A GURPS Fantasy setting

[(E)]

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

The thing about these generic "D&Desque fantasy tropes" - elves, dwarves, dragons, wizards, etc. - is that they are familiar to most players. You don't need to explain them much, because most players will already have some notions about these tropes.

You can ignore these tropes and try to come up with something different original - but the more you strive for that, the more will you have to explain to your players, or else your players will have to read up on more and more setting details until they can play characters from that setting convincingly.

And not everyone has time for that.

I believe there is a middle ground, "They are like X except Y". An example might be "All Orcs are individually created creatures, no species exists, an orc is just a magical super soldier" there is enough of the trope present to provide a handle for the players to come to grips with while providing enough originality for fresh story/plot material.

[lachimba]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Settings and adventures haven't traditionally been big sellers for GURPS, I gather, so there's some market evidence.

Festival of dangerous ideas:

There has been exactly ONE Dungeon Fantasy adventure. And it sold well enough.

An adventure was also the first bonus PDF picked by Kick starter supporters and another was close enough to being the second.

So while I completely accept that adventures have not been the biggest sellers in the past perhaps with a new boxed set out there adventures particularly for it might require some new market research.

[CraigM]

Originally Posted by kracht

I am in the minority who has always liked Yrth and think that the setting could use more books. Detailed gazetteers for each nation seem the obvious choice, but the old city book for Tredroy is also an excellent example of what could be done.

Another Banestorm fan here; I've got an Yrth online game running publicly at the moment on https://bbs.boingboing.net/t/gurps-b...e-thread/83574

For me, the real-world religions are a valuable feature. As well as adding depth and verisimilitude to the culture, it also makes it possible to play an atheist character without the world-building making that into a ridiculous thing. Done right, it can be run without being offensive to religious players; I've had serious Christians in my Yrth games without any problem.

I certainly wouldn't complain about getting some more published detail, though. Abydos was fantastic; I'd love to see a similar treatment given to some of the other locations. Detail on the city of Megalos would be particularly appreciated.

[CraigM]

Originally Posted by Phantasm

Halflings? Okay, I'm still trying to figure out how not to have then The Shire.

See Mary Gentle's novel Grunts for inspiration on more interesting Halflings. :)

[The Cardinal]

Regarding a DF setting: it might be a good idea to follow the example of Pathfinder & Golarion here, i.e. publish a few adventures, including a mini-campaign, which all contain tidbits of setting information which can later be combined to create parts of a larger fantasy setting.

[Nymdok]

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

The thing about these generic "D&Desque fantasy tropes" - elves, dwarves, dragons, wizards, etc. - is that they are familiar to most players. You don't need to explain them much, because most players will already have some notions about these tropes.

You can ignore these tropes and try to come up with something different original - but the more you strive for that, the more will you have to explain to your players, or else your players will have to read up on more and more setting details until they can play characters from that setting convincingly.

And not everyone has time for that.

This bears highlighting. Fantasy is familiar. Not just in the realm of PnP games, but overall.

Now everyone has their take on what elves and orcs and halflings and dwarves are and thats not a bad thing. There have been enough different characterizations of each to span a deep, wide space. For a setting though, we kind of HAVE to come to a consensus, at least as a gaming group on what these individual terms mean.

The goblinoid progression from D&D :

Kobold, Goblin, Orc, Hobgoblin, Gnoll...... etc works because there IS a progression to it. Same with the Undead.

If we're playing D&D we all know what these mean and they've had 40 YEARS to fill in that setting and characterize those races. What was the GURPS book in any edition that did that? What was the fantasy adventure that reinforced the identiy of GURPS:Goblins or GURPS Kobolds or GURPS:Ghouls? Who were the Iconic members of each of those races that helped us identify them through motivation and action?

Once we do that however, then we need a BIGGER consensus. Its not enough that a TABLE agree on what Ghoul means, then GURPS comes down and issues a rules edict that DEFINES what Ghoul means. For example, that they are not UNDEAD, just a peculiar race that needs to digest rotting flesh for nutritional/digestive reasons.

What we also get from that progression is a 'leveling up of enemies'. Lo! We are far to mighty to crush these many Kobolds, lets go kick the fish out of some orcs...then Gnolls, then ogres then trolls....etc etc etc.

I use the Goblinoid progression, but simplified down to one race Who are the Iconic Mages of the past? Where are the Mordenkanen, Bigby, Urza and Mishra? In other words what have the greatest wizards int that campaigns history Done? The greatest thief? Scout? Barbarian? If I play my guy, where does that go?

Not just looking forward, but looking back as well. Wheres the Myth of creation? Why are the Elves and Orcs always at each other like that? Someone shot somebody's eye out? MMMMmmmm...ok yeah I can see how that might make someone angry.

So, for a setting its not just fluff and flavor, but a progression and vision into both the past and future that help establish that setting.

Nymdok
Why you shot me in the eye?

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Phantasm

Halflings? Okay, I'm still trying to figure out how not to have then The Shire.

Have Bree instead: hobbits and men live together as equals, though with different tastes in lifestyle.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Have Bree instead: hobbits and men live together as equals, though with different tastes in lifestyle.

I did a variant culture for a halfling race in GURPS Fantasy (along with several other variant cultures). They had rice paddy agriculture, sampans, rice beer, and a military strategy based on taking down the levees and flooding the fields. And I think they were matrilineal.

An exercise I did for my current fantasy world was to have each race have at least two or three distinct cultures with different customs and behavioral patterns. For example, trolls were mostly matrilineal and matriarchal, based on trollwives have magic and trolls not; but I had one troll culture that had trolls as dominant, based on their command of hunting grounds, and trollwives competing for control over the biggest, bossest trolls.

[Phantasm]

Originally Posted by CraigM

See Mary Gentle's novel Grunts for inspiration on more interesting Halflings. :)

Hmm... care to sum up? I kinda like Bill's idea, but it mostly works for pseudo-oriental halflings, not pseudo-european ones. (I could slip Bill's into my setting's Far East without much trouble, though.)

[CraigM]

Originally Posted by Phantasm

Hmm... care to sum up? I kinda like Bill's idea, but it mostly works for pseudo-oriental halflings, not pseudo-european ones. (I could slip Bill's into my setting's Far East without much trouble, though.)

The most notable halfings in the book are a pair of backstabbing brothers who view non-halflings as potential rations. Their mum ends up married (voluntarily) to an orc chieftain.

My previous Yrth campaign had a halfling actor/illusionist as one of the PCs. She specialised in children's roles, shoplifting and assassination.