Speaking of world building, I may be starting a new fantasy game soon and am figuring on allowing the traditional D&D subhuman races (elves, dwarves, etc.) since the new crop of players isn't going for the humans-only Conanesque vibe. I still want to avoid Tolkien tropes.  Anybody got good ideas on how to incorporate elves and dwarves and what not without it looking like goddam Middle Earth? Also want to avoid the stereotypical detached mystical elves and greedy dwarves in gold mines and hammering out special swords all day. I was thinking of making the elves more like ElfQuest and modeled on American Indian tribes of the Great Plains, nomadic and such. Or something.

So, just to clarify, Matt, are you still hoping to go for a sort-of Conanesque/S&S feel (only with some compromise thrown in)?

If so, Elves could be turned into an ancient, highly magical fallen civilisation of elder men. Atlanteans, Hyperboreans, whatever. Tall, unnatural hair and/or eye colour; hypnotists, summoners, necromancers, poisoners yet also uncannily quick and skilled with a blade; their diminished numbers wandering the halls of their long-lost cities aimlessly or lost in century-long magical lotus-dreams.

Dwarves could be a race of men forced underground millenia ago and adapted to their new habitat, with massive subterranean fortresses and ancient grudges towards their old enemies.

No, I was going to go ahead with Ye Olde Pseudo Middle Ages but with magic rare indeed and hopefully very few clerics and none of this "resurrection and healing potions available on every street corner" stuff. Haven't solidified or codified too much at this point, but I prefer actual risk of death and dismemberment. probably starting with a map of a region with some interesting places the characters may venture in search of money and adventure.

(Personally I have no use for elves and hobbits but people seem to expect it. )

This isn't going to quite answer your question, either (sorry), but have you considered creating several different stereotopical human "races" with mechanical differences, and offering those for a choice? Like "normal humans", Amazons, Faux-Vikings, Faux-Mongolians, Fallen Empire Guys, whatever? Each could have a +1 in some attribute and -1 in another, and some other minor mechanical bonus - extra proficiency in something (if you have a skill system), bonus to saves against cold for the Faux-Vikings or heat for the Faux-Arabs, etc..

Quote from: Premier;829486This isn't going to quite answer your question, either (sorry), but have you considered creating several different stereotopical human "races" with mechanical differences, and offering those for a choice? Like "normal humans", Amazons, Faux-Vikings, Faux-Mongolians, Fallen Empire Guys, whatever? Each could have a +1 in some attribute and -1 in another, and some other minor mechanical bonus - extra proficiency in something (if you have a skill system), bonus to saves against cold for the Faux-Vikings or heat for the Faux-Arabs, etc..

What on earth is a "Fallen Empire Guy"?

There have to be Amazons...the Xena kind, though, not the classical ones.

Although since I start out with the local region, no human "races" will feature until the PCs explore over the mountains and across the river.  Where they might find Vikings or Mongols or Bedouins and such.

Pitch your world, Matt. Is it just Conan+, now with elves 'n dwarves?

Easiest way is to switch up stereotypes or invert roles.

For example, dwarves are still master craftsmen but they specialize in boats and other watercraft. They are the coastal pirates and integral to every nascent state's navy. They "enchant" their (water) vehicles and gear with excellent craftsmanship and tend to build their ships' holds to their height specifications.

Elves are an invasive, hippy race-cult from across the seas, breeding fast, living long, and doing little but be-ins, camp outs, and drum circles. Thankfully they don't eat much and don't settle long, but their "save nature" proselytizing gets under everyone's nerves. However their major drum circle festivals are also the only known — though rare — form of magical healing and resurrection. Occasionally a tolerated pest, though often killed off like goblins.

Quote from: Matt;829533What on earth is a "Fallen Empire Guy"?

A guy from the standard ancient but declining, amoral, decadent empire which no longer has the same grasp on power as it used to and it's a nest of intrigue with lots of alchemists, poisoners, wizards of all stripes but a lack of strong, fighting vitality trope? You know, the reasonably common one?

Quote from: Matt;829348I'm of the opinion that writing up "worldwide histories" is a waste of time and effort. Most people are utterly unaware of most history from more than a few generations ago anyway as it has almost no bearing on their current situations. Better to work up details of recent times in the area your game begins, and expand from there as need or as inspired by the course of game play.

I think it entirely depends on the group.  Some players are interested in history; some aren't.

But a large factor, I feel, is in the kind of histories most gamers -- and gaming products -- produce.  To quote myself from the blog series I linked above, no one cares that Empress Lynessia III was the last monarch of Vallia to personally lead troops in war, winning the battle of Fourth Council Rock against the Avanari 174 years ago; it's enough to say that the empires of Vallia and Avanar are traditional enemies and have a turbulent, heavily militarized border, the last full-scale war being seventeen years ago.  

And that's the problem -- those histories are almost always vast spanning timelines, giving bulletpoints of events over tens of thousands of years.  That's meaningless to the player who doesn't give a damn about background, and worthless to the one who does.  What the one who does wants are bulletpoints from the last twenty years, and very few gaming "historians" bother with that ... when the last twenty years ought to have at least as much attention as the entire rest of recorded history.

It's like with today.  Anyone who claims that the outcome of the Battle of Kadesh or the deliberations of the Council of Constance has a meaningful and direct impact on the background and abilities of a modern-day PC is a moron.  But whether you served in Iraq?  That your PC was raised by hippie rejectionists on a commune?  That your PC lost family in 9/11, or in the Aceh tsunami, or at Fukushima?  Those events matter.  

Quote from: Matt;829481(Personally I have no use for elves and hobbits but people seem to expect it. )

They've told you they expect it, or you presume they expect it?  Different matters.

This is the point where you have a conversation with your players about what your setting looks like, and including something along the lines of "Yeah, look.  One of the things is that I'm so completely bored by the bog-standard D&D Tolkien ripoffs of hobbits, elves and dwarves.  You won't find those races in my game.  But you'll find these races/roles.  I think you'll find them more interesting; I sure do!"

If that doesn't work, then the problem you're facing is players who won't budge out of their comfort zone and prejudices.  And that's okay: they ought to decide for themselves what kind of gaming suits them.  Trying to force them out of their comfort zone won't go over well ... a player who demands to play in a game with hobbits because RPG Settings Have To Have Hobbits is an unquestioned article of faith is going to be even more pissed off that you've completely changed them than if you didn't include them at all.

My way of handling the syndrome is this: I run what I want to run, and then I find players who are willing to buy into my paradigm.  It sure beats resentment on your part because you're stuck running same old/same old.

Not to defend lengthy histories, because as fun as they are to read they aren't readily game-able material, but to point out one use I've had with them: choosing a different spot on the setting's timeline to play out certain key eras.

Just like people who want to play out WWII battles or Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and the like, you can do similar things with regional event histories. Then the rest of the official history is discardable as the historical timeline has possibly been altered by the players. However, if the PCs had no meaningful direct impact the rest of the recent timeline might be workable agenda milestones and context to fashion the campaign's future.

They're useful, but it helps to do some prep and have a rather special table -- one invested in the setting's history is a plus.

Quote from: Ravenswing;829787I think it entirely depends on the group.  Some players are interested in history; some aren't.

But a large factor, I feel, is in the kind of histories most gamers -- and gaming products -- produce.  To quote myself from the blog series I linked above, no one cares that Empress Lynessia III was the last monarch of Vallia to personally lead troops in war, winning the battle of Fourth Council Rock against the Avanari 174 years ago; it's enough to say that the empires of Vallia and Avanar are traditional enemies and have a turbulent, heavily militarized border, the last full-scale war being seventeen years ago.  

And that's the problem -- those histories are almost always vast spanning timelines, giving bulletpoints of events over tens of thousands of years.  That's meaningless to the player who doesn't give a damn about background, and worthless to the one who does.  What the one who does wants are bulletpoints from the last twenty years, and very few gaming "historians" bother with that ... when the last twenty years ought to have at least as much attention as the entire rest of recorded history.

It's like with today.  Anyone who claims that the outcome of the Battle of Kadesh or the deliberations of the Council of Constance has a meaningful and direct impact on the background and abilities of a modern-day PC is a moron.  But whether you served in Iraq?  That your PC was raised by hippie rejectionists on a commune?  That your PC lost family in 9/11, or in the Aceh tsunami, or at Fukushima?  Those events matter.  

That's what I said. Just more succinctly.

Quote from: Arkansan;828186My past few attempts at building a campaign setting have all sort of died right out of the chute. I realized that I end up getting hung up with large scale details and world wide histories. Essentially I'm too fucked up thinking about the forest to see the trees. I typically try to do a mix of small and large scale from the start, a brief world history some large assumptions about things and then flesh out a continent in brief and a kingdom in detail.

I just bought a copy of DCC though and it really got the creative juices flowing for me, so I've got the itch to build another setting. This time though I want to start small, like really small. However I have never really done that before.

How many of you start at the village level and work up from there?

I want to start at that level but I keep worrying about keeping the whole thing consistent if I don't have a larger picture of the world. Any particular pitfalls of this approach? Advice on building from the ground up?

Start with an island, or an isolated valley. Detail the hell out of it. Restrict any detail about the outer world to two sentences. Make the characters strangers to the island. They are ship wrecked, or timelost, or marooned by circumstance.
In this way the setting becomes a mystery- the resoluton of which is a result of play and exploration; players are far more interested in mystery than history, ime.

Quote from: Aos;829846Start with an island, or an isolated valley. Detail the hell out of it. Restrict any detail about the outer world to two sentences. Make the characters strangers to the island. They are ship wrecked, or timelost, or marooned by circumstance.
In this way the setting becomes a mystery- the resoluton of which is a result of play and exploration; players are far more interested in mystery than history, ime.

Huh, now there is an interesting thought. I rather like the idea of players as explorers of a lost land, also resolves the bothersome task of dealing with what the characters should know about the setting.

Quote from: Arkansan;829856Huh, now there is an interesting thought. I rather like the idea of players as explorers of a lost land, also resolves the bothersome task of dealing with what the characters should know about the setting.

Think of the openings to Lost, Planet of the Apes, every old Dr. Who ever (the second adventure of the first doctor "The Dialeks" is a solid example) or A Princess of Mars.
I have done this a couple times now and it has worked really well.

Quote from: Aos;829861Think of the openings to Lost, Planet of the Apes, every old Dr. Who ever (the second adventure of the first doctor "The Dialeks" is a solid example) or A Princess of Mars.
I have done this a couple times now and it has worked really well.

I'll give it a shot, thanks for the idea.