Generic fantasy setting?

[melkathi]

I personally love the "generic" races as they are.

 

I prefer them as they are than when silly things are done to them the wrong way.

[Sarog]

Though generic races are part of what turns a setting generic. Using anything overly familiar creates difficulties (Going for completly "new" ideas does too of course. Most importantly the "Why should I be interested in this?" question of potential customers). Elves and dwarves are fairly clearly defined as fantasy races and the archtypes that come with them. If you stay too close to the known model, you run the danger of having that part of the game dull and forgetable. If you deviate too much from it, you miss the whole reason to have the races in the first place. The question is then, how do you add personality to something overly familiar without alienating the audience and without making your changes appear like a gimmick.

 

Too true. We're seeing a trend in fantasy now that new franchises continue to hold onto Tolkien races, but each new franchise tries to outdo the last in terms of "our races are different!". These new spins on the old Tolkien races are doomed to be juxtaposed and judged against each other as to which is the most original, the most interesting, the most innovative take on the old. To which I must eternally ask; if every franchise is going to try to be different and break the old mold in their own way, what is the point of eternally going back to that mold just to deviate from it?

 

You mentioned DA and how the same story could have been told if the elves weren't elves. Including elves does give the familiarity bonus, sure. if I'm a guy who considers "I like elves!" to be an integral part of my gaming preferences, I can immediately recognize that Dragon Age has elves and tell myself "I like elves, this has elves, therefore I will play as an elf because that is what I like". That familiarity is a double edged sword though, because the people who appreciate that familiarity will hold your elves up to the standard of their platonic idea of an elf that they refined from playing every other game with elves in them. Which leads to the situation Bioware landed itself in, with the sheer enormity of the complaints; "these elves aren't elvish enough!", "elves aren't supposed to be like this!", "make your elves more like these other elves that i like!" So while DA elves do have an automatic fanbase within DA fans, the people who like them and play as them seem to overwhelmingly wish that they were Forgotten Realms elves instead, which rather makes me think that the DA elf is a failed venture.

 

Likewise I could on for some length about dwarves, but the reality is that Tolkien races come with so much baggage in terms of 1) people's preconceptions about what the race is supposed to be like (if you don't satisfy these, they will say you got it wrong), 2) other people's expectations that you do something new and unique with them rather than the same old, shallow, unoriginal copy-paste (likewise, if you don't satisfy these, they will say you got it wrong), and 3) the things that other franchises are doing with these races (which will rob your changes of much their novelty and bring about a sort of novelty-inflation).

 

I don't think it is worth the baggage. If you use an original race or a human cultural group instead, people will like and dislike these things based on the merits of what you yourself have created, rather than bringing all sort of pre-loaded expectations to the table for you to deal with as a world builder.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Sarog

[TrashMan]

If you use an original race, people will complain that there are no elves. EVERY approach has those that will cry foul.

 

And just because you create a "new" race, doesn't mean people won't critique the s*** out of it,

Edited October 3, 2012 by TrashMan

[Sarog]

If you use an original race, people will complain that there are no elves. EVERY approach has those that will cry foul.

 

And just because you create a "new" race, doesn't mean people won't critique the s*** out of it,

 

Yes, but an original race is going to be critiqued on its own merits. People complain their keyboards into a fine paste on BSN about their elves not being FR elves, but none of the people who dislike qunari are starting thread after thread of "your qunari aren't orcish/ogrish/hobgoblinish enough!" There was no preexisting platonic idea of a Qunari floating around in the minds of the embittered mass of fantasy fans prior to Dragon Age, and therefore, while people can complain all they like about how they don't like qunari, no one can complain that Bioware are doing the qunari "wrong" and that the qunari should look this or sound like that (that is, until Bioware changed how they looked between games and invited the appearance controversy).

 

By using Tolkien's stuff, you limit the independence of your IP and people's ability to judge your work on your own merits. People will always complain about everything, but by using someone else's creative leftovers, you give legitimacy to all the baggage that comes with it.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Sarog

[rjshae]

That's a funny thing about fantasy games. People are okay with true-to-life historical fiction games, but give them a fantasy game and it's got to be "different".

 

I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with using stock fantasy tropes; it's what you do with them that matters.

[Undecaf]

I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with using stock fantasy tropes; it's what you do with them that matters.

 

That's true, but it could help to make things a bit more interesting if the conventional molds of those tropes were somewhat broken, though. Like for example not making elves the sharpshooting greenpeace treehuggers, or dwarves as miners with battleaxes in their asses, like how they're usually depicted as.

[TrashMan]

Yes, but an original race is going to be critiqued on its own merits. People complain their keyboards into a fine paste on BSN about their elves not being FR elves, but none of the people who dislike qunari are starting thread after thread of "your qunari aren't orcish/ogrish/hobgoblinish enough!" There was no preexisting platonic idea of a Qunari floating around in the minds of the embittered mass of fantasy fans prior to Dragon Age, and therefore, while people can complain all they like about how they don't like qunari, no one can complain that Bioware are doing the qunari "wrong" and that the qunari should look this or sound like that (that is, until Bioware changed how they looked between games and invited the appearance controversy).

 

Quanri? Big humans with horns. Meh. How very "original".

 

Peoepl didnt' complain abotu them because there was nothing really about them...and because they were too busy complaing about elves.

[Sarog]

That's true, but it could help to make things a bit more interesting if the conventional molds of those tropes were somewhat broken, though. Like for example not making elves the sharpshooting greenpeace treehuggers, or dwarves as miners with battleaxes in their asses, like how they're usually depicted as.

 

While I'd agree with you that those cliches should be avoided, I must ask; if, say, your elves were a desert dwelling military dictatorship with a religion based on gnosticism (rejecting the physical world as being created by an evil god, as the opposite of nature worship), and dwarves were a Dutch-accented seafaring mercantile republic who lived on a series of islands... what would be gained, exactly, by slapping the Tolkien labels on them rather than letting them stand on their own as new races particular to their franchise? If you intend to break the mold that everyone else is already breaking, what point is there in going back to the mold to begin with?

[Sarog]

Yes, but an original race is going to be critiqued on its own merits. People complain their keyboards into a fine paste on BSN about their elves not being FR elves, but none of the people who dislike qunari are starting thread after thread of "your qunari aren't orcish/ogrish/hobgoblinish enough!" There was no preexisting platonic idea of a Qunari floating around in the minds of the embittered mass of fantasy fans prior to Dragon Age, and therefore, while people can complain all they like about how they don't like qunari, no one can complain that Bioware are doing the qunari "wrong" and that the qunari should look this or sound like that (that is, until Bioware changed how they looked between games and invited the appearance controversy).

 

Quanri? Big humans with horns. Meh. How very "original".

 

Peoepl didnt' complain abotu them because there was nothing really about them...and because they were too busy complaing about elves.

 

So originality to you is a matter of appearance, not of substance? But you help prove what I was getting at. While people bitch until their fingernails fail out over elves being this much shorter or their ears being shaped like X when they should be shaped like Y, no one was bitching that qunari were poor copies of draenei or tieflings, or that they should have tailes or tentacle beards just because they were "big humans with horns".

 

You could make a fantasy race of lithe, pointy eared, fair skinned humans, and so long as they were culturally alien enough to Tolkienism, they could stand entirely on their own merits so long as you don't slap the "elf" label on them. But once that label is there, elf fandom will follow them with all their baggage and haughty expectations and demands for change for the rest of your franchise's lifespan.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Sarog

[Undecaf]

That's true, but it could help to make things a bit more interesting if the conventional molds of those tropes were somewhat broken, though. Like for example not making elves the sharpshooting greenpeace treehuggers, or dwarves as miners with battleaxes in their asses, like how they're usually depicted as.

 

While I'd agree with you that those cliches should be avoided, I must ask; if, say, your elves were a desert dwelling military dictatorship with a religion based on gnosticism (rejecting the physical world as being created by an evil god, as the opposite of nature worship), and dwarves were a Dutch-accented seafaring mercantile republic who lived on a series of islands... what would be gained, exactly, by slapping the Tolkien labels on them rather than letting them stand on their own as new races particular to their franchise? If you intend to break the mold that everyone else is already breaking, what point is there in going back to the mold to begin with?

 

What would be gained would be a different and perhaps even surprising and refreshing premise, rather than something you can predict without even starting the game. It doesn't really matter (to me) if the game labels them elves and dwarves or Kud al'Abin and Moosooks (or what have you). I'm more interested in how they are presented what new do they bring to the table (if anything).

 

Anyways, I'm just throwing some random **** out here since afaik elves and dwarves are said to be in.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Undecaf

[Sarog]

That's true, but it could help to make things a bit more interesting if the conventional molds of those tropes were somewhat broken, though. Like for example not making elves the sharpshooting greenpeace treehuggers, or dwarves as miners with battleaxes in their asses, like how they're usually depicted as.

 

While I'd agree with you that those cliches should be avoided, I must ask; if, say, your elves were a desert dwelling military dictatorship with a religion based on gnosticism (rejecting the physical world as being created by an evil god, as the opposite of nature worship), and dwarves were a Dutch-accented seafaring mercantile republic who lived on a series of islands... what would be gained, exactly, by slapping the Tolkien labels on them rather than letting them stand on their own as new races particular to their franchise? If you intend to break the mold that everyone else is already breaking, what point is there in going back to the mold to begin with?

 

What would be gained would be a different and perhaps even surprising and refreshing premise, rather than something you can predict without even starting the game. It doesn't really matter (to me) if the game labels them elves and dwarves or Kud al'Abin and Moosooks (or what have you). I'm more interested in how they are presented what new do they bring to the table (if anything).

 

Anyways, I'm just throwing some random **** out here since afaik elves and dwarves are said to be in.

 

But the premise is there regardless of how you label it, and some labels just come with so much baggage that they aren't worth keeping.

 

Elves and dwarves are confirmed though, so we can hope that they do go with a refreshing premise rather than rehashing the Tolkien cliches. That isn't the exception anymore, though. Every successive franchise is making their elves and dwarves different, and I wonder when this trend of novelty leapfrog will stop. World builders should use their own labels so that their work isn't forever in the shadow of preconceived ideas that are floating about in the collective consciousness of fantasy fans like so much useless junk data.

[TrashMan]

You could make a fantasy race of lithe, pointy eared, fair skinned humans, and so long as they were culturally alien enough to Tolkienism, they could stand entirely on their own merits so long as you don't slap the "elf" label on them. But once that label is there, elf fandom will follow them with all their baggage and haughty expectations and demands for change for the rest of your franchise's lifespan.

 

I don't think it's the name that matters.

 

Technicly you can make a race that's exactly like evels but looks different and has a different name.

People would stil labsicly call them elf-wannabes.

[TrashMan]

Frankly I have 0 interest in desert-dwelling agnostic elves. Doesn't appeal to me at all.

[Osvir]

I read somewhere that, I think Sawyer, is looking to make a realistic fantasy game. In my ears that sounds like Obsidian wants authenticity. A sword arm is only strong enough to do a certain attack, and not a magical glowing attack. I get a feeling that graphically this game will try to be as atmospheric and deeper than a hack n slash generic game. For this I think that the game will be unique in it's own way, although may possibly imitate many other games in the genre and generic settings.

 

It will most likely not be a generic game, even if the setting would be.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Osvir

[Undecaf]

Elves and dwarves are confirmed though, so we can hope that they do go with a refreshing premise rather than rehashing the Tolkien cliches.

 

That's my point.

 

World builders should use their own labels so that their work isn't forever in the shadow of preconceived ideas that are floating about in the collective consciousness of fantasy fans like so much useless junk data.

 

And I can certainly agree with that, even if I don't mind the labels themselves all that much.

[cyanidhogg]

Generic? I'm sure many will end up calling it that. I'm not worried about generic. Avellone is writing it. He's the master of deconstruction, and can turn anything plain into something completely fresh. I'm guessing the creativity will come bottom-up from the details, not top-down from the overall setting.

[Sarog]

Frankly I have 0 interest in desert-dwelling agnostic elves. Doesn't appeal to me at all.

 

Exactly. You think "elf" and you think "lives in forests, loves nature". If you hear "elf", and you are presented with something that doesn't match your preconceived idea of what an elf is, you can already declare that you have absolutely no interest in it because it deviates from what you were expecting. You subscribe to the platonic idea of the elf, and therefore if the name is attached to something that doesn't reflect the platonic idea of the elf, it is wrong. That's a common trend. It is exactly why BSN gets so many furious debates about what, exactly, the shape of an elf's ear should be.

 

It is therefore reasonable that if a franchise was going to present you with something that doesn't fit your preconceived idea of an elf, if it doesn't want to alienate you it should not use that label. Then you might be able to judge what you saw on its merits, rather than being disappointed that it wasn't what an elf is supposed to be.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Sarog

[moridin84]

Project Eternity is supposed to be an 'old school' RPG, hearkening back to the days and Baldur's Gate and whatnot right?

 

In which case being a 'generic fantasy' is a must.

[TrashMan]

Frankly I have 0 interest in desert-dwelling agnostic elves. Doesn't appeal to me at all.

 

Exactly. You think "elf" and you think "lives in forests, loves nature". If you hear "elf", and you are presented with something that doesn't match your preconceived idea of what an elf is, you can already declare that you have absolutely no interest in it because it deviates from what you were expecting. You subscribe to the platonic idea of the elf, and therefore if the name is attached to something that doesn't reflect the platonic idea of the elf, it is wrong. That's a common trend. It is exactly why BSN gets so many furious debates about what, exactly, the shape of an elf's ear should be.

 

It is therefore reasonable that if a franchise was going to present you with something that doesn't fit your preconceived idea of an elf, if it doesn't want to alienate you it should not use that label. Then you might be able to judge what you saw on its merits, rather than being disappointed that it wasn't what an elf is supposed to be.

 

BSN isn't really a good example, since half of them there are crazy.

 

What you are basicly triyng to say is "words have meaning and impact". That isn't a groundbreaking discovery.

 

It's not enough just to change the name tough.

[TrashMan]

Generic? I'm sure many will end up calling it that. I'm not worried about generic. Avellone is writing it. He's the master of deconstruction, and can turn anything plain into something completely fresh. I'm guessing the creativity will come bottom-up from the details, not top-down from the overall setting.

 

I frankly don't think that deconstructing everything is all that hot either.

 

People praise MoTB, but I liked the NWN2 OC far better.

[Elerond]

Elves and dwarves are good archetypes for fantasy setting because generic idea about them is human with bit different traits, so most players can see themselves as them as easily as human. Which is also reason why you can found them from so many high fantasy settings. Usually races which resemble human least are usually also least played races.

[Sarog]

What you are basicly triyng to say is "words have meaning and impact". That isn't a groundbreaking discovery.

 

Boy howdy Passive Aggressive Man, that's a mighty sharp observation.

 

No, not "words". Labels specifically, as in "names" that we give to "concepts" that arise from "traits" that are traditionally associated with each other in a specific contextual grouping. The label brings inevitably brings to mind the traits. If you change the traits but not the label, there creates a sort associative dissonance. If you abandon the label, you can abandon the traits, or not, without automatically inviting such dissonance.

 

Not that I'm trying to convince you, as your opinions and justifications for them are a good case in point for some of my arguments.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Sarog

[Hoverdog]

Generic? I'm sure many will end up calling it that. I'm not worried about generic. Avellone is writing it. He's the master of deconstruction, and can turn anything plain into something completely fresh. I'm guessing the creativity will come bottom-up from the details, not top-down from the overall setting.

 

I frankly don't think that deconstructing everything is all that hot either.

 

People praise MoTB, but I liked the NWN2 OC far better.

 

[Infinitron]

You have health in every game. GENERIC!

 

You can die in every game! GENERIC!

 

You have to press a bottun in every game! GENERIC!

 

When people complain about "genericness", they're referring exclusively to story, setting and lore. Basic game mechanics don't have to be original and thought-provoking. They just have to work.

 

In fact, if you changed them too much, the game would probably cease to be an RPG. We want to preserve the RPG form (the mechanics) but fill it with less generic content (the story).

Edited October 3, 2012 by Infinitron

[evdk]

I frankly don't think that deconstructing everything is all that hot either.

 

People praise MoTB, but I liked the NWN2 OC far better.

 

HAHAHAHAHA

 

EDIT: Seriously? But why? Even if you are not a fan of decontruction, the story is much better in MotB.

Edited October 3, 2012 by evdk