For me it's the fact that you can always have a proven framework to start from when you need something done quickly. Dwarves in a mine need help with orcs, elves are kind of dicks but grudgingly lend a hand, humans are in it for the money? There you have a seed for a quick session, no one's going to complain.

>>46716495
>What is the appeal of traditional fantasy settings?
Tradition.

>>46716495
>What is the appeal of traditional fantasy settings?

Fun, Escapism, Entertainment, Thought Exercise, Narrative.

>>46717962
Tradition is also a good one.

>>46716495
None intrinsically.
Use them as a background to a more complex, layered narrative if you don't want to dedicate resources to making your own individual setting, but there's nothing intrinsically better about fighting a generic army of orcs than fighting an army of something you don't already have a lot of experience with.
Also, as "generic fantasy" varies a little from time to time, it can lead to confusion about to what standard it's conforming to. Players may stock up on garlic and holy water to fight vampires when it turns out that these vampires are more I am Legend than Dracula.

Acceptance from players. It's been around forever and unless you have one of those "Original ideas only!" fags that can't play something that's been done before you can get away with just running it. Sometimes you need a break but general you can get away with it.

It's just a paint selection, the actual contents can be what you want. It's like highly structured poems or play styles where you are required to use certain things and when you do certain action they must be in this manner but the ultimate content there isn't entirely restricted to what everyone has experienced before or is unenjoyable to those who know the style. A properly done traditional setting can be quite good if it's made for trope knowledgeable players because of the little differences that are done without breaking the mold.

Now a question do you bitch about modern settings using all the the same old nationalities and weapons?

>>46716495
Tradition and fantasy, which are really more related than people think.

>>46716495
Everyone basically knows how everything works.
This means that it is easier to play in one.

A more original setting requires more engagement with the setting material and the GM.

>>46718090
>Fun, Escapism, Entertainment, Thought Exercise, Narrative.
Non of these are exclusive to fantasy. OP wants to know why you faggots play DnD instead of Traveller or Shadowrun or Dark Heresy or 60s CIA Gurps spy campaign or Exalted or Paranoia

Let's say you have X hours to build your fantasy setting. Time isn't unlimited, after all. It's a week to game time and you still have to work, sleep, and shitpost.

Do you spend more of your time building snowflake-tier unique elements for your game if they're not going to be a major part? No, obviously, you prioritize. The story, the balance, the aspects most immediately relevant get more of your time. They get a larger share of X.

Traditional (or, if you're more cynical, cliche) elements allow you to offload some of your attention. Everyone already knows what an elf is, so you can say of that minor encounter "Oh, they're an elven village" and move on. Everyone knows what a dragon is, so you don't have to take up a lot of time clearly demonstrating why fucking with one isn't an undertaking to attempt lightly.

Remember, the development of all elements take a share of X. Time is not an infinite resource. If the two hours you'd otherwise have taken to generate a race, or a generic-fantasy kingdom, instead go towards polishing the story or adding to it, then you've devoted more of X to the more relevant parts, and thus actually made the game more creative and interesting than it would've been otherwise.

>>46719025
well, i don't, i play Fantasycraft, but because i like traditional fantasy.

>>46719025
>OP wants to know why you faggots play DnD instead of Traveller or Shadowrun or Dark Heresy or 60s CIA Gurps spy campaign or Exalted or Paranoia
>implying

>>46716495
Its relatively easy to build up a framework, so you can focus on the details instead of sitting down and thinking out stuff that will never have any impact.

The more stereotyped something is, the less work you have to put into it. If you're lazy, it means less work in general. If you're not interested in whatever you're stereotyping, you don't have to spend a lot of time on something you find boring. If you just want to build a framework for the stories, it lets you get to the important bit.

Hell, that's what I use them for; I can build a generic fantasy setting in fifteen minutes with all the important bits (religions, cultures, major states, a rough sense of the geo-political landscape, not!Saurons, etc.) and then I start making up minor characters to tell stories about because that's what really interests me. I just need a bit of a framework to work with.

>>46719025
You can eat oranges because they're sweet, tangy, and juicy, despite not having the market cornered for those attributes either singly or together.

OP asked what the appeal was, anon answered. No need to have a rough shit over it.

Because many formative works in modern fantasy and tabletop gaming take their cues from works, like Tolkein's, that defined the "traditional fantasy setting."

These works then comprise a majority of our exposure to media in this genre, and when we subsequently create more media in this genre, we take our cues from it.

Basically, our common reference pool for fantasy settings is largely comprised of works that all have similar or even identical inspirations.

>>46717962
/thread

Like half the posts in this thread are longer-winded ways of saying this.

>>46719798
One-word answers can usually benefit from elaboration.

>>46716495
Uniformity.
It's easier for people to worldbuild on the fly, because they only have to explain what parts are different from the 'norm', rather than everything.

>>46720124
This advantage cuts both ways. It's also easier for players to get invested in a world on the fly, because if it shares many traits with an already familiar generic setting, players can rely on the most basic elements being there without needing to be told, and can thus use those assumptions to participate such as through roleplaying, making plans, etc.

In a hypothetical 100% unique setting, you're totally reliant on the information the GM gives you and nothing else. The more generic a setting is, the more you can make grounded assumptions of what is there.

Setting players and readers understand more or less with totally mutable proper nouns.

My players know who the dwarfs are and a general idea of what they're like, they can jump in and already have a damn good idea of what the world around them is like without exposition but the exact situations, which empire is under threat, whos the ruler and what they're like, all up to me as the gm.

>>46716495

Its as accessible and easy as ur mum.