PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] The Gears Of Worldbuilding Are A-Churnin' Again...



Drakevarg
2010-12-16, 01:19 AM
From my DeviantArt journal:


(The second part of the Dragon Age review is still coming, by the way. I'm just trying to time the writing of it during the "simmerdown" period between the post-ragequit frothing and my usual emotional apathy.)

Since my laptop is all wonky, I've called off all future DnD games until I get one that isn't, on account of wanting to run a full session without my notes crashing because one of my players bumped the table or something. On account of this, I've been blessed with an unexpect ammount of free time, the majority of which probably should be spent working on "Polarity: Stiffed." (As mentioned on my webcomic account Polarity-Travlers that none of you read.) Of course, since I'm a lazy bastard, most of my time is spent ******* around or sleeping.

The sleeping part is what loosed my worldbuilding gears. It either happened in my late-morning "not-quite-asleep-but-refusing-to-acknowledge-conciousness" haze or whilst trying to fall asleep in the first place, but I starting mulling over ideas. Namely the dynamics of my two favorite styles of magic systems; the Polarity-style kind where magic has distinct flavors and rules, and a more Lovecraftian kind where all is chaos and any rules are either inconsistant or simply not able to be observed by mortal kin.

This led me to thinking of my DnD setting. In which there are two types of magic: Divine and Arcane. The Divine is that which is granted by the gods. But most of the gods in question aren't gods at all. They're mortals, very powerful mortals who through sheer force of will pulled themselves from the River Styx and built upon it islands which they made their kingdoms. The only two true, primordial forces of the universe here were Life and Death. But here I thought: "How did this relate to those from the Void?"

The Void is where the Arcane comes from. An infinite, nebulous expanse of power, where rules and structure were left at the door. A "glitch" in the universe, so to speak, where the established patterns of reality didn't apply. On the other hand, existing at the same time were the Elemental Planes and the Plane of Magic; pure places where the universe's primordial energies came from.

As I thought about this, and how they stemmed from simply liberally reinterpreting the standard rules of DnD, the more I disliked it. It was a crude amalgamation of chaos and order, the dominance of which seemed to be arbitrarily decided without thought. Why are Life and Death primordial forces of existance when they do not seem to apply to the Void? If Arcane magic comes from the chaos of the Void, why should there be such orderly elemental planes?

So I decided: Embrace Chaos, Dismiss Order. With a single thought, the Divine was dismissed from my world. But it wasn't enough. The Elemental Planes had to go as well. But still not enough. Why, in a world where magic is a thing of chaos, should such neat, compartmentallized concepts as "spells" be allowed? My first instict was to dismiss INT-based casters. They relied on understanding rules which did not exist, and so had no place here. "But!" I said, "Even so, Sorcerers and the like still cast SPELLS. Should not magic be like a dance here, weaving abstract energies to a purpose?" But who could do that?

Warlocks! Eldritch Blast is simply a short outburst of energy, it has no form or substance. And if memory recalls (since I have no access to my books at the moment), Invocations are not so much codified spells as abstract ideas made flesh. So, Warlocks it was. But now that magic is resolved, how does this ripple to the rest of the world?

First of all, the various "races" were ideals of the gods. Orcs were the ideal of Gruumsh, Elves were the ideal of Corellon Larethian. But there were no longer gods. So why would their ideals remain? And so they're dismissed, along with their unthinking brethren like Griffons and Bulettes. This would be a world like ours; Humans would be the only ones who spoke and built. And the forests would be stalked by wolves and bears, not dragons and chimera.

And classes? With Warlocks being the only ones left for whom reality was more a suggestion than anything, this left Fighters, Rogues, maybe Barbarians. Since Rangers were excellent but had a few distasteful supernatural elements, I've been considering folding them with Fighters, who are underpowered to begin with.

Either way, without my books progress is stunted. Just felt like giving my thoughts form so it can be looked at and evaluated.

Just wanted to see if the Playground had any thoughts on it, nebulous though it's current state is.

arguskos
2010-12-16, 01:35 AM
Just wanted to see if the Playground had any thoughts on it, nebulous though it's current state is.
Frankly (and this is not meant to be mean), it sounds like a standard low-magic 3.5 setting. I see little of unique note beyond "there are only humans". No alternative routes to power, no technological focus, no societal implication to there being only a single sentient race.

And I do have to question something: if orcs/elves/dwarves/whatever are all gone because their deities are gone, and they were just lesser derivatives of their deities, why are humans here? Where did they come from? Evolution? Why did nothing else evolve sentience? The human form is not the only or best one for tool use after all (science fiction can fill you in on that tidbit of thought), so why did humans evolve and, say, dwarves didn't? :smallconfused:

Why are creatures like Griffons gone? Griffons are ordered in any fashion and could have naturally come around due to evolutionary pressures like dogs did in our world. Same with bulettes etcetcetc, ESPECIALLY if magic still actually exists. You have magic, you have no order, there is nothing divine, there are no planes. Something must drive development of the setting. The only forces left are evolution (overridden in most D&D settings due to high magic effects) and the "Void" (a boring name IMO, but that's just flavor preferences) which is chaos incarnate. Pick one force to drive the development of the setting now that everything else is stripped out and go from there. It will flow a lot better and close a lot of holes and questions of "where did X/Y/Z come from/go to?"

Drakevarg
2010-12-16, 01:59 AM
Frankly (and this is not meant to be mean),

Oh, no. By all means, go on. These criticisms help fuel thought!


...it sounds like a standard low-magic 3.5 setting. I see little of unique note beyond "there are only humans". No alternative routes to power, no technological focus, no societal implication to there being only a single sentient race.

Well, one of the perks to there only being humans is that it helps encourage myself to really think about their motives instead of elves doing elfy stuff because that's what elves do. Obviously a responsible worldbuilder doesn't fall into those ruts, but it's simply easier when you don't have cliches to lean on.


And I do have to question something: if orcs/elves/dwarves/whatever are all gone because their deities are gone, and they were just lesser derivatives of their deities, why are humans here? Where did they come from? Evolution? Why did nothing else evolve sentience? The human form is not the only or best one for tool use after all (science fiction can fill you in on that tidbit of thought), so why did humans evolve and, say, dwarves didn't? :smallconfused:

Well, dwarves at least never existed in my setting to begin with. They simply didn't work in my mythos.

As for the rest, one of the basic concepts of fiction is "reality, except as where noted." With the more fantastic elements stripped but still in need of a sentient race to fuel the various civilizations needed to actually tell a story (unless I felt like doing a talking animals game... which by the way I don't), that leaves humans.


Why are creatures like Griffons gone? Griffons are ordered in any fashion and could have naturally come around due to evolutionary pressures like dogs did in our world. Same with bulettes etcetcetc, ESPECIALLY if magic still actually exists. You have magic, you have no order, there is nothing divine, there are no planes. Something must drive development of the setting. The only forces left are evolution (overridden in most D&D settings due to high magic effects) and the "Void" (a boring name IMO, but that's just flavor preferences) which is chaos incarnate. Pick one force to drive the development of the setting now that everything else is stripped out and go from there. It will flow a lot better and close a lot of holes and questions of "where did X/Y/Z come from/go to?"

On the "Void is a boring name bit," I can come up with something else later. Assuming I care to name it at all. It is a vast, unknowable expanse after all. ...perhaps the Manafield? I've been using that for another setting with a similar "magic is chaos" feel.

Anyway the mundane world was mostly designed as a contrast to the Lovecraftian bent of the Void (or whatever you care to call it). The world is normal, so it's immediately evident than anything abnormal is magic. So various fantastic elements (magical animals, elementals, undead, whatever) are all going to be explained in some way as the Void twisting the mundane somehow. Or simply vomiting itself up whole-cloth, no mundane elements required. Point being, fantastic elements are exactly that; fantastic.

Where in a normal setting people might not freak out if they see a griffin fly overhead or a unicorn in the woods, this is a setting where such things are genuinely weird.

Anxe
2010-12-16, 02:15 AM
A setting that says no to a lot of the things that people like about D&D isn't going to be widely successful. Your thinking process for reaching the conclusion of a world with low magic is nice though. The errors I see are:

If the Void is Chaos. Nothing ordered can be caused by the Void because the Void has no order. Why does the Material Plane exist then?

Why does the Void's existence stop Life and Death from existing? What if Life and Death came from somewhere else besides the Void? Same for all the other things you excluded.

Dismissing INT-casters also has a problem. Imposing rules on a disordered system doesn't mean the rules don't work. It just means the rules are not the best picture of the truth. Like the original orbital theory of electrons around atomic nuclei. It's not "THE Truth," but it's an approximation that we can work with and draw conclusions from. Those conclusions then let us do cool things. Similar things could be done with magic.

Also, the INT-casters may be imposing rules upon a unruled system. Perhaps the way magic works is that any rule system the people choose to impose on it for themselves is exactly what happens. Kind of like the Matrix.

Or the way the INT-casters may be drawing power from the Void and then forming that power into things that conform to their rule system. Rather like how my house draws power from a grid and can then use those raw electrons to power my computer and my alarm clock.

As for dismissing Divine casting, you didn't give much of a reason there. Once the River Styx exists there doesn't appear to be a problem with Divine casting. As I see it Divine casting is just like Arcane casting in your "physics" system except with a middle man. Arcane casters draw power directly from the Void. Divine casters draw power from their deities. The deities draw their power directly from the Void. The deities keep most of the power for themselves, but they also distribute it out to their followers.

For Races: If you're assuming that the races were created by gods and could have no other origins explaining their existence; then yes, they should be removed from your campaign. This is of course assuming that there are no gods. The races could come about through magical accidents or a species differentiation through evolution.

How are Warlocks better at drawing raw power than Sorcerers? Invocations are less restrictive than a small spell list? I don't get this one. Unless the Warlocks in your new "physics" have no invocations. Then it makes sense.

TL;DR I pointed out some problems that I saw in the OP's post.

arguskos
2010-12-16, 02:24 AM
Oh, no. By all means, go on. These criticisms help fuel thought!
Be warned, I am not nice.


Well, one of the perks to there only being humans is that it helps encourage myself to really think about their motives instead of elves doing elfy stuff because that's what elves do. Obviously a responsible worldbuilder doesn't fall into those ruts, but it's simply easier when you don't have cliches to lean on.
Yes, this is true, but I can't help but feel you're losing something. It's harder for players to relate to a world that breaks with all the cliches. I'm not suggesting you use cliches, merely saying that they exist for a good reason: because they help the player get a grip on the world, understand how things work, and give them a base point to work from. See, what I do, and what I as a designer feel is ideal, is take the cliches and make them the surface of the world, then construct things in such a way that the cliches have reason to exist. Dwarves are master crafters? Well, *why* are they crafters? Oh, because they live in a fiercely competitive, resource deficient, environment and must make the absolute best of every scrap of material they've got, meaning they developed amazing crafting skills so that they can make each piece of material go that extra mile.

Elves live in harmony with nature? Why? Because in the distant past, the current race of elves fought (and lost) a civil war. They had embraced technology, but when they lost the war and were exiled from their ancestral homes, their society suffered a massive division. Today, half of the elves shun technology and embrace nature, trying to repair the damage to their spirits from so long ago. The others live with advanced tech, trying to fill the hole that was caused by the schism in the past.

These are both examples from my own setting. I take cliches (which players can relate to and build character concepts for) and make them deeper, giving them societal context and complex meaning. Now, it's not a cliche anymore, it's a society that makes sense, which is the entire point of any worldbuilding exercise.


Well, dwarves at least never existed in my setting to begin with. They simply didn't work in my mythos.
Of course, that's your prerogative. :smallsmile: For instance, I killed halflings and gnomes, both to show the character of another race and because I hate the little bastards. Designer decision, always allowed.


As for the rest, one of the basic concepts of fiction is "reality, except as where noted." With the more fantastic elements stripped but still in need of a sentient race to fuel the various civilizations needed to actually tell a story (unless I felt like doing a talking animals game... which by the way I don't), that leaves humans.
Yes, but you're missing the bigger question: where did they come from? If you have a reason why the more fantastic races are gone, why don't you have a reason humans are actually around?


On the "Void is a boring name bit," I can come up with something else later. Assuming I care to name it at all. It is a vast, unknowable expanse after all. ...perhaps the Manafield? I've been using that for another setting with a similar "magic is chaos" feel.
That's just me being ornery. I don't like such a trite and overused name. Something thematic that carries the desired meaning would be best, something like the Unworked (denotes chaos, lack of structure, possibility for creation, carries a slight bit of malice, etc) or the Fuel (denotes source of magic, evokes images of gasoline and fueling fires, this helps players think of it as a danger, but also as a benefit). You know, something with a strong but simple image. Those are always the best names, IMO.


Anyway the mundane world was mostly designed as a contrast to the Lovecraftian bent of the Void (or whatever you care to call it). The world is normal, so it's immediately evident than anything abnormal is magic. So various fantastic elements (magical animals, elementals, undead, whatever) are all going to be explained in some way as the Void twisting the mundane somehow. Or simply vomiting itself up whole-cloth, no mundane elements required. Point being, fantastic elements are exactly that; fantastic.
If the world is normal, why does it not look like ours right now? Or like ours, maybe 500 years ago? Does it? What role does the Void play in shaping the world? How intertwined are they? Does one exist inside the other? These are questions that need answers.


Where in a normal setting people might not freak out if they see a griffin fly overhead or a unicorn in the woods, this is a setting where such things are genuinely weird.
Why are they though? Is this you saying "I want a world that's generally boring to exist in, but has enough elements of the fantastic to be interesting"? Cause, that's the vibe I'm getting here.

The picture you are painting shows me a world that's frankly boring as hell. Only one sentience, very little fantastic to spice things up. Given the repeated references to Lovecraft (who was famed for making the fantastic invariably lethal to mortals), I am foreseeing something like Eternal Darkness in setting, if not in tone, and for that, I'd just pick up Call of Cthulhu, since that has the default assumptions of Lovecraft built in. I still haven't seen anything uniquely compelling. I believe that you've got a core idea that could work, I'm just not seeing it clearly. Clean up the idea and make it clearer what exactly you're shooting for, and I can better help you get there, something I'd be happy to do. :smallwink:

Aside:
Now, that said, I do believe that a Lovecraftian 3.5 setting can be done very well. I would say that the approach needs to be much the opposite of what's going down here. Low magic doesn't make much sense, that's just CoC. Instead, take what 3.5 is known for and make it Lovecrafty: high magic. In a high magic world, something that magic cannot solve is going to be TERRIFYING. Lovecraft, all about That Which Should Not Be Known, would smile at a setting where every not inconsiderable tool the world has at its disposal fails to do anything about the ineffable mystery of That Which Should Not Be Known.

Drakevarg
2010-12-16, 02:43 AM
If the Void is Chaos. Nothing ordered can be caused by the Void because the Void has no order. Why does the Material Plane exist then?

Because the Material Plane is a distinct and seperate entity from the Void. The Material Plane is a place where physics and logic work. The Void is where those things are laughed at and shooed out of the room.


Why does the Void's existence stop Life and Death from existing? What if Life and Death came from somewhere else besides the Void? Same for all the other things you excluded.

It's largely just a desire to express a different idea with the setting. Life and Death (in this case meaning the anthropomorphic personifications of Life and Death) are simply to logical and orderly of concepts to be welcome in a setting whose major themes are chaos and unknowability.


Dismissing INT-casters also has a problem. Imposing rules on a disordered system doesn't mean the rules don't work. It just means the rules are not the best picture of the truth. Like the original orbital theory of electrons around atomic nuclei. It's not "THE Truth," but it's an approximation that we can work with and draw conclusions from. Those conclusions then let us do cool things. Similar things could be done with magic.

Also, the INT-casters may be imposing rules upon a unruled system. Perhaps the way magic works is that any rule system the people choose to impose on it for themselves is exactly what happens. Kind of like the Matrix.

Or the way the INT-casters may be drawing power from the Void and then forming that power into things that conform to their rule system. Rather like how my house draws power from a grid and can then use those raw electrons to power my computer and my alarm clock.

Interesting idea, but given my decision to remove spellcasters in general, is a bit moot. The reason for dismissing spells in general is because spells lean more to specific, independant functions as opposed to warping a single function into different directions.


As for dismissing Divine casting, you didn't give much of a reason there. Once the River Styx exists there doesn't appear to be a problem with Divine casting. As I see it Divine casting is just like Arcane casting in your "physics" system except with a middle man. Arcane casters draw power directly from the Void. Divine casters draw power from their deities. The deities draw their power directly from the Void. The deities keep most of the power for themselves, but they also distribute it out to their followers.

I like the idea of gods simply being Epic Arcane spellcasters and Divine Spellcasters simply being Arcane-By-Proxy, and I'd probably use it if I wasn't trying to delete the concept of the divine and the afterlife from the setting entirely. (Again, more because it's a concept I want to play with than because the concept in-and-if-itself is fundamentally flawed.)


For Races: If you're assuming that the races were created by gods and could have no other origins explaining their existence; then yes, they should be removed from your campaign. This is of course assuming that there are no gods. The races could come about through magical accidents or a species differentiation through evolution.

They could, yes, but it then starts smelling more like white bread fantasy than a distinct seperation between the mundane and fantastic.


How are Warlocks better at drawing raw power than Sorcerers? Invocations are less restrictive than a small spell list? I don't get this one. Unless the Warlocks in your new "physics" have no invocations. Then it makes sense.

It's not that they're better at it, it jsut that the way Invocations work (at least as far as I can recall, again I point out that I don't have access to my books at the moment) are less comparmentalized than spells are.

Drakevarg
2010-12-16, 02:58 AM
Be warned, I am not nice.

*shrug* I'm not so great myself.


Yes, this is true, but I can't help but feel you're losing something. It's harder for players to relate to a world that breaks with all the cliches. I'm not suggesting you use cliches, merely saying that they exist for a good reason: because they help the player get a grip on the world, understand how things work, and give them a base point to work from. See, what I do, and what I as a designer feel is ideal, is take the cliches and make them the surface of the world, then construct things in such a way that the cliches have reason to exist. Dwarves are master crafters? Well, *why* are they crafters? Oh, because they live in a fiercely competitive, resource deficient, environment and must make the absolute best of every scrap of material they've got, meaning they developed amazing crafting skills so that they can make each piece of material go that extra mile.

Elves live in harmony with nature? Why? Because in the distant past, the current race of elves fought (and lost) a civil war. They had embraced technology, but when they lost the war and were exiled from their ancestral homes, their society suffered a massive division. Today, half of the elves shun technology and embrace nature, trying to repair the damage to their spirits from so long ago. The others live with advanced tech, trying to fill the hole that was caused by the schism in the past.

These are both examples from my own setting. I take cliches (which players can relate to and build character concepts for) and make them deeper, giving them societal context and complex meaning. Now, it's not a cliche anymore, it's a society that makes sense, which is the entire point of any worldbuilding exercise.

Well, I can understand using the old races, but there's no rule in fantasy that you must hump JRR Tolkien's leg at all times. Obviously I look up to the man as a worldbuilding buff, but I like to go in my own directions.


Of course, that's your prerogative. :smallsmile: For instance, I killed halflings and gnomes, both to show the character of another race and because I hate the little bastards. Designer decision, always allowed.

I ditched those, too. Partially because I don't understand WotC's midget fetish, and partially because they didn't fit any relevent niche in my setting.


Yes, but you're missing the bigger question: where did they come from? If you have a reason why the more fantastic races are gone, why don't you have a reason humans are actually around?

Evidently the same way they came to be in our world. Perhaps nobody knows.

Or, to use the explaination I gave for my Manafield setting (which is really a more modern superhero/noir setting), there IS a God, but he doesn't get involved and the Manafield (or Void in this case) is essentially the toolbox He left sitting around.


That's just me being ornery. I don't like such a trite and overused name. Something thematic that carries the desired meaning would be best, something like the Unworked (denotes chaos, lack of structure, possibility for creation, carries a slight bit of malice, etc) or the Fuel (denotes source of magic, evokes images of gasoline and fueling fires, this helps players think of it as a danger, but also as a benefit). You know, something with a strong but simple image. Those are always the best names, IMO.

Well the point of the name "Void" was something that implied a force and a place at the same time.


If the world is normal, why does it not look like ours right now? Or like ours, maybe 500 years ago? Does it? What role does the Void play in shaping the world? How intertwined are they? Does one exist inside the other? These are questions that need answers.

The world has got the general fantasy "completely different globe" thing just because it gives more narrative freedom, but in the technological sense it's developmentally somewhere between Crusades Era and Late Roman Empire.

The Void is generally described as being "outside" the world. Sorta like space but not something you can travel to through nonmagical means (assuming you could even exist in a coherent manner in the Void, which would probably depend on it's mood at the time).

The Void interacts with the world sporatically, in a limited enough capacity that it's generally known about but hasn't radically shaped the course of history except where Warlocks are directly concerned.


Why are they though? Is this you saying "I want a world that's generally boring to exist in, but has enough elements of the fantastic to be interesting"? Cause, that's the vibe I'm getting here.

I take it you've never played Mount & Blade, then. A nonmagical fantasy setting can be hella fun.


The picture you are painting shows me a world that's frankly boring as hell. Only one sentience, very little fantastic to spice things up. Given the repeated references to Lovecraft (who was famed for making the fantastic invariably lethal to mortals), I am foreseeing something like Eternal Darkness in setting, if not in tone, and for that, I'd just pick up Call of Cthulhu, since that has the default assumptions of Lovecraft built in.

I've considered picking up CoC, though hesistant due to not wanting to learn a new ruleset. And not wanting to move my setting to the late 1800s/early 1900s.

(Sorry 'bout the double post, but given the length of the second chunk I expected to have been ninja'd by now.)

arguskos
2010-12-16, 03:19 AM
Well, I can understand using the old races, but there's no rule in fantasy that you must hump JRR Tolkien's leg at all times. Obviously I look up to the man as a worldbuilding buff, but I like to go in my own directions.
Ok, you missed the point by about a league. What that entire three paragraph epic was about was *not* Tolkien, who I don't even like that much. It was about a higher concept, the use of cliche and their usefulness in establishing something understandable by players/readers.


Evidently the same way they came to be in our world. Perhaps nobody knows.
Not even touching that comment. Suffice to say that "we don't know" is a cop-out at best. You control every facet of the setting, decide where the hell humans came from. It gives a richness and feel of history to a world.


Or, to use the explaination I gave for my Manafield setting (which is really a more modern superhero/noir setting), there IS a God, but he doesn't get involved and the Manafield (or Void in this case) is essentially the toolbox He left sitting around.
Sounds fine. Just so long as there is an explanation.


Well the point of the name "Void" was something that implied a force and a place at the same time.
As an English major, I am obligated to nitpick this to hell and back. Void, by definition, is the lack of substance. :smalltongue:

Still, your point is noted. I maintain that I don't like that name, but it doesn't matter. As long as you like it and it does what you need it to do, awesome.


The world has got the general fantasy "completely different globe" thing just because it gives more narrative freedom, but in the technological sense it's developmentally somewhere between Crusades Era and Late Roman Empire.
...as a History minor, I am further compelled to question what time period you're actually talking about. The entity most people understand as the Roman Empire ceased to exist (as they understand it) when the empire was divided between Rome and Nova Roma. If you are talking about the late days of the Holy Roman Empire (which existed in what we now call Germany for a very long time), that is a massive and nebulous span of time. I'll just say you're somewhere in the Crusades time period, so let's be really generous and call it around 1300 (almost 30 years after the end of the Ninth Crusade, but it's close enough). That about right?


The Void is generally described as being "outside" the world. Sorta like space but not something you can travel to through nonmagical means (assuming you could even exist in a coherent manner in the Void, which would probably depend on it's mood at the time).

The Void interacts with the world sporatically, in a limited enough capacity that it's generally known about but hasn't radically shaped the course of history except where Warlocks are directly concerned.
While this is all nice, I didn't actually want an answer. Again, I was appealing to the meta-concept of "there are serious, fundamental questions that need to be answered before this setting can go anywhere" and suggesting that you give them some serious thought.


I take it you've never played Mount & Blade, then. A nonmagical fantasy setting can be hella fun.
I have. It wasn't all that compelling. It was basically a medieval warfare simulator, which is nice for history buffs, but fantasy is a different animal.


I've considered picking up CoC, though hesistant due to not wanting to learn a new ruleset. And not wanting to move my setting to the late 1800s/early 1900s.
It's basically what you've been describing. A non-magical world with Lovecraftian influences.

Again, I pose this question to you, for your consideration: what exactly are you trying to do here? What is the end goal you want to see? No clear image has emerged, which says to me that the designer is a bit confused about what he wants. Without a final goal to work towards, all effort is going to be fuzzy and incomplete, aimless flailings. I believe there is a goal you've got in mind. I'd like to know what it is, since right now I've yet to see one (though I've been piecing one together slowly, I don't think it's right nor complete).

Drakevarg
2010-12-16, 03:38 AM
Ok, you missed the point by about a league. What that entire three paragraph epic was about was *not* Tolkien, who I don't even like that much. It was about a higher concept, the use of cliche and their usefulness in establishing something understandable by players/readers.

I'm not criticizing your rationalizations for the classic races as knocking off Tolkien, I'm just criticizing the use of those races in general, at all, simply because Tolkien did it. Theres no real reason to use Elves, Dwarves, whatever, unless you have some particular use for them. Which I don't.


As an English major, I am obligated to nitpick this to hell and back. Void, by definition, is the lack of substance. :smalltongue:

Still, your point is noted. I maintain that I don't like that name, but it doesn't matter. As long as you like it and it does what you need it to do, awesome.

...How about "The Maelstrom"? That's a cool word. :smalltongue:


...as a History minor, I am further compelled to question what time period you're actually talking about. The entity most people understand as the Roman Empire ceased to exist (as they understand it) when the empire was divided between Rome and Nova Roma. If you are talking about the late days of the Holy Roman Empire (which existed in what we now call Germany for a very long time), that is a massive and nebulous span of time. I'll just say you're somewhere in the Crusades time period, so let's be really generous and call it around 1300 (almost 30 years after the end of the Ninth Crusade, but it's close enough). That about right?

Oof. You picked just the right degrees to get on my case with this, didn't ya? (Sarcasm, of course.)

Anywho, I was thinking closer to somewhere between 700 and 1200. Not that I actually know enough about medieval history to know what I'm talking about. I'm still sitting with my hands for the next month so I can turn 19 and meet my state's requirements for getting a GED.


I have. It wasn't all that compelling. It was basically a medieval warfare simulator, which is nice for history buffs, but fantasy is a different animal.

Well it may not be to your taste, but I've always been fond of the nonmagical bits of fantasy. Which really boils down to medival warfare and the Dung Ages, really. But hey, throw in a few whispers of eldritch horrors and see what happens.


It's basically what you've been describing. A non-magical world with Lovecraftian influences.

Again, my main reasons for not wanting to try CoC are: a) new ruleset to learn, b) new material to buy, and c) wrong time frame (or so I get the impression).


Again, I pose this question to you, for your consideration: what exactly are you trying to do here? What is the end goal you want to see? No clear image has emerged, which says to me that the designer is a bit confused about what he wants. Without a final goal to work towards, all effort is going to be fuzzy and incomplete, aimless flailings. I believe there is a goal you've got in mind. I'd like to know what it is, since right now I've yet to see one (though I've been piecing one together slowly, I don't think it's right nor complete).

Y'know, I don't always know my own mind. Or I do; I just don't know how to give it a name.

If I had to give a soundbite for it though, it'd probably be something to the effect of "Mount & Blade with Lovecraftian elements, as can best be portrayed through DnD 3.5."

arguskos
2010-12-16, 03:55 AM
I'm not criticizing your rationalizations for the classic races as knocking off Tolkien, I'm just criticizing the use of those races in general, at all, simply because Tolkien did it. Theres no real reason to use Elves, Dwarves, whatever, unless you have some particular use for them. Which I don't.
Again, harping on examples. My overall point was not "you should use elves because of X, Y, or Z", just that cliches of "X race is good at crafting" or "Y race are nature loving hippy stoners" or whatever serve a use. The actual race in question can change. Make dwarves nature loving hippies, and the cliche applies, since it gives players something to latch onto as a way to understand what you've presented them with.

My point, which seems to have been totally missed, was that cliches are a latching point for the player/reader. It lets them understand the basics of a culture or race, but if you then reason out why the cliche exists, you get a fully fleshed out and entirely believable society. That's something excellent that every world builder should work towards.


...How about "The Maelstrom"? That's a cool word. :smalltongue:
Someone plays too much WoW.


Oof. You picked just the right degrees to get on my case with this, didn't ya? (Sarcasm, of course.)
Given that I want to eventually teach at the university level, and teach a special class all about world building, yeah, pretty much. :smalltongue:


Anywho, I was thinking closer to somewhere between 700 and 1200. Not that I actually know enough about medieval history to know what I'm talking about. I'm still sitting with my hands for the next month so I can turn 19 and meet my state's requirements for getting a GED.
You have Wikipedia and the Internet. There is no excuse for not brushing up on your timelines. Gogogo.

[quote]Well it may not be to your taste, but I've always been fond of the nonmagical bits of fantasy. Which really boils down to medival warfare and the Dung Ages, really. But hey, throw in a few whispers of eldritch horrors and see what happens.
See, the issue was not that it's not to my taste. I don't mind my medieval warfare (history minor), and the so-called "Dark Ages" (which were not dark at all; stupid renaissance historians) were actually quite interesting. It's more that Mount and Blade didn't OFFER much of interest. There has to be a compelling reason to look at your offering, something to hook them into wanting to try it out. That's what I'm saying needs to be here, a unique core concept that makes someone go "Wow, that looks interesting!"


Again, my main reasons for not wanting to try CoC are: a) new ruleset to learn, b) new material to buy, and c) wrong time frame (or so I get the impression).
A is irrelevant, since fluff carries without need, and because there's a d20 version that meshes perfectly with 3.5 anyways. B is fair, I'm broke too. :smallsigh: C is easy to change. Lovecraft's work is centered in the Victorian age, that's true, but it can easily be shifted to a Crusade time period with little effort (assuming you know anything about the time period you're shifting to, of course; go do your research dammit! *shakes fist*).


Y'know, I don't always know my own mind. Or I do; I just don't know how to give it a name.
And there we have the true issue. As a writer, I encounter this all the time. I've got more awesome concepts, evocative images, and deep and interesting characters in my mind than I know how to express. The act of writing is just finding the right words to tell someone else the idea. The first step in world building is to find the words to tell someone else the idea, and build from there.


If I had to give a soundbite for it though, it'd probably be something to the effect of "Mount & Blade with Lovecraftian elements, as can best be portrayed through DnD 3.5."
Tell you what. I am tired (it's 4 AM here) and need to sleep. When I wake up, I'll throw out a few world concepts, and see which ones match up best with your image of what you want. That should help you narrow things down somewhat and have a good strong starting point. Sound fair?

Drakevarg
2010-12-16, 04:32 AM
Again, harping on examples. My overall point was not "you should use elves because of X, Y, or Z", just that cliches of "X race is good at crafting" or "Y race are nature loving hippy stoners" or whatever serve a use. The actual race in question can change. Make dwarves nature loving hippies, and the cliche applies, since it gives players something to latch onto as a way to understand what you've presented them with.

My point, which seems to have been totally missed, was that cliches are a latching point for the player/reader. It lets them understand the basics of a culture or race, but if you then reason out why the cliche exists, you get a fully fleshed out and entirely believable society. That's something excellent that every world builder should work towards.

I'm merely saying that such cliches can just as easily be filled by humans.

Not to mention I'd rather not go for a Planet of Hats type dealie.


Someone plays too much WoW.

I haven't touched WoW in like two years. And was the Maelstrom in that game anything other than a big whirlpool that never effected the plot?

(Admittedly I intend to get back into WoW in the near future, if only to play an RPG where the blacksmithing doesn't suck.)


Given that I want to eventually teach at the university level, and teach a special class all about world building, yeah, pretty much. :smalltongue:

Might need to hunt you down and take that course. :smallwink:


You have Wikipedia and the Internet. There is no excuse for not brushing up on your timelines. Gogogo.

I also have a great deal of apathy and only a vague interest in historical accuracy in my fantasy settings. :smalltongue:


See, the issue was not that it's not to my taste. I don't mind my medieval warfare (history minor), and the so-called "Dark Ages" (which were not dark at all; stupid renaissance historians) were actually quite interesting. It's more that Mount and Blade didn't OFFER much of interest. There has to be a compelling reason to look at your offering, something to hook them into wanting to try it out. That's what I'm saying needs to be here, a unique core concept that makes someone go "Wow, that looks interesting!"

Honestly given how few medieval-but-not-really nonmagical game settings there are out there (Mount & Blade is literally the only one I can think of that isn't a Civ-Builder), the mere fact that there's no magic to be had is something of a unique hook in this case.


A is irrelevant, since fluff carries without need, and because there's a d20 version that meshes perfectly with 3.5 anyways. B is fair, I'm broke too. :smallsigh: C is easy to change. Lovecraft's work is centered in the Victorian age, that's true, but it can easily be shifted to a Crusade time period with little effort

B still stands, and much with my old setting I don't see why I can't just bend standard 3.5 over backwards until it does what I want it to.


(assuming you know anything about the time period you're shifting to, of course; go do your research dammit! *shakes fist*).

Is it the time period that Kingdom of Heaven took place in? If so, I've got something of an idea.


And there we have the true issue. As a writer, I encounter this all the time. I've got more awesome concepts, evocative images, and deep and interesting characters in my mind than I know how to express. The act of writing is just finding the right words to tell someone else the idea. The first step in world building is to find the words to tell someone else the idea, and build from there.

Mosey over to my DA account and you'll see about three dozen articles doing exactly that for a completely unrelated setting. Worst part is, those articles probably only make up like 5% of what's swimming in my head for that setting alone.


Tell you what. I am tired (it's 4 AM here) and need to sleep. When I wake up, I'll throw out a few world concepts, and see which ones match up best with your image of what you want. That should help you narrow things down somewhat and have a good strong starting point. Sound fair?

Deal. 3:30 on my end, so I should mimic the passing out thing.

[Edit]: Decided on the name of that noninterventionist overdiety: Deus Mundum. :smallamused:

Drakevarg
2010-12-16, 08:21 PM
Mostly as a flimsy excuse to bump this, here's the first real bit of crunchy stuff for the setting:

Since all of the classes (except Warlock) are completely non-supernatural, things like Monks, Paladins and Rangers need to go, even though the Complete Warrior martial variants remove the literal spellcasting bits. But since Fighters suck and Rangers had some pretty cool bits, I decided to mix the two:

Fighter Fix (Ranger Hybrid) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179997)

In general, this is what I'm thinking the class list will look like:

Barbarian
Fighter
Rogue
Warlock

Might mix Barbarian into Fighter as well, just to have a nice clean "Warrior/Rogue/Mage" trifecta.

canjowolf
2011-01-15, 06:50 PM
So basically you are creating a "dark" fantasy world with low magic where people are still afraid of the dark and the woods supernatural. For the history person - a DM does not need to decide upon a specific real-life technological base for their setting, they can just pick what seems theme appropriate and fun.

A sorcerer's "spells" don't have to be rituals, they are basically just ways of giving mechanical rules for the things that those magical types are doing. If the evil guy in white robes is blasting people with fire you probably want rules for it. As I understand it in 3.5 D&D a warlock's magic would be more ritualistic and organized than a sorcerer's since the warlock gets his power from his pacts while the sorcerer gets theirs from within (or somewhere else, but they don't really use spells, they just shoot lightning from their fingertips x times a day, like a dragon's breath weapon) The warlock may be easier for you though since it eliminates the per day criteria and things like mana banks or other spell limiting things designed to keep magic from being over powered.

Races like elves and orkz are used because they are comfortable to the players. Yes humans can do it all, but its easier and faster to just be racist.

All this being said, I agree that your setting does not really seem like it stands out from other low-fantasy settings. It would probably be fine for your group, but doesn't seem like a "wow, that's awesome" kinda place.