[Fantasy] Standard Fantasy Setting

[Kuroshima]

While it might add some complexity on the GM's side, using divine favor instead of clerical spell lists will both provide a very different flavour, and reduce decision-paralysis.

IMHO, Clerics, and specially holy warriors, work much better using Divine Favor.

[Mateus]

Originally Posted by Kuroshima

While it might add some complexity on the GM's side, using divine favor instead of clerical spell lists will both provide a very different flavour, and reduce decision-paralysis.

IMHO, Clerics, and specially holy warriors, work much better using Divine Favor.

Thats a good point sir.

[Kuroshima]

Originally Posted by Mateus

Thats a good point sir.

Pimping my own products, and you're actually not using the DF templates, but I wrote the Dungeon Saints article with an eye to do this, and included some extra Dungeon Fantasy appropriate miracles, that you might find useful.

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by Kuroshima

While it might add some complexity on the GM's side, using divine favor instead of clerical spell lists will both provide a very different flavour, and reduce decision-paralysis.

IMHO, Clerics, and specially holy warriors, work much better using Divine Favor.

Right, the OP can have problems regarding spell casting clerics, but maybe his attitude concerning miracle working characters is different.

[Gold & Appel Inc]

Originally Posted by demonsbane

I mostly agree with these points, but nevertheless that seems to be the desired setting of the OP.

...and that's the problem that any effort to create a "generic/standard Fantasy setting" is going to have, for publication or otherwise: Nobody is ever going to agree on what the "standard" is. Kenneth's idea of "standard," for example, contains a bucketfull of assumptions and biases that, while not bad for a fantasy setting, are nevertheless jarring to half of us (but wholly predictable by those of us who're familiar with his posting history).

Just build the setting you want and see if people like it; don't try to stake out your personal taste as the norm.

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

...and that's the problem that any effort to create a "generic/standard Fantasy setting" is going to have,

I don't disagree with that completely –but I wonder if you are addressing this specially to me for any particular reason.

In any case, what a non discardable number of people understands by reading a label such as "classic/generic/standard fantasy setting" in a role playing game context is, as you already know, things like D&D's Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Pathfinder's Golarion, and so on. And a number of GURPSers definitely want a such setting for GURPS. For one, its no good complaining but, for avoiding confusions, I'd be happy with a more serious and less power-gaming oriented "Dungeon Fantasy" (please notice the quotation marks) –I'm interested in fantasy roleplaying frames, not in already written game worlds–, but oh, well, I think that this is not the topic of this thread.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

...and that's the problem that any effort to create a "generic/standard Fantasy setting" is going to have, for publication or otherwise: Nobody is ever going to agree on what the "standard" is. Kenneth's idea of "standard," for example, contains a bucketfull of assumptions and biases that, while not bad for a fantasy setting, are nevertheless jarring to half of us (but wholly predictable by those of us who're familiar with his posting history).

Just build the setting you want and see if people like it; don't try to stake out your personal taste as the norm.

That's pretty much why we release "genre books" like GURPS Fantasy and leave tooling around with them to customers. Speaking from the "we sell games and know what sells" perspective, for instance, here are some things that gamers expect from "generic fantasy" in 2012:

• half-extradimensional entities (have been around since an incubus fathered Merlin, at least)
• interventionist deities who empower clerics (this need not involve spells, but making religion a social phenomenon and not a power is not generic)
• mature Renaissance society (plate armor, coin-based economy, powerful trade guilds, alchemy, optics, etc. – i.e., TL4)
• monks, ninjas, or some other kind of dedicated warriors who invoke "magical" powers from within (go back to the earliest fantasy RPGs)

Were I trying to market such a thing, then, I'd insist on having all those elements in evidence. Which is why DF has those things. Mood is a separate issue; I agree that some people have read way, way too much into my writing style in the DF books, and that it might seem more generic if the exact same material were presented in an earnestly serious voice.

[simply Nathan]

Originally Posted by Kuroshima

While it might add some complexity on the GM's side, using divine favor instead of clerical spell lists will both provide a very different flavour, and reduce decision-paralysis.

IMHO, Clerics, and specially holy warriors, work much better using Divine Favor.

That sounds pretty good, except that I'm not familiar with those particular rules (just as I was unfamiliar with the product Caverns and Creatures until it was mentioned in this thread; we plan on using some of the content from that now that we have it). Where can I get myself acquainted with Divine Favor?

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

A setting without clerics and a pantheon of some stripe seems Very Non Generic

I don't mind the presence of holy men, verifiable miracles, and things of that nature going on in the setting. I just don't think miracles are something someone should be able to call down at will in the same manner as spellcasting.

Pantheon is right out of the question as far as I'm concerned; I can accept some pretty powerful beings, many of them Good-aligned, but to be a pantheon at all strains suspension of disbelief. Beings like the Maiar, the Valar, Star Spirits, or the Heavenly Host are okay by me; I just can't comprehend them being called gods.

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

A setting which is Medieval Europe and has Christianity also seems Very Non Generic

Originally Posted by Lamech

The generic fantasy setting would have some sort of Church, similar to Christianity, especially in motifs, but never explicitly defined as Christianity. So, you have churches, priest, services and so forth, but you somehow avoid all of the details.

Generic Fantasy in my experience tends to take place in areas that look suspiciously like Medieval/Renaissance Europe, without actually being in Europe (those time periods are usually treated as one in popular culture anyway). Christianity is a huge factor in what makes those periods what they are.

I would want to leave it vague, at least at first. While He might not be explicitly named, people who pay close enough attention will probably realize that the Crystal Dragon is Jesus. (Will not bee an actual crystal dragon named Jesus; that's for my personal setting rather than this collaborative project.)

Originally Posted by Gef

With a race of incredibly strong little people who're smarter on average than every other race, I'm not sure you're very "generic" to start with. -GEF

I'd like to see suggestions for how to do a more generic race of little people. I posted the template so people could make suggestions on how to change it.

Ideally, it should be a versatile template that works for generic "little people", costing 20 points, and capable of using SM 0 weapons. Switching a gnome to a leprechaun, brownie, rat-man, or (if you must) halfling should be a matter of a lens more than a new template. Gnomes should still be easy to tell from dwarves at a glance, just as much as dwarves and humans are from each other.

Gnomes being intelligent seemed logical to me due to the similarity of the words gnome and gnosis (the etymology used in a book of fantasy creatures I read, though Wikipedia postulates that it may just be a misspelling from genomos, or earth-dweller). ST 8 was mostly because I wanted their average attributes to fall into "playable adventurer" territory. They're very strong for their size, but still the weakest playable race.

Originally Posted by b-dog

This sounds interesting. I like the idea of having a Christian church in a fantasy setting because it seems more authentic than having the people worship Glorp the Good or other made up gods. I would also like having some pagan gods like Zeus, Thor and so on as well.

Banestorm uses Christianity. What of its history I've read seems to imply to me that the setting was probably the closest to my expectations of a generic fantasy world as yet published.

I don't want to touch pagan gods even with a rather long pole (especially not Zeus in particular; he's probably got all sorts of diseases). If mentioned or integrated, they'd be either legendarily epic heroes or powerful and explicitly non-divine beings previously worshiped by people who didn't know better.

Originally Posted by Kromm

half-extradimensional entities (have been around since an incubus fathered Merlin, at least)

Or back to the Nephilim of Genesis. As far as I'm concerned, that's a historical fact mirrored in fantastical fiction. ;)

One of the first things I think up when imagining fantasy races is how they would/whether or not they could/if they would want to cross-breed. The other guy I'm working with doesn't want to touch the issue, which is why I don't have a half-elf template too.

I've read exactly the same number of fantasy novels with human/dwarf hybrids as I have with human/elf hybrids (1/1), but see the latter more often in game books (0/6) and thus tend to assume they're more prolific in fiction.

Originally Posted by Kromm

interventionist deities who empower clerics (this need not involve spells, but making religion a social phenomenon and not a power is not generic)

I think I'm inclined to agree with interventionist deities (or Deity), but not with empowered clerics. Paladins I'll gladly take (sharing this idea with my partner now), especially dedicated destroyers of the undead - but they should be rare.

Originally Posted by Kromm

mature Renaissance society (plate armor, coin-based economy, powerful trade guilds, alchemy, optics, etc. – i.e., TL4)

That sounds like a bunch of the trappings I've been practically trained to view as TL3. One of the only reasons we were going with the number 3 instead of 4 is that the possible accusation that it's not "generic" at TL4 could lead to the whole thing being thrown out more readily (not that it wouldn't be anyway however it gets done). But hey, 4 even matches our arc number!

As a player, I'd certainly be glad to have TL4 starting wealth.

Originally Posted by Kromm

monks, ninjas, or some other kind of dedicated warriors who invoke "magical" powers from within (go back to the earliest fantasy RPGs)

Nah, sorry, not seeing it. As much as I like kung-fu movies, I just can't imagine how they would mesh with the rest of the setting. Discworld is the only fantasy novel I've read with warriors who match that description. Advanced D&D gave us some of those, didn't it?

In computerized games like Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, my experience of dedicated martial artists is borne out better by Striking ST and DR (with the Tough Skin limitation) justified by intensive training than are chi-based skills. (That and ninjas studying actual magic to teleport or turn invisible.)

Originally Posted by Kromm

Were I trying to market such a thing, then, I'd insist on having all those elements in evidence. Which is why DF has those things.

And I'm very glad for DF's presence; after the Basic Set, it's my favorite GURPS product by far. The things I've always looked hardest for are pre-worked dungeons with straightforward "This goes here; roll against that, success means Bad Thing doesn't happen to you" type situations worked out. Not being able to find content of this sort readily available is one of our motivations for making this. We want the bland setting so we can make them with the fewest possible expectation-jarring elements for portability between campaigns. (Having zero is going to be out of the question.)

Originally Posted by Kromm

I agree that some people have read way, way too much into my writing style in the DF books, and that it might seem more generic if the exact same material were presented in an earnestly serious voice.

It's roughly the same tone as the old game books had anyway, but my writing tends to come across as silly because of the kinds of things I say in an earnest and serious tone. Enforced blandness may help, but only time may tell.

[ClayDowling]

Not to downplay the fun you'll have creating your own world, but have you considered Banestorm? It's about as generic as it gets. Sure, you might not want to use all of the parts, but you'll probably find large parts that are the world you want to use. You use those parts of the map and don't take your adventure into the others, and you're good.

Also, don't dismiss the use of the helenic pantheon out of hand. The book GURPS Greece sets out a lot of what you need. It's also a pretty well-documented subject outside of GURPS. The Illiad and the Oddessey are fine reading and will give you plenty of material. I strongly recommend the Lattimore and Greene translations. For a more contemporary reading, the Percy Jackson novels are a lot of fun.

[Gef]

Originally Posted by Kenneth Latrans

I'd like to see suggestions for how to do a more generic race of little people. I posted the template so people could make suggestions on how to change it.

Ideally, it should be a versatile template that works for generic "little people", costing 20 points, and capable of using SM 0 weapons.

There's the rub. Small races should reasonably have lower ST, even your ST 8 version gets 20 points for that. Fine. You want to spend those points instead of just allowing a cheaper race? No problem, I can think of lots of things that'd be cool. How about Resistance to Corruption, a la Warhammer's halflings? How about Night Vision, a Talent for being sneaky, Danger Sense? The problem with any of these is that you get a specific rather than generic interpretation. Come up with something as plain as you can think of, and does it really model both a goblin and a leprechaun well?

That said, how about replacing IQ +1 with Per +2, Silence 1, and get rid of the HP penalty? HP 8 make as much sense as ST 8 and fit the same logic. Per and Silence are plausible evolutionary adaptations for a prey species (which is what 2' tall humanoids would be, barring some magical reason why not - those interventionist deities perhaps). Other reasonable generic advantages would be those that have to do with power-to-weight ratio, like Super Climbing and Super Jump, or maybe just the perk Combat Vaulting. That perk would do a lot to model the agility you see in small animals.

There are other ways to skin a sprite. Attributes less than 8 are not recommended for advanturers, but does the advice assume human adventurers? ST 6 with Invisibility sounds "generically" fay to me, and I suspect it is just as survivable as ST 8 (with no supernatural or exotic advantages).

GEF