Could one get away with a largely contemporary fantasy setting, but it doesn't have most of the races associated with contemporary fantasy (i.e. Dwarves, Hobbits, Orcs, etc)? My intent is to base a lot the racial origins and creation-stories of said races on actual mythologies, more than the current D&D/Tolkein trends, but in the intent of making something old feel new again. Not that it would be void of modern convention, but to cut to the chase:
Do you think an RPG can get away with not including the races and setting-conventions most expect form modern RPGs and still do well (relative to being an RPG in the first place)?
Because if you're wanting to be 'original,' you're left with either going the, "my-dwarves and my-elves," route, or just doing it from scratch. And, frankly, as much as I love dwarves and orcs and the like, it's getting stale.
>>47521725
Sure, it could be interesting. It depends on what mythology your using, and what the resulting species are.
>>47521751
A large part of my intent is to take a lot of the old Norse and Germanic fables that jump started middle-earth, but stick to them instead of altering them to be what Tolkien defines them as. i.e. You'd have (yet unnamed) Mountain-Elves, shorter and uglier (by elf standards) who work with metalwork, divination, and necromancy, v.s. just sticking Dwarves in there.
>>47521725
>My intent is to base a lot the racial origins and creation-stories of said races on actual mythologies
aren't most of those just "the gods wanted to make humans, so they did" but with different ingredients like dust, tree trunks, clay, etc?
>>47521851
Yes, but I mean for each race to have their own version of how the world came to be, v.s. an agreed upon setting-origin.
>>47521725
Why even have fantasy races?
What thematic role do they serve that just having humans wouldn't?
Do you have an actual, important reason to include them in your setting, or are you just including them out of fear you'll be seen as boring if you don't, like some cringe-worthy DeviantART middle schooler slathering purple hair and heterochromia on their latest OC?
Too often I see nonhuman races included in a fantasy setting not because they serve an actual role, but because 'fantasy has nonhuman races,' or 'I want to have racist stereotypes without flirting with human racism.'
So, what purpose do they serve in your setting? If you can describe it compellingly, then whether or not they're 'my-dwarves and my-elves' shouldn't matter, because they'll serve a purpose and therefore feel natural to the setting.
>>47521892
> whether or not they're 'my-dwarves and my-elves' shouldn't matter, because they'll serve a purpose and therefore feel natural to the setting.
A fair point. Coincidentally we share different concerns over the same kinds of people. Many younger would-be players (indeed many of the DA types) are liable to glance once at an RPG. Should they see it lacking the means to facilitate their personal niche then they're likely to toss it without actually giving it a read. While it's abhorrent behavior on their part, they are a nice chunk of the may-be RPG consumer base.
>>47521934
>>47521892
To that end I think it's sort of funny, because sometimes when I'm making up settings I feel like I have to force in human because "Hurmanity!" And like, yeah I like fantasy humans, but I'm always preoccupied with where the mermaids came from or who made the dwarves and then the humans are just kinda' there, because humans.
>>47521725
To this day, I have made only like one setting that has non-human humanoids, and those are basically "magically" (The physics of the world are based on magical runes) mutated offspring of of origin humans. The different subraces then diverge extremely, but all have human features. And what I tried to do was to make a world without these basic races, but the other guys planning it (it was a partial group effort) had other plans. Well, it fell down anyway.
But. I've made dozens of settings (mostly for self-indulgence) and none of them have "classic races", because I find them horribly boring. Of course, some people may say that RPG:s with a race index under 10 pages long are shit, but I think human suffices. If I play a game where it's possible to make other races, maybe I will, but I will probably never put other races than human in my game, unless I revive that game from last paragraph. It's either all-human or no-human, because I find that either humans fuck up the world or the other races do. And because I'm a fag for historical stuff, alchemy, occultism and I'm not a furry, I tend to lean toward all-human.
Of course, the only one who can talk about the quality of my games is me and my players, and my players aren't fa/tg/uys so it's just me. So take it with a grain of salt.
>>47521934
You're trying to create something good, not something that will appeal to the lowest common denominator.
To try to please these low-born scum is the surest way to assure the mediocrity of anything you create.
This capitalism-fueled way of thinking is poison.
>>47522580
> wanting to be successful is a poor state of mind
Success lies between quality and marketability my friend.
