How do you sell people on playing in a setting that is not traditional?

>>51630096
You need a good pitch. A hook. Something to draw them into your setting and become invested in it, if only a little bit.

>>51630096
A familiar starting point. If you need to sell them on this setting, then I'm guessing they're not already excited by the exotic elements. So start off small in a part of the setting that your players can get comfortable in. Then as the story progresses, gradually introduce the new elements as the players encounter them.

How do you sell people on fantasy Europe?

>nah m8, I'm sick of this shit, give us something new

>Guys, let's play in this cool setting, there are humans elfs orcs dwarfs paladins druids...
>Bleeh don't you have something interesting?
>Well, if you insist, there's also this.

Present a veneer of normalcy. Then open a trap door to someplace stranger. Into the Odd has a great approach to this, I think.

You start in a semi modern (but imaginary) city where people have jobs, pay taxes, and so on, but everyone knows that outside the city walls, or in the ancient vaults under the city, things work differently. They are all as baffled and clueless as the players are. Then you send the PC's out there to explore by trial and error.

Everybody likes the idea of novelty, but unless there's a shared universe, your choices all look like "do you open the blue door or the purple door".

>>51630096
What is a not!Europe setting? In my view, a not!England setting would be wildly different from a not!Rome setting, which would be different from a not!Scandinavia setting and so forth. I don't think any setting based on the real world would be particularly 'strange'.

File: map_of_clichea_by_sarithus-d8svc4c.jpg (429KB, 1600x960px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 1600x960px

>>51631712

>What is a not!Europe setting?

It refers to the generic kitchen sink fantasy setting most people think of in a D&D game. The kind of setting which is basically just one giant medieval theme park. A lot of official settings are like this, with varying degrees of quality.

Personally I don't think it's that hard to sell players on something different.

>>51631712
Player expectations my man.

I was running an exotic swords and sorcery kinda thing once (set in war shattered kingdom, god king rising from the grave, demons that steal voices and memories)

First thing the players do?
>we go to the nearest inn and look for a bulletin board with mercenary jobs

These were not people who played 3.5 for ten years, just a group of friends who like LotR and maybe read some fantasy novels when they were in college. It shouldn't have surprised me, and it wasn't really a problem, but they followed the D&D formula to a T without even thinking about it.

>>51631746
>I don't think it's that hard to sell players on something different.
No, but you need something for them to sink their teeth into. Maybe it's art, or a milieu they all "get" (ie, Victorian England, 50's USA, Old Testament Jerusalem). Where you go from there is up to you, as long as your players aren't kind that'll ragequit when dinosaurs and rayguns appear in their generic fantasy.

>>51631746
The generic D&D setting would be something full of Tolkien's tropes, which in turn would be a not!England setting.

I noticed many people here have this obsession with "uniqueness' and making something 'different'. Let me tell you: This is not important, at all. What is important is the way the setting is handled, if it has an interesting history, interesting places and some logical consistency, most players will like it. Just take a look at the most 'generic' settings, they steal a lot of ideas from Tolkien but how many of them actually resemble Middle-Earth? None.

So, my conclusion: If the setting is well written it *will* be unique and special not matter what cultures or tropes you used as inspiration.

>>51631332
>Then open a trap door to someplace stranger.

If a GM pulled this shit on me I'd dodge out of the game real quick. Bait and switch is bullshit faggotry.

>>51630096

You need to be able to paint a vivid picture.

Western fantasy is so compelling for three reasons:

1. It's western history, so europeans and their descendants have a cultural starting point that they've already absorbed even if they don't know much history. It's the same reasons Egypt, Greece, Israel, and Rome are easy historical periods to do-- we all have a mental image of them because they're all part of the west's cultural evolution. China or India's history is harder for westerners to draw on because you have to actually do some homework.

2. Western fantasy has a vast corpus of literature to support it. Tolkien is the obvious one here, but so are innumerable hollywood b movies and wannabes.

3. RPGs are all strongly influenced by this type of setting. Even the ones that try to depart from it. And then you have games like Shadowrun, which fold fantasy tropes into cyberpunk. YOu could as easily do it for anything else.

So we all have a set of "default central casting assumptions" about how a fantasy world will work. Add a few setting-specific twists, and you're done.

And it's not just fantasy. Cyberpunk is so compelling in part because it draws on film noir dramatic conventions and because there's a ton of books, TV, and movies with it. I don't have to explain what VR or cybernetics are, and if the implications aren't cyberpunky, then I have to go out of my way to explain them.

Modern Supernatural Horror draws on western legendry, then adds a huge body of literature, and games like Vampire and CoC and others. We all know how that genre works, so learning a new setting means just picking up whatever twists there are.

So if you want something entirely novel, then you have to have compelling fiction with a strong look and feel to enculturate the players into the imagery, assumptions, and nature of your game. Even then, you'll be trapped by your own assumptions and want to add stuff that inevitably moves it closer to something you already know.

>>51632004
The "generic medieval fantasy setting" is a shared imaginary world. It differs from person to person, but it's generally agreed to contain wizards, dragons, elves, dwarves, mighty warriors, dark lords with spooky magic, pseudohistorical culture and tech, etc. It's a cool place in general.

Another example--classic American film noir. There'll be dark, rainy alleys, private detectives with a complicated relationship with the (possibly corrupt) authorities, stolen loot, dangerous and seductive women, etc.

Nothing wrong with trying a different shared mythology, or mixing them up, or throwing something new into the pot. Most popular genres started out as a variation on an older genre.

>>51632087
Then you're not invited. You sound unpleasant.
>implying you have to go on fun adventures
I guess you could just stay in the city and work in a factory or something.

File: That's bullshit but I believe it.jpg (29KB, 720x439px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 720x439px

>>51632004
>I noticed many people here have this obsession with "uniqueness' and making something 'different'.

Wrong. Your opinion is parroted far more then opinions advocating for really original or weird settings. More people on /tg/ have a cultural elitism towards muh Tolkien fantasy then not. You are spouting an opinion that is very prevalent as though you are a revolutionary; you are not, and it is not.

>Let me tell you: This is not important, at all. What is important is the way the setting is handled

Also partially wrong. You say that the settings quality is 'all that matters' but when the quality of the setting is directly weighted down by its baggage of being uninspired unoriginal trash it's a lot harder for that to be the case.

Obviously most people agree that a totally played straight 'big barbarian, sneaky elf thief, surly dwarf, and wise old wizard team up to stop the dark lord from collecting pieces to a magic sword' style campaign setting, with everything exactly in line with generic fantasy tropes can be done 'well'. Nobody is arguing that it can't be done well, but it doesn't matter how well it is done because both due to the saturation of this kind of story and its shared mythology means that all avenues of exploration and interesting ideas have been done before, and are weak. Not to mention that this type of game/setting has been done so many times it will merely draw parallels to similar stories and settings in your players minds, some of which were probably done better then you ever could.

Do you remember when everyone video game coming out was a brown and bloom WW2 shooter? Or perhaps the zombie craze? People quickly became tired of the fad, and do to how games must be developed by the time developers had gone in on the fad people hated it and didn't give the game the benefit of the doubt simply due to the set dressing and setting of the games. It doesn't matter how objectively "good" they were. Your argument is bullshit.

>>51632841
>Your opinion is parroted far more then opinions advocating for really original or weird settings

That's not the perception I have from lurking other threads.

>You are spouting an opinion that is very prevalent as though you are a revolutionary

Never claimed to be revolutionary, I just stated my opinion.

>when the quality of the setting is directly weighted down by its baggage of being uninspired unoriginal trash it's a lot harder for that to be the case.

Is it? As I said, there are a shit ton of settings with Tolkien's tropes but not one of them resemble Middle-Earth even slightly. Warhammer's Old World is vastly different from Forgotten Realms and they both have orcs, elves and dwarves.

>but it doesn't matter how well it is done because both due to the saturation of this kind of story and its shared mythology means that all avenues of exploration and interesting ideas have been done before, and are weak.

My point is that a well written and detailed setting will be unique no matter what(see Middle-Earth) and going out of your way to make your setting as 'strange' and 'special' as possible may not achieve what you want. It shouldn't be a priority.

I don't mind using other cultures or mythologies that are not european, but to think that the setting will be 'unique' or 'strange' just because of that, well, that's silly.

>>51632004
>The generic D&D setting would be something full of Tolkien's tropes,
By the time WotC got the license (and started encouraging High Fantasy), Tolkien was more of a background presence than a foreground one.
The generic D&D setting throughout TSR was an odd mix of Swords and Sorcery and the 'medieval mid-west'.

>>51631214
>Guys, let's play in this cool setting, there are humans elfs orcs dwarfs paladins druids...
>Sure thing anon, that sounds great
>No guys, I was trying to s-
>I'mma be a Sexy Drow Thief!
Play with fire anon. Play with fire.

File: 1428816060967.png (134KB, 507x649px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 507x649px

>>51631214
>Know how hard it is to DM, especially when not invested in a setting
>DM seems to want to do a basic world so I cooperate and roll with it without complaining
>Everything is shit because the de facto group leader decided to try and pull a stunt swap trick and not just communicate