Great Article. I usually homebrew my world with boundaries as well. In fact I don't usually let my players have non-human characters. I start them off by saying "You are a poor young swineherder from the town of Hamfest. Your poor elderly parents, though still hard working, depend on you and your siblings labors very much." And that serves as the intro. The PCs inevitably (and quickly) tend to leave the farm on sundry adventures, of course. The limitations are simply in the setup, not in what they can do from there. Since elves, dwarves and monsters such as goblins are all rare and mysterious in my world, I don't like to allow players to play these races. It keeps the mood of the world more down to earth and so when they do run into other races it's not a case of "Oh look another Elve/Dwarve/Goblin/Yawn", but rather a special event. A lot of what goes on in my world has to do with local mysteries (such as the mysterious death/disappearance of Pamela McFearson - an ongoing mystery in the campaign for four years now). Not to say that all such other races are not lurking around in shadows... oh they are! But I prefer to keep them there until they have good reason to spring out. Too many worlds, imo, lurch directly into the fantasy setting and so loose the sense of mystery that is really part and parcel of the mysterious races mentioned by our ancestors in their myths and legends. Anyway, thanks for the article. I will pass it along to my friends in the Literary RPG Society. :)

I too have used limitations as one of my tools to lend a unique character to my setting. I omitted Dragons, Giants, Elves, Horses, Halflings, Psionics, snow (a warm climate) and several other aspects that most fantasy settings cling to.

I then extrapolated what effect these omissions would have on the world. This allowed me to then build in different expansions on the standard setting features that had a markedly different feel than many other settings.

My players bemoaned the absence of the old standbys at first, but after a few sessions they really got into the different feel of my world and now, after running three different campaigns in this setting over the years, I'm pleased to be a player as another in my gaming group GMs in MY setting! (Yes, that is a cool feeling!) :-)

Limiting certain things is an excellent technique, but only so long as they are done as part of a cohesive whole in fostering a specific feeling for your setting. Removing things just because you don't like "x", or for random or arbitary reasons is more likely to result in a setting that feels like it's riddled with holes than being unique.

Fantastic article, it made me realize a fundamental design difference in Savage Worlds and D&D. In D&D you almost always have to change the rules, in Savage Worlds you don't necessarily have to. You even inspired an article out of it that I'll be running tomorrow.

Thanks for the good read.

I've done that in some settings, but what I like even more is reinventing certain core races/classes. For instance, in one setting I wanted to make elves feel more like a mystical fae race, and gave them enough supernatural powers (and ability modifiers) to require a level adjustment. I then gave half-elves the stats of vanilla D&D elves and went from there. In a 'fallen technology' setting, I reinvented Clerics as Tech Priests who serve (and maintain) the ancient god-computers of the former age. What spells I let them keep from the original setting were all explained as ancient technology (nanites for healing, orbital laser strikes for Flame Strike, etc.) We had a lot of fun with that one.

I've always thought this. If all the D&D source books are a toolkit... well, no idiot uses every tool in the box on every job. You just use the tools that you need.

I think this same principle goes even more so for monsters. Any campaign world I design, I choose carefully which monsters exist in it. Which ones I exclude can say a lot about the world (no savage humanoids? No demons? No undead?).

I oppose kitchen-sink fantasy worlds, I must say.

I tend to omit the Bard and Paladin in my games.

Bard: I think you all know why I don't like the bard. It just doesn't fit; the Bard lacks a real role that isn't covered by something else. I am a bit of a minimalist. If someone wants to be a Bard, I consider it a profession. Anyone can be a Bard - learn to sing, play an instrument, etc., and there you are.

Paladin: I'm not fond of Paladins. They tend to be the death of parties - their strict adherence to Law and Order and Honor makes it very difficult on players who don't quite want to play that way. If someone REALLY wants to play a Paladin, then I require that everyone else be on board with the idea.

I also tend to disallow the various Prestige classes unless there's a good role-playing reason. I know, heresy abounds here.

For me, they don't seem to add much to the game and in many cases seem like a substitute for role playing. Want to be an Assassin? Then play a rogue that kills people for money. Want to be an Arcane Warrior? Multi-class with Fighter and Wizard. Etc.

Some people don't like that I "dumb down" the game a bit, but others appreciate it.

@Trinyan: "I reinvented Clerics as Tech Priests who serve (and maintain) the ancient god-computers of the former age."

I have been trying to think of a good "alternative religion" in my next campaign and this is a fantastic idea with so many possibilities. I absolutely LOVE it. I would hug you if I could. It already fits into what I am planning, which is a post-cataclysmic-war world.