There seems to be a very fine line between a fantasy setting that is "original" and one that is "too wierd to live" in the sense of being unplayable.

We know that people tend to say one thing and mean another about a lot of things: they claim they want healthier food, but they eat mcdonalds; they say that they don't like attack ads but we know those almost always work.

Could this be another one of those cases: Could it be that gamers who say they want "original" fantasy settings are actually meaning something else?

If so, what are they actually meaning?

RPGPundit

My guess? They might not want something completely different, but a cool twist to an existing archetype that makes it fresh and unique.

Take the whole "merchant city state" concept, for example. It's been done to death in a million games, but we remember the truly unique ones.

Example: An Italian banker rip-off? Yawn. They use souls of other races as currency, and make expeditions to far away lands to get more? Now we're talking!

I can back this up with absolutely nothing, but to me, it seems like a lot of players who want something different in fantasy still want their favorite archetypes and standbys, they just want them presented in a different light.

As for me, I'll take a basic, solid, well-done fantasy setting with a few of its own little treatments or innovations over a radically different, but tough-to-get-into setting most days of the week.

I think part of the issue is that a lot of us no longer have the time to spend on gaming that we did in our youth--learning the nuances of 15 brand new races that don't fit anywhere in the current gamer cosmology presents more of a challenge than "OK, in this setting, Dwarves aren't miners, but are known for martime exploration and trading colonies".  In that example, we still know the basics of what a dwarf looks like, have fuzzy ideas in our heads about the rest, but we still have a baseline from which to fill everything else in.  A lot of "unique" fantasy settings, I think, suffer from not giving prospective gamers a solid foothold to start off with, or that feeling of "new tricks for an old dog".  There are some that do this better than others:  The Epic RPG, for example, has believable, realistic human cultures, and leans a bit more towards human-centered campaigns, and that was the "foothold", so to speak, for me.

That said, I like originality, twists, and innovation in fantasy settings.  (I don't think that gaming in Greyhawk or Faerun precludes you from having that, however, especially if your GM is worth his salt).  But I'm also a realist, and the reality is, if my group feels crunched for time, they're going with what they/I know.

All easily-identifiable genres are fundamentally "comfort food." This is true of RPGs and all other entertainment

It takes a real genius to blend them properly and even then the results are usually enjoyed sparingly.

Whether you call them archetypes or cliches we revel in them. It's a human thing.

So I don't think people who say they are looking for originality in their fantasy are decieving themselves. They probably do, some of the time, but for most it is a diversion and a return to the meat-and-potato genre staples is pretty likely once the novelty has worn-off.

Quote from: RPGPunditThere seems to be a very fine line between a fantasy setting that is "original" and one that is "too wierd to live" in the sense of being unplayable.

Could this be another one of those cases: Could it be that gamers who say they want "original" fantasy settings are actually meaning something else?

If so, what are they actually meaning?

RPGPundit

I don't know about originality. And I'm not sure about too wierd to live in and unplayable. I mean honestly with regards to the last there are a hell of a lot published settings out there which I as a player or GM would find  unplayable. But than again much of what is published out there seems to work for a lot of folks, so that's all that matters.

When I say I want something original in fantasy,I most probably(like others have mentioned) mean something different from most other published fantasy settings out there.

I remember Talislanta and their no elves approach - as though this made the game different from other settings -it did, and it didn't. It was still fantasy just without one of it's more obvious cliches

I also like Jorune. It too didn't have the usual fantasy races - wait it did - but it disguised itself pretty well. I mean, common, men in leather tights with blasters - I challenge anyone to  argue that this is an original concept

So, I suppose when some say they want originality - and I'm one of them -they could mean something which wanders away from the stereotype indentikit fantasy that litters the rpg landscape.

A slight derail. I like Dark Sun.I like the fact that magic and the enviroment had a connection. I liked the fact that it was about survival in a post apocalyptic setting. I liked the idea of psionics but it felt like it was just thrown in there.

I think what a lot of gamers do, is to take published settings and make it their own. Cut stuff out which they feel does not belong there. For gamers who want something a little different - like me - DS was great.

I could cut out the elves, dwarves and hafflings, concentrate on survival and the consequence of magic use or make it a purely psionic setting . Original hardly, but it does sufficently stray away from trad settings which I have very little interest in.

Also look at Midnight - the what if Sauron had won setting - when it first come out, it was embraced because it added something different to the whole landscape - and it's really wasn't that different - only an old tale told in a new way.

When I hear gamers talk about about what they mean by originality I'm reminded of that Jon Voight line in U-Turn - "Your lies are old, but you tell them new"(or something like that).

Regards,
David R

I struggle with this all the time. It is the difference between marketable games and innovative/original games. the same can be said for system and setting.

For example, look a Squirrel Attack! This is a game where you paly magical squirrels (all pregenned) the perform missions. On the surface, very different but the reason it is one of our best sellers is due to the underlying tropes that people can identify with. It is essentially a simple fantasy setting with fairies and magical animals. The adventures are essentially sneek and grab scenarios. The characters are basically paladin, thief, fighter, noble, communist, healer and monk. Your basic adventuring types but I do not call them that. I do not mean to belittle the game but it is a humorous fantasy setting. People can enjoy the different elements while embracing the familiar.

A bit of an anecdote. Weh I ran my two stores in the nineties, Earthdawn came out. It was very different. Too different. It did not sell well for us despite a few folks buying it. When we contacted FASA about demos (our southern store was only a couple of hours out of Chicago) we were told no one was available;i.e. they couldn't find anyone to demo. Different is good, but you need a connection for people to understand thier place in the setting.

Or it could just be me...after all, I wrote a game about squirrels.

Bill

Quote from: JongWKMy guess? They might not want something completely different, but a cool twist to an existing archetype that makes it fresh and unique.

Pretty much.

I don't want a total changeove, and rely on a certain degree of familiarity in major aspects of the game. But I couldn't just run the same old games I did years ago. I need a few new twists to keep me mentally engaged.

Nothing, no one exists in a vacuum, and that includes acts of creation.

That is to say: What exactly is your border for 'originality'?

Earthdawn was original... but wait, it had elves and dwarves and orcs and trolls...even (gasp!) lizardmen. It had magic and was based on someone's idea of 'Epic heros'. What, pray tell was original there?


If someone were to wrack their brains and come up with a completely original idea it would likely be too alien to enjoy, we automatically assign things into catagories of other familiar things. Thus your originality is limited by the human mind's ability to group things.

Or am I off in never never land out here? :rolleyes:

Quote from: SpikeNothing, no one exists in a vacuum, and that includes acts of creation.

That is to say: What exactly is your border for 'originality'?

Earthdawn was original... but wait, it had elves and dwarves and orcs and trolls...even (gasp!) lizardmen. It had magic and was based on someone's idea of 'Epic heros'. What, pray tell was original there?


If someone were to wrack their brains and come up with a completely original idea it would likely be too alien to enjoy, we automatically assign things into catagories of other familiar things. Thus your originality is limited by the human mind's ability to group things.

Or am I off in never never land out here? :rolleyes:

It's a crazy deep way of putting it, but I think it's close to the mark. When I think of original for a fantasy setting, I just need a few tweaks on the dial, you know? It's not really something so wholly new that now really gets it. It's more like a dash less dwarves and a smidgen more of a newer race that's based off an interesting culture. Turn the Past Golden Age down to 5 and amp up the Present at The Great Crossroads of History to 8.

There are many individual components that make up the genre of fantasy. In twisting and tweaking them there are plenty of variations that will be both familiar and engaging in a new way.

I don't know about original, but I'm pretty turned off by settings that unthinkingly copy Tolkien or the default D&D assumptions. If you're working from an existing baseline, I'd rather it be "traditional" fantasy like Mallory, Norse, Celtic, and Greco-Roman myth, or Indian, Chinese, etc.

A lot of what fans call "originality" I call "novelty." There's a lot of different-for-different's sake stuff that comes out. There are also vocal fans that equate novelty with quality.

I think a very traditional work can be original ... I think originality just boils down to personal investment. A game or setting is original if it bears the distintive metaphorical thumbprint of its designers. Even if it's built from familiar-looking bricks.

I think novelty, originality, and quality are three different things, basically ... Things which overlap and influence one another, but ultimately any gaming book can have any combination of the three.

I like to see original gaming material because it means game writers who give a shit, basically ... But in my experience, a lot of game writers who aim for overt novelty are looking for a shortcut to distinction.

Speaking as a GM who likes to design campaign worlds:

I have to agree with S. John on that. I used to intentionally try and create these weird campaigns but I've backed off on that a lot in the last few years. Now my strategy is to use sort of a standard world and introduce maybe one or two elements that are totally non-standard.

Quote from: Abyssal MawSpeaking as a GM who likes to design campaign worlds:

I have to agree with S. John on that. I used to intentionally try and create these weird campaigns but I've backed off on that a lot in the last few years. Now my strategy is to use sort of a standard world and introduce maybe one or two elements that are totally non-standard.

I totally understand where you're coming from.  I'm a worldbuilder myself, and my worlds go over a lot better if they have at least some semblance of those standard fantasy archetypes.  Doesn't mean I can't do some new and interesting things with the setting, it just goes over a lot better if I keep those familiar reference points around.

Quote from: S. John RossI think a very traditional work can be original ... I think originality just boils down to personal investment. A game or setting is original if it bears the distintive metaphorical thumbprint of its designers. Even if it's built from familiar-looking bricks.

I think this novelty/originality distinction can be more easily understood at the GM rather than designer level.  I've ran and played in numerous World of Greyhawk campaigns, most using the standard dungeon bashing format.  Most of these games had low novelty.  We killed orcs for dollars and saved villages from the machinations of wizards and all the standard stuff.  But in the better examples of those campaigns that metaphorical thumbprint ensured that you couldn't mistake one campaign for the another.

Quote from: RPGPunditCould this be another one of those cases: Could it be that gamers who say they want "original" fantasy settings are actually meaning something else?

I think the implied subtext is "that they can still relate to, and enjoy".  Because just any old thing that is "original" is running away from something, what you have already done/experienced. If you aren't headed towards something then you are relying far more on chance of getting somewhere you enjoy.  And people's ability to and enjoyment of twisting and stretching their thinking has functional limits, varying from one person to the next.


P.S. I indeed nolonger eat a Raunchy Ronnies outside of the rare occation I'm with someone that is, and even then if I'm actually eating it is because I brought my own snack with me.  Why?  Because I thought long and hard about why I eat, what I wanted to accomplish by eating, what my options were to obtain those goals, and then acted logically and purposely on my conclusions.