Fantasy RPGs: Why is it always the same?

[NeutralDrow]

They should make a Shannara RPG. The elves aren't so opposed to cities, the dwarves are claustrophobic gardeners, the trolls are sophisticated warriors, the gnomes are savage raiders, and a good chunk of the humans are nomadic.

But then you're not really making new characters. Your just swapping everyone's names.

With who? The elves are still forest-oriented but more urban and the gnomes are somewhere between humans and goblins (except the Stors), but the dwarves and trolls are completely different.

By that I mean you're just changing the name of an established archetype. Making the Trolls the sophisticated warriors doesn't really change anything. You've just swapped the races that fill the role of a sophisticated warrior. You'd still interact with them the same way as if they were any other race in that same role.

Those established archetypes are necessarily broad. "Sophisticated Warrior" could mean anyone from Shannara-style Rock Trolls, D&D Eladrins, the Aiel from the Wheel of Time books, the Kzinti from Known Space, the Garou of Werewolf: The Apocalypse, among others. They don't really share all that much in common, even with that short descriptor.

I suppose you could make Trolls into irradiated garbage-diggers (if that weren't already claimed by the Urdas), Elves into fast-talking merchants, Gnomes into magitek geeks, and Dwarves into rabbis, but that's far more limiting, and just playing into other archetypes.

 

[skyfire_freckles]

I see where you're coming from in this. Fantasy can be anything, and is not limited to tolkein-style, medieval, elves-and-dwarves sort of thing. Much as I loved Dragon Age, it really was the dark hordes of Mordor.

Thing is, take a look at the word fantasy. You have fantasies every day. You think about that girl/guy you'd like to get with, you think about what it would be like to live in another time, to have millions of dollars. This is fantasy. From this perspective, all games are fantasy games. I could just go on and on about this.

Something new? Can we have something new and still have anyone call it fantasy? Maybe I'll start a new thread. Have people name fantasy they've read, watched or played that didn't have elves in it.

Anything with Vikings?

Anything with anything in it.

Here's mine: Conan!

 

[Guy32]

It's kind of sad actually. I mean, I know I have good ideas for game concepts and I'm sure I'm not the only one, but people keep making more of the same.

 

[Rack]

What's the point really? You have your race of pirate lumberjacks why make them pointy-eared, androgynous and call them elves? If there is a reason then great, Elves in Athas were typically thieves because the forests that supported them were destroyed which was an interesting twist. But if you just want to mix up genre norms then it's probably best not to have elves and dwarves at all.

 

[Dark Knifer]

Because it's safe and that's what people want.

 

[Good morning blues]

I've heard this criticism of The Witcher and Dragon Age, two games that I have loved, in large part due to the setting. Relying so heavily on these well-established tropes is a good thing in these cases because it really calls attention to the places in which these games innovate. Elves in Dragon Age are basically American inner-city black people. The Witcher is basically your standard fantasy setting except that politics are taken seriously. It's a good way to clearly divorce these settings from reality while still providing a place for the player to focus.

 

[Ryuk2]

I think it's a good thing that they don't change elves, dwarves, but humans could be changed. See, if vampires are blood sucking monsters, you don't make them fall in love and sparkle in daylight. So why should you change dwarves and elves? They have their characteristics and lifestyles, they can't be changed.
If your going to change elves and dvarves, fuck that, you should make a new characters and call them in other name.
The thing that never changes is the setting. Why are there always elves, dwarves and orks on the same planet always? Why can't we have a fantasy without orks/humans/elves/dvarves?
People should experiment with the ''fantasy recipe'' by removing something and putting something new in, but don't replace the old ingredients with new and call it the same thing. If you know what i mean.

 

[Axolotl]

Because people bought Dragon Age and Neverwinter Nights but not many people bought Planescape: Torment or Arcarnum?
Going outside the GSF has shown itself to be unprofitable so developers don't try to create new fantasy settings.
Ofcourse this doesn't apply to PnP, where you get awesome and original settings like Carcosa, Eberon amd Spelljammer.

 

[beholdmycape]

I love how 'Tolkienesque' is now used as an insult, a byword for unoriginal fantasy it's not his fault everyone ripped middle earth off. You hve to remember it took the guy decades to flesh his world out and every fantasy game needs recognisable entry points, so we comtimue to see quasi northern european landscapes with slender elves, bearded dwarves and ubiqiutious humans.

 

[veloper]

answer: because it still sells.

 

[RAMBO22]

Didnt Yahtzee talk about this in his Dragon Age: Origins review?

You are correct, sir.

Personally, I would say the all-to-familiar setting of fantasty RPG's occur because like anything that must be created or re-established it inevidably has to abide by principles and rules, whether those rules are written or unwritten. Tolkien and mythology established these basic rules and principles and now, for better or worse, it just seems odd to go against this common theme of stereotypical human, elf, dwarf, ect. kingdom setting.

 

[Danik93]

most of the genres are same

 

[Zephyer]

answer: because it still sells.

^this

Developers are too lazy and people buy the games anyway. Why invent a new setting with races and nations, when you can steal from others?

 

[Axolotl]

answer: because it still sells.

It's not just that it's that non-GFS fantasy settings don't sell.

 

[DoctorObviously]

True, I would like to see some change as well, but then again, the industry is made around copying from each other and playing it safe so it will take a few million years before the developers finally grow the slightest resemblance of a brain.

 

[Alex_P]

Because people bought Dragon Age and Neverwinter Nights but not many people bought Planescape: Torment or Arcarnum?
Going outside the GSF has shown itself to be unprofitable so developers don't try to create new fantasy settings.
Ofcourse this doesn't apply to PnP, where you get awesome and original settings like Carcosa, Eberon amd Spelljammer.

I'm pretty sure that, proportionally speaking, Torment and Arcanum both did better in their media than Spelljammer and Carcosa did in theirs.

Heck, I had to google Carcosa...

-- Alex

 

[Axolotl]

I'm pretty sure that, proportionally speaking, Torment and Arcanum both did better in their media than Spelljammer and Carcosa did in theirs.

Heck, I had to google Carcosa...

-- Alex

Not really, sure Carcosa is the most Indie RPG supplement of all time(still an awesome setting if you don't mind the child rape thing) but spelljammer was fairly successful I think (can't remember ever seeing it's sales).

But it's not just about the success of those secific games (but neither sold vary well) but the companies who were putting out games with original fantasy setting have become bankrupt which means less compaines trying to be new and a major disincentive for other developers to do anything other than tread over the same ground.

I mainly pointed out the PnP examples to show that things other than the GSF can work as settings. If you look outside games then there is a plethora of unused ideas, settings and concepts that RPGs could draw upon.