Why?

>It's a world where people have objective proof of gods and the afterlife existing
>Society is still just medieval Europe

Attached: sagat-street-fighter-ex3-15.7.jpg (210x240, 14K)

>caring about the setting
>not the actual quests you'll be venturing on

Attached: 1505005244339.jpg (659x454, 97K)

Nobody on Veeky Forums actually plays games.

Why would you make threads complaining about RPGs when you don't even have friends to play RPGs with?

I'm fairly certain that people who can't just enjoy exploring and living in the fantasy world haven't actually played a fucking game before.

Some of us do, but we're not the ones complaining about >muh stasis

>execution is more important than premise
>therefore the premise doesn't matter
I sympathize but I don't agree at all. I can't get enthusiastic at all about some bullshit generic setting full of dead horse ideas.

>society lacks feudalism, Christianity, any substantial cultural connection to european cultures and the technology is a mish-mash of rennaisance equipment with made-up stuff
>people insist on calling it medieval anyway

They had objective proof of God a d the afterlife in Medieval Europe so I'm not sure what you expect different

>generic setting full of dead horse ideas
Problem is the dead horse ideas not the generic setting

>exploring and living in the knock-off elven city with its "I Can't Believe It's Not Gondolin!" inhabitants that you've seen a million times in other settings
>exploring and living in the stereotypical dwarven mountain hold full of Scottish runts that you've seen a million times in other settings
>exploring and living in a human port that might as well be a small town Renfair in Idaho that you've seen a million times in other settings
Nope. Can't enjoy. Gimme something like Talislanta or Morrowind at least.

Stick your sophistry up your ass. It's generic because it's full of dead horse ideas. That's what generic is. Those two things are indivisible. You can't have a generic setting full of new, engaging ideas because then it wouldn't be generic.

Tryhard smartass.

why would it necessarily be different? I'm pretty sure that most medieval Europeans took the existence of God more or less for granted, and so "objective" proof wouldn't necessarily change their view of the world dramatically. the only things that I can think of immediately is that instead of 0.1% of the population being atheists, it would be 0%, which wouldn't necessarily manifest itself as a major difference in society. I bet you would even still have heretics in comparable measure - just instead of having people who don't believe in a given God, they refuse to worship Him / worship a different God (who also exists) / worship God in heterodox ways.

Attached: 1898_Vasnetsov_Bogatyrs_anagoria.jpg (1920x1234, 656K)

You're right, but I feel like the opposite is a much worse problem. Having a setting with novels worth of interesting backstory but the most you do is fight bandits.

Tell that to anyone who wasn't Catholic. And like half the people who were Catholic in name only. There's a reason Protestantism later became a thing.

>The gods are dicks and shouldn't be worshipped
>The gods are strange and it's better to just ignore and be ignored
>people caring about proof

nigga there's plenty of reasons if you have a bit of a think

in medieval society God was understood to be objective along with the afterlife.

Just like the real medieval ages.

>he plays in a setting where evidence of the gods' existence is commonplace

Not many settings have one singular God that is as psychopathic as Middle Ages God.

Ah, the TES approach to making games.

Precisely.

>He never found the necromancers