Historical Earth or Fictional World?

[Steve]

Which setting do you prefer to play in or run as GM?

1) Historical Earth with fictional elements added like magic and wizards.

2) A totally fictional world where everything is created from scratch.

 

Item #1 would include settings like Robin Hood's England or the Earth of Ars Magica.

 

Item #2 would include professionally-published settings like Eberron or Talislanta as well as personal creations of the Game Master.

[tkdguy]

I do both, depending on what I feel like running. My players prefer fictional settings, however.

[Lord Liaden]

I'm more for fictional settings myself, although I certainly don't object to rip-o... er, homages to real historical cultures. I like the freedom to let the history of the campaign world progress organically through my and my players' choices, without feeling constrained by already-established and known precedents.

[IndianaJoe3]

I'll generally go fictional, although I've thought about doing something similar to what Howard did with the Hyborean Age,

[dbsousa]

I prefer allegorical worlds. Nothing is real, but everything is based on some historical reality.

[Nolgroth]

I am really OCD about facts and factoids*. So much so that I start looking at how inserting magic during any given point would cause rifts in what we know as history. And then I have to start tweaking history itself (which is a sin in my mind) to the point where I may as well create my own world with themes and areas that mimic the real world. Favorite fantasy setting for a long time was 7th Sea. I tweaked it of course, but mostly in a mechanical sense to fit my own definitions of magic and plug it into the Hero system. I also added a Thirteen Colonies segment to the world.

 

So the short answer is very much like dbsousa, worlds that strongly resemble historical Earth but are not actually Earth.

 

EDIT: Though I like me some totally fictional Epic Fantasy worlds like the ones Tolkien and his literary successors created. Those used to be my favorites and still hold a very solid place in my heart.

 

 

*This extends to science fiction/fantasy settings as well. I had to create a section of space in an off-shoot of Star Frontiers for my space opera game.

 

[NuSoardGraphite]

I prefer totally fictional worlds. That way the players can hold no preconceived notions on how things are supposed to be.

[Barwickian]

Either. But I like heavy amounts of detail that makes sense in context.

 

My favourite fantasy world is Harn, because it has its head in the clouds but its feet planted firmly in the soil (and can tell you what the quality of the soil is and what'll grow there).

 

My favourite published historical fantasy world is Grahame Staplehurst's Robin Hood (written for Fantasy Hero 3rd, MERP and RM classic), because although it plays pretty loosely with history, it does use authentic medieval fantasy elements.

 

Should I ever finish the research (and I'm at 15 years or more on it), my own published fantasy setting will be the Anarchy of England in the 12th century. It's one of two settings in Staplehurst's work, but my history will be more solid. For example, werewolves will exist, because they do in the legends of the time - but did you know that it's no sin to kill a werewolf if God has made it so - but it is a sin to kill one created by a magician? Yup, medieval thologians debated the topic. The reasoning is that a man turned into a wolf by God is truly a wolf; a man, on the other hand, cannot change the true essence of something, so a man changed to a wolf by a magician is still a man, though he looks like a wolf.

 

Also, 12th-century 'fairies' (I put the word in inverted quotes, because the word fairy dates only from the 14th century; there was no word for them in the 12th century) do not seem to fear church bells, and have no problems with consecrated ground - one was even baptised with no harm done. I theorise that the allergy to Christianity developed only later, after the great population explosion of the late-12th/13th century, when churches became more common. Most of what people think of as 'authentic' historical fairy lore developed in the Elizabethan period (Ars Magica's fairies fall into this trap, for example).

[Zen Archer]

As a player, I'm fine with both.

 

As a GM, I preferred fictional worlds that I created myself, which was both easier and harder in some ways. Harder because I had to come up with most of the detail myself; easier because of what NuSoard mentions above.

[GhostDancer]

Either, as a player and as a GM, and my players are on board with both. Of course, professionally-published settings made from scratch also include materials that have never been professionally released as rpg game resources. An example might be a Game of Thrones rpg campaign, though there is such a board game and card game.

The next game I'm working on is a heavy mix of fiction and fact, in the wuxia tradition, Han Era ancient Hong Kong Feng Shui Champions-

games.groups.yahoo.com/group/SonsOfTheDragon/

[Cancer]

I'll play either, but if I'm running then I prefer to make it up out of whole cloth. Possibly stealing published bits (like well-done city maps) and using them out of their published context.

[Michael Hopcroft]

There's something to be said for taking a published fictional world and using it as your sandbox to play around with, so that you may have a Turakian Age that is fundamentally diffferent from the one everyone else is running. For example, you might want to change some of the social things around to make female PCs more welcome (Turakian Age strikes me as a highly patriarchal setting in general).

 

​But one thing to keep in mind is that your players only experience your world a little bit at a time. They may hear news from abroad, depending on how well that news travels, but they will mostly be engaged in what they are doing themselves.

[Lord Liaden]

There's something to be said for taking a published fictional world and using it as your sandbox to play around with' date=' so that you may have a Turakian Age that is fundamentally diffferent from the one everyone else is running. For example, you might want to change some of the social things around to make female PCs more welcome (Turakian Age strikes me as a highly patriarchal setting in general).[/quote']

 

The Turakian Age source book describes the role of women in society on p. 170, and I was actually struck by how much freedom women tend to have in much of the world, at least compared to the historical Middle Ages. Certainly there are major regions, such as Khoria, Indushara, and Thun, where women are usually viewed as the property of their husbands/families. OTOH in the Westerlands, most of Mhorecia, and northern Mitharia, "women enjoy most legal protections, and can pursue most professions as opportunity allows." There are also a few large areas, including the Sirrenic Empire, the kingdom of Tyrandium, and among the Elves, where "women have the same status as men in all legal respects."

 

But I agree with you that a rich published setting gives you a solid base on which to build, without having to come up with everything yourself. I like using the Turakian Age world myself, but have tweaked it in numerous small and several large ways to better suit myself and my players.

[bluesguy]

As a GM I prefer a created/fictional world vs. one in a historic setting. I would hate to get into arguments w/ my players about some historic factoid from a historic setting. Also 75% of my current player group is women and a historic setting is not going to be a good one for female characters.

 

I use the Valdorian Age - which I have modified/expanded and played with.

[Steve]

As a GM I prefer a created/fictional world vs. one in a historic setting. I would hate to get into arguments w/ my players about some historic factoid from a historic setting. Also 75% of my current player group is women and a historic setting is not going to be a good one for female characters.

 

I use the Valdorian Age - which I have modified/expanded and played with.

While I love the Valdorian Age as a setting, it reads as a pretty harsh one towards women. Do your female players play characters with the "Woman In A Man's World" disadvantage?

[Lord Liaden]

Those of you who like to design your own settings, do you ever create female-dominant cultures to help balance out the patriarchal societies? Or do you prefer to just equalize the genders generally?

[Lord Liaden]

I use the Valdorian Age - which I have modified/expanded and played with.

 

I find the Valdorian Age easily lends itself to an almost post-apocalyptic tone. The great magic empires and the wonders they created are long gone, with crumbling ruins scattered about to mark their passing. The warped and degenerate remnants of the non-human races are barely clinging to isolated enclaves. Civilization is almost divided up into islands surrounded by savages and wilderness. The very structures of social order seem to be crumbling.

[Nolgroth]

Those of you who like to design your own settings' date=' do you ever create female-dominant cultures to help balance out the patriarchal societies? Or do you prefer to just equalize the genders generally?[/quote']I tend to just gloss over the whole issue by having females retain the same basic rights as males. I do not have Amazon-ish societies though I have considered adapting a female run, worldwide mage guild like the Aes Sedai from Wheel of Time. There is a 7th Sea supplement I really want that details an all-female secret society. Of course I want all of the 7th Sea faction and nation books, even in PDF format. RPGNow/Drive Thru RPG has them for sale and I think I'm going to start picking them up one at a time.

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

The Turakian Age includes a realm where the crown passes from eldest daughter to eldest daughter (although the genders are otherwise legally equal); another in which the ruler can designate which of his/her children will inherit the crown, male or female; as well as an all-female order of paladins (holy warriors).

[Zen Archer]

Those of you who like to design your own settings' date=' do you ever create female-dominant cultures to help balance out the patriarchal societies? Or do you prefer to just equalize the genders generally?[/quote']

 

I've just equalized things in general for fantasy settings, even when all the players have been male. I tended towards a "don't let history get in the way of fun" approach.

[CrosshairCollie]

Definitely fictional worlds. I can't imagine a real-history fantasy game being interesting at all. "Roll your PS: Rock Farmer, then make a CON check to see if you died of the plague." Plus, no magic, no monsters, no nonhumans ... if I wanted to deal with the real world, I'd go outside. I want my fantasy to be fantastic.

 

The annoying irony is that I have a couple of players who insist on attempting real-world history into fictional game worlds. Drives me up the bloody wall. "Well, in medieval Europe, blah blah blah." "There's no Europe on Eberron. It doesn't matter."

 

As far as the gender-thing goes, there's very little in the way of bigotry any direction in games I run. Typically, if you run into someone who is a bigot, you can be assured he's a villain I intend for you to beat into the ground.

[Lord Liaden]

Definitely fictional worlds. I can't imagine a real-history fantasy game being interesting at all. "Roll your PS: Rock Farmer' date=' then make a CON check to see if you died of the plague." Plus, no magic, no monsters, no nonhumans ... if I wanted to deal with the real world, I'd go outside. I want my fantasy to be fantastic. The annoying irony is that I have a couple of players who insist on attempting real-world history into fictional game worlds. Drives me up the bloody wall. "Well, in medieval Europe, blah blah blah." "There's no Europe on Eberron. It doesn't matter."[/quote']

 

OTOH there's something to be said for running the historical world the way that people living in said era actually believed it to be: with faeries, devils, giants and gods lurking just out of view of the mortal world, and meddling in it for their own purposes. Poul Anderson, for example, utilized that concept quite effectively in such novels as The Broken Sword and Three Hearts and Three Lions

[tkdguy]

I enjoy running/playing in historical games. I don't need magic or monsters anymore. NPCs and maybe PCs would believe in them, though. Unfortunately, I don't think my players are interested in historical games, so I'd have to run such a setting for another group.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Analogues to historical events in fantastic settings have a lot of potential. A game that is an allegory for the War on Terror would be interesting, especially if you have a situation where there are a wide range of attitudes about the minorities involved (with certain evil NPCs leaning towards the outright genocidal).

 

​Or a fantasy-world Napoleon, winning the world on the basis of his skill, charisma, and fervor. Would PCs fight him, or would he actually be an improvement over the old regimes he is riding roughshod over?

 

The Fantasy Hero book describes traditional fantasy as a conservative genre, where change is something to be fought and feared. turning that around a bit may not fly with many players, but it would be intriguing to game. Or write, for that matter.

 

[Lord Liaden]

I like the concept of "what if" historical settings, in which key events in history are changed or never occur. I've always wanted to research and develop a world in which the Mongol leader Temujin was killed before he became Genghis Khan, so the Mongol invasions never happened. Many major changes resulted directly from those: the reunification of China; the breaking of the Khwarizmian Empire in central Asia; the fragmentation and stagnation of Russia; the exchange of goods and ideas between the Far East and Western Europe.