PDA

View Full Version : [Setting/Premise Preferences] "Pre-contemporary with a human focus"



Kiero
2013-09-20, 07:09 AM
To preface this, my group is talking about games again, it's a perennial debate about what to do next. We have a "main and break" structure; the main game is intended to keep running for a couple of years or so, until it finishes. We managed that with WFRP2e which ran for four years in total, taking characters from starting first career-ers (though chosen, not rolled) up to fourth career badasses who broke the system.

However, we don't like playing the same thing incessantly week-in, week-out until done. Everyone likes to do something different every now and then. Thus the "break game", ie a break from the main and a chance to try out other things, and possibly rest the GM too. They tend to run 8-12 sessions, and happen at regular junctures (normally after about 3-4 months of the main game). We're playing one right now, I'm running a historical ACKS game as a break. Thus we have a rotating cycle of stuff, try things out, go back to the main, try something else, back to the main. We even have recurring break games - D&D4e Icewind Dale is one of those we'll be returning to for the third and final time in the next slot. Essentially, if we enjoy a break enough, we'll return to it at some point (though it could join a very long list, we do like to try new things).

We were going to play historical Mage: the Ascension (mid-18th century New York province) as our main game, got six sessions in, but then one of the players moved abroad which has sort of spoiled that. So back to the debate about what we could play. To add more fuel to it, I circulated an email on my preferences for a longer term game, which is the source of the thread title. We do a lot of discussion face to face, but I find in terms of laying out detail prior to those conversations, email works best. Setting/premise is the the thing we have to agree on - system is usually pretty easy for us after that. I know my tastes generally skew to the less-magical than theirs, but we have enough common ground to find things that work for everyone.

Here's what I led with.


---------------------------------------

I'd summarise my preference thus:


"Pre-contemporary with a human focus"

What I'm getting at with the "pre-contemporary" bit is set prior to the Information Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Age)-now. One of the things that kept nudging at my suspension of disbelief in City on the River (our modern DFRPG game) was the now-ness of it all. Modern technology has a tendency to pull everything towards consideration of details in general, and technological details specifically. It shrinks the world and creates all sorts of issues around near-instantaneous communication. We saw an even more extreme version of that in Mass Effect, that we often had to think about the technological impacts or limitations in any proposed course of action. Things could get really, really complicated in a way that detracted from the motivations of the PCs and their role as the agents of change in the setting. It's one of the reasons virtually any sci-fi is just out for me, far too often it's about tech, not people.

I should say "contemporary" to me does just mean the Information Age (ie 1990s onwards); something set in the early 1980s before the ubiquitous computing and telecommunications is just fine. I'd really love to do something set in the early 20th century (some time from 1920s to 1950s, perhaps, if you've seen Gangster Squad you'll know where I'm coming from), maybe even that 30s gangster game that gets floated from time to time. Or perhaps a proper wuxia-themed game set in 18th or 19th century China with amazing kung fu (everyone beyond a certain level of ability on invisible wires) but little that could be described as "magic" in the D&D sense. My preferences skew towards the real world as well. I'll go along with "real world + magic/supernatural/weirdness" or even a completely fabricated-fictional setting, but I always find the latter a lot less compelling than being able to draw on history and real stuff. What grabbed me about The Unforgiving (our historical Mage game) was not so much the Mage/WoD stuff, but the mid-18th century setting and everything going on at the time (politics, social movements, the myriad peoples, religion, etc). I would have enjoyed WFRP a lot more if it had been a semi-historical game set during the Thirty Years War, shorn of the fantasy races and most of the magic. I know real-stuff doesn't excite everyone else in equal measures, but I just love it. Most generic LotR-style fantasy just gets a big "meh" from me, I'm kind of sick of elves, dwarves and halflings (along with orcs, goblins, hobgoblins and ogres).

On to the human focus bit. As you're all well aware by now, I only play human characters, which is why I often seem to end up playing the Identification Character/Protagonist when everyone else has something more outlandish. Indeed, with the loss of Sam in Mass Effect, Russell has defaulted to The Guy in much the same way as Pawel Hals in WFRP, now he's the token human. That's not going to change, I'm afraid, I don't find non-humans appealing or interesting to play as PCs. The closest I came to that back in the day was occasionally playing half-elves, but that was a teenage thing really. I guess Faris al-Farik as a half-demon was a stretch too, but half-human is as far as I'm willing to go, and most of the time I'd prefer not to for anything that's going to last longer than a handful of sessions. So obviously it has to feature humans as playable PC options, so stuff like Blue Planet or Jadeclaw are out.

I like settings where non-powered humans matter, my preferred archetype is some spin on Badass Normal (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadassNormal), someone who can keep up with the powered types through skill, training and knowledge. It's one of the big turn-offs about the World of Darkness, where anyone without a splat is basically useless cattle to be herded and exploited by the supernaturals. I don't like playing monsters, and frankly every type of WoD splat (bar Mages and maybe Hunters) are that. It's why I much preferred the Whedonverse of Buffy/Angel to the WoD, because normal humans with training and smarts could take on the monsters. I want to play in a setting where you aren't sidelined simply by being a non-power-using human. It's also why even aside from the weirdness and annoying slang, Planescape doesn't really resonate with me, it's too chock full of ultra-powerful outsiders, places unaided humans simply cannot survive in and the like.

Exceptions. There's some stuff that bends or breaks these preferences, yet I still like them. Because I'm human, and sometimes the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Or the ways it breaks my preferences are done well or aren't too egregious.
Mass Effect - in spite of my feelings about sci-fi in general, I love the Mass Effect setting. It's my go-to space opera setting, and has replaced Star Wars entirely in my affections. I'd happily return to this as a break game again and again, it's a great "palate cleanser" for removing all vestiges of previous games. I like that it has scope for swathes of stuff completely ignored by the games, and frankly it's a more interesting setting without Commander Shepard in it.
Non-wargame 40k - as you all well know, I can't stand the default wargame setting and find Space Marines deadly dull. However, I still love the Abnett-verse interpretation of Imperial society and all that goes on in it. Whether inquisitorial, House intrigue, criminal, whatever.
Malazan Empire - I still think there's potential in using Malazan as a fantasy setting, it's one of the few I'd jump at rather than find a way to accomodate. Downside is of course I don't think everyone has read the books.
Exalted - I'd still love to play a game set in Creation (but not using any of the official systems, Ex3 isn't filling me with confidence lately) prior to the re-appearance of the Solaroids. Chris' notion of a Dragonblooded game with the whole elemental combining stuff appeals, particularly if we know there won't be any Celestial-tier opponents rocking up in large numbers to ruin our sh*t.

Just for absolute clarity, while stating preferences, these aren't immutable red lines I won't cross, just the direction I like things to go. I completely understand and accept that these things are always a negotiation and compromise between differing and sometimes conflicting tastes.

------------------------------------------

And there we have it, probably the first time I've ever tried to lay out what I like in a setting at once. Has anyone done something similar before? Or even just for themselves tried to capture what it is you like?

I wonder if anyone has similar setting preferences?

Slipperychicken
2013-09-20, 11:17 AM
The term "Pre-Contemporary" is confusing, since "contemporary" just means "present" or "occuring at the same time".

I suggest saying something like "Pre-Information Age", "Pre-Internet", or even "Pre-Modern".