Quote from: Elfdart;906819Bren, watch the cave scene in TESB and observe the snakes and lizards inside. They are earth creatures.

Are they?

Or did the prop department use real earth creatures because they couldn't book a flight to Degoabah. Does anyone on screen call those creatures by earth names e.g. "rats, king snakes, boa constrictors and monitor lizards"?

Now I wouldn't be surprised if some creatures include an earth-type name (probably in English) because words like hawk, bat, slug, worm, and goat are evocative for the audience in a way that bantha and taun-tuan are not. We see them depicted in the movie so we don't need an evocative name, but a lot of listed Star Wars creatures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Wars_creatures) are first encountered in a book. So we get names like Akk Dog, Blase tree goat, Blenjeel Sand Worm, Clawbird, Colo claw fish, Condor dragon, Dashta eels, Dragon snake (which is from Dagobah and might have been what they used a boa to mimic), Duracrete slug, Felucian ground beetle, Firaxan shark, Glim worm, Goffbird, Hawk-bat, Jyykle vultures, Kath hounds, K'lor Slugs, Knobby White Spider, Kowakian monkey-lizard, Krayt dragon, Kybucks, Lava flea, Mygeetoan yaks, Nabooan tusk-cat, Nek Battle Dogs, Pylat bird, Rong boars, Shell Spider, the unforgettable Space slug, Spice spider, Stone mite, Storm beast, Swamp slug, Tunnel snakes, Wyrwulves, Yorik coral.

But so far as I can tell, none of those creatures is supposed to be an actual earth creature even if a couple look like earth creatures.

Quote from: daniel_ream;904553GoT is basically the War of the Roses with the serial numbers filed off.  And there's the rub: the War of the Roses is the same way.  If you read up on the history of it, there's tons of people who look like they're about to become the breakaway protagonist and then BAM murdered, poisoned or just dead of syphilis. You lose track of them all after a while.

Dark Albion details them all, in its history and NPCs chapters!

And yes, GoT got almost everything non-blatant-fantasy from the War of the Roses.  Not only that, but Shakespeare did GoT first, with his historical plays. They were the GoT of the 16th century, and at the time were among his most popular works.

Quote from: RPGPundit;907685Dark Albion details them all, in its history and NPCs chapters!

And yes, GoT got almost everything non-blatant-fantasy from the War of the Roses.  Not only that, but Shakespeare did GoT first, with his historical plays. They were the GoT of the 16th century, and at the time were among his most popular works.

I'm more interested in the blatant fantasy stuff. For example, the way GoT uses dragons and their connection to Old Valyria has a very strong Melnibonean vibe to it. Doomed city, used to use dragons in war, remaining dragons dwindled after the fall of the kingdom, ruled by mad kings/emperors, survivors of destruction flee to other continents. The surviving nobility even has really white skin/blond hair, reminiscent of Elric the albino emperor, and Elric has a romantic relationship with a close relative (cousin,) as the Valyrian nobility and their descendants have a reputation for brother/sister marriages. So I'm wondering "Did Martin just 'borrow' some elements from Moorcock, or is it more of a commentary on Moorcock?"

And speaking of which, I saw a list recently of 20 or 50 fantasy novels that are like A Game of Thrones, for those who have to wait for either the books or TV series to continue. Elric of Melnibone is mentioned, which is a good call, because there's a lot of intrigue and betrayal and cataclysm and a bunch of good characters dying. But some of the others were really out there. I mean, Watership Down? Really? How is that like A Game of Thrones?

Quote from: talysman;907695I mean, Watership Down? Really? How is that like A Game of Thrones?

They both were adapted into table top RPGs?

Quote from: talysman;907695Watership Down? Really? How is that like A Game of Thrones?

...because there's a lot of intrigue and betrayal and cataclysm and a bunch of good characters dying?

Quote from: talysman;907695Did Martin just 'borrow' some elements from Moorcock

Martin's never been terribly original.

Quote from: Baulderstone;904171Darth Vader is not real.

You shut your dirty mouth! :mad:

(;))

Quote from: daniel_ream;907711...because there's a lot of intrigue and betrayal and cataclysm and a bunch of good characters dying?

Both sold a lot of books?

Quote from: daniel_ream;907712Martin's never been terribly original.

Martin's genius was to pillage history and repackage it for a generation of readers who are largely ignorant of history. So now when a fantasy author includes a wall to keep barbarians back, a culture of steppe nomads, or intrigue over paternity and succession, he gets accused of ripping off Martin instead of being inspired by the same sources that inspired Martin. He looted Herodotus, the Hundred Years War, and the Wars of the Roses so shamelessly that they're basically a poisoned well for any other author.

Quote from: Haffrung;907749Martin's genius was to pillage history and repackage it for a generation of readers who are largely ignorant of history. So now when a fantasy author includes a wall to keep barbarians back, a culture of steppe nomads, or intrigue over paternity and succession, he gets accused of ripping off Martin instead of being inspired by the same sources that inspired Martin. He looted Herodotus, the Hundred Years War, and the Wars of the Roses so shamelessly that they're basically a poisoned well for any other author.

I don't know if this is quite fair.  Good authors barrow, steal and reinvent, and history and our imaginings about history are the primary source for every fantasy story and setting that I can think of.  Martin's only crime here is that he is ridiculously popular.

Quote from: Haffrung;907749Martin's genius was to pillage history and repackage it for a generation of readers who are largely ignorant of history.

I wouldn't call it genius.  Offhand, David Gemmell, David Duncan, Naomi Novik, L. Sprague de Camp, and tons of others have done it.  It's also not new; Diana Wynne Jones wrote an entire book parodying the habit in 1996.

As far as Martin goes, he stole from War of the Roses, Moorcock, sure, but let's not forget Dune.  The noble lord gets pulled into a political trap he can't avoid surrounded by enemies while his bastard son (or son that shouldn't have been conceived) is the Kwisatz Haderach/Azor Azhai the Prince that was Promised and said son's abilities only manifest after he dwells with the exiled Fremen/Wildlings and dies to be reborn...and don't forget the Otherworldly mother and magical little sister. :D

Quote from: Madprofessor;907762I don't know if this is quite fair.  Good authors barrow, steal and reinvent, and history and our imaginings about history are the primary source for every fantasy story and setting that I can think of.  Martin's only crime here is that he is ridiculously popular.

Haters gonna hate.

Quote from: Madprofessor;907762I don't know if this is quite fair.  Good authors barrow, steal and reinvent, and history and our imaginings about history are the primary source for every fantasy story and setting that I can think of.  Martin's only crime here is that he is ridiculously popular.

I would amend this to: "Martin's only crime here is his execution of his reinvention is excellent, and it has made him ridiculously popular."

George doesn't hide *any* of his influences. He's pretty candid about them. I find the use of saying he's "stealing" from history rather silly in light of that fact. But GoT is damned good character-writing, plot be damned. He deserves the praise he's earned.

Quote from: CRKrueger;907801As far as Martin goes, he stole from War of the Roses, Moorcock, sure, but let's not forget Dune.  The noble lord gets pulled into a political trap he can't avoid surrounded by enemies while his bastard son (or son that shouldn't have been conceived) is the Kwisatz Haderach/Azor Azhai the Prince that was Promised and said son's abilities only manifest after he dwells with the exiled Fremen/Wildlings and dies to be reborn...and don't forget the Otherworldly mother and magical little sister. :D

Nice. Herbert's one of my favorite writers. It's hard to ignore these points underneath the dressing of GoT for me. Herbert, now there's a guy that deserves the HBO-treatment.

Quote from: CRKrueger;907801As far as Martin goes, he stole from War of the Roses, Moorcock, sure, but let's not forget Dune.  The noble lord gets pulled into a political trap he can't avoid surrounded by enemies while his bastard son (or son that shouldn't have been conceived) is the Kwisatz Haderach/Azor Azhai the Prince that was Promised and said son's abilities only manifest after he dwells with the exiled Fremen/Wildlings and dies to be reborn...and don't forget the Otherworldly mother and magical little sister. :D

But then, like the point raised earlier about authors borrowing from the same historical sources, both Martin and Herbert may have been inspired by a common source. I'm sure if we look around, we could probably find an example of a tense political situation with threat of open conflict and a messianic figure of hidden royal heritage who dies to be reborn.

Quote from: talysman;907886But then, like the point raised earlier about authors borrowing from the same historical sources, both Martin and Herbert may have been inspired by a common source. I'm sure if we look around, we could probably find an example of a tense political situation with threat of open conflict and a messianic figure of hidden royal heritage who dies to be reborn.

Y'all know Paul Atreides is Muhammad, right?

Quote from: tenbonesGeorge doesn't hide *any* of his influences. He's pretty candid about them. I find the use of saying he's "stealing" from history rather silly in light of that fact. But GoT is damned good character-writing, plot be damned. He deserves the praise he's earned.

If you never read anything but fantasy, maybe.  But there are a lot of very good historical fiction - or just fiction - writers out there, and he's a big fish in a small genre pond.  I say he's stealing from history because he's not really doing much with his material, he's just sanding off the identifiable bits and plunking them in front of the reader.  That's just lazy writing.  David Duncan, by comparison, starts with young Henry VIII but then goes off in a very interesting direction with the King's Blades series.

Slightly off topic:

Quote from: tenbones;907881I would amend this to: "Martin's only crime here is his execution of his reinvention is excellent, and it has made him ridiculously popular."

And for reasons, I don't quite get. As people pointed he's not the first author do that, and do that very well.  And yet, he's the only one who broke mainstream.  Why?

But then I have the same issue with Harry Potter, there's absolutely nothing original in the series of books that hasn't been done before, and some of them are MUCH better written, and yet, super popular!

What is it about them that hits the public in the way that made them popular?

My personal theory is timing, but I have no proof of this.

I think of Harry Potter or, for that matter, GoT as a fads. Fads seldom make much sense, to wit, Pet Rocks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_Rock).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;907901And for reasons, I don't quite get.

There are allot factors. Marketing and just dumb luck like timing play a part as well as other things.

But there's no accounting for tastes. Just because I think X is "much better written" than Y doesn't mean allot people are going to agree with me or even if they that I am objectively correct. Some things are going to click with more people, they just strike a chord other works don't even if they're considered better even technically better. Many people don't read for technical expertise or prowess. They consume things they like. It can even change over time. Some writers that were the equivalent of hacks in their own time are considered masters now. We might be very surprised at whats on the "classics" list in a couple of centuries. :)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;907901But then I have the same issue with Harry Potter, there's absolutely nothing original in the series of books that hasn't been done before, and some of them are MUCH better written, and yet, super popular!

What is it about them that hits the public in the way that made them popular?

I'll be bloody, bold and resolute and take a stab at this.

To some extent it's a positive feedback loop.  Once it gets popular it's going to get more popular because people want to be on the bandwagon.  There's certainly an element of faddishness to this.

Second, fantasy as mainstream was primed by the zeitgeist.  Geek culture was mainstreaming already by the end of the 90's, and children's fantasy has always been much more popular than adult fantasy.  The early Harry Potter books are just slightly magicified British boarding school fiction, which has been popular for British kids since forever.  Add to that that Harry is both a male Cinderella and a cipher - he has no real personality or initiative - and you have a main character that appeals to both boys and girls and who any reader can project themselves on to.  I could get sociological and point out that a) there are no permanent strong positive male role models in the Harry Potter books and 2) they hit at a time when children being raised by single mothers was an exploding phenomenon meant kids were going to empathize even more with Harry's life, but I'm sure some fedora-wearing hipster will lose his shit if I do, so I'll move on.

As for GoT, that's easy.  Nobody read the books initially except fantasy readers already.  The initial popularity there comes from the fact that the fantasy genre has had its snout up Tolkien's Mirkwood for thirty years and hasn't had an original idea in that long. Pace the other thread, real history may not be as gameable, but it's sure as hell more interesting than fantasy.  Martin tapped into that by reskinning the War of the Roses.  HBO optioned GoT because it was cheap and had lots of sex and violence and Lord of the Rings made a shit ton of money.  Martin would still be editing Wild Card anthologies if LotR hadn't been filmed.

So yeah, it's timing, in the sense that a lot of things happened at once to make a market for That Kind of Thing.  Same thing for The Hunger Games and all its imitators.

Hey!  I... like fedoras. And slouch hats, the Shadow looks pretty cool...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248[/ATTACH]...yes he does.

Martin's stuff works for the same reason the original Star Wars works: he stole from a LOT of sources that his readers/viewers would find familiar and then stitched tjem together into a seamless whole that has it's own definite feel. Same with Harry Potter for the most part although I don't know that series well enough to comment really.

Why similar things don't work is:
-Not stealing broadly enough. For the King's Blades books (which I love) the first is mostly Henry VIII and then you get some Shakespeare later. Not quite "a fairy tale Western about samurais riding hot rods fighting Roman Nazis in Casa Blanca Flash Gordonland."
-Not stitching the parts together well. Star Wars, Matin and Harry Potter all have a definite feel where all the stuff they've stolen comes together. Other stuff can feel a lot more clumsy or the expys too blatant for the book/movie to feel like its own thing.
-Stealing stuff that's too obscure: if nobody knows what you're stealing it won't resonate with readers.

Quote from: Daztur;907946-Not stealing broadly enough. For the King's Blades books (which I love) the first is mostly Henry VIII and then you get some Shakespeare later. Not quite "a fairy tale Western about samurais riding hot rods fighting Roman Nazis in Casa Blanca Flash Gordonland."

You missed the WWII movies.

Quote-Stealing stuff that's too obscure: if nobody knows what you're stealing it won't resonate with readers.

The overwhelming majority of people I know who watch/read GoT have no idea what the War of the Roses or Hadrian's Wall is.

Quote from: Nexus;907803Haters gonna hate.

I don't want to see him Shake It Off. :eek:

Quote from: daniel_ream;907953You missed the WWII movies.



The overwhelming majority of people I know who watch/read GoT have no idea what the War of the Roses or Hadrian's Wall is.

Didn't miss WW II, I mentioned Nazis. I guess I should have included them flying Zeroes.

For ASoIaF I bet a whole lot of the people the books were first a hit among knew what Hadrian's Wall is and recognized the more historical fiction novel style of the plotting even if the didn't know about Edward IV.

Also Martin steals SO much (the Marx Brothers kidnap Tyrion for fuck's sake) that you're going to have stuff that feels familiar no matter what and having people get the general feeling rather than the specific details works to make it feel familiar but also its own thing, much like Star Wars.

For the TV probably a different set of factors made it popular but it did a great job of adding fantasy to HBO-style drama in a way that was very calculated to not turn off people who don't like fantasy. I remember a lot of the season 1 marketing emphasizing everything but the show's fantasy elements.

Quote from: Daztur;907957Didn't miss WW II, I mentioned Nazis. I guess I should have included them flying Zeroes.

Doesn't really go far enough.  ANH is Dam Busters, ESB is Stalingrad, ROTJ is Midway.

QuoteFor ASoIaF I bet a whole lot of the people the books were first a hit among knew what Hadrian's Wall is and recognized the more historical fiction novel style of the plotting even if the didn't know about Edward IV.

This has not been my experience, either for the initial fantasy book release or for the TV show.

For that matter, most people who think they're the shit don't recognize the things Robert Jordan or Elizabeth Moon are stealing, and they're stealing far more current and popular things.

QuoteFor the TV probably a different set of factors made it popular but it did a great job of adding fantasy to HBO-style drama in a way that was very calculated to not turn off people who don't like fantasy. I remember a lot of the season 1 marketing emphasizing everything but the show's fantasy elements.

We're in the midst of a boom in medieval TV generally right now.  The Tudors, Reign, The White Queen, both Borgias, Pillars of the Earth, etc.  I'd be inclined to bet this is due to LotR breaking through and the fact that a lot of fantastic elements are still a bridge too far for most mainstream viewers.  We've also had a boom in medieval fantasy TV but it's sank like a stone leaving nary a ripple.

I also know several GoT TV fans who stopped watching around the second season as the fantasy elements ramped up and they realized that there was no point in emotionally investing in any of the characters.

Quote from: daniel_ream;907953You missed the WWII movies.



The overwhelming majority of people I know who watch/read GoT have no idea what the War of the Roses or Hadrian's Wall is.

Tits always win.

Quote from: daniel_ream;908043We're in the midst of a boom in medieval TV generally right now.  The Tudors, Reign, The White Queen, both Borgias, Pillars of the Earth, etc.  I'd be inclined to bet this is due to LotR breaking through and the fact that a lot of fantastic elements are still a bridge too far for most mainstream viewers.  We've also had a boom in medieval fantasy TV but it's sank like a stone leaving nary a ripple.

I think Hollywood also primed the pump with Braveheart, Gladiator, et al.

Quote from: daniel_ream;908043I also know several GoT TV fans who stopped watching around the second season as the fantasy elements ramped up and they realized that there was no point in emotionally investing in any of the characters.

Eh, people who say that are whiny little bitches.  It's not that there's no point in emotionally investing, it's that bad things could happen "OH NOES!!!!111!!" and they're even afraid of the fainting couch now it seems.

Don't get me wrong, Martin's laid it on thick, but GoT is nothing compared to real life.  Tirion, Jon, Daenarys, Arya, Sansa, Bran - there's still a ton of people to root for, and lots of players still on the table from the very first book.

Quote from: CRKrueger;908045Tits always win.

As Ian McShane said, I don't know the big deal is, it's all just tits and dragons.

Quote from: CRKrueger;908046Eh, people who say that are whiny little bitches.

That's a value judgement, not an economic one.  TV is aimed primarily at women, and the truth is that people who watch character drama do so because they want that emotional investment to pay off.  It can't pay off if those characters keep dying at random.  There's a reason soaps like One Tree Hill, 90210 or The Office bend credibility to keep the same set of people in the same place for years on end.

Quote from: daniel_ream;908055As Ian McShane said, I don't know the big deal is, it's all just tits and dragons.

You say that like it's a bad thing...

Quote from: daniel_ream;908055That's a value judgement, not an economic one.  TV is aimed primarily at women, and the truth is that people who watch character drama do so because they want that emotional investment to pay off.  It can't pay off if those characters keep dying at random.  There's a reason soaps like One Tree Hill, 90210 or The Office bend credibility to keep the same set of people in the same place for years on end.

Part also of the reason I heard, was because it was all bone-grindingly depressing.  There were no personal victories, none of the liked characters actually had good moments, was all doom, gloom and soul-crushing despair and seriousness.  You need levity to break up the tedium.

I agree with Hite. I think that "complexity" maps pretty well to "capacity to be interesting" and I think it's pretty clear that the real world is more complex than any imaginary setting.

However... That isn't to say this makes the real world the ideal setting for RPGs. Complexity is not always a great thing. What GM has complete knowlege and understanding of our own world? Sometimes you want the freedom to be able to make things up rather than research them.

Also, for me personally setting in RPGs functions most productively as backdrop. I want it to make sense but I REALLY do not want to have to absorb a bunch.of setting detail (real or imaginary) to play a game.

Quote from: Manzanaro;908335I agree with Hite. I think that "complexity" maps pretty well to "capacity to be interesting" and I think it's pretty clear that the real world is more complex than any imaginary setting.

I don't think you do agree with Hite. Hite's claim is "No invented setting is as interesting as the real world." His claim is not, "No invented setting has the capacity to be as interesting as the real world."

The question is, do you find the real world more interesting as a setting?

QuoteI want it to make sense but I REALLY do not want to have to absorb a bunch.of setting detail (real or imaginary) to play a game.

Since you don't want to absorb the detail of the real world, it is clear that you don't find the complexity of the real world as interesting as something with less complexity. Like most people in the thread, you are disagreeing rather than agreeing with Hite.

Fucking dude has been waiting 2 months for me to post. lolz

Quote from: Madprofessor;907762I don't know if this is quite fair.  Good authors barrow, steal and reinvent, and history and our imaginings about history are the primary source for every fantasy story and setting that I can think of.  Martin's only crime here is that he is ridiculously popular.

Hey, I'm not criticizing Martin. I think he's great (the first three books anyway). And I love historical fiction, so it all works for me.

The point I'm making is that it felt so fresh to his audience today because they hadn't read anything like it. And they hadn't read anything like it because we have a generation of readers now who are largely ignorant of history and historical fiction. Not just the details, but the dynasties, bloody feuds, the cruel and arbitrary nature of war, etc. Martin himself often recommends history and historical fiction books to his fans, but I get the impression they just aren't interested.

I bet if somebody re-wrote Shogun today and gave it a patina of fantasy it would be a big hit. But I don't see readers today rushing out to read Shogun itself. That's why while I agree with Hite that history is more interesting than fantasy, the pop culture market says otherwise. To say something is historical is to turn off a big part of the market, especially those under 40.

Quote from: daniel_ream;907953The overwhelming majority of people I know who watch/read GoT have no idea what the War of the Roses or Hadrian's Wall is.

Same here. I've come across many instances on fantasy fiction and gaming forums of people slamming an author for including an element that 'rips off' Martin, when it's just something lifted from history.

Quote from: Haffrung;908371The point I'm making is that it felt so fresh to his audience today because they hadn't read anything like it. And they hadn't read anything like it because we have a generation of readers now who are largely ignorant of history and historical fiction.

And who apparently never read books by other authors like Glen Cook who did similar things before Martin. Le sigh.

Quote from: Bren;908385And who apparently never read books by other authors like Glen Cook who did similar things before Martin. Le sigh.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were to remind about Ken Follett, but Cook? :confused:

Quote from: JesterRaiin;908387I wouldn't be surprised if you were to remind about Ken Follett, but Cook? :confused:

Why Glen Cook?

Well his first book in the Dread Empire series was published in 1979, the eponymous first Black Company novel in 1984. Cook did gritty, historically inspired, fiction with flawed protagonists who might just die in the middle of a book more than a decade before GoT saw print and ten years before Pillars of the Earth. Martin is known to be a fan of Cook and Steven Erikson cites the Black Company as the primary influence on his Malazan series. And I like Cook's writing, most especially his less lighthearted, historically inspired books. I can take or leave his Garrett stories.

Quote from: Bren;908393Why Glen Cook? (...)

Hmmm...

In comparison to Martin's butchery (or Follett's, for that matter) Cook seems a bit, well... "Lightweight" in gore. ;)

Quote from: Haffrung;908371Same here. I've come across many instances on fantasy fiction and gaming forums of people slamming an author for including an element that 'rips off' Martin, when it's just something lifted from history.

In all fairness, Martin is now the Tolkien, in that he's set the formula for popular fantasy.  Instead of bloody fantasy trilogies, now it's history with the serial numbers filed off.  There's a lot less originality in fantasy lit than people suppose.

In any case, I'm sure R.R. Martin, J.K Rowling, the writers and producers of Game of Thrones along with whoever wrote those sparkly vampire books surely cry themselves to sleep every night over what's said about their work on gamer forums on their mattresses stuffed with money. :D

Quote from: Bren;908385And who apparently never read books by other authors like Glen Cook who did similar things before Martin. Le sigh.

I like Glen Cook a lot (am working through his Garrett PI books at the moment) but he really scratches a different itch than Martin. Martin really works the soap opera angle in a way that Glen Cook doesn't really touch with cliffhangers, chapters that make you throw the book across the room, surprise reversals and all that. I've read The Black Company over and over again and The Dragon Never Sleeps is probably my single favorite sci-fi book but nothing Cook's ever read had my heart in my throat quite the way that, say, reading the Red Viper vs. the Mountain fight for the first time while staying up way too late in college reading just one more chapter.

Martin's vast web of characters also is pretty rare. A lot of series (like The Wheel of Time) have a core group of characters and then a big cast of tertiary characters but the sheer number of important secondary characters who you get to know enough to give a crap about is pretty damn big in his writing. However at this point he's really reached his limit for number of characters I can summon the will to give a shit about, lots of interesting little bit characters in the newer books like the Tattered Prince but it's hard to summon the will to give a crap about them at this point.

Still I do like little touches like it being possible to piece together an interesting and complete life story of characters like Bonifer Hasty who barely even qualify as tertiary (appears or is mentioned in every book except the first) from their appearances and mentions. I don't think any other books in existence would give you such a deep relationship web as Martin's books, it can get suffocating at times but that aspect is certainly unique.

QuoteI also know several GoT TV fans who stopped watching around the second season as the fantasy elements ramped up and they realized that there was no point in emotionally investing in any of the characters.

On the other hand viewership has increased every season (although only very marginally for the weak 5th season). How many popular TV shows increase viewership every year, year after year after year. While I have my complaints about the showrunners they're doing something right. How many other fantasy and historical dramas have tailed backs that up.

For Star Wars being Dam Busters, well it's just as much The Hidden Fortress and just as much a fairy tale and there are all kinds of elements that it's stolen from other sources (the Millenium Falcon is a hot rod and a tramp steamer! Tatooine is Casa Blanca! Flash Gordon everywhere!). It's generally a mark of something that's going to become really popular when a lot of people say (correctly!) how much it ripped off something else but can't agree on what is ripped off the most.

Now I've never seen Dam Busters or The Hidden Fortress but the broad genre stuff Star Wars is stealing is familiar to me. The same goes for ASoIaF/Game of Thrones. Even if you don't know what Hadrian's Wall is or who Warwick was a lot of stuff will seem familiar to you in a way that a lot of other fantasy dramas won't. And more importantly, just like Star Wars, it draws on a lot of different things at once.

Quote from: Bren;906836Are they?

Or did the prop department use real earth creatures because they couldn't book a flight to Degoabah. Does anyone on screen call those creatures by earth names e.g. "rats, king snakes, boa constrictors and monitor lizards"?

Now I wouldn't be surprised if some creatures include an earth-type name (probably in English) because words like hawk, bat, slug, worm, and goat are evocative for the audience in a way that bantha and taun-tuan are not. We see them depicted in the movie so we don't need an evocative name, but a lot of listed Star Wars creatures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Wars_creatures) are first encountered in a book. So we get names like Akk Dog, Blase tree goat, Blenjeel Sand Worm, Clawbird, Colo claw fish, Condor dragon, Dashta eels, Dragon snake (which is from Dagobah and might have been what they used a boa to mimic), Duracrete slug, Felucian ground beetle, Firaxan shark, Glim worm, Goffbird, Hawk-bat, Jyykle vultures, Kath hounds, K'lor Slugs, Knobby White Spider, Kowakian monkey-lizard, Krayt dragon, Kybucks, Lava flea, Mygeetoan yaks, Nabooan tusk-cat, Nek Battle Dogs, Pylat bird, Rong boars, Shell Spider, the unforgettable Space slug, Spice spider, Stone mite, Storm beast, Swamp slug, Tunnel snakes, Wyrwulves, Yorik coral.

But so far as I can tell, none of those creatures is supposed to be an actual earth creature even if a couple look like earth creatures.

I disagree. Humans and the other animals I mentioned only evolved on Earth. How they got to the galaxy far far away might make for an interesting spin-off, should the powers that be at Disney pull their heads out of their asses and do something novel. Yes, it's a fanciful setting, but it is connected to real-world Earth. Aside from a few animals, you also have whatever species E.T. is appearing on Earth as well as on Coruscant. On top of that, he recognizes Yoda!

[video=youtube;ZUwIxLG2AGc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUwIxLG2AGc[/youtube]

Now, the crew that made the movies could have used fake creatures to play the crawling things in the cave, or dressed up real ones to look different (like putting a costume on an elephant for the bantha), but they didn't. They put those animals in the movies as-is.

As for your laundry list of critters, not only did I find taun-tauns, dewbacks and banthas much more evocative than anything on the list, it also shows that George Lucas has much more imagination than any of the writers following in his wake.

Quote from: CRKrueger;908045Tits always win.

As well they should. Especially Eva Green's.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]259[/ATTACH]

Most people don't even know what the real world is.

Quote from: Elfdart;909110I disagree.

Yeah, I got that the first time.

Your belief that the Star Wars galaxy is full of Collie Dogs, Morgan Quarter Horses, Rhode Island Red Hens, Parakeets, Black Angus Cattle, and Siamese Cats despite us never seeing any domesticated earth animals on screen is strange. Earth snakes somehow swam to the swamps of Degoabah, but somehow everybody forgot to bring their pets and the edible animals along with them....right. :rolleyes:

Straw man much?

I only pointed out that some Earth animals appear in the Star Wars movies, as do a number of Earth plants. Why some made it to another galaxy while other didn't could make for an interesting story.

Quote from: Elfdart;909165I only pointed out that some Earth animals appear in the Star Wars movies, as do a number of Earth plants.

Overly literal much?

Your point seemed to be that since they used a few real earth plants and animals in one scene that they intended that those were real earth plants and animals instead of convenient stand-ins. And as I already said, since they made the films in this galaxy, maybe it was too expensive to ship the real animals and plants in from Dagobah so they used cheap earth substitutes. :rolleyes:

Actually, the real world animals were (mostly) an accident.  The building the Dagobah set was built in was a typical hangar-sized structure with lots of open entrance points. The set was so realistic and contained so much organic material that insects, birds frogs and snakes just moved in from the surrounding countryside.

What the fuck are you smoking? King snakes and monitor lizards don't live in the UK. In fact, snakes in general are very rare in the British Isles.

Quote from: CRKrueger;907801As far as Martin goes, he stole from War of the Roses, Moorcock, sure, but let's not forget Dune.  The noble lord gets pulled into a political trap he can't avoid surrounded by enemies while his bastard son (or son that shouldn't have been conceived) is the Kwisatz Haderach/Azor Azhai the Prince that was Promised and said son's abilities only manifest after he dwells with the exiled Fremen/Wildlings and dies to be reborn...and don't forget the Otherworldly mother and magical little sister. :D

Well, Robert Jordan plundered Dune before Martin for his WoT, unless I'm mixing up the dates;). (He just mixed it with LotR).
And then Dune is based on real world analogues, too:).

Quote from: daniel_ream;907922I'll be bloody, bold and resolute and take a stab at this.

To some extent it's a positive feedback loop.  Once it gets popular it's going to get more popular because people want to be on the bandwagon.  There's certainly an element of faddishness to this.

Second, fantasy as mainstream was primed by the zeitgeist.  Geek culture was mainstreaming already by the end of the 90's, and children's fantasy has always been much more popular than adult fantasy.  The early Harry Potter books are just slightly magicified British boarding school fiction, which has been popular for British kids since forever.  Add to that that Harry is both a male Cinderella and a cipher - he has no real personality or initiative - and you have a main character that appeals to both boys and girls and who any reader can project themselves on to.  I could get sociological and point out that a) there are no permanent strong positive male role models in the Harry Potter books and 2) they hit at a time when children being raised by single mothers was an exploding phenomenon meant kids were going to empathize even more with Harry's life, but I'm sure some fedora-wearing hipster will lose his shit if I do, so I'll move on.

Isn't that a pretty good reason to point it out:D?

Quote from: daniel_ream;907953The overwhelming majority of people I know who watch/read GoT have no idea what the War of the Roses or Hadrian's Wall is.

And most people that I know who watch or read GoT did know that, and the references just get a nod. So? I'm not sure what your point is, here.

Quote from: daniel_ream;907953The overwhelming majority of people I know who watch/read GoT have no idea what the War of the Roses or Hadrian's Wall is.

You need a better quality of players.

Anyway, it doesn't matter that much.  If you tell them that your game is set in medieval times, and that the style of it is a lot like Game of Thrones, that will do it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;909553You need a better quality of players.

Who said anything about players?

Quote from: daniel_ream;909571Who said anything about players?

I'm assuming he includes GMs and fantasy fans?  I could be wrong.

Given the success of D&D which is totally unrealistic- no evidence that adventurers exist nor a great deal of it otherwise and a great deal of TV programmes, how can you say real settings are more attractive than fantasy.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;904145Back 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?

It shows a lack of imagination, in that he assumes that players won't be able to grasp the concept of an alternate world.

Whist I am a very big fan of Alternate/Mythic Earth as a campaign setting and believe that there are many periods of earth history/mythology that can be used for gaming, I also believe that other Fantasy worlds are equally as good for gaming.

After all, Middle Earth and Glorantha are not versions of Earth but have a lot of committed gamers.

I think the problem here is that people are meaning different things by "interesting". Let me use a metaphor. Let's say I walk into a party and my attention is immediately caught by a woman in a flashy red dress. One might say that I found her the most interesting person at the party. But then when I talk to her, I find she is very superficial and incapable of sustaining a conversation and I find that she is no longer very interesting to me. This is why I assume the word "interesting" here is analogous to "being able to sustain interest long term" which generally necessitates some level of depth and coherence.

I certainly would not correlate "interesting" with "best for a role playing game" by any means. Some cultures and locations that I find very interesting in reality would not make for especially good RPG settings. And vice versa, some settings that are very superficial and incoherent make for perfectly enjoyable game settings.

Quote from: cloa513;909577Given the success of D&D which is totally unrealistic- no evidence that adventurers exist nor a great deal of it otherwise and a great deal of TV programmes, how can you say real settings are more attractive than fantasy.

You mean, apart from all the people in history that fit that label, right;)?

Quote from: soltakss;909582It shows a lack of imagination, in that he assumes that players won't be able to grasp the concept of an alternate world.

Whist I am a very big fan of Alternate/Mythic Earth as a campaign setting and believe that there are many periods of earth history/mythology that can be used for gaming, I also believe that other Fantasy worlds are equally as good for gaming.

After all, Middle Earth and Glorantha are not versions of Earth but have a lot of committed gamers.

It's not about inability to "grasp" a different world, it's about lacking resonance.

Villainous conspiracy kidnaps a sage? Standard fantasy adventure. In my Day After Ragnarok game, ODESSA (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ODESSA) kidnaps J. R. R. Tolkien.

Evil cult ressurects ancient general and his armies to cnquer a nation? Standard fantasy adventure. In my Day After Ragnarok Game, the Black Dragon Society (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Dragon_Society) ressurects Baron Roman von Ungern-Sternberg (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_von_Ungern-Sternberg) and hs White Russian army, to do battle with nascent Communist China on Imperial Japan's behalf.

This is not an indictment of fantasy worlds in and of itself, i.e. not a prescription to never, ever use an imaginary world. There are advantages to those too, even when they're a calque of history (e.g. WFRP's Old World, D&D's Known World/Mystara). But consider that every fantasy world has a "buy-in", a time and information tax — you have to learn and read "this much" to get involved.

Many, if not most gamers, know enough about Middle-Earth or the Hyborian Age or Lankhmar to be excited when Feänor or Bêlit or Ningauble of the Seven Eyes show up in a game. And of course, given enough time playing a game, people will react to Bargle the Infamous, or to Heinrich Kemmler, or to Jar-Eel the Razoress. But as a homebrewing GM it can be difficult to achieve this sort of recognition or involvement, so sometimes you gotta break out the Aristotle, and the Eleanor of Aquitaine, and of course, the motherfucking Nazis.

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 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Dragon_Society) ressurects Baron Roman von Ungern-Sternberg (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 :D

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 :D

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 :D

“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.

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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:
(http://awoiaf.westeros.org/images/thumb/3/3a/Seven_Kingdoms.png/300px-Seven_Kingdoms.png)

Is a lot easier for players to get a handle on than this:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ae/4f/97/ae4f974043f68744b022b6755f5ab178.jpg)

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.

Quote from: Madprofessor;911422Agreed.  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.  



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.

Yeah, familiarity is more important than reality. Which is why D&D used to steal so much stuff from pop culture and really should go back to doing that more instead of crawling up its own butt with drow and all the rest.

Often fantasy is more familiar with reality. This is MUCH more important in RPGs than in fiction. If you're watching a period piece you don't really need to know all of the ins and out of feudalism to enjoy the story. But if you're playing in that setting and there's a huge gap between what the player knows and what their character knows that can cause a lot of problems (especially if the player "knows" things that aren't true).

Bog standard pop culture feudalism is a LOT more familiar than the real feudalism of any particular time or place. If you try to play stuff realistically people will get confused, if you put in Hollywoodisms it can be hard to get people on the same page as to how realistic you're trying to be. A fantasy setting gets people on the same page easier but can feel a bit stale and empty, Westeros does a good job of avoiding this but injecting a lot of personality into the regions but it's a pretty pale shadow of the mad complexity of actual feudal countries. I've found obviously a-historical versions of the real world work pretty well (like Pendragon which is obviously no real history in the slightest but gives people familiar things to latch onto). In fiction I find fantasy countries with obvious real world analogues very annoying (even in Howard, I  like Conan stories despite rather than because of the setting) but they work OK in gaming.

The real problem with sci-fi is having to answer questions like "what's for sale in the local store?" If you watch Star Wars it doesn't really matter what sort of things are for sale. Luke Skywalker certainly knows that but there's no reason for the audience to. But that sort of thing matters when you're playing a game and it's a lot harder to answer basic questions like that in sci-fi than in fantasy.

El and Anath work OK, since everyone in the world is familiar with Elohim and Anath is easy to get a handle on as an Ares equivalent. Even if you don't know who he is he's more familiar than those annoying "fill out the alignment grid" deities that feel so fake as he's something that has a lot of real cultural analogues you can hang on him. Kind of like my Man in the Moon god, you don't know what he is exactly but once you start playing it's pretty obvious he's Odin + the Wild Hunt + Fairytale Satan and everyone gets "creepy old dude who isn't what he seems who goes around rewarding/testing/screwing with people."

Quote from: Daztur;911430The real problem with sci-fi is having to answer questions like "what's for sale in the local store?" If you watch Star Wars it doesn't really matter what sort of things are for sale. Luke Skywalker certainly knows that but there's no reason for the audience to. But that sort of thing matters when you're playing a game and it's a lot harder to answer basic questions like that in sci-fi than in fantasy.

I've seen people say that around here a lot. But I don't recall either my co-GM or me having a difficult time figuring out what was (or was not) for sale in Star Wars. And in Star Trek, a Star Ship seems to be able to replicate most anything they've got one of to use as a pattern, so the answer is "almost everything."

Quote from: Bren;911432I've seen people say that around here a lot. But I don't recall either my co-GM or me having a difficult time figuring out what was (or was not) for sale in Star Wars. And in Star Trek, a Star Ship seems to be able to replicate most anything they've got one of to use as a pattern, so the answer is "almost everything."

One thing that tripped me up in the Star Wars d20 campaign is the way that the GM had it set up is that it ended up as a sort of Shadowrun in Space. Star Wars doesn't give you that much to chew on when it comes to that sort of thing like CCTV, hacking, etc. Sure it's not THAT hard, but it's harder than figuring out what non-magical defenses a fantasy keep is going to have.

Quote from: Daztur;911434One thing that tripped me up in the Star Wars d20 campaign is the way that the GM had it set up is that it ended up as a sort of Shadowrun in Space. Star Wars doesn't give you that much to chew on when it comes to that sort of thing like CCTV, hacking, etc. Sure it's not THAT hard, but it's harder than figuring out what non-magical defenses a fantasy keep is going to have.

I don't know if that is a system issue. We did D6. I did not GM any d20, though I was part of one of the original d20 playtest groups. But the vast, vast majority of my Star Wars gaming on either side of the table was WEG d6.

I gotta say, I think your GM's take on Star Wars was a little unusual. Shadowrun in Space doesn't sound like a very good fit for Star Wars. I don't think the setting really supports having a galaxy-wide network to hack. And since the genre presumption is that you should be bopping from one planet to the next - and explosions and blaster fire, any computer intrusion is always a local-only effect. If someone was playing an R2 unit, I see how there would be more focus on computer intrusion in the game. In the years we played we had a number of missions where a slicer (SW EU term for hacker) or a droid was important or at least relevant to the mission at hand. We had a couple of PCs and few NPCs (human and droid) with decent Computer Ops and Security skills, though only one player with one PC whose main focus/job was slicer.

Quote from: Bren;911440I don't know if that is a system issue. We did D6. I did not GM any d20, though I was part of one of the original d20 playtest groups. But the vast, vast majority of my Star Wars gaming on either side of the table was WEG d6.

I gotta say, I think your GM's take on Star Wars was a little unusual. Shadowrun in Space doesn't sound like a very good fit for Star Wars. I don't think the setting really supports having a galaxy-wide network to hack. And since the genre presumption is that you should be bopping from one planet to the next - and explosions and blaster fire, any computer intrusion is always a local-only effect. If someone was playing an R2 unit, I see how there would be more focus on computer intrusion in the game. In the years we played we had a number of missions where a slicer (SW EU term for hacker) or a droid was important or at least relevant to the mission at hand. We had a couple of PCs and few NPCs (human and droid) with decent Computer Ops and Security skills, though only one player with one PC whose main focus/job was slicer.

Not really the system more the setting. It's just that sci-fi characters know a lot of stuff that we don't know. In fiction it's easier since you only need to provide information that's going to be relevant to the story but in gaming you have no idea what sort of information is going to be relevant to the story.

For the campaign I played we were bouncing around a lot from system to system but when we were on planets were mostly sneaking around imperial areas which gave it a Shadowrun flavor. We were also very dependent on our R2 droid for hacking.

Might be relevant to a discussion.

http://udan-adan.blogspot.com/2016/08/history-and-anachronism-in-rpgs.html

Quote from: Daztur;911470Not really the system more the setting. It's just that sci-fi characters know a lot of stuff that we don't know.

I assume the same is true of fantasy characters.Though what the knowledge is will vary based on the setting. Clearly you are seeing and experiencing a problem that I have not seen or experienced. I'm having a comprehension gap. What is the stuff that the sci-fi characters know that seems to cause problems in play?

Quote from: ostap bender;911512Might be relevant to a discussion.

http://udan-adan.blogspot.com/2016/08/history-and-anachronism-in-rpgs.html

Oooo...thanks!