Worldbuilding Talk Thread

[Yora]

Useful Link: The Playgrounders Guide to Worldbuilding (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=227507) (Advice on the most common questions.)
---

I often have ideas or questions about worldbuilding in general, and since pretty much everything who looks into this forum has something to say about the subject, let's have a general discussion thread about worldbuilding.

I got The Kobold Guide to Worlduilding from a player from my last group, and while I think it's a bit pricy at $13 for the pdf, it really is a very good book on the subject. If you can spare it, I highly recommend it.

I was particularly intrigued by one of the points that is made by Wolfgang Baur at several points. When building a setting, the goal should not primarily to create a complex and detailed geographical, ecological, and cultural landscape, but to create a situation of big unresolved conflicts that are about to blow up at any moment.
Or to quote:


"No, the goal is not an encyclopedic worldbuilding approach. The goal of good campaign setting design is to stack as many boxes of dynamite as possible, and then gingerly hand the whole ensemble to GMs so that they may cackle with glee at all the tools, hooks, conflicts, dangers, and purely delightful mayhem with which you have so thoughtfully provided them."
Wolfgang Baur - The Kobold Guide to Worldbuilding

It's something that has been part of my design approach for quite some time, but I've never seen it brought to a point in such a precise, and hilarious, way. However, what I always reminded myself of was "the setting is defined by the main power groups, not the locations". But it reminded me of another famous words from antiquity.

"Strife is the source of everything."

If everything is fine and there is no conflict, than nothing is happening. And I think that actually it is not even the main power groups that matter so much, but the conflicts that are happening between them.
You don't want to play in Middle-Earth to be a Hobbit enjoying life in the Shire or an elf being idle in Lothlorien. You want to play a dwarf fighting orcs in Moria or a Ranger scouting the borders of Angmar. And when you want to play a Star Wars game, you want to be a Jedi fighting the Sith, a rebell raiding Stormtrooper outposts, or a smuggler running from patrols and bounty hunters. The reason you get thrilled about playing a game in a specific setting is not because you enjoy the landscape or the culture, but because you want to fight in one of it's major conflicts. Even if you play a cute little mouse trying to keep anyone from getting hurt in Mouse Guard, you still play that character because you want to face the big scary predators of the forest.
Probably my favorite setting ever is the Mass Effect universe, and I can quite clearly say that it's all because the many different but overlapping conflicts of the setting. The Turians are allies of the humans as the two races have a lot in common, but they also had a big war not long ago and many people are still angry about that. The Turians are also hated by the Krogans for droping a bioweapon on them from which they still suffer, but it was the Turians who first gave the Krogans spaceships to help them fight the Rachni. And that's just the conflicts of one of the dozen or so species, not to mention all the smaller groups of pirates, mercenaries, terrorists, spies, militias, and so on. No matter where you go, there will be a couple of people who welcome you, and a bunch more who really hate you, and all for numerous very good reasons.
Also, remember the word "setting". It's the location where a story takes place, where it is set. The setting is nothing without the story. And to get back to that old Greek guy, without conflict nothing is happening.

So I think, at the very core of any setting, but even much more so RPG settings, are the major conflicts that define the world. And to go all controversial: The main conflicts have to be the starting point of any setting that is going to be a huge hit with the players and able to get a following of fans if it is published. Without global and regional conflicts, a setting is much more likely to be simply a background for a more or less generic dungeon crawl game that could also have been set anywhere else.

Your thoughts?

[Eldan]

I don't know. It's not how I build settings, I guess.

That said, most of the stuff I build, no one will ever play in, in all likelihood. It's been, oh, about eight years now since I last had a real world group and both my Skype groups play Planescape.

I still produce a few pages every week. And it's very much more in the "encyclopaedic" corner than the "stacks of dynamite" corner. But then, I write it more for fun and exercise than to actually play in, so I guess it's different.

I write the geography and cultures first. The conflicts arise from that later, usually unplanned.

[Weltall_BR]

I certainly agree, but I should point out that a boring world is not one without trouble, but without potential for trouble. Your example of Mass Effect fits that description perfectly: even though there is no conflict between humans and Turians, there is tension, which can become conflict in so many different levels (a spark between neighbor farmers can easily become a racial conflict involving the whole population of a certain area; or a badly chosen word can create a stall in a negotiation).

[Yora]

Yeah, I think that's true. It also matches with the Box of Dynamite image. It's not an explosion, but a high potential for explosion if the PCs tamper with it. Which they will. :smallamused:

[TheWombatOfDoom]

I'm more in Eldan's camp, but I think that's more because I have the tendancy to think of world building as from the ground up. What makes the world different from earth? What does it look like geologically? Where are the seas? What races are there? How did those races come to be? How do they communicate? What abilities do they have?

THEN I focus on the conflict. Some of my conflict ideas may change some of the world, but I need that base of the world, and the understanding of how it works, to develop what happens ON it. While I agree with everything said, that all is significant to story, which is often different from setting, though they often play into one another heavily.

[Yora]

I would think that both require each other. If you have setting without story, it's just a snapshot, but hardly a living world. If the story does not grow out of the setting, then it's just a generic story that leaves the setting pretty much unused and irrelevant.
I wouldn't say that you have to start with the conflicting parties and their specific positions, but I don't think you can just start with places that look nice and cultures that have interesting customs. You need to have at least a rough idea what general moods and themes will be at the center of the setting. What kind of tension exists in the world and in what situations will opposing entities clash with each other.

[TheWombatOfDoom]

I would think that both require each other. If you have setting without story, it's just a snapshot, but hardly a living world. If the story does not grow out of the setting, then it's just a generic story that leaves the setting pretty much unused and irrelevant.
I wouldn't say that you have to start with the conflicting parties and their specific positions, but I don't think you can just start with places that look nice and cultures that have interesting customs. You need to have at least a rough idea what general moods and themes will be at the center of the setting. What kind of tension exists in the world and in what situations will opposing entities clash with each other.

I can certainly agree with that....perhaps the key to a good world then is knowing what themes you are working with and introducing, and allowing your brewing for it to mirror that goal. What you're saying I think is - know where you want your setting to end up, which is mostly where the conflict lies. I guess the ever tricky thing is that its hard to get one without the other, but I think it's certainly easier for most in some degree to think, OH! I want X conflict, so Y is going to have to be like this, so that Z and A do this, while B is doing it's own thing here, because of C.

Where as I create a little in setting, then a little in story, and then back and forth. Often my setting influences things in surprising ways, too.

[Eldan]

I always start with landscapes. I like designing fantastic biomes and landscapes that are utterly unlike anything we have in the world. I once created a setting set entirely on a cliff thousands of miles high. The bottom was always shrouded in mists, the top vanished into the sky, no one knew what was there. All civilization was on ledges, in caves, or in very carefully built houses. Or I have etherworld, where the world was destroyed and everyone lives in demiplanes. I've had worlds where the days and nights lasted months each. I like to start with that kind of thing. Then look how culture might develop around that. Once I have several cultures, they tend to clash automatically.

[Stoney]

This thread is a big tall glass of awesome, Yora :) It's just what I need, because I've got to get the setting part of my setting going, and stop doing all the menial encyclopedic stuff.

All drama is conflict, and conflict really is the heart of the individual session, and the experience of storytelling. And there are so many kinds, and I want desperately to not forget any of them.

There's violent external conflict going on in the world, and then the internal conflict going on within a single character. In my setting, many of the powers are fueled by these internal conflicts, and when they're resolved, characters may find themselves with no reason or powers to fight in the big external battle.

Another great way to think about power politics in the world you're creating is the many overlapping spheres of influence. The way I like to run a session is a bit like The Big Lebowki's The Dude when he's talking to the crippled millionaire.

"Lots of interested parties. Lot of ins, lot of outs, lot of what-have-yous."

My favorite type of conflict is something I call the "three way ****-fit." Three kingdoms in close geographic proximity all want to fight, A, B, and C. The key to power in this type of game is to get any two of the powers to ally against the third, but plenty of things can go wrong along the way. Betrayal could threaten an A-B alliance against C, a kingdom D could break off from one of the kingdoms and shift the balance of power, or one of the kingdoms could be conquered, with tensions later building between former allies.

An even more elaborate form of this is an even greater number of competing clans or factions, maybe 5 or more. Geopolitics is always at work, and culture comes into play. Maybe these 5 now separate groups once perceived themselves as a single entity. In this case, the party members' task is usually phrased as a quest of unification, build a coalition and use it to bludgeon anyone who doesn't ally with you over the head. Hostile monarchs and would-be conquerors are killed or deposed, and the party handles or at least oversees the installation of a new government friendly to their coalition.

The best way to give a political campaign some sense of progression is to contextualize things more broadly once a local conflict is resolved. Now their uber-alliance has to take on an even bigger and badder faction in the world. Of course you could always go back later to something they thought they'd solved, and maybe their allies fall back apart again. The steamroller sense of progression is lost, but something more critical is gained--a sense of danger, that the party might not succeed in their ultimate goal.

You might be forcing your party into an all-or-nothing scenario, a last-ditch effort to kill the big bad guy, or they might take the more cautious approach and try to rebuild or find new allies.

I think that probably one of the ways to drive home the real thematic point of conflict and its resolution is to coincide dramatic internal conflicts and their consequences with the dramatic external ones. The party might meet a spiritual advisor who tries to lead them to enlightenment, but before he can do so fully there's an ambush. Maybe the character has to choose between staying and attempting to gain control over her own emotions, or rushing out immediately to help the party. Players then question later on whether they made the right choice, but there's really no right or wrong answer.

Also, I think that whenever you think of factions and geopolitical struggles, it's important to consider the role of individual character motivation for leaders. It's often too simple and boring if the only goal of the leader is to kill X, take over their lands, subjugate their people, and have sex with some of their women. The other factors to consider are the relational conflicts, do these two know each other? Are they family, as is often possible in feudal power politics?

Maybe there's something unusual that they want, like a trinket that is otherwise valueless to most everyone else--going in and taking it is the simplest solution, as the leader could be an ally after that, without having to incur the animosity of another faction. Humans don't always behave as logical agents, and it's important to consider this when fleshing out your factions and their leaders.

A lot of this is stuff I'm just remembering from a Gaming article, probably the one written on this site. Lots of good stuff in there.

[Grinner]

Hmm. You all are so classy about it. I just pick whatever seems cool at the moment and hash out a cosmology and overarching conflict from that.

[Fairy Lisa]

I usually start with a combination of the culture and the type of biome they are expected to inhabit and build around that. I’m definitely more interested in the anthropological aspects of worldbuilding than the geological aspects though, but I love both!

As far as the biomes go though, when I reference a mountain, I’m usually thinking of say, something that starts at Mount Everest and goes up from there, or if you say a forest, I’m thinking giant forests of Sequoias and Redwoods (which of course dictates the type of vegetation you would find because those thrive best in a Mediterranean climate, basically, wildfires would also have to be a regular occurrence).

I also love the effects this would have on life, both sentient and non-sentient. Your average centaur with the body of a horse probably wouldn’t make it very far in a world I designed unless I included vast expanses of decently flat land, but your non-average centaur with the body of a mountain goat would probably thrive, have exceptional jumping power and as a byproduct, incredible kicking power.

This is all before deciding the magical level (usually medium-high in my settings). Earth is a really beautiful place already, but give a Mad Artist/Scientist the creative license and power to do it all over again, and Earth goes from being a really beautiful place as just the template upon which you could do so much more.

[vorpalkitten]

So many wise people here :)

When I start writing something, first question that comes to mind is what feelings do I want to invoke in my readers? Awe at a big amazing world of wonders, or mystery of clandestine plots and insidious grimores, or helplessness before a horror you can barely begin to define, let alone oppose? It's like writing upside down; headrushing, oftimes confusing, and different.

My philosophy is to find a theme, find something you can explore head-on, upside down, inside and out. Break assumptions on how others tell you to write, and venture into unknown lands. This is the true strength of Fantasy, for it speaks to a more primal part of ourselves, it is dream given form, where thoughts and passions can be spoken without restriction.

So if I want to for example invoke helplessness in my readers, my first question is what inspires this feeling? The most obvious answer is fear, but fear is itself a reaction to what we don't understand. We fear the dark because we don't know what threats lurk, we write of terrible Dark Lords because the we fear the idea that an ordinary, human being could be so terrible. We fear death, and come up for explanations for what happens after death, because we don't know how we'll go on without the person we loved.

Our modern horrors are not big scary monsters or dread lords, for we can understand and therefore oppose them. They are forces of nature, infinitely mysterious and fundamentally abhorrent. I not only speaking of what are commonly called Eldritch Abominations, but of the terror of War, of the blind whims of the Fey, the threat of cosmic disasters, and the looming malevolence of men in black, agents of distant, uncaring and imperceptible government.

Once I know what emotions I want to invoke, and once I have a general idea of what themes I wish to communicate, I build my entire creation around it. If I want a world of adventure, I create a place where civilization is on the fringes to create a sense of constant threat; I place them in a volatile, mysterious and menacing place - a mountain range, covered by ash, caves and volcanoes; a place where conflict between not only orcs, but wild creatures, rival city-states and the ground itself is constant. Then I start piecing things together to explain how they survive, why they'd settle here, what kind of government is needed, politics between the states, professions, and so on till I get a good idea of whats going on.

Anyway, that's my two cents... I could use a drink.

[Tzi]

I start with the encyclopedic, conflict doesn't exist in a vacuum. Where are the battles? I mean to an extent I have knowledge of what sort of big conflicts I want.

But before a war can happen, an assassins plot, or some raiding horde can happen I need a world for it to happen on. The raw power of tectonic plates, of mighty oceans and of a vibrant ecology to support these forces in conflict.

Also responding to Stoney, I actually like Polar Conflicts or basically conflicts between two powerful factions whom have to attain vassal/ally states to act in proxy because direct war is to costly. Cold Wars, spy games, manipulating nations and peoples, even the factions within the factions. I try to have an overarching conflict that spills into all others. Even in a small country the big players in global politics are trying to have a hand and ensure a favorable outcome.

[Zaydos]

Used to be I started with encyclopedic. As I've had less time, or when I have a certain conflict I want to run, I've switched more and more to conflict based. My experience is that it's easier to make a conflict based world, but that to make a fulfilling one you ultimately have to end up being more and more encyclopedic. At the very least you have to have answers to questions before your PCs will ask them, or be good enough at off-the-cuff to answer them on the fly without creating contradictions (I ran a game for 3-4 months staying half a session ahead of the players, it was fun).

[Tzi]

Used to be I started with encyclopedic. As I've had less time, or when I have a certain conflict I want to run, I've switched more and more to conflict based. My experience is that it's easier to make a conflict based world, but that to make a fulfilling one you ultimately have to end up being more and more encyclopedic. At the very least you have to have answers to questions before your PCs will ask them, or be good enough at off-the-cuff to answer them on the fly without creating contradictions (I ran a game for 3-4 months staying half a session ahead of the players, it was fun).

That was the problem I had at first. The first setting I ever made was mostly NPC's, some conflicts, ect but I never thought to heavily about just the world that was there. A lot of stuff came up that I had to do off the cuff the first time.

I've learned the the encyclopedic method is really advantageous. Players might want to explore, might want more to do.

I did alright but ultimately I wanted more richness to the world.

[Sabeki]

When I build worlds, I want to figure out what the main sources of conflict will come from, than build cultures to fill the roles needed, and then I throw in mysteries and far away places to be explored.
For instance, if animals are the main threat, than I'll build Tribe A, then Packs A, B, and C, than throw in a hobgoblin raider party to the East. It works well for me. However, usually I determine the geography before the cultures, so to get inspired by real cultures (desert is Arabia, islands are Australia, etc.)
It works well for me.

[akma]

A thing I often think about instead of conflicts is problems(/limitations/diffucilities).

It could be as simple as shortage of metals, or complex as navigation in a city of moving clouds when flight is impossible. I think about how characters would handle those problems - in the city with almost no metals, martial arts are very common. Sometimes I put characters/factions that have special abilities/resources to help them deal with those problems - for example, no one can fly in the city of clouds, but there are wind magicians who can jump far and even move the clouds.

There could be diffrent ways of handling a problem, each way could represent a diffrent faction. They might need to use the same limited resource, have opposing values, or even simply quarrel over petty things.

I have a setting with a heavy focus on the availability of resources (among other things), and I did a lot of things with that.

[Mx.Silver]

Keep your themes in mind. Vorpalkitten's already commented on starting from a thematic perspective, which is good* but even if you aren't doing that you need to consider what else is being entailed or implied and whether this makes sense in context to what your already have. Getting away with murder, for example, becomes a fair bit harder in a world where your victim can be talked to after the fact, if not just brought back from the dead altogether.

This is especially important when it comes to social issues, and in the case of role-playing games (I would imagine) you also need to consider whether what you're including is something your players are going to be interested in or comfortable.
Fantasy in general has a rather long, uncomfortable history with 'unfortunate implications' on a number of fronts and this is something you need to keep a close eye on. If you/your players don't, for example, want a world where women are second class citizens then you need to pay close attention to what you're doing. Do not get trapped behind 'historical accuracy', that was a lost cause the moment you decided to set this anywhere other than actual historical earth.

As well as describing your fantastic races, it's important to consider what your humans look like. Try to avoid the situation where everyone who isn't white is from some far off 'exotic' land of garbled stereotypes. Try not to base your 'evil' fantasy races on real world cultures too much. Do not bring rape into things unless you are bloody sure you know what you're doing.



* apart from this:

Break assumptions on how others tell you to write, and venture into unknown lands.
Ignoring 'assumptions on how to write' is the fastest way to producing a trainwreck you're likely to come across. If you're starting out, pay bloody close attention to basic rules and guidelines of writing.

[Eldan]

Now I'm curious. How would rape come up in world-building, instead of, say, adventure-writing?

[Tzi]

Now I'm curious. How would rape come up in world-building, instead of, say, adventure-writing?

Possibly as a description of how a society acts or finds acceptable.

Either way it could be touchy, even if its basically your "These people are made of evil and even their buildings spikes of villainy have spikes of villainy."

[Morgarion]

When it comes to worldbuilding, I usually have a central conceit that captures my imagination and then I spin everything else out in relation to it. It's not usually something as abstract as a theme or an issue, but an image. A character, a city, a mountain vista - something distinct that I just can't shake. I prefer then to work my way quickly to 'the top'. I ask myself how it relates to the world around it and as I start answering questions, I 'zoom out' until I have a general sense of things on a global scale.

I like to work on the big stuff first because there are a few different areas I find it to be quite helpful with. The first is creating a sense of history. There are various settings in many media, both homebrew and commercially published, where the history is reified or (strangely enough) dehistoricized to various degrees. You have Kingdom X over here and Kingdom Y is next door, the Empire is across the sea, the barbarian tribes live in the north and that's the way it is because that's how it's always been. They go to war and conquer each other and free themselves, sure, but the borders never move. Everything was just founded ex nihilo. The questions about where these cultural, ethnic or linguistic groups come from is never even asked, let alone answered. For some people, these things don't matter much, but I appreciate the intricacy of being able to explain why everyone in the world speaks the same language or if they don't, which languages are related to one another and how did they come to be distributed as they are.

The second big aspect is representing interconnectedness. I believe it ruins a work's groove when adjacency does not equate to influence. So, if two kingdoms are next to each other, I think the history of the one should have some tangible effects on the other. And this goes back to the reification thing, too. All of the little things that comprise a culture come from somewhere. Maybe it's a neighbor, maybe it's the people who were around before you showed up and kicked them off their land. Maybe it's the guys who held you in bondage for a hundred years. A culture shouldn't just exist in a vacuum.

When I am dealing with components like theme and tone and how to evoke certain emotions in my audience, I like to rely on connotations of the images I'm using. I take a lot of cues from real world stuff - I do my best to let my interests in history and linguistics and cultural/religious stuff inspire me and play around with it until it's new and exciting and it really belongs to me (and my audience), rather than wringing out one-for-one transpositions. It's sort of sloppy, but I just kind of cross my fingers and hope that because the symbols and images that I'm working with evoke a certain response in me, that what I produce will send my audience in the right direction.

The problem with signification, though, is that the relation between the signified and the signifier are completely arbitrary. I'm of the opinion that we make meaning in a sort of relativistic way (which I guess is reflected in my worldbuilding process), so previous meaning-making that we've done will affect present and future meaning-making. So, if you employ a Japanese manga-anime aesthetic in your setting because guys with red eyes, animal ears, white hair to their boots and katanas mean 'cool' to you, then we've clearly made different meanings out of that imagery. And I apologize for that uncharitable caricature of anime - I am completely unfamiliar and ignorant of it, I just needed some hyperbolic example of difference in taste.

[Mx.Silver]

Now I'm curious. How would rape come up in world-building, instead of, say, adventure-writing?

Well, the origin of Half-orcs is probably the most relevant example. In fact I've seen it come up a few times in regards to hybrid races. Then you have some depictions of satyrs and centaurs.

[Sabeki]

Well, the origin of Half-orcs is probably the most relevant example. In fact I've seen it come up a few times in regards to hybrid races. Then you have some depictions of satyrs and centaurs.

For a second there I thought you were talking about people raping animals. Yuck.

[Morgarion]

Oh, sure. Because the animal is NEVER the aggressor.

[Centric]

When you consider the centaur might have sprung from retellings of charioteers or horse-archers, the problems of rape--> hybrid is more an unfortunate product of literalizing myths.

I'm like Morgarion in starting with an image and working outward, though my order is a little different. I think about what things lie outside the image that could have converged to make it possible. Land, people, history, magic, customs... And so it expands. In the end, the actual premise of the world may have little to do with my original idea.

Of course, games I run usually end up exploration based, with the world practically springing up around my players' feet.


Oh, sure. Because the animal is NEVER the aggressor.

Sometimes they are Zeus.

[Sabeki]

Sometimes they are Zeus.

They're all Zeus. Every. Last. One.

What have I done.

[akma]

And what approach do you take to building specific regions in your settings?

[Zaydos]

Well looking at some of my settings I've made...

Recent ones: These have been quick, dirty, and sloppy, with the regions developing as I need them, usually around what's necessary for the plot. This is to facilitate running a campaign while in college and with an active social life meaning I have about 1 hour a week to plan the adventure.

The Three Worlds: I made a map, 1000 by 1000 miles with the basic geographic features common across all three worlds (they have the same major mountain ranges, and coast line) then I decided the basic political aspects of each world. Hondaro had an isolationist empire based lightly on Tokugawan Japan which covered most of it and engaged in off and on border wars with two neighboring empires. Alli'ur was ruled by a benevolent priest-king called the Hallowed Emperor, a great wyrm gold dragon, there were a few kingdoms which had not yet joined the Hallowed Empire and the dragon refused to extend onto Masor or Hondaro (not that any of the Hondaro empires would bend knee to him), in a south-western corner there was a "no man's land" ruled by the monsters that had fled from the Hallowed Empire where a red dragon was gathering power, this was going to explode into full-fledged warfare within 10-20 years (3 years passed in game, this was planned to be the absolute last adventure in the setting, with 1.5 major campaign arcs before it one of which would take almost a year of travelling at relativistic speeds and the end of both would involve a time skip) with minor battles already being fought. Finally Masor was a mass of different kingdoms, many of which were never detailed, the most important of which (Ralxia) was standard generic medieval European fare because my players liked that.

Interra: Older than the 3 Worlds I can sum this one up as "badly". I was barely a teenager and a lot of the world is just "Fantasy Kitchen Sink" and I'd now scrap, the salvageable parts were the 3 original parts each of which was designed to be able to play a whole campaign centered around. The Dragon Marsh was built around an idea, a great swampland, and a pair of conflicts a disinterested tyrant king of whose kingdom the Marsh was only one province which got little support for the taxes and tribute it paid, and a black dragon with dreams of conquest. The next region, Invern, was the major city of the world, based heavily on Lankhmar (I had just discovered Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser) which was designed to allow for a mix of urban adventures and wealthy nobles with world spanning connections and plans, lastly it was built on a series of ancient ruins allowing for good old fashion dungeon delving. The last region that wasn't just stuffing too much into too little space was the dwarven empire of Karavin which, some time ago (within a dwarf's max lifespan) was shattered by an alliance of monstrous races, leaving a fractured western empire with dozens of claimants to the crown and the smoking remnants of an eastern one where the various monstrous factions started to divide the kingdom among themselves violently; this gave me a force of good (the old empire) that would have had global effects but is now fallen allowing for an age of heroes to dawn as individuals needed to now step up (thus giving reasons for conflicts to appear all across the world), and allowed me to set games in the region where the PCs either are reuniting the West or retaking the East. The other regions were put in for certain potential plots or potential campaigns.

[akma]

My approach to building regions is templates - basically a list of catagories, each usually spaning a few lines (could be 1 line, in rare cases could be a few pages. I also use the templates approach on other things, such as organizations).

The setting I work most on for the moment is a post apocalyptic setting, in which after a global war against indestructable shapeshifters, humanity were exiled (no other races).
The humans now live in cities which roughly correlate to the culture they once had, almost every city extremly isolated. Since they are extremly isolated, I want each city to be able to hold entire campaigns, so I work on them much harder than in my other settings. I also put more emphasis on making them very diffrent from each other (I put on emphasis on that in general, but more in that setting).

The template for a city in that setting contains 34 catagories, which I'm aware I'll never manage to fill (and even if I'll manage, I'll just add more catagories by then. The most I managed to fill is 17). I add stuff in random order (=when I think of them), but focus mostly on themes and moral values - if I have enough of those, it makes the rest much easier (I decided on a minimum of 3 of each in each city). I also focus on the resources they have available, I build a lot around that (usually this part comes very easily to me, at the very begining).

Some catagories are not critical - the catagory about the residents pastimes could easily be dropped entirely, but I like it since it helps me think of the city as more of a real, living place. The point for me is not finishing a city, it's letting it grow constantly.

A lot of catagories are specific to the setting - getting food and water does not deserve special attention in most worlds.

On my other settings, my templates are much more humble (=I actully want to finish them) and I feel the need to put much less in each catagory. Traveling between such places is usually trivial, and I expect players to pass many of them in a single campaign or even a single adventure.

In any setting, part of the template for a region is adventure ideas - a few 2-3 lines long ideas for adventures, based on that region (in the setting I mentioned above I also have a campaign ideas catagory). I always put it in the end of the template. I used to put adventure ideas as a requirement to everything, including monsters, but decided it was wrong.

[Tzi]

@akma

I'm curious about your templates. I find describing regions, countries, or even cities in details is pretty challenging. Mainly with stuff like establishing governments, who holds which office and best how to organize those details.

[Eldan]

Unless you run a court intrigue game, government probably doesn't have to be detailed. The only things that really need to be detailed are things the players interact with, or background things that immediately give them a certain impression about a region. If they never own a tavern, they probably don't need to know the local laws on brewing or selling alcohol. A general outline is probably fine: "There's a King and a Queen. They have three sons, the oldest is commander of the border watch in the east, the middle one is lazy and useless and the third one is a priest in a monastery. The duke of X is councillor for finance and there's between six and twelve other high nobles around, ususally, to help governing. Most cities are ruled by guild councils."

[akma]

@akma

I'm curious about your templates. I find describing regions, countries, or even cities in details is pretty challenging. Mainly with stuff like establishing governments, who holds which office and best how to organize those details.

I break everything into little parts, then fill them a bit. It's hard to write a detailed description of how a city looks like - but if you break it to how the residents dress, the architecture and the landscape, it becomes much easier, since you can put a bit (2-3 lines) in each catagory and have a lot in total. It also helps in organizing everything, and to remind me to fill parts which I might forget about otherwise.

With goverments I either have an idea from the start, or create them so they will fit what I made already. I focus mainy on how much power they have to effectively rule the city - I might want crime to be rampant, or the people severly oppressed.

Goverments could be split into catagories too - social classes, rules and the legal system, strength of police, strength of secret police (if any), foreign affairs, preferred methods of action, priorities (do they care about the residents or their own wealth?) etc.

I admit I have a big problem with writing NPCs, so I can't help you with that.

[Tzi]

Unless you run a court intrigue game, government probably doesn't have to be detailed. The only things that really need to be detailed are things the players interact with, or background things that immediately give them a certain impression about a region. If they never own a tavern, they probably don't need to know the local laws on brewing or selling alcohol. A general outline is probably fine: "There's a King and a Queen. They have three sons, the oldest is commander of the border watch in the east, the middle one is lazy and useless and the third one is a priest in a monastery. The duke of X is councillor for finance and there's between six and twelve other high nobles around, ususally, to help governing. Most cities are ruled by guild councils."

I run a campaign with some cities/city-states having electricity and much of what we might consider modernity. Right now I'm kinda thinking along those lines, like "OKay who is In charge, Prime Minister, Grand Pooba, and then various ministers who might be important." Mainly since a lot of my settings over arching conflict is sort of Cold War Jockying for world power between two major States I might focus mostly on Major Industries, important officials and Military officials, Spy Agencies, ect for each and work from there.


I break everything into little parts, then fill them a bit. It's hard to write a detailed description of how a city looks like - but if you break it to how the residents dress, the architecture and the landscape, it becomes much easier, since you can put a bit (2-3 lines) in each catagory and have a lot in total. It also helps in organizing everything, and to remind me to fill parts which I might forget about otherwise.

With goverments I either have an idea from the start, or create them so they will fit what I made already. I focus mainy on how much power they have to effectively rule the city - I might want crime to be rampant, or the people severly oppressed.

Goverments could be split into catagories too - social classes, rules and the legal system, strength of police, strength of secret police (if any), foreign affairs, preferred methods of action, priorities (do they care about the residents or their own wealth?) etc.

I admit I have a big problem with writing NPCs, so I can't help you with that.

Okay as an example.....
Dahlia City
Resident Fashion: 1910's-20's American styled clothing with occasional steam punk flavor added in. Many woman wear cloche hats, though skirts can be shorter and shorter pairs of shorts also are common.

Architecture: Mostly brickwork buildings, occasionally Iron and steal, Skyscrapers do exist with the cities "Goliath Building" standing as the tallest in the city. A lot of Art Deco construction styles.

Landscape: Dahlia City stands in an oblong Canyon with buildings mostly being on the canyon walls. In some ancient time the canyon was a massive Terrarium with an adamentine and thick glass dome sealing the canyon from the outside. However the glass has long since broken and the adamentine ceiling has largely caved in well before the first buildings were constructed. Massive Adamantine beams and scrap still litter the canyon floor and huge bridges cross the canyon. The lowest levels of the city are occupied by the train depots as well as the mines and foundries.

ect ect.... like that?

[akma]

*snipped example*

ect ect.... like that?

You got the principle, but I do organise catagories a bit diffrently:
Name of city
general description - basically a summation of the city in a few lines. Would be usefull if I had to describe it to someone.
Catagory A

Catagory B

Catagory C
.
.
.

I write things in your way when I'm sure I won't write more than a paragraph in any of the catagories, which is the case with most of my templates (NPCs, local organizations, cities in other settings, etc).

[Tzi]

You got the principle, but I do organise catagories a bit diffrently:
Name of city
general description - basically a summation of the city in a few lines. Would be usefull if I had to describe it to someone.
Catagory A

Catagory B

Catagory C
.
.
.

I write things in your way when I'm sure I won't write more than a paragraph in any of the catagories, which is the case with most of my templates (NPCs, local organizations, cities in other settings, etc).

Woot, Yeah I've been like, basically searching for some sort of organizational structure for my world building project.

I've got countries, names, cultural ideas, wars, history ect ect.... all just kinda jumbled in a big mess in my head and notebook but like it needs to be written out and organized in a way that people can like read an make sense of. Especially my players. I've found in world building my biggest problem is basically my lack of organization bogs me down. Like describing regions, countries, cities ect....

[Morgarion]

One thing that I have done in the past that's worked well for me when I'm organizing my prewriting for fiction is to make my own wiki.

I don't actually go on the internet and start a wiki, but I open up a notebook and I start writing about the first thing that I think of. I introduce a country or a city, a character, a concept, a deity, a weapon, whatever. Then, I write about it until I run out of things to say. It could be a few lines, it could be a paragraph. It could be three or four pages. When I'm finished, I go back through and I underline all of the other things that need to be written about that were mentioned in the first description and write about the first thing I underlined, then the second, etc. until all the underlined words in the first entry have been covered. Then I move onto the second entry, and I do this until I get bored or run out of inspiration or whatever.

I've found it to be a good way to really quickly get things going. If you were more technologically inclined, you might do it in a word document or something that allows you to hyperlink the actual underlined words to their main entries.

[SquidOfSquids]

Well, looks like I've just failed my Lurk Silently check against this thread's awesomeness.:smallsmile:


My favorite type of conflict is something I call the "three way ****-fit." Three kingdoms in close geographic proximity all want to fight, A, B, and C. The key to power in this type of game is to get any two of the powers to ally against the third, but plenty of things can go wrong along the way. Betrayal could threaten an A-B alliance against C, a kingdom D could break off from one of the kingdoms and shift the balance of power, or one of the kingdoms could be conquered, with tensions later building between former allies.
^+1
Any setting needs at least 3 "powers" (countries, organizations, etc.) to be compelling. All too often, people create settings where its basically just good vs evil. These di-polar systems are inherently simple (ie lame and boring). The real charm of history/culture/politics is in the complex interactions between a multitude of interconnected powers.

A good example of this is the board game Diplomacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)).


The second big aspect is representing interconnectedness. I believe it ruins a work's groove when adjacency does not equate to influence. So, if two kingdoms are next to each other, I think the history of the one should have some tangible effects on the other. And this goes back to the reification thing, too. All of the little things that comprise a culture come from somewhere. Maybe it's a neighbor, maybe it's the people who were around before you showed up and kicked them off their land. Maybe it's the guys who held you in bondage for a hundred years. A culture shouldn't just exist in a vacuum.
Yup!
Also, from a "boxes of dynamite" perspective, having many overlapping layers of adjacency-relationships makes conflicts all the more interesting. For example, in Diplomacy, the geographic layout of the board creates two main theatres of conflict between close neighbours, the England-France-Germany triangle in the west, and the Italy-Austria-Russia-Turkey quadrangle in the east. In addition to this, there is a second layer of potential conflict between England-Russia-Germany in Scandinavia, France-Italy-Turkey in the Mediterranean, and Germany-Italy-Austria in the Alps. All these overlapping adjacency-relationships creates a surprisingly complex system with only a relatively small number of participants.

[Grinner]

One thing that I have done in the past that's worked well for me when I'm organizing my prewriting for fiction is to make my own wiki.

I don't actually go on the internet and start a wiki, but I open up a notebook and I start writing about the first thing that I think of. I introduce a country or a city, a character, a concept, a deity, a weapon, whatever. Then, I write about it until I run out of things to say. It could be a few lines, it could be a paragraph. It could be three or four pages. When I'm finished, I go back through and I underline all of the other things that need to be written about that were mentioned in the first description and write about the first thing I underlined, then the second, etc. until all the underlined words in the first entry have been covered. Then I move onto the second entry, and I do this until I get bored or run out of inspiration or whatever.

I've found it to be a good way to really quickly get things going. If you were more technologically inclined, you might do it in a word document or something that allows you to hyperlink the actual underlined words to their main entries.

It gets hard to organize the information cleanly after a while, though.

I'd recommend using an actual wiki. Fortunately, there's software (http://wikidpad.sourceforge.net/) for setting up personal wikis on your computer.

[TheWombatOfDoom]

I used to have different word documents dedicated to certain topics, and I've done the same with notebooks. One notebook is completely dedicated to extracting information from our world that potentially used for a campaign, story, or the setting. Things from battle tactics, to historical conquests, to diplomatic happenings, to culure intracasies. Its a 5 split notebook, so I have it categorized.

I generally have one word document describing the world itself, and general variants describing what is different from the "normal" world that we live in. What races are there? How do they function? Why and how did they come to be? What are the politics like per race? Cultural flavor?

Then I have a document that specifically deals with plot. Usually I type it out as if I were verbally telling someone the details quickly. I don't get too detailed, because I know how campaigns are able to wander, or not go as expected, so as long as I have a loose plot, I'm good. I also tend to make a major and a few minor plots, all of which they have the option of doing. I tend to allow my players decide which route to take, rather than railroading it all. A campaign direction is often decided by the first couple of decisions the group decides to take, and where it takes them.

[Tzi]

Well, looks like I've just failed my Lurk Silently check against this thread's awesomeness.:smallsmile:


^+1
Any setting needs at least 3 "powers" (countries, organizations, etc.) to be compelling. All too often, people create settings where its basically just good vs evil. These di-polar systems are inherently simple (ie lame and boring). The real charm of history/culture/politics is in the complex interactions between a multitude of interconnected powers.

A good example of this is the board game Diplomacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)).


Yup!
Also, from a "boxes of dynamite" perspective, having many overlapping layers of adjacency-relationships makes conflicts all the more interesting. For example, in Diplomacy, the geographic layout of the board creates two main theatres of conflict between close neighbours, the England-France-Germany triangle in the west, and the Italy-Austria-Russia-Turkey quadrangle in the east. In addition to this, there is a second layer of potential conflict between England-Russia-Germany in Scandinavia, France-Italy-Turkey in the Mediterranean, and Germany-Italy-Austria in the Alps. All these overlapping adjacency-relationships creates a surprisingly complex system with only a relatively small number of participants.

I'm trying to move away from heavily bi-polar conflicts Right now I'm was running heavily on the idea of a global "Cold War" as the main overarching conflict. Inspired very much by the conflict between the USSR and USA, I kinda have it depending on which side of the battle line the players come from, they are unsure of if what they know about "The other side," is mere propaganda or actually true about them.

But I decided to mix it up with a third power that is rising amid the chaos of post war world and the conflicts raging in the various "client," nations that the two other big players are manipulating.

So the world has a large scale Ideological war over more or less what is the correct way of life, who should rule the planet and how it should be governed and beneath that you have rivaling factions and ethnic nationalism threatening these very large powers whom are seek to hold order over an expansive world.

[Yora]

I've started working on my first actual campaign on the setting I am working since a short mini-campaign at the very beginning of the concept. And almost immediately ran into a problem. Turns out some things that look really awesome on paper actually don't work in practice at all.

I had the idea that society is heavily clan-focused. Since there is no state, no police, and no courts, people of a clan deal with their internal conflicts themselves and always show a united front against any othersiders, to make the clan an unattractive target for bandits and raiders. To make sure that nobody messes with you, and attack against a member of your clan would be answered with revenge by the whole clan. If someone can rob your neighbor without suffering consequences, you will be the next they rob.
In turn, any time a stranger shows up on a clans territory, people want to know who his chief is who is sending him. If the stranger causes any trouble, you can go to his chief to demand that the offender gets punished and any damages be paid for. If the person has no clan and no chief, or the chief is known to not keep his people in check, the visitor is not welcome and forced to leave.
The PCs wouldn't be wandering adventurers, but warriors of the clan who protect the clans territory from enemy warriors, raiders, and monsters.

Sounds cool, but as soon as I started planning a short adventure, it turns out to not really be feasable. :smallamused:
As 1st level characters, the PCs are at the very bottom of the ranks of warriors. If there is any kind of trouble that needs to be dealt with, the chief will send his experienced warriors to deal with it, and maybe have some of the junior warrior tag along so they may learn something. Which you obviously can't do. You can't have an adventure where the PCs follow a much stronger NPC and watch him doing cool stuff.
Also, you can use the trick of "all the old warriors are gone, so someone else has to do it" only two or maybe three times before it becomes silly. When the PCs reach higher levels and are 4th or 6th levels, then they can go scouting for trouble and dealing with it themselves, and that could really be a cool type of campaign. But for low-level charcters this setup simply doesn't work.

What was planned as a setting without central law-enforcement actually turned out to be effectively an even more strongly centralized law-enforcement. The PCs would have to stay in their district, would be completely unable to do anything in other districts, and be expected to return back to base and report any time they find something interesting to get the specialists to take over.
Unless it's a military campaign, the ability to roam freely and snoop around without any orders from a superior is actually quite important in a low-level game. When every village has a dozen strong men who are all 1st to 4th level fighters, there is no need for low-level outsiders.

Anyone else having stories to share about things that didn't turned out at all like expected in actual play?

[Tzi]

...

Anyone else having stories to share about things that didn't turned out at all like expected in actual play?

My first campaign world was a harsh lesson in that. Originally I was going to have it be the adventurers working for colonial governments to explore a largely vast uncharted continent. But players found exploration sometimes dull and I found I often had to make things far more intense and go from a sandbox of "find stuff and draw it on your map," to a lot of quest arcs. One being basically the Oregon Trail though will more Dire Bear related deaths then dysentery deaths. XD

Eventually though I found out I'm terrible at sandbox per say. But I managed to create a lot of cool Horror quests of exploring a haunted empty mining community, dealing with a werewolf in a small pioneer town and other such things and doing a lot to help build a pioneer settlement. A style of campaign I hope to expand on.

Actually in this new campaign world I might do a lot more of that even borrowing kinda from Pathfinders Kingmaker a little where the players are basically pioneers helping to establish a rough and tumble settlement. Sadly my last campaign world didn't get that far.

[Yora]

I think "pure" Sandbox doesn't work, or only for people who enjoy "pure" old school dungeon crawl. Instead of just setting out into the wilds to see if you find something interesting, the PCs have to start their exploration with the goal of finding something specific which they know must be somewhere around the general area. And they also need to have a reason why they want to find that place or the person or object found inside it, and what they want to do with it once they find it.
It's a goal-based adventure rather than a path-based adventure, but you still need a story. Again, unless the players enjoy hack and slash action for its own sake.

[Tzi]

I think "pure" Sandbox doesn't work, or only for people who enjoy "pure" old school dungeon crawl. Instead of just setting out into the wilds to see if you find something interesting, the PCs have to start their exploration with the goal of finding something specific which they know must be somewhere around the general area. And they also need to have a reason why they want to find that place or the person or object found inside it, and what they want to do with it once they find it.
It's a goal-based adventure rather than a path-based adventure, but you still need a story. Again, unless the players enjoy hack and slash action for its own sake.

Right now the sort of "Oregon Trail," quest arc has a few plausible starts.

Mainly the PC's are young people with their families setting out west into the vast uncharted expanse looking for a better life. As the post war world on their home continent is fairly bleak. So they have a material reason to want to go. The other is they are individuals allied together and working with pioneer settlers who unbeknownst to the settlers are heading into a territory that might house curious ruins the PC's are interested in finding. Or they are independent individuals who are looking to strike it rich beyond the borders of civilization. Idk if any of these hooks work necessarily.

Along the way they will discover certain gruesome things. For example a few empty homesteads, strange abandoned settlements. Living but very fearful settlements. And some unaffected at all. They will do little side quests but all the while this will ideally be wrapped up in a mystery over who.... or what is preying upon the pioneers out there. All while PC's have to work to help establish a town, defend resources from bandits, primitive monsters and other creatures that lurk in the wilds, deal with internal politics and struggle among very different people.

Good quest ideas? No idea, it seems exciting to me but it might totally crash and burn in practice.

[Tzi]

Races, so this is probably a huge topic brought up way too many times by us noobs to the art of Campaign making but....

Is there such a thing as too few? too many?

Right now I set about having just 4 relatively native to the world. But now my vision keeps expanding and wanting to add some. Or even remove a few. Sometimes I'm just torn.

Right now I've settled on 4..... kinda

Tyr: Basically Half Elves fully realized as their own independent race. The descendants of an ancient eugenics project between Elves and Humans. They just have a floating +2 to any one stat.

Azaren: Humans whose amazing Magi-tech and sorcery allowed them to escape the previously dying world by creating a colony within one of the worlds moons. However they used various forms of magic and alchemical mutagens to make themselves into something resembling a living Vampire in order to better survive in the harsh void. They occasionally teleport down to the surface to harvest for blood or forage for resources. The get a +2 to dex and a +2 to any mental stat.

Mau: Humans warped by magic into small sized catfolk while held in captivity by a very bored race of undead lich beings who grew tired of their world and wanted entertainment. They are kinda divided into breeds, Getting a +2 to two stats and -2 to one but there's variant breeds to select from.

Synthetics: Still no idea what I want from them, kinda considering scrapping them or just copy pasting Warforged more or less.

Basically thats whats ON the world. but I'm considering stating out some things like a version of lizard/feathered lizard like creatures. of whom some were stranded on the world long ago and have since become primitive. Another is possibly an offshoot of the Tyr. The lore being the Tyr waited out the rebirth (terraforming) of the world in demi-planes with distorted time. One Demi-Plane could have gone hay wire and the Tyr within may have turned it into a sort of dimension hoping city that travels the planescape. Those Tyr having emerged eons before the rest might be very different. Though they might be so advanced as to be unplayable. idk how I'd work them in.

Idk, should I stick with 4? Go lower? higher?

[Yora]

I try to keep the number low. But in the world of fantasy settings, "low" is still 10 or fewer. :smallamused:
I've done a couple of lists of humanoid races for some popular settings, and quite often you get numbers well over 50, and that's not just Eberron.

If you want to include another race, you have to come up with a culture for them or they are just funny looking humans or don't have any actual relevance at all. I guess it works for having scenes like the first one with aliens in the bar in Star Wars. The Purpose of that scene was to show that there's a huge galaxy full of people of which Lukes knows about as little as the audience does.
But speaking of Star Wars, that setting probably has well over 100 races, maybe even over 200. Yet in practice, the number of races that are frequently used and have more than single appearances in that setting is very low, well under 20.
You got your humans of course, then wookies, twi'lek, calamari, rodians, bothans, zabrak, duros, sulustans, ... and then things start to get a little thin already. Maybe also include weequay, gran, quarren, ithorians, verpines, and hutts. And if you are not at least a Rank 7 Star Wars nuts like I am, you probably already don't know what half of them are. And those are just 15 races. Mass Effect manages to populate an entire galaxy with only 9 races.

And I believe in most cases, every race should have at least two or three different cultures as well, so you get pretty big numbers rather quickly even with just a small handful of races like 6 or so.

With my own setting, I have six races. Plus planetouched, but those are only rare individuals and not entire cultures. What gets the numbers racking up quickly is once you star with the savage humanoid monsters like goblins, ogres, giants, and maybe some fey as well, and add to that dragons, and maybe critters like driders, and doppelgangers, and aboleths, and oh my...
I say keep it as simple as you think you can do it.
I pretty early on scrapped dwarves and halflings since I already have gnomes, and kicked orcs to make room for another race of strong slighly bestial humanoids. And with the orcs gone, hobgoblins immediately followed them and also bugbears for good measure.

[Tzi]

I try to keep the number low. But in the world of fantasy settings, "low" is still 10 or fewer. :smallamused:
I've done a couple of lists of humanoid races for some popular settings, and quite often you get numbers well over 50, and that's not just Eberron.

If you want to include another race, you have to come up with a culture for them or they are just funny looking humans or don't have any actual relevance at all. I guess it works for having scenes like the first one with aliens in the bar in Star Wars. The Purpose of that scene was to show that there's a huge galaxy full of people of which Lukes knows about as little as the audience does.
But speaking of Star Wars, that setting probably has well over 100 races, maybe even over 200. Yet in practice, the number of races that are frequently used and have more than single appearances in that setting is very low, well under 20.
You got your humans of course, then wookies, twi'lek, calamari, rodians, bothans, zabrak, duros, sulustans, ... and then things start to get a little thin already. Maybe also include weequay, gran, quarren, ithorians, verpines, and hutts. And if you are not at least a Rank 7 Star Wars nuts like I am, you probably already don't know what half of them are. And those are just 15 races. Mass Effect manages to populate an entire galaxy with only 9 races.

And I believe in most cases, every race should have at least two or three different cultures as well, so you get pretty big numbers rather quickly even with just a small handful of races like 6 or so.

With my own setting, I have six races. Plus planetouched, but those are only rare individuals and not entire cultures. What gets the numbers racking up quickly is once you star with the savage humanoid monsters like goblins, ogres, giants, and maybe some fey as well, and add to that dragons, and maybe critters like driders, and doppelgangers, and aboleths, and oh my...
I say keep it as simple as you think you can do it.
I pretty early on scrapped dwarves and halflings since I already have gnomes, and kicked orcs to make room for another race of strong slighly bestial humanoids. And with the orcs gone, hobgoblins immediately followed them and also bugbears for good measure.

Originally I was going to have dwarves and halflings as offshoots of ancient (Now extinct humans). I scrapped it since I decided I wanted to just take a D&D world, wipe it clean and settle it with new people.

One thing is I'm trying to avoid using conventional fantasy monsters or have them changed. More or less I'm doing a D&D world far into the future in a sense. And so far with races I've tried to have separate ecological niches per say.

The Tyr more or less fulfill the role as Human stand in and to an extent Elf stand in. Being basically Half Elves selectively bred for great traits. They have the most diverse cultures and divergent appearances. And interrelated by separate languages (All off shoots of Elvish)

The Azaren are kinda divided into separate cultures or I'm trying to do that but its slow going. I'm also trying to make them less generically evil like. Which is hard with a race of blood drinking humanoids who come from the moon. XD

The idea for the Tyr offshoot might be that they've developed their civilization within other planes. In city fortress Demi-Planes and in that sense they could be almost more Elf like or even to some extent resemble the Eldar of warhammer 40k (Borrowing a lot from that series). They also could fill the role of extra-Planar beings Since my world so far lacks a Tiefling or Assimar equivalent races. In that sense they could either be a race trying to suppress the Azaren and defend the Tyr who they recognize as kin, or they could be survivors having had one of their Demi-Planes warp and malfunction forcing them onto the campaign world.

10 might be a bit much. The main reason I've gone so low is my.... well for one I take an ecological niche approach. (These creatures have to share a world together which is hard when you have different species.) So I also try to have them all have at least Similar heritage. In this case every player race has some connection to humans as a progenitor race. Part of it is though that I always fear having an overcrowded world. For example the Tyr race largely is unaware of the Azaren or just hears about them as stories told by rural people or urban legends.

[QED - Iltazyara]

I'm quite sure the amount of races that should be in a setting is based on scale. In a world with wizards, gods, powerful outsiders and the like there will likely be dozens, or more, races and monstrous beasts across the world.

In the area any one player party might venture, or setting might take place? Probably not.

I have upwards of forty races in my setting, but in the area I'm properly fleshing out? Seven, including two races that classify as "Monsters" more than Races from a D&D perspective.

Worlds are big places, unless you put them in a modern or post modern style, and even then, you are going to have diversity. Including magic means the Greeks could have been satyrs, Celts elves and Afrikaans the humans, we have racial differences as is; just not fantastical ones like those seen in most settings.

[Tzi]

I'm quite sure the amount of races that should be in a setting is based on scale. In a world with wizards, gods, powerful outsiders and the like there will likely be dozens, or more, races and monstrous beasts across the world.

In the area any one player party might venture, or setting might take place? Probably not.

I have upwards of forty races in my setting, but in the area I'm properly fleshing out? Seven, including two races that classify as "Monsters" more than Races from a D&D perspective.

Worlds are big places, unless you put them in a modern or post modern style, and even then, you are going to have diversity. Including magic means the Greeks could have been satyrs, Celts elves and Afrikaans the humans, we have racial differences as is; just not fantastical ones like those seen in most settings.

Well the world is errr.... literally slightly bigger then Venus I guess (I actually took the time to calculate it for some dumb reason and for some reason decided to make it a sliver smaller then earth for no other reason then I felt like it. XD)

Right now I have a pretty big campaign setting. Technically infinite if I think highly on it consisting of any number of habitable planets within the material plane and then a strange immaterial chaotic infinitely layered other plane(s).

However to avoid clutter since almost everything happens on a single planet (Madara) and possibly inside one of its moons, I wanted to cut the clutter and focus on having races directly or indirectly related to the world.

So Really I have a handful of player races, defined by me as being races that can speak language, build civilizations and reason to some extent. I'm thinking of making it a general rule that any race on Madara will have to have a connection to its two former primary races of Elves or Humans.

Primitive monstrous humanoids whom lack language, civilization or complex reasoning ability. (For this I've made Ogres, Trolls, Gnolls, Kobolds ect simply primitive bipedal creatures with some understanding and are more akin to either chimps or ancestral species of human on our world.

[QED - Iltazyara]

To be slightly more specific and answer


Races, so this is probably a huge topic brought up way too many times by us noobs to the art of Campaign making but....

Is there such a thing as too few? too many?

I don't honestly think so. Although as Yora said, races balloon into cultures rather rapidly, so it adds extra work quite quickly.

From this particular Noob At Worldbuilding's point of view the limit is this; outline a lot, build a few. That strange avian race that comes to visit from Far Off Land X gets the attention of a player? Look at them more, set them up as something, until then write a paragraph on how they look, how advanced they are and their attitude to other people.

It has been a lesson I've failed at myself, the concept of outlining something and leaving it rather than detailing. Only the gods know how many words lie in all my scattered setting documents.

As a guideline look at the published settings, Eberron has eleven, Faerún a lot more but many of them are sub races. I think ten is a good number, but even as few as four could do if they are interesting enough.

Personally I've kind of been... Battered into submission? Yes, that works. On the subject of monsters, my players love them, love playing as orcs, gnolls, kobolds, goblins... Name it and they've probably tried it. To my own horror I've learned to compensate and work them in, one way or another. Because of this I end up with a lot of extra races to work out, but they usually aren't as detailed, only so many ways to spell "barbaric, evil, cannibal bastard" after all.

[Tzi]

To be slightly more specific and answer



I don't honestly think so. Although as Yora said, races balloon into cultures rather rapidly, so it adds extra work quite quickly.

From this particular Noob At Worldbuilding's point of view the limit is this; outline a lot, build a few. That strange avian race that comes to visit from Far Off Land X gets the attention of a player? Look at them more, set them up as something, until then write a paragraph on how they look, how advanced they are and their attitude to other people.

It has been a lesson I've failed at myself, the concept of outlining something and leaving it rather than detailing. Only the gods know how many words lie in all my scattered setting documents.

As a guideline look at the published settings, Eberron has eleven, Faerún a lot more but many of them are sub races. I think ten is a good number, but even as few as four could do if they are interesting enough.

Personally I've kind of been... Battered into submission? Yes, that works. On the subject of monsters, my players love them, love playing as orcs, gnolls, kobolds, goblins... Name it and they've probably tried it. To my own horror I've learned to compensate and work them in, one way or another. Because of this I end up with a lot of extra races to work out, but they usually aren't as detailed, only so many ways to spell "barbaric, evil, cannibal bastard" after all.

Part of it is me trying to figure out how these effectively separate species might get along. All of these homebrewed races kinda have differing levels of Magical knowledge, technology ect...

The Tyr being the most populous and most numerous generally are unaware of most other races other then themselves. For example the Azaren is more the subject of conspiracy theories, Tabloid journalism, far fetched tales of beings from the stars feasting on blood of livestock and people. The Mau, the Catfolk like pygmies are heard of by explorers and plaster casted footprints but like still widely debated. This plausible other race would be Tyr like as in an offshoot of them, but one debating how to make contact with their own kin and what their relationship is.

Part of it might be that I've boxed myself into having 1 race mostly in the dark about other races even existing and 3 or more other races that know whats really going on. Its sort of me thinking (Wow this makes a cool narrative) but then in practical gameplay what do I do with players that want to play these kinda cool and interesting basically extra-terrestrials? its been troubling me,.

[akma]

With races, in each setting I toke a diffrent approach:

My first, the expanding world (new areas are created each time you reach the horizon), has loads of them. In that setting I put the most emphasis on playability, planing things such that I won't have to explain about the world and players could just jump in (although I ended up breaking many conventions), and players could play whatever they want. Even though I dislike most standard races, I included them anyways, although not with much effect on the setting. I made up a lot of playable races, and have lots of potential and active conflicts with race and racism as a factor.

My second, which I described here (huge unfinished templates for cities), I call wilderness of thirst (I've grown to dislike the name), has only humans as a playable race. Not only that, but also a very small amount of monsters - last time I counted it was less then 10, but I'm thinking of adding a few (in many parts of the setting, there are only humans and nothing else). I decided as a theme that humans will be the villains (also, lots of playable races with only a few monsters would be very odd). There are so few types of creatures because I wanted to emphasize the extreme aridness of the world. That setting breaks pretty much every D&D convention, including some that will cause mechanical issues, so I'm thinking of building a new game system just for it.

In the rest I haven't spent much effort on races (in one of them the races are stuck togather in dome cities, but I haven't decided much other then that), partly because I haven't spent much time working on them. The number of races in them will probably be very big, I generally like diversity.


Well the world is errr.... literally slightly bigger then Venus I guess (I actually took the time to calculate it for some dumb reason and for some reason decided to make it a sliver smaller then earth for no other reason then I felt like it. XD)

I'm used to seeing people decide their setting should be bigger then earth for no reason at all. I guess it should depand on how much you need to fill it with.
I do my best to avoid deciding the size of places.



Part of it might be that I've boxed myself into having 1 race mostly in the dark about other races even existing and 3 or more other races that know whats really going on. Its sort of me thinking (Wow this makes a cool narrative) but then in practical gameplay what do I do with players that want to play these kinda cool and interesting basically extra-terrestrials? its been troubling me,.

Disguises?
Or you could use people tendency for self denial. If an alien will walk in a crowded street, I'm sure most people will think it's a disguise or some other form of trickery.

[Tzi]

With races, in each setting I toke a diffrent approach:

My first, the expanding world (new areas are created each time you reach the horizon), has loads of them. In that setting I put the most emphasis on playability, planing things such that I won't have to explain about the world and players could just jump in (although I ended up breaking many conventions), and players could play whatever they want. Even though I dislike most standard races, I included them anyways, although not with much effect on the setting. I made up a lot of playable races, and have lots of potential and active conflicts with race and racism as a factor.

My second, which I described here (huge unfinished templates for cities), I call wilderness of thirst (I've grown to dislike the name), has only humans as a playable race. Not only that, but also a very small amount of monsters - last time I counted it was less then 10, but I'm thinking of adding a few (in many parts of the setting, there are only humans and nothing else). I decided as a theme that humans will be the villains (also, lots of playable races with only a few monsters would be very odd). There are so few types of creatures because I wanted to emphasize the extreme aridness of the world. That setting breaks pretty much every D&D convention, including some that will cause mechanical issues, so I'm thinking of building a new game system just for it.

In the rest I haven't spent much effort on races (in one of them the races are stuck togather in dome cities, but I haven't decided much other then that), partly because I haven't spent much time working on them. The number of races in them will probably be very big, I generally like diversity.



I'm used to seeing people decide their setting should be bigger then earth for no reason at all. I guess it should depand on how much you need to fill it with.
I do my best to avoid deciding the size of places.



Disguises?
Or you could use people tendency for self denial. If an alien will walk in a crowded street, I'm sure most people will think it's a disguise or some other form of trickery.

It might be plausible that I'll do a combination of that. And maybe some segments of society knowing about these beings. For example governments, or rural isolated settlements having established contact and trade.

Possibly I might build that into a much bigger quest about the players maybe trying to unit the globe's nations and races in a fight against a much more grave threat. Like aberrational horrors threatening invasion ect.

[akma]

It might be plausible that I'll do a combination of that. And maybe some segments of society knowing about these beings. For example governments, or rural isolated settlements having established contact and trade.


Maybe the goverments spread propoganda that the so called other races are simply deformed people with rare genetic illnesses.

[Tzi]

Maybe the goverments spread propoganda that the so called other races are simply deformed people with rare genetic illnesses.

I might do that for one of the other races. Basically the cliffnotes history of the Tyr is that they are an ancient eugenics project between Elves and Humans to create a race of half elves with incredible adaptability and genes. This new race was made within demi-plane pocket dimensions that slowed down the flow of time within them (Acting as a sort of forward time travel device as well) While outside Elven magi and some other magic beings terraformed the dying world back to life so the Tyr would have a home. In the process some Demi-Planes failed or were lost into the other planes. One of those demi-planes actually survived becoming a kinda of Planeshifting city/craft. The Tyr there being awakened very early (Eons before their kin on the campaign world) so they have adapted differently and have had to fight to survive against demonic beings, creatures from other worlds ect... when some of them find the campaign world they consider it "home," for them but other Tyr might not recognize them as the other Tyr have only awakened 2,000 years prior to whenever "Present," is where as these offshoot Tyr have been plane hoping and world hoping for a great while longer. I don't yet have a name for this offshoot Tyr race.

[Shyftir]

Decide the name of the moving city/plane/ship that your "other Tyr" inhabit name them after that. (My suggestion is that you call it Sydon and the people Sydonites. (Tyre and Sidon being real historical cities and a small in joke for your players if they catch it.)

[Yora]

Here's a really cool statement about worldbuilding I just read: "Worlds are verbs."

Which I think is really smart if you think about it for a moment.
It may sound interesting when I say that in the Ancient Lands "a new group of humans has been living in the region for 100 years", "naga are interested in ancient artifacts" or "the magic of warlocks has a corrupting nature". There are humans, naga, artifacts, warlocks, and corruption. Interesting to know, but what about it?
Doesn't it sound a lot more exciting when you says "a new group of humans is expanding their claims on the region", "the naga are sending out their agents to hunt for ancient artifacts", and "warlocks corrupt the land with their magic"?

And I think this does not only apply to presentation, but also to how the creator approaches the creation of the world. There is too much temptation (or bad examples) of describing worlds by stating who is in it and what the locations look like. But in the end, what the players will care for is what's going on.

[Tzi]

Decide the name of the moving city/plane/ship that your "other Tyr" inhabit name them after that. (My suggestion is that you call it Sydon and the people Sydonites. (Tyre and Sidon being real historical cities and a small in joke for your players if they catch it.)

Have you been reading my mind? :smallcool:

I also might rip a name from Dark Suns, Actually my campaign is filled with references to Dark Suns, from the Tyr themselves (The name anyway) and the continent of Athasis. Plus the whole "used to be a desert world terraformed back to life." ect

Sydonite, I like it, Sydonite, Sydonim, Sydoreen. Sydori. Sydorim, a lot of possibilities with that name.

I think I'm going to run with them. Honestly when it comes to a multi-race world my big issue is probably over analyzing it and thinking to much on questions like "Why don't the slightly more advanced ones just conquer and rule over their primitive rivals?" Cause in traditional D&D the Elves in theory have the magical might to just say "Bend the knee humans" and enforce that.


Here's a really cool statement about worldbuilding I just read: "Worlds are verbs."

Which I think is really smart if you think about it for a moment.
It may sound interesting when I say that in the Ancient Lands "a new group of humans has been living in the region for 100 years", "naga are interested in ancient artifacts" or "the magic of warlocks has a corrupting nature". There are humans, naga, artifacts, warlocks, and corruption. Interesting to know, but what about it?
Doesn't it sound a lot more exciting when you says "a new group of humans is expanding their claims on the region", "the naga are sending out their agents to hunt for ancient artifacts", and "warlocks corrupt the land with their magic"?

And I think this does not only apply to presentation, but also to how the creator approaches the creation of the world. There is too much temptation (or bad examples) of describing worlds by stating who is in it and what the locations look like. But in the end, what the players will care for is what's going on.

Let me give it a try....

"Madarra, a Planet where once the oceans and sky were poison, and the world was nothing but sand, where life once nearly extinguish is terraformed back again. But many races now claim Madarra as their home. The Tyr are numerous and have been told since the dawn of their race it is their birthright. They struggle to put aside ethnic squabbles, rivalries, ideological disagreements and forge ahead to colonize the world. The Azaren, hunger for blood to sustain them and know Madarra as the world of their ancestors. The divided race colonizes, harvests and see's Madarra in many lights, some call it home, some see it as a breeding ground for livestock. The Sydori who walk on the world have come to know it as plausibly the origin of their kind as they see the Tyr and themselves as kin, and seek a place they can rest from the constant battles in the warping chaos of the other planes and the void between the stars. The Mau know this as home and have broken the chains of slavery and escaped an aliens zoo to return to it, nobody will deny them their place not a race of Liches that once owned them or blood drinkers or any pointy eared person claiming a birthright."

Amazing? Interesting? WAY TOO OVERDONE? XD

Side note, Yora, this thread is amazing.

[Yora]

I think that sounds still rather static. It tells who the people are and what they want. It still doesn't tell us much about what's actually going on.

The Tyr want to colonize. The Azaren want to fight. The Sydori want to be left alone. The Mau don't want to be slaves again.

This is important for the creator to know as their motivations. But for the players, all that really matters is what they do now. When the players are dropped into the world, they want to dive right in and join the action.
What action?!

[Tzi]

I think that sounds still rather static. It tells who the people are and what they want. It still doesn't tell us much about what's actually going on.

The Tyr want to colonize. The Azaren want to fight. The Sydori want to be left alone. The Mau don't want to be slaves again.

This is important for the creator to know as their motivations. But for the players, all that really matters is what they do now. When the players are dropped into the world, they want to dive right in and join the action.
What action?!

Well lets see, the Tyr are attempting to play catch up. The Azaren and Sydori are far more advanced then them. Thankfully the two are either crippled in sunlight (Azaren) or too few in numbers to stage a campaign (Sydori) but still they fear these weavers of Techno-Sorcery since they have spells and technology the Tyr lack. Tyr States are trying to uncover ancient Magi-tech and invent new things. While also handling the delicate relationships among themselves as not long ago the various Tyr nations were locked in periodic global war among themselves. They scars of said wars, atrocities, and disputes linger and threaten the delicate alliances that have formed.

The Azaren are torn. Many have become feral or become undead beings and Sinthas (The planets second moon) is difficult to live in for many. Many Azaren have settled on the surface establishing city states. However the Azaren are organized in to cliquish clans that often fight among each other for resources. Or fear one another for being overtaken with "blood pox," a sort of degenerative affliction that turns one into a marauding feral blood drinker. Many Azaren are ecologically conscious, and want to preserve Madarra, either for love of ecology, or simply to ensure a stable livestock supply on the surface. To the Azaren their word for Tyr, might loosely translate as "Lunchbox" So for them the current action is building their colonies on the surface, or purging Sinthas of ferals and undead or even escaping Sinthas to forge a colony.

The Sydori are very few in number, most of them still lost in the other planes, wandering. The ones on world are mostly scouting, setting the ground work for the rest of their kin assuming they can find them and convince them to settle (Some might chose not to finding a new way of life to difficult to adapt to.) Others are manipulating the Tyr to gain resources, seeing the Tyr as primitive cousins. Some actually care about their Kin and wish to be apart of them. The Tyr however are divided generally on if the Sydori's story about being long lost kin is true or if this is a trick.

The Mau are divided, some worship Azaren as gods, after the Azaren and Mau sorcerers used their magic to create the portal that liberated the Mau. The Azaren wizards wield the power of gods, granting wishes, weaving the weather and doing feats beyond the imaginations of the Mau. Others however see these "Aliens," as false gods using the Mau to sate their hunger for blood. Plus the Azaren being tainted with Necromancy doesn't help either for the "non-believers."

idk? Actiony? Still static?

[Shyftir]

So has anybody else checked out the 13th Age core book? It is some fantastic world building. I love the Icons approach, by creating these big movers and shakers in the world they create so many opportunities for conflict. I'm considering adapting the concept to my own project...

[Yora]

Is it similar to the Sorcerer Kings in Dark Sun?

The big bad Zhentarim and Red Wizards and the big good Harpers in Forgotten Realms are usually not that well recieved from a setting design point of view.

[akma]

Here's a really cool statement about worldbuilding I just read: "Worlds are verbs."


Sometimes I want to specifically emphasize that nothing is heppening, that something is unchanging, perheps eternal.

And not everything heppens at the present - kingdom X may live in peace and prosperity, but it could change all of the sudden. It could be entiraly because of events heppening outside of it, and making kingdom X static will emphasize that.

I made a lof of static decisions about the present - no active full scale wars, no invasions from other worlds, etc. All of those could heppen at any moment: outsiders might be planing a giant invasion right now, kingdoms A and B might be arming themselves for the inevitable war, etc. Each will heppen only if I'll want to run an adventure based on it.


So has anybody else checked out the 13th Age core book? It is some fantastic world building. I love the Icons approach, by creating these big movers and shakers in the world they create so many opportunities for conflict. I'm considering adapting the concept to my own project...

This is the first time I'm hearing about the book, but I have a different approach - I focus more on the big things - places, organizations, etc.



idk? Actiony? Still static?

Still pretty static.


What about adventures in the history of your setting, instead of the present? Has any of you thought about that?
In my wilderness of thirst setting, the world before humans were exiled by indestructable shapeshifters was completly diffrent - many powerfull, connected human kingdoms, with strong magic, infrastructure and armies, dealing with each other, instead of isolated far apart cities, dealing with survival and internel conflicts.

In my expanding world setting, there was an ancient massive war between a few gods to determine what heppens to those who die. Players could be in that war, perheps changing the outcome.

[Yora]

Most d20 games have powerful NPCs who shape the world behind the scenes. 13th Age brings them forward, making these thirteen powerful NPCs into icons the PCs will aid or oppose over the course of each campaign. Inventing your character’s relationship to the mighty icons who rule or shape the world is key to engaging your character with the game world. RPGs about vampires have clans, RPGs about pagan highlanders have cults, and 13th Age has icons.
Sounds almost exactly like the most common complaint about the Forgotten Realms.

[akma]

Most d20 games have powerful NPCs who shape the world behind the scenes. 13th Age brings them forward, making these thirteen powerful NPCs into icons the PCs will aid or oppose over the course of each campaign. Inventing your character’s relationship to the mighty icons who rule or shape the world is key to engaging your character with the game world. RPGs about vampires have clans, RPGs about pagan highlanders have cults, and 13th Age has icons.
Sounds almost exactly like the most common complaint about the Forgotten Realms.

When it's phrased like that, it makes the PCs sound like secondary characters.

[Tzi]

When it's phrased like that, it makes the PCs sound like secondary characters.

That is a situation that can be awful to be in. As I played a campaign were that was the situation. Heck I wouldn't even say we were secondary characters, maybe less so. I had one were I was still just some duke or counts errand runner at level 15.... as a wizard. ... which happens when ALL of the NPC's happen to be Epic level characters. Even that farming peasant happens to also be a PIT LORD!



Still pretty static.

What about adventures in the history of your setting, instead of the present? Has any of you thought about that?
In my wilderness of thirst setting, the world before humans were exiled by indestructable shapeshifters was completly diffrent - many powerfull, connected human kingdoms, with strong magic, infrastructure and armies, dealing with each other, instead of isolated far apart cities, dealing with survival and internel conflicts.

In my expanding world setting, there was an ancient massive war between a few gods to determine what heppens to those who die. Players could be in that war, perheps changing the outcome.

Well for historical conflicts, the Elves gathered humans (The Azaren claims captured and enslaved) to engineer the Tyr race and then made a deal with ethereal beings, constructing them adamentine bodies and bringing them into the material plane in exchange for them terraforming the then dying world back to life..... which had the side effect of wiping out humans and any other race that might have lived there. For the Azaren this sets up a brooding hatred, a blood feud, between themselves and anything Elvish in origin as they are the descendants of humans who both fought those ethereal terraformers and were driven from the world eons ago by them.

Right now the continent of Athasis is the most densely populated with almost entirely Tyr nations who have been warring practically the day after the last elves died. The Tyr have been gripped by three massive "lineage wars," among the various Tyr over living space, farm land or much more abstract ideas of superior genetics and bloodlines or ideology. A lot of the conflict holding over from the last Elves whom for 2 centuries ruled all the Tyr via a council. The council dissolved within 70 years of the first Tyr colony being built however over disagreements on how the Tyr aught to live and conduct themselves. Some feeling that the purpose of the Tyr was to carry on Elvish legacy and civilization where the Elves were doomed to extinction. Others felt many Elven customs could not be strictly upheld because it was too impractical for survival. Eventually this formed the first major ideological lines among Tyr ethnic groups that were forming as groups of Tyr scattered across Athasis to colonize. These conflicts hold over to the present though have been forced to set aside with contact with the Azaren being mostly hostile. Hinterland settlements falling under their rule, and pioneers finding themselves to be dinner for blood sucking moon people XD. The Tyr were able to make a brief alliance among themselves and with some Azaren to stop a fairly large scale invasion that burned across Athasis. The Azaren that made the alliance with the Tyr did so out of fear that some of their kin had descended into a frenzied madness, that they had become like a locust swarm who would devour everything leading to their races mass starvation.

[QED - Iltazyara]

I suppose I might as well try my hand at describing something like that; "Down the plains of Maray flows the heart of the land, the river upon which the nation thrives" I think you're try to be... Too descriptive? The idea is to evoke interest, a catchphrase or one liner, rather than a documentary.

Another one for me would be "Though exiled we stand free, proud, and amongst all the other races of our world". I'm less sure about this one, but it's easy to read and implies far more than it says.

I always try to work poems (no matter how terrible they may be), stories, legends and myths in somehow. Gods are a wonderful way of doing this; but you have your Azaran for this Tzi, make more little stories of the creatures from the moon. Split them up into four or five two sentence paragraphs and it makes things a lot easier to read.

People will read a tidbit, a story, but ignore a wall of vital text. I know I enjoyed reading all the little story sidebars back when I first got my Faerún campaign setting book for 3.0

[TheWombatOfDoom]

That's one area I've always had difficulty with - fictional pantheons and religions and such. I'm always hard pressed to develop my own...and so my settings are usually lacking in that aspect. :smallannoyed:

Anyone have any advice on how I could go about making them? I just...I don't know. Creating a believable cosmic power is difficult in itself. I don't really want to give them the personality a mortal might, such as how the Gods are portrayed in OotS. And anything else...seems...hard to imagine...

[QED - Iltazyara]

I think a lot of people have a misconception about gods as a whole, unknowable great beings that aren't like mortals isn't all that old of a concept. The Greco-Roman pantheon was very much based on mortal personalities, somewhat extreme forms, but very much mortal and understandable.

Anyway, when building my pantheon I looked at Concepts first, God of the Oceans, God of the Sun, these are obvious ones. But what about a god of dreams, what could be interesting about that?

My choices for my goddess of dreams were simple; she is a twin, twinned to the goddess of foresight and prophecy first and foremost. Then she is the creator goddess of goblins, whose varied racial forms were spawned from her nightmares and fever dreams. I got both of those from writing down "goddess of dreams" somewhere, you need to look for connections between concepts that are understandable.
In this case I took the connection between "dreams" and "prophecy", then the idea of bringing nightmares to life. Goblins fit the mold as they have such a varied design, but it could have been anything.

If you are set on making them seem like something completely unlike a mortal you somewhat need to give up on giving them a set personality. Instead maybe give them a goal, an objective, with their actions towards that goal being the only inclination on how they think.

I feel that trying to make a god without a mortal personality forces you to give them no personality at all, as as humans understanding that concept is... Very difficult. We humanise things by instinct.

Edit: I hope what I'm saying makes some sense, I tend to speak far more authoritatively than I should, just due to the way in which I speak.

[Shyftir]

When it's phrased like that, it makes the PCs sound like secondary characters.

Well, I would agree but the system (called the Archmage System) links all the characters to said Icons. Also they are specifically pointed out to be creating an uneasy balance of power and thus work through agents. (Where the players come in.)

Also, say what you want, but comparisons to FR are, to me, pretty positive. I mean FR is the most successful RPG campaign world ever created. It has spawned more novels, comics, tie-in games etc. than any other.

[Eldan]

There was one suggestion for religion from someone in the playground, might even have been Yora, that I thought was pretty damn great:

Clerics, especially of evil deities, are mainly there to appease those deities so they don't cause too much mayhem and estruction. That creates a nice, socially acceptable role for priests of some deities.

When I read that, I was all "why didn't I think of that!" You can create a lot around that idea and it is pretty close to some mythologies.

Really, I wonder why D&D never seems to do that. You don't sacrifice a virgin to the Lord of Blood for personal power, though you might get some of that too. You sacrifice a virgin so he he won't send a plague.

[Tzi]

There was one suggestion for religion from someone in the playground, might even have been Yora, that I thought was pretty damn great:

Clerics, especially of evil deities, are mainly there to appease those deities so they don't cause too much mayhem and estruction. That creates a nice, socially acceptable role for priests of some deities.

When I read that, I was all "why didn't I think of that!" You can create a lot around that idea and it is pretty close to some mythologies.

Really, I wonder why D&D never seems to do that. You don't sacrifice a virgin to the Lord of Blood for personal power, though you might get some of that too. You sacrifice a virgin so he he won't send a plague.

I've always found that to be the best way to handle evil deities. Mainly because yeah, "Worship this horrible being and then be tormented by it for all eternity," F'ing sucks. Who would sign up for that? Knowing its LITERALLY going to go down that way.

Of course evil deities can go lots of ways. I had one that basically promised to usher in world peace, unite all nations, end hunger, war, and plague, however he also planned to convert all of humanity into a single army to wage war on countless worlds. Actually he was 1 part Immortal God Emperor aspirant and 1 part Anti-Christ. Of course the party decided to kill this God before it could be born via killing it's mother.

So while they saved countless worlds they did doom mankind to an existence of war, famine, disunity and disease. I thought it would have been a tougher call for the party. XD

[Weltall_BR]

That's one area I've always had difficulty with - fictional pantheons and religions and such. I'm always hard pressed to develop my own...and so my settings are usually lacking in that aspect. :smallannoyed:

Anyone have any advice on how I could go about making them? I just...I don't know. Creating a believable cosmic power is difficult in itself. I don't really want to give them the personality a mortal might, such as how the Gods are portrayed in OotS. And anything else...seems...hard to imagine...

Be sure: no matter how insanely crazy a religion might seem humankind has already worshipped something weirder at some point in history. Consider this: religions have been coined to explain what could not be explained (which was a lot 10,000 years ago). What does your religion explain?

[Eldan]

I've always found that to be the best way to handle evil deities. Mainly because yeah, "Worship this horrible being and then be tormented by it for all eternity," F'ing sucks. Who would sign up for that? Knowing its LITERALLY going to go down that way.

To be fair, very few deities operate that way even in D&D standard. Most of the evil ones offer power or pleasure of some kind in the afterlife. At least to the worthy worshippers. THe rest might be the torture victims or soldiers of the more worthy ones.

[Tzi]

Sooo, Question? How do people deal with Dragons?

Personally I've come up with this.
Ecology of Dragons:


1. Dragon Patriarch: Fully grown, adult male dragons. Typically with 3 or more reproducing Queens and a territorial range of 25-100 miles depending on age. Usually found with a substantial horde proving his superiority to other male dragons and would be challengers and to attract more females into the "Flight." He aggressively defends the territory he has, seeks to expand it, fights other males and kills younger males (Even those of his own bloodline).

2. Heirophants: Younger male dragons, sometimes with 1-2 mates rarely three. Typically none that can reproduce as a queen could. Typically these are former underlings Xena's of a Queen who could not overthrow their mother. Typically only capable of producing Kobold worker's and Soldiers.

3. Queens: Large or huge sized Matriarchs of an individual colony. Capable of producing Kobold drones, Tetzylwyrms, Wyvrns and other mutations of Dragon that act as workers, scouts and warriors for the colony respectively. She also produces Fertile but immature Xena's which can grow to become Queens. Queens send out soldiers to kill other queens.

4. Xena's: Female lieutenant and daughter of Queens, they serve under her until they feel confident they could stage a rebellion, or see an opportunity to leave. Said females will seek out a Heirophant if they choose to leave as they would be mate-less and vulnerable. Otherwise she commands hordes of Kobolds, Tetzylwyrms and Wyvrns and sometimes while under a Queens command can breed odd strains of Kobolds, including those that can cast crude magic.

5. Wyvyrn: Typically a sign that not only is there a queen but a very mature one, well protected, and likely she has 4-7 Xena's under her and is one of several queens. Wyvyrns are typically warriors for a given colony.

6. Tetzylwyrms: Colony defenders, usually a sign that at least One Queen exists and has definitely found a Heirophant strong enough to at least avoid death or kill his father or the nearest Patriarch to him.

7. Kobolds: The standard worker unit of a colony. Kobolds are usually only a mild nuisances, however they are a sign of a Queens presence or a would be Queen at the least. The Arrival of Kobolds typically means a colony is being founded or is expanding. Kobolds are aggressive but fairly weak.

Wyvyrn, Tetzylwyrms, Kobolds are all universally female, and sterile. Their life-cycles vary but most live 1-5 years. A Male, typically lives 250 years and a female can live 500, though some Males also match the females for age. Dragons rarely die of natural causes outside of captivity.

Dragons come in multiple "Flights." Often defined by scale/feather/skin color. As some breeds of dragon are amphibious or avian in nature. Most dragon Flights have specific colors though rare ones have metallic colors.

[Yora]

I have five dragons. Black, bronze, green, red, and silver. They come in young, adult, old, and ancient. They only get 1 bite and 2 claw attacks, and 1 tail slap if they are Large or bigger.
That should about cover all needs for dragon stats ever and is way less of a hazzle than the 120 standard dragons of Pathfinder, that still have some assembly required.

[Eldan]

I changed one thing about dragon ecology.

Dragons never die and they never stop to grow. They get larger and larger, but as they grow, there is less food available to them and so, they switch to living purely off the magical energy of the land. They become increasingly passive, as they have no need to move or hunt and their defences become stronger. THe oldest dragons never move at all or are unable to. The oldest two dragons in the world have attached themselves fully to a ley line and become mountains. Thinking, breathing, occasionally angry, magical mountains.

This also explains the war between dwarves and kobolds: kobolds are a dragon mountain's natural defence against miners.

[TheWombatOfDoom]

I have TONS of thoughts on all this stuff about Dragons (and Eldan, I have a very similar concepts in one of my settings) but I'm out all day for a wedding. Monday I shall return! :smallwink::smallsigh:

[Eldan]

Two more things, now that I remember:

All dragons are the same species. Their colour is determined by environmental variables. I've gone with a lot of stuff there, from treatment of the egg to astrology to ley lines.

Also, no planar dragons. I liked the idea Planescape had that dragons don't venture into the planes, that they are inherently creatures of the prime, with their magic connected to the land. Their magic is their life, so their life is in the land they live in.

[Morgarion]

So Eldan, if your dragons don't die, why would they need to worry about food? Or is their immortality a result of being able to draw sustenance from the magical energy inherent in the land?

[Eldan]

I should say they don't die of age. All dragons can be killed with weapons or magic or by disease. But only young dragons need to eat, the more powerful their magic becomes, the less they need and the more they are sustained by magic.

[Yora]

I am now seriously considering dropping dragons completely or reducing them to a single type of creature without any spells. I've been working on my setting for over three years, and a dragon showed up in any kind of role only once, and I completely dropped that idea long ago.

[Tzi]

I am now seriously considering dropping dragons completely or reducing them to a single type of creature without any spells. I've been working on my setting for over three years, and a dragon showed up in any kind of role only once, and I completely dropped that idea long ago.

Same boat, well, mainly I just never know what to do with a gajillion types of dragons.

So I just decided a short cut was to TECHNICALLY have them be the same species but flights are part of a complex biological and social structure. Where like Dragons form Flights that contain several colonies ruled by Queens who then birth Kobolds, Tetzylwyrms, Wyvyrns ect.... depending on the colony needs and all those other dragonoids are just like sterile worker drones who serve the Queen. Ect, basically making them like Naked Mole Rats or Ants. I'm considering a mechanic to were Queens with big enough colonies grow in intelligence and mental and magical ability as the colony imbues her with a sort of collective intelligence and she can say upgrade a Kobold drone into maybe a spellcaster? ect.

Basically I just decided to make all dragons ONE species.

[Yora]

I think a big issue with dragons is, that they have so few appearances in RPGs. Even in Dungeons & Dragons, which has plenty of dungeons, but barely any dragons.
You have plenty of winged lizards like drakes and wyverns, those are easy. They are monsters like any others, though maybe more on the beefy side of what PCs usually encounter.

But I suspect it was D&D that created the image of dragons as those hyper-intelligent masters of arcane magic, and those are a real source of trouble for GMs. If you are going to have a dragon, then you want a real dragon! Not a very young medium size dragon or a small wyrmling. A large size adault dragon is the bare minimum, but for the real deal, it would have to be at least huge. And then you're already at CR 13 with an Intelligence of 14. And the number of PCs that ever gets to 9th level and beyond is not that large.
Even then, you want the dragon to be a mastermind. But he's also sitting in his cave in the mountains far from civilization, so he won't really show up much in a political intrue camapaign set in a a palace.

The D&D dragon is a cool concept but one without any real application.

Planescape and Dark Sun don't really have any dragons. Eberron has them, but they live on another continent. Forgotten Realms does have dragons, but the only way I see them having a role is with the Cult of the Dragon. Whose existence wasn't really aknowledged in 3rd Edition at all.
And when you look at video games, the most you get are Skyrim and Dragon Age, which are supposedly all about dragons, but those dragons are just fire-breathing flying lizards. They are still animals. Baldur's Gate 2 has one dragon who talks, but he stays in his cave all the time and sends you on a fetch quest. Then there is Smaug in the Hobbit, who really just shows up for one scene in which he talks (I think, it's been a while) and in a cutscene of which the main characters are not aware.
Without any precedent on how to include a dragon in a fantasy adventure story, it's hard to come up with ways they can have a relevant role in a campaign world.

Here's some alternative dragons I made today. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15982862#post15982862)

[Eldan]

There's always two ways to introduce dragons into political intrigue: the dragon king/emperor/president (it worked great in Shadowrun) who rules over a city state of humanoid servants or the polymorphed dragon who plays the human political game for fun.

[Yora]

Yes, but then he's just another human with the ability to change into a dragon for the final boss battle.
It works, but it's not very dragonish.

[Eldan]

I wasn't thinking of it like that, really. A courtier who's deep into every intrigue, but if you beat him, he shrugs, turns into a dragon and flies away to find some other court. He doesn't take it personal, he's amazed that some monkeys put up a good fight for this round.

[Tzi]

Maybe the Dragon can psychically/magically dominate the minds of others? Maybe said dragon has begun to influence affairs up top in a way that efficiently produces results it likes, or simply its bored with immortality and thinks of it as a fun game.

[QED - Iltazyara]

I think I rather agree with Yora on this, dragons are iconic, but how iconic they are makes them difficult to work with.

They have their place, but as powerful as they are they will either end up at the top, or drop down to the medieval knight type of dragons. Which in of itself is hardly a bad thing, makes for good adventures, but doesn't pull up to the mastermind image D&D puts forth for them.

I'm following how Eberron did dragons myself, letting them have their own land, intrigues and plots sequestered from the rest of the world. They are important and have dealings with/an effect on the rest of the world, but they aren't something you'd know about unless they wanted you to know.

The style of doing dragons as all one species which breeds different types out reminds me of the Pern series of books, which I might go back over for inspiration for my dragons at some point.

[Tzi]

I think I rather agree with Yora on this, dragons are iconic, but how iconic they are makes them difficult to work with.

They have their place, but as powerful as they are they will either end up at the top, or drop down to the medieval knight type of dragons. Which in of itself is hardly a bad thing, makes for good adventures, but doesn't pull up to the mastermind image D&D puts forth for them.

I'm following how Eberron did dragons myself, letting them have their own land, intrigues and plots sequestered from the rest of the world. They are important and have dealings with/an effect on the rest of the world, but they aren't something you'd know about unless they wanted you to know.

The style of doing dragons as all one species which breeds different types out reminds me of the Pern series of books, which I might go back over for inspiration for my dragons at some point.

One Idea I had is that maybe Dragon Queens with a big enough colony develop a lot of powers of mental domination, so they can manipulate other races even when they themselves are not very strong. Like a queen might be just a large sided dragon but might have a colony big enough to allow her too enthrall or influence thoughts.

[Morgarion]

Does anyone else have trouble working out the right scale for the world when it comes time to map it out? I've drawn and redrawn the continent I'm working on probably two dozen times but I just can't seem to get something that satisfies me. I might get the distance between the cities where I want it ('two days by horse from here to here'), only to make the continent so small that there isn't any room for the monsters and secluded adventure sites. But if I increase the scale ('now it takes a week to travel from one end of the swamp to the other'), I run into the problem of having to figure out how a single state could govern so much area. It's so tedious.

[Eldan]

Don't map it out precisely?

I mean, have you ever seen medieval European maps? I've seen some. "Two days by horse" is probably more exact than a lot you'll get on them. Many are really, really vague, along the lines of "the town is between this mountain and that forest". There were no geometers in those days running around with instruments mapping out things. You're lucky if you have a Roman road still standing, because they have milestones.

It gives you a lot of freedom, too, while writing adventures. Need more space? Make more space!

[Morgarion]

I suppose that's one way to do it. I have a general idea about the shape and relative position of all the areas. I don't know that I've ever run or played in a game where the players didn't get access to some sort of visual aid for the shape of the world at large. At least, not any that lasted more than one impromptu session.

But you raise a good question. Is it really necessary to have it so thoroughly mapped out?

[Eldan]

I like a vague map that gives a shape. But tell your players that distances aren't necessarily exact and that there may be mistakes on there.

To illustrate what I mean, here's a genuine old map:

http://www.heimatverein-altenstadt.de/grafik/archivbild.jpg

Have fun measuring distances on that.

[Hovannes]

There can be many layers of conflict. On a global/divine scale is where I like to start – figure out what the gods want and how they intend to get it. By motivating the mortals all types of conflicts arise. Just look at the standard AD&D story line ancient conflict between the surface elves and the creation of dark elves based on the desires of Loth.

We can even look at our reality and the massive conflict between religions - just watch CNN for 20 minutes.

In any case, once you have the ‘big picture’ you can drill down to a given geographical location and see how each kingdom, city, town, or even village will be involved in the conflict. Campaigns can be developed to provide players an opportunity to change these outcomes (dragonlance).

I have found that strife, conflict, and war should come along in cycles otherwise the players get ‘burned-out’ going from town to town only to save the townspeople from mayhem.

Just my two cents;

[Trog]

So I think, at the very core of any setting, but even much more so RPG settings, are the major conflicts that define the world. And to go all controversial: The main conflicts have to be the starting point of any setting that is going to be a huge hit with the players and able to get a following of fans if it is published. Without global and regional conflicts, a setting is much more likely to be simply a background for a more or less generic dungeon crawl game that could also have been set anywhere else.

Your thoughts?
Agreed. I tend to think of this as the Dragonlance model of setting creation for whatever reason. The entire setting was created as a backdrop for this huge conflict that the PCs will find themselves playing a major part in. The creation of layers of conflict within the setting allows for a much more diverse world and can fill in a lot of details about any one particular area just by relying on a a relatively short guide of reasons for the conflicts - the underlying structure of the setting and, probably, a major part of the adventure(s) set within that setting.

History is a great place to start building. Culture is another good area. Trade, Religion, Non-ruling groups with influence and agendas, all of these can layer in the richness of the setting.

My latest experiment in setting building takes place in my own version of the feywild and has been my most ambitious setting project to date (I ramble on about it in my blog (http://trogshead.blogspot.com)) and it primarily has all regional conflict relate to on one key event: The elimination of the region's sole superpower, which happens prior to the start of the adventure.

What's left is all the power groups reacting to this change – filling the void, jockeying for position to be the next group on top, or to not be the one on the bottom, at least. Cultures I created in the region had grown out of the prior, more stable setting (and its historical establishment and growth) when the superpower was still around. With things changing you have those struggling to adapt, those desperately trying to cling to the past, those pushing for a future with them on top, etc. I've found it to be a surprisingly effective event to base a setting off of.

The PCs will get to influence events in the region to dictate small or large changes to the balance of power. It's important to note that these changes the PCs make aren't coming at the very end of the adventure but constantly all the way through it. Alliances and enemies are made and these choices influence future interactions in upcoming parts of the campaign. It is, I feel, this flexibility of setting that truly makes a sandbox campaign. Or at least any one that's interesting to adventure in for me, anyway. Vast amounts of interactivity trumps vast amounts of written data on a static setting and all written data should serve to paint the picture by which the PCs will make their judgement calls to influence the setting.

Anyways, I'm rambling, as usual. This is a good thread.

[Morgarion]

I've got another question about maps, but this one is more of a technical issue/request for suggestions. I'm nearing completion on the write-up of the setting I've been working on and I finished the map in Googledocs (or Drive or whatever it is now). I think it's kind of big; not the file size, but the actual dimensions of the image. I don't have any good drawing or image editing programs or anything. So, is there a good place to host it that will help me present it better? And remember, you're talking to a guy who made a world map using nothing but the straight line tool.

[zabbarot]

you're talking to a guy who made a world map using nothing but the straight line tool.

You're a madman :smalleek: Seriously though, what are the dimensions on the image, and what's the filesize? Most image hosting websites are only limited by filesize. Actually, what do you mean by present it better? Do you want to resize it or something?

[Morgarion]

It's in my Google Drive right now, so I'm having trouble figuring precisely how big its dimensions are. The text on it that is twelve point font is tiny and illegible when it is zoomed out all the way, if that gives you an idea. If I download it as a JPEG it's 120kb, which isn't large but its just lines.

What I want to do is put it somewhere that will let me either manipulate the image in such a way as to let me be able to see how big it will actually appear if I posted it here, or to automatically optimize it for the web.

[Morgarion]

Let me test it.

http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy9/morgarion1/AnAdventurersMap_zpsf508b726.jpg (http://s772.photobucket.com/user/morgarion1/media/AnAdventurersMap_zpsf508b726.jpg.html)

That's not so bad.

[Yora]

Download the image, open with an image program like IrfanView (free), Gwenview (free), Photoshop, or GIMP (free) (and I think most opperating systems come at least with a bare bones image program), set zoom to 100% and the window to fullscreen.
Then you have it on your screen in just the same size it would show up in a browser.

Now that I think of it, when you're accessing the image online, you can right-click on it and select "View Image". Then you get only that image file and you should be able to click the image to switch between "show whole image" and "show at actual size" mode, if the image doesn't normally fit in your browser window.

[ArcanistSupreme]

I am now seriously considering dropping dragons completely or reducing them to a single type of creature without any spells. I've been working on my setting for over three years, and a dragon showed up in any kind of role only once, and I completely dropped that idea long ago.

For my current campaign/the only one that I've invested any time into developing, there is officially ONE dragon (although there *might* be one or two more, I haven't decided). He was sealed away long ago, and a cult worships him as the god of avarice and power. Few know that he is real, but the few that do seek to free him from his prison.

In short, he's a final encounter. That way I get my iconic dragon, but I don't have to worry about his mere existence warping the world until the very end. His stats are gonna be a $%^&# to tweak properly, though, since the campaign is an E6 world. Probably some rituals or MacGuffin will be needed to fight him.

On a related note, I find that this E6 world is much easier to deal with than a standard 1-20 one. It's much more believable that the world hasn't gone full Tippyverse, and power structures similar to those in the real world can exist without straining suspension of disbelief.

[TheStranger]

I can't believe I hadn't found this thread before!

On the topic of maps and scale:
The quality of medieval maps was, as has been mentioned, suspect. However, it's not hard to imagine a king paying a few wizards to overfly his realm, take a bunch of aerial photos (I can't remember if there's a "photograph" spell anywhere, but there should be) and make a map based on that. It's also possible to do surveys with medieval technology that result in pretty good maps, if you're willing to take the time to do it. On the other hand, try this experiment: think of an area you know well, like your town and a few surrounding communities. You know all the major roads and landmarks, you can get around pretty easily, and you've probably even seen some good maps of the area (or looked at it on Google Earth). Now, sit down and draw a map of the area from memory, with the level of detail you expect in a campaign map. Then, compare your map to an actual map of the area. My point is, the quality of medieval maps could range from pretty good to pretty lousy, depending on the reason for making the map, the cartographer, and the resources they had available.

As for the scale, there are several possibilities. First, there's nothing wrong with a small, regional campaign. Ok, your "continent" is the size of Ireland. That's fine - the rest of the world is out there somewhere, but you don't need to map it unless your players need to go there (and if they do, they'll be shocked by the scale of it).

Second, if you want to go bigger but feel like there's too much land, consider one possible real-world solution to this (and one that fits the tropes of D&D): a layered system of feudal vassals. Divide a realm up into a patchwork of duchies, counties, and baronies, until you get down to each lord ruling, at most, a half-dozen communities no more than a couple days' ride from his manor (and each village can have a commoner mayor). Ultimately, they all owe allegiance to the same king, but he's not micromanaging every village out there; it's all delegated to people, who delegate to other people, who keep delegating down until it gets manageable. Insert some wilderness in between if you want to further limit the number of communities. Then, abstract most of that away unless the players actually visit it. This blob on the map is ruled by the king of Heartlandia. There are an arbitrary number of vassals under him who administer all that, pay taxes, and contribute levies if needed. But you don't need to name all those people; label the blob "Heartlandia," assume that this implies a complex system of feudal obligations (maybe work out an overview of how that works), and be done with it.

In reality, it's the same way modern governments do it. I live in a town (barony). The town is in a county, which is part of a state (duchy). Along with 49 other states, it makes up a nation (kingdom). You can split authority up a bunch of different ways, and change the names (province, prefecture, earldom, etc.), but each level delegates some or all of its power to the level below it according to some established rules, and in the end it works fine (until it doesn't, and there's a rebellion or something). Nor is it dependent on modern transportation/communication technology - there have been plenty of large realms all over the world throughout history. Some only lasted as long as a strong leader could hold them together, but others lasted for hundreds of years.

[Yora]

I think most settings are actually a lot bigger than they really need to. The problem is that two of the best known fantasy settings that probably most people have as a mental reference, are both huge. Middle-Earth is huge in scale, because the heroes go on a months-long journey, but the story itself really only describes the places they visit on their route, so the actual setting is much smaller than the map would suggest. The other one is Forgotten Realms, which really is just massive in size regarding content. One man sketched out the basics and drew up the map, but large parts of it were actually done in detail by numerous other writers over decades.

The North is only one of maybe 40 regions of similar size and at the most includes 20% of all the content that exist for it. But even all by itself, it's allready a quite large and very detailed setting.
GMs and players are always only going to use one region at a time, which has it's specific culture and people. It is much more sensible to create one such region in detail and do it very well, then to have 20 generic countries that only gloss over the basics. The entire Dark Sun setting is probably smaller in content (regardless of the distances on the map) than the North in the Forgotten Realms.

[TheStranger]

That's true in some regards. I think it's the result of a desire to have the world (not necessarily the same thing as the setting) be roughly earth-like in size. So you end up with large continents, and you want to fill them in. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but I also agree that you can just draw up a regional map and only go beyond that if you need to. As you said, the LotR setting is huge, but the story only requires that a few small areas be filled in. Also, that setting was the (unfinished) life's work of one man, who enjoyed the process of filling everything in in minute detail, creating extensive lineages for each character, writing the backstory of all those ancestors, etc. For those of us who just want a place to play in, that's way too much work.

In general, I like my setting maps to cover the "known world," as that concept is understood in-world. Sometimes that's a large area, sometimes it's a small area. Sometimes it's understood in-setting that there are distant lands where the people look and talk different, and those might not be mapped out. But again, parts of the setting will just be some lines on a map and maybe, among educated characters, a rough sense of what far-away places are like. I'm not going to do the work to name every earl in a country the campaign isn't going to go to, but I don't want a Rome-like empire to be the approximate size of Rhode Island, either.

[QED - Iltazyara]

I spend a lot of time working on my maps, going through versions as I learn tricks to make them. I really enjoy the process myself, and honestly I pay no attention to scale except as a vague thing.
Not only is scale not all that important in a medieval style map, it means those fancy and awesome town/tree/place icons look somewhat ridiculous.

As for the size of your image, well, I'll link mine. Only open the spoiler if you have a stupid size monitor, or are willing to scroll for a bit. This is V2, so I restarted from where I had half of the thing coloured/detailed.

http://i.imgur.com/yA2lSVC.jpg?1

If that's the full size of your map, pixel per square inch kinda thing, then don't worry, you're fine. I might be overdoing it at four A4 pages wide and 600DPI, but I enjoy it. If anyone wants them I'll give links to my resources, they're free things but I'll need to dredge up the links.

Edit: Other couple of things I should mention;

I look at it from the perspective of outlining, I do all these really big outlines, naming lots of gods and giving them titles, making nations and giving them land in the world. But really I don't do anything with them, instead focusing on one area (Elemaray in this case) and surrounding areas. Like creating a map of Europe, but only colouring in France and the countries that border it. The rest are outlined, you know where they are and sort-of what they're like, but no details.

It helps me because the concept of people from a far off land is a common one, so it's good to know where those far off lands are.

[ArcanistSupreme]

Wow, your map looks amazing! The best I can manage is this (http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/a-world-too-small-for-giants/maps/44898), which I made in Gimp. The actual file looks better than what that site would allow me to upload, but it's still nowhere near that level of quality. I would be very much interested indeed in taking a gander at that software.

I find that starting with the map helps me immensely in imagining the different kingdoms and factions. That mountain range allowed this country to develop in relative isolation and peace while the lush forest that sat on the border of those two countries became a point of bitter contention. Borders and relationships develop naturally just by thinking the consequences of natural features through logically. And they are fun to draw!

Incidentally, the site that I put the map on has helped me immensely in organizing my campaign world. Obsidian Portal (http://www.obsidianportal.com/) is pretty basic in what it allows you to create and the formatting it permits, but it's free! I'll echo that wikis are great; they allow me to organize and link my thoughts and ideas in a way that I could never achieve with a notebook. One big advantage of having it online is that my players can add adventure logs and even pages (which I get to approve as GM). It can also be built in pieces as a new region or character is needed, and it can be edited in seamlessly.

Here is my campaign (http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/a-world-too-small-for-giants), if anyone wants to peruse it. The tone is a little schizophrenic, as my players have a tendency to be a bit more light-hearted with my setting than I am (and I will admit that I am occasionally driven to sarcasm in retaliation).

[QED - Iltazyara]

Well, the software I use is Photoshop, but by resources I meant brushes and settings I use.

The trees and some of the symbols I've used before are from http://starraven.deviantart.com/art/Sketchy-Cartography-Brushes-198264358

Mountains, so very many mountains from http://www.cartographersguild.com/mapping-elements/11875-58-small-sized-mountain-brushes.html

And wonderful town symbols from http://www.cartographersguild.com/mapping-elements/8095-hand-drawn-map-elements.html

I also make sure to put a white outer glow on all of my text, so it's nice a visible not matter what I put it over, that's become very important as time has gone by.

Really all I'm doing is clicking presets down and drawing vague lines between things. I did a video showing how I make my regions here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko_WwMariI8 although it's set to some rather random music.

I'm pretty sure the ABR files used for the brushes work with GIMP as well, but you might need to do a couple of extra things to use them.

Moving on to the idea of maps shaping demographics, politics and culture... Well, yeah, landscape defines how people live more than anything else really. What we perceive as elves, living in forests and the wild, could just have easily been dwarves; had they matured as a people in the same landscape.

Not to say how we define races is wrong in any way; it makes sense, dwarves by build and nature aren't all that suited to a forest, doesn't mean a dwarven forest culture couldn't exist.

Locations, towns, cities, sacred sites, rivers, forests, all these things breathe life into a world; they are both essential and useful to its creation. Elemaray has one, great and mighty, river. Their entire culture is built around the fact it floods, leaving the land fertile and bountiful. At the same time they have no other real sources of water, having to dig into hills to get to water tables; this means they have to be advanced enough to get at the water and transport it.


For those far from the river anyway. The entire place was built off of one idea "There is only one river in Elemaray. Period." I went from that and found ancient persia, a bit of egypt, tied it all together with being exiled from their former home and I had a nation.

Personally I use MS Word to store all my world information, I've gotten so used to using them that other forms of word processing feel clunky. I might be spoiled by easily accessible rich text and templates, maybe.

As a final note, google drive/dropbox works wonders. Especially if you put one inside the other so you have double copies! Heh.

Wall of text over, hope you enjoyed your read.

[ArcanistSupreme]

That's some great stuff. That video of yours makes it look so easy; it took me hours and hours to put together my map, and it still looks way more rough. More practice is needed, I guess! Time for some regional maps, methinks.

[Trog]

If anyone's looking for a quick, free, online photo manipulation program for their maps and such try out this site (http://pixlr.com/editor/). It's handy in a pinch.

As long as people are sharing their maps...
regional map (http://home.centurytel.net/jeffsjunk/portfolio/images/fantasymap2.jpg)
larger area map (http://home.centurytel.net/jeffsjunk/MapRealistic2.jpg)

[Eldan]

Here's three of mine, then. Actually, the only three I could find. THe first two are demiplanes for Etherworld. The third is a map I called Wasteland, for a game that never took off.

http://imageshack.us/a/img15/8774/fy35.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img849/9801/a8km.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img24/1848/yadp.jpg





Numbers two and three were made by applying GIMP filters to an empty canvas to get a sort of random distribution, then fidding with colours until it looked like maps.

[Turalisj]

So, thought I should probably pop in here. I'm working on my own setting and was looking for some feedback/idea on it.

But seeing as it's 4am, I'll post a thread up on Giant (the into is already in two sites but I don't think people are willing to sign up to a forum just to critique) when I awake!

[QED - Iltazyara]

That's some great stuff. That video of yours makes it look so easy; it took me hours and hours to put together my map, and it still looks way more rough. More practice is needed, I guess! Time for some regional maps, methinks.

You say yours is way more rough, but in a lot of ways yours does the job better than mine. Sure it doesn't look as fancy, but it has good colour balance and defines itself well, not that much more you can ask for from a map.

And the area you saw in the video? I know for a fact that was two hours of footage that I edited down into that, and that's after having done the exact same thing a dozen other times. It may look effortless in the video, but gods it is time consuming. Still fun though.

I think overall I've done about fourteen A4 page pencil drawn maps, originally in black and white, the moving on to colour after three or so. Honestly I only changed because I got sick of drawing waves and trees to mark oceans/forests, five lines per tree, forty thousand trees on a map... Well, I always was a bit mad with my maps I guess.


... Or that could just be me in general, I probably should finish up the Elemaray region, only another ten thousand words and it'll be complete, probably. -sigh- That means I'm about 2/3 complete on an area the size of England (not Britain, just England), out of a world the size of Europe, as a note.

If a couple of people ask I could do a tutorial on how exactly I do maps, I have the editing software to manage it easily. It'd also feel nice to give back to the playground, so much stuff on here has made world building that much easier for me.

[ArcanistSupreme]

And the area you saw in the video? I know for a fact that was two hours of footage that I edited down into that, and that's after having done the exact same thing a dozen other times. It may look effortless in the video, but gods it is time consuming. Still fun though.

That makes me feel better. And I have fun with it too. It's weird how doing so much repetitious detail work can be so satisfying.

[NothingButCake]

Right now, I am actually worried about my 'countries' being too big [rough map (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3dwTvSu34HRUU5BVVlGTzl0SmM/edit?usp=sharing)], although when I think about it, the map labels cultural groups as much as it labels states, so it may be more fractured than it looks, e.g., the League of Ash is eleven city-states (and a twelfth nomadic group) and the Baha'kar and Nchi are names for racial lands that have distinct subcultural groups and lands.

Is there a point where for X area of land, there should be more at least a certain number of distinct states (unless there is a particularly effective empire).

[Yora]

I think the only really important factors are the numbers of people and the distances between the major settlements. If there's a decent density of farming villages around the cities, it's not a problem if huge stretches of area are completely uninhabited.
Compared to Bangladesh, the size of Canada is massive but has only 20% as many people. In an area of any given size, there are more than 300 times as many people living in Canada, but when you go to the few big cities, they are just as crowded as anywhere else in the world.

[TheStranger]

That's a good point - it's a lot easier to unite thousands of square miles of trees than to hold together an empire full of people.

I do think you're skewing large, though. Assuming your world is roughly earth-sized, you're looking at every nation being the size of one of the largest modern nations. Historically, there have been a few empires that size, but most have been much smaller, and the large ones rarely held up for all that long. As you said, however, those areas may not be as unified as they look on the map.

[NothingButCake]

Thanks for the advice. I actually went and quickly did approximations of state lines (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3dwTvSu34HRTDUzbjY0LUJiUlk/edit?usp=sharing) (literally scribbled in) and I think it looks more reasonable now, though it still trends big. I think I will pull in on the League of Ash city-states though (or those lines represent the most stretched areas of influence).

Anyway, to get back on topic: I do think it is important to seed your world with adventure hooks and I think that it just makes sense. For me, a living world is one that is constantly changing and there are always points of potential change. What shifts it away from real-world to narrative/game is that the heroes exert an increasing level of gravity on these points. The more powerful they are, the further-reaching the consequences of their actions or inaction.

I also believe the differences, real or imagined, between peoples and persons are far more interesting than cosmological tales. To me, things like gods/religions and otherworldly planes should serve the personalities of your peoples. I think, "This culture cares about X, Y, and Z, and this is their approach towards Religion 1 and Religion 2, so Religion 1 should be shaped this way and Religion 2 should be shaped this way," and as I develop Religion 1, it develops idiosyncrasies and other elements that I then go build back into that culture (e.g., "If Religion 1 should be shaped this way, then this deity or concept should look like this and it would be cool if it had element Q. Element Q in Religion 1 would then enter this culture that way.")

I also like reducing the physical differences between fantasy races and rather focus on shifting their cultural tendencies. The races should not be at war just because they are different races but rather, they should have organic conflicts with others or among themselves based on their worldviews and histories and just random feelings*. Similarly, I avoid sapient races that are just inherently evil for no reason.

*Random emotions, illogic, and irrationality are important to depth of culture, I think.

I do tend to neglect ecological depth. I really appreciate people who can do that and I think it is important especially since it influences the people living in that environment so much, but I just do not have the patience.

[QED - Iltazyara]

I also like reducing the physical differences between fantasy races and rather focus on shifting their cultural tendencies. The races should not be at war just because they are different races but rather, they should have organic conflicts with others or among themselves based on their worldviews and histories and just random feelings*. Similarly, I avoid sapient races that are just inherently evil for no reason.

*Random emotions, illogic, and irrationality are important to depth of culture, I think.



I agree with this entirely, evil is far to much a thing of perception and position for it to be applied entirely to a sentient, sapient race. The only things I take to be like that are entities made to enjoy acts that are evil, demons being the prime example.

It is to be noted however that throughout history the most notable feature is this; similar peoples (races) band together to fight different peoples, humans would rather ally with humans than elves to fight dwarves. But organic conflict is quite difficult, showing nation borders helps as they naturally develop in places of contention, or between conflicting cultures.

Lands which value individualism will likely look badly on a steadily growing empire, but have little quarrel with a city state that is happy to trade with anyone who they can.

One idea I had, and have been trying to continue with to moderate success, is to write down any random story, poem or saying that comes into my head and store them for later. They add flavour and greatly define a region for anyone who reads them. As an example;


“Fire rages onward, ever burning through the sky,
Eternal the wind blows, guiding the flames.
Above all the tree towers, basking us in Its glow”

“The sand grows onward, guided by Its roots.
The land burns, scorched by Its glory.
Only the pure may approach, sin burned away”

“The leaves glow, golden as the sun
The bark sears, scorching as the lands
The boughs reach onward, grasping the heavens”

Of the Eternal Sabenorn, Sacred Tree of the Maray Peoples


I do tend to neglect ecological depth. I really appreciate people who can do that and I think it is important especially since it influences the people living in that environment so much, but I just do not have the patience.

When dealing with a fantasy world ecological depth is a nightmare, and most anything can be justified even without magic coming into the picture. Add magic and it's not only confusing, but also often utterly ridiculous.

Best to little more than attempt to balance the believable with the cool, awesomeness overrides most things from a player's point of view.

[NothingButCake]

It is to be noted however that throughout history the most notable feature is this; similar peoples (races) band together to fight different peoples, humans would rather ally with humans than elves to fight dwarves. But organic conflict is quite difficult, showing nation borders helps as they naturally develop in places of contention, or between conflicting cultures.

Lands which value individualism will likely look badly on a steadily growing empire, but have little quarrel with a city state that is happy to trade with anyone who they can.I get what you are saying and agree somewhat, but I also kind of disagree here. Perception of difference is more important than actual difference, and we choose who we empathize with, even if it's unconsciously. Human history is a testament to our ability to imagine commonalities and differences, to find new and exciting ways to hate our neighbors and love the people who hate them too, and to use science and religion to justify cultural attitudes.

I also don't think lands that value individualism will necessarily perceive an empire poorly; it really depends. I mean, if we think of real-world cultures that tend to emphasize individualism over collectivism or more accurately, are perceived to emphasize the former over the latter, those are also the nations that have created the largest empires on Earth, e.g., United States, Great Britain.

[TheStranger]

I get what you are saying and agree somewhat, but I also kind of disagree here. Perception of difference is more important than actual difference, and we choose who we empathize with, even if it's unconsciously. Human history is a testament to our ability to imagine commonalities and differences, to find new and exciting ways to hate our neighbors and love the people who hate them too, and to use science and religion to justify cultural attitudes.

I also don't think lands that value individualism will necessarily perceive an empire poorly; it really depends. I mean, if we think of real-world cultures that tend to emphasize individualism over collectivism or more accurately, are perceived to emphasize the former over the latter, those are also the nations that have created the largest empires on Earth, e.g., United States, Great Britain.

Yep. Humans can be divided into two groups - Us and Them. The dividing lines are almost irrelevant, and generally irrational. For instance, we tend to associate the KKK with southern racism (for good reason), but it was active here in Maine in the early 1900s. The target of this activity? French-Canadian immigrants, mostly Catholic, who were perceived as lazy, dumb, and taking jobs from good Protestants (as always, the question of how they're taking so many jobs if they're lazy and dumb goes unanswered). There were no lynchings (that I know of), but numerous demonstrations and probably more than a few incidents of drunken violence. Prejudice against people of French ancestry continues into the present, although it's no longer a major conflict.

Sometimes, our bias is strongest against the groups that are *almost* the same as us. Civil wars have been some of the nastiest conflicts ever, even though the factions are ostensibly of the same nationality (at least at the start of the conflict), presumably have similar cultures, and any ethnic differences are probably insignificant to anybody outside the groups involved. We don't have feuds with people halfway around the world, we have feuds with our neighbors.

[ArcanistSupreme]

Sometimes, our bias is strongest against the groups that are *almost* the same as us. Civil wars have been some of the nastiest conflicts ever, even though the factions are ostensibly of the same nationality (at least at the start of the conflict), presumably have similar cultures, and any ethnic differences are probably insignificant to anybody outside the groups involved. We don't have feuds with people halfway around the world, we have feuds with our neighbors.

This would presumably be truest in a pre-globalization world. Cell phones and airplanes have shrunk the world enormously, and even half-way around the world isn't that far anymore. But a world where high level casters are common should result in a similar phenomenon, which is why I prefer E6. It makes conflicts easier to disentangle and manage.

[Morgarion]

Sometimes, our bias is strongest against the groups that are *almost* the same as us. Civil wars have been some of the nastiest conflicts ever, even though the factions are ostensibly of the same nationality (at least at the start of the conflict), presumably have similar cultures, and any ethnic differences are probably insignificant to anybody outside the groups involved. We don't have feuds with people halfway around the world, we have feuds with our neighbors.

When it comes to civil wars, the difference in belligerents is usually one of political philosophy. Control of the state is what is being contested, pretty much by definition.

[TheStranger]

When it comes to civil wars, the difference in belligerents is usually one of political philosophy. Control of the state is what is being contested, pretty much by definition.

Yes, but I'm talking about the traits that define the groups contesting control of the state. In some cases, it is just a matter of political differences, but sometimes it's a matter of religious, ethnic, and/or cultural differences. I really don't want to get into real-world examples with this one, though.

[TheStranger]

As a general matter, how much do you feel obligated to build your world so that most or all published material has a place in it? If you're building for 3.X, are you comfortable excluding large portions of the core game and replacing it with homebrew?

I think this mostly comes up for me with regard to spellcasters. When I start to build a world, I like to have a clear picture of what magic is and how it works, and I always feel like I want to toss Vancian casting out the window and either homebrew a replacement or adopt something else, like psionics or incarnum, as the primary form of magic in my world. But then I start to feel like I'm just arbitrarily excluding half of the PHB and ruining my players' fun, so I back off my idea and leave the existing mechanics in place. So that's the example I'm thinking of, but I think the fundamental question can apply with other mechanics, or with races, or monsters, or whatever. D&D tends towards kitchen-sink fantasy, and I can't be the only person who sometimes wants a setting with a narrower focus.

So, how much do you feel like you can alter the basic assumptions of 3.X when you create your setting? If you've tried major changes, how were they received by your players?

[QED - Iltazyara]

It think it's most important that options are left open and people know what they're going into. I mean, sure throw vancian casting out the window; but make sure you have the documentation available for the alternative options you're providing your players.

I, at some point in my inane post midnight scribblings, decided elves and gnomes had gotten wiped out some time in the past; over the years I've realised my response to this is to increase racial diversity (not sub-racial diversity) ten fold. I took away two, I added in several dozen replacements.

Removing a staple will be something people notice, and you'll need anyone you want to play in your setting to know about it early on, rather than springing it on them at character creation.

Simplistic advice I realise, but it can't be repeated enough.

I my opinion though, removing some things in exchange for others works, I don't really see ToB stuff working alongside default melee classes much, better to have one set or the other. I specifically set out the classes I'm going to have in my world, going through all the source books, I picked around twenty in the end. But all that means is I'm leaving out another thirty or so.

Also on the idea of kitchen sink fantasy; I'm running stupid amounts of races, yet avoiding the kitchen sink. Races as individual cultures and nations, rather than all of them in one giant mix. I have about six native races per region, fourteen or so per sub continent. Seems to work well. For example, mind flayers are a staple, but avoid the kitchen sink; they are far away dangers, same could (once upon a time) be said for the drow, centaurrs, etc. People gather together in similar groups, the adventuring party of a halfling, dwarf, elf, human and orc is an oddity, not normality.

[Yora]

As a general matter, how much do you feel obligated to build your world so that most or all published material has a place in it?
Not at all. When it comes to D&D/PF there is waaay too much material out there, most of them cranked out in a hurry with rather poor quality and no consideration to how well it fits together with the other parts.
You can't have a game that is at the same time stone age, steam punk, wild west, pirates, middle ages, and Roman empire. I see people sometimes try it, but I think the result is almost universally poor. Make your choice what kind of setting you want to make and include only those elements that actually have a place in that kind of setting.

I go the opposite path and only use whatever I really, really need for the setting to work. Only four classes from the PF rulebook and two customized versions of other classes, and excluding animals, maybe 30 to 40 creatures from the bestiaries. The other half of creatures that exist in the world are new creations.
Even when there are ocasionally creatures or cultures that I think are really super cool and I would love to have in my setting, I discard them when they don't really work for the theme of the world.

[Morgarion]

The only things that are guaranteed to players when I'm DM are the third edition core materials. My opinion is that if you need something like a homebrew class or an encyclopedia of alternate features to properly represent your character, then your character sucks.

[Trog]

As a general matter, how much do you feel obligated to build your world so that most or all published material has a place in it? If you're building for 3.X, are you comfortable excluding large portions of the core game and replacing it with homebrew?

I think this mostly comes up for me with regard to spellcasters. When I start to build a world, I like to have a clear picture of what magic is and how it works, and I always feel like I want to toss Vancian casting out the window and either homebrew a replacement or adopt something else, like psionics or incarnum, as the primary form of magic in my world. But then I start to feel like I'm just arbitrarily excluding half of the PHB and ruining my players' fun, so I back off my idea and leave the existing mechanics in place. So that's the example I'm thinking of, but I think the fundamental question can apply with other mechanics, or with races, or monsters, or whatever. D&D tends towards kitchen-sink fantasy, and I can't be the only person who sometimes wants a setting with a narrower focus.

So, how much do you feel like you can alter the basic assumptions of 3.X when you create your setting? If you've tried major changes, how were they received by your players?
Howdy, Stranger! ^(^_^) ... :smalltongue:

I don't ever feel the need to conform to published materials. For my tastes I tend to pitch whole books full of monsters out the window. As for rules usually we have a few minor house rules that don't really change the world as such, just minor things in combat is all.

The changes that I had done in 3.x (when I still played 3.x, that is) were received very well by my players. I home-brewed up my own races of draconians and some demons as well. Also I killed off all the elves, so no elves. They were happy with the story so they accepted the rest pretty easily and declared it my best campaign/setting to date.

[Eldan]

Not at all. When it comes to D&D/PF there is waaay too much material out there, most of them cranked out in a hurry with rather poor quality and no consideration to how well it fits together with the other parts.
You can't have a game that is at the same time stone age, steam punk, wild west, pirates, middle ages, and Roman empire. I see people sometimes try it, but I think the result is almost universally poor. Make your choice what kind of setting you want to make and include only those elements that actually have a place in that kind of setting.

I go the opposite path and only use whatever I really, really need for the setting to work. Only four classes from the PF rulebook and two customized versions of other classes, and excluding animals, maybe 30 to 40 creatures from the bestiaries. The other half of creatures that exist in the world are new creations.
Even when there are ocasionally creatures or cultures that I think are really super cool and I would love to have in my setting, I discard them when they don't really work for the theme of the world.

It works in World Travel or Crossover settings. I mostly run Planescape and my players have encountered tech levels ranging from the stone age all the way to the magitech future.

[Yora]

A related subject I've just been thinking about a bit is how settings handle the the size of the populations of different races.

I've got my hands on the old Spellbound box for Forgotten Realms because it covers a region of the setting that has actually a lot in common with the world I am working on. And reading through it and looking up some additional information online, it turns out that all the countries are pretty much exclusively inhabited by humans. Rashemen is a wild and primal land with lots of spirits hanging around, but the population is entirely elven. Aglarond was once the site of a major elven realm, but they are now completely gone leaving behind only a sizable population of half-elves. And the Great Dale also once was elven lands, but again, the elves are all gone. No mentions of dwarves, halflings, or gnomes ever.
Forgotten Realms has been the standard case for kitchen sink settings that have something of everything, but I just noticed that the North region, which I've almost exclusively played in, is the only part of the world were elves and dwarves exist in noticable numbers and have sizable settlements that are involved in local politics. And it's the only region that mentions gnomes, ever. The rest of the world is pretty much humans only. Elves are still around in Chormanthor and the North, and there are some hidden wood elf villages in Thetyr and the Chondalwood. Dwarves are at home near Icewind Dale, in the Silver Marches, and that big city below the Shaar. Halflings are native to Luiren. Gnomes have no countries or major settlements at all. Even orcs really have a meaningful presence only in the North and in Damarra.
Dark Sun makes a big deal about it's races, but again, all the cities are human cities with elves, halflings, and thri-kreen living in family groups in the desert and I have no clue where the dwarves are present at all, except for breeding muls.
I do give some credit to Eberron, for actually providing homelands and major settlements to the nonhuman races, though. It's probably still 80% humans, but the other races are at least visible.
The worlds of The Witcher and Dragon Age at least come with a good reason why dwarves and elves are so marginalized (humans are racist), but the only fantasy world I can think of where humans make up less than two thirds of the full population might be Tamriel of The Elder Scrolls. That most of them are elves is a different issue, but at leasts it's a world where there actually is a considerable number of nonhuman countries.

If someone wants to make a human-only world, that's fine and a viable design choice. If someone feels he really, really has to make a world where people are nostalgic about the old days when there were elves, dwarves, and dragons before they pretty much disappeared, it is not my cup of tea but at least a deliberate design descision.
But when a setting is created and it merely throws in a short "oh, and there are of course elves and dwarves" and quickly writes up three or four major NPCs who are not human, I consider that rather sloppy work.

[Eldan]

Well, Tamriel really only has three intelligent main species. Humans, Elves and Hist/Argonians. Almost everyone is a variant of elf or human. Dwarves and Orcs are elves, even. There's more intelligent races outside of Tamriel, but they rarely matter, especially in this era.

I'd say it works, for the setting. It allows them to keep the history at least somewhat coherent.

[Morgarion]

Well, Tamriel really only has three intelligent main species. Humans, Elves and Hist/Argonians. Almost everyone is a variant of elf or human. Dwarves and Orcs are elves, even. There's more intelligent races outside of Tamriel, but they rarely matter, especially in this era.

I'd say it works, for the setting. It allows them to keep the history at least somewhat coherent.

You forgot the Khajiit. I'm pretty sure they aren't elves.

[Eldan]

I seem to remember some implication that the Khajiit are related to the Bosmer, but the Wiki does not seem to be backing it up.

On the other hand, the Imga of Valenwood certainly aren't elves, and I forgot those as well.

[Morgarion]

I don't think I ever knew about the Imga.

And actually you're kind of right about the bosmer-khajiit connection; according to the wiki, the khajiit believe one of the aedra made the bosmer out of the khajiit. Or something.


In speaking the secrets, the first was heard by Y'ffer, who told Nirni of Azurah's deed.[28] Nirni, in retribution for her changed, and now lost, children made the deserts hot and sands biting, and filled the forests with water and poison.[28] To separate her beloved children from those of Azurah, she allowed Y'ffer to change those who remained so that they would always be of the mer, and never beasts, and named them Bosmer.[28] From that moment forth, the two were eternally separated and, as with their makers, were bound in animosity one with the other.[28] In this fashion, the Khajiit explain not only their origins, but their bind to the moons and conflict with the Bosmer.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Khajiit#Religion

[QED - Iltazyara]

I think there are two, maybe three, major reasons why humans end up making up such a large population in most settings.
Firstly: Humans are short lived, but reproduce rapidly; this is as much an excuse as anything else, but means the idea of humans outnumbering the other races has been rationalised in our minds.

Secondly: We more examples of human cultures than anything else; by this I mean we have thousands of years of history, hundreds of different lands and cultures. For elves we have the Tolkien, fairy tale, fantastical, but even if there are dozens it doesn't even come close to the hundreds we have for humans.

Other races, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, orcs, they are even worse off in this regard.

Thirdly: We emphasize best with humans; as much as elves can been cool, dwarves awesome, orcs bad ass, halflings funny, or whatever. We still, inevitably, recognise humans and find them to be most understandable to both interact as and with.

That's what I think, although I am attempting to make a non-human centric setting myself.

[Yora]

I am currently working on a monster manual for my setting, and since I am writing for (free) publication, that includes detailed descriptions for each creature entry.
But I really feel unsure about how to structure those descriptions. I tried using the AD&D format of Summary/Combat/Society/Ecology, but that never really works out for me. I'm never quite sure where to put certain pieces of information.

Any ideas or oppinions on what kind of information a monster book should have on each creature? The D&D 3rd Edition monster manuals are way too short, being kept very generic with any fluff left to GMs to fill with something appropriate to the setting. The AD&D books do it better, but any idea how I could write the entries to provide the most useful information?

[TheStranger]

Why didn't the AD&D format work for you? What information did you have that didn't fit within those categories? If there's a pattern to it, it might be as simple as adding another category.

I do think it's important to have structured monster entries for a published work, if only to make it easy for potential DMs to find what they're looking for. So you probably do need categories, even if forcing your writing into them is a challenge sometimes. You're not locked into the AD&D categories, but if there's some miscellany that doesn't fit any category, you might want to reconsider its utility for a potential DM. And if you're having trouble filling a category, that might be a sign that you need to flesh out your monster a bit more.

Or, since it's for a free publication, nothing says you can't have fun with it. Add a "Trivia" section for each monster and put your miscellaneous tidbits in there.

[Eldan]

I think it actually depends a lot on the kind of creature. A large mammalian predator? Diet is important, but not culture. And so on.

Do you have to have a set outline?

[Malachi Lemont]

A related subject I've just been thinking about a bit is how settings handle the the size of the populations of different races. Yes! Someone who shares my obsession with demographics!


only fantasy world I can think of where humans make up less than two thirds of the full population might be Tamriel of The Elder Scrolls.
I'm so glad somebody else noticed this! One of the reasons the Elder Scrolls, for all its kitchen-sink-ness, actually works as a setting. A while back, on a whim, I actually did a "census" of Tamriel that consisted of me making up population numbers that seemed reasonable. I ended up with about 45% Elves (but only if you include Orcs) and 35% humans, leaving 10% each for Khajiit and Argonians. The reason I had Elves outnumber Humans was because I assumed that Skyrim, High Rock, and Hammerfell have pretty inhospitable climates, and so they have lower populations than Valenwood, Summerset Isles, and Morrowind where the Elves live. Also, Morrowind is just enormous. Skyrim, however, was about 75% Humans, but consisted of only about 2% of Tamriel's total population.


If someone wants to make a human-only world, that's fine and a viable design choice.
That usually seems like the best-solution to me, especially if you're going for a more serious, subdued setting.

If someone feels he really, really has to make a world where people are nostalgic about the old days when there were elves, dwarves, and dragons before they pretty much disappeared, it is not my cup of tea but at least a deliberate design decision.

And when done right, it can be a lot of fun.


But when a setting is created and it merely throws in a short "oh, and there are of course elves and dwarves" and quickly writes up three or four major NPCs who are not human, I consider that rather sloppy work.
Agreed. That's why I try to avoid this.

[Yora]

When it comes to describing creatures with the AD&D layout, I end up blurring the content of the Society section with the Ecology section, and quite often Society with Combat as well. Some information is relevant to more than one category, like other animals a race often keeps that could be used in combat, or information on hunting food and securing territory that fits both into Society and Ecology.
That's why I was wondering if there might be a more convenient set of categories where everything would appear just once. Yeah, given the length of a creature description, you can just read the whole thing at once, but I kind of prefer to have all things tidy and consistently structured.

[Eldan]

Here's a suggestion. Divide your monster manual up into a "sentient" section and a "monster" section, or somesuch. For the first, make a culture section, for the second, a culture section.

[TheStranger]

When it comes to describing creatures with the AD&D layout, I end up blurring the content of the Society section with the Ecology section, and quite often Society with Combat as well. Some information is relevant to more than one category, like other animals a race often keeps that could be used in combat, or information on hunting food and securing territory that fits both into Society and Ecology.
That's why I was wondering if there might be a more convenient set of categories where everything would appear just once. Yeah, given the length of a creature description, you can just read the whole thing at once, but I kind of prefer to have all things tidy and consistently structured.

Could you just combine Society and Ecology into something like Behavior? Combat, I see as the quick-and-dirty "this came up on a random encounter table, here's how it plays out" section. I think you want to keep that as-is, since it's a useful tool. But the Behavior (or whatever you want to call it) section is just a few paragraphs about how that creature fits into the setting, highlighting whatever you think is important for that particular creature. If that overlaps a little with the Combat section, I think that's ok. That would leave you with Summary/Combat/"Fluff," which I think is a reasonable way to arrange an entry.

[Everyl]

I agree with what several others have said - Ecology works mainly for non-sentient creatures, and Society is mainly for sentient ones. If you want to have the exact same categories on all creatures, combine them into Behavior or Society/Ecology or something like that.

Personally, I think that it's important to have this kind of thing detailed if you're writing for a specific setting. Generic bestiaries can get away with leaving details up to the DM, but in a specific setting, things should fit together reasonably.

Here's an example I wrote up intending to respond to the dragon ecology conversation earlier in the thread, but never got around to posting. In the case of a non-humanoid sentient creature, Ecology and Society are probably inextricable.
Dragon Ecology

True dragons are all one species. Differences in breath weapon, scale color, and general disposition are a result of complicated genetic, environmental, and cultural factors. The genetics of scale color are similar to the genetics of fur color in mammals - due to complicated interactions and recessive genes, it's possible for (for example) a female red dragon and a male bronze dragon to have a clutch of three dragons, one blue, one silver, and one dull yellow. Generally speaking, males tend to be smaller and have more brightly-colored scales, while females are larger and more likely to have dull scale colors. There is no causative correlation between scale colors and breath types or personality.

Most races have a plethora of different cultures and societies, but dragons are relatively static in that regard. They can live for thousands of years - 2500 to 3000 is a normal life expectancy for a dragon who does not die in conflict, and the eldest known is roughly 5000 years old. They reach sexual maturity between 100 and 200 years of age, but rarely breed before the age of 200. Their long lifespans and slow population growth lead to relatively slow-changing attitudes, as well as a cultural memory extending further back than any other mortal race.

Female dragons are the ones who build lairs and claim territory. The size of a dragon's territory depends primarily on how much food is available in it. For the most part, a female dragon looks for a territory with enough food to feed herself, a clutch of up to six young, and some extra for any male dragons who pass through the area. Due to their extremely long lifespans, dragons make these assessments with an eye toward long-term sustainability, and often act to manipulate their environment to ensure the long-term availability of food. The exact methods used vary widely from dragon to dragon depending on their age and ability. Young dragons have smaller apetites, and thus tend to do less, while older dragons may use the sorcerous powers inherent to their race in an attempt to reshape entire landscapes over a long enough time frame.

Dragons have widely varying relations with other mortal races. Many dragons never bother to learn any languages other than their native Draconic, viewing humanoid races much the way humans view insects. Some of these dragons consider humanoids to be pests or prey, but many treat humanoids the way a beekeeper treats an apiary. To them, humanoid communities can be tended to encourage more food production, which the dragons can then take advantage of by preying on livestock. The humanoids are rarely happy about such arrangements, as the changes the dragon makes are often subtle and take many human generations to see full effect, so they don't understand how much of their prosperity is owed to dragons in the region. Some dragons who do learn to speak humanoid languages sometimes seek to formalize such relationships with their neighboring humanoids, with widely varying results. Generally speaking, however, very few dragons have any interest in managing the day-to-day affairs of humanoid governance; they are more likely to arrange a system of trade or tribute that demands less daily attention from themselves. How good of a deal these arrangements are for the humanoids varies widely; about half of all tales of dragon-slayings end with the dragons "cursing" the land with their dying breath, leading to droughts or famine that actually came from the loss of the caretaker dragon's ongoing work, but the other half end with times of prosperity after the dragon's predations end.

Male dragons are nomadic from the time they leave their mother's lair. They rarely settle in one area for a long time, instead roaming and foraging in the territories of female dragons or unclaimed lands. Their smaller size means that male dragons are generally require less food to survive, reducing their impact on local ecosystems. Healthy, well-fed males will tend to have more vibrantly-colored scales, which is seen as attractive to potential mates. Male dragons are more likely than females to learn humanoid languages, or to teach Draconic to humanoids, as they find even short-term negotiations with local humanoids to be beneficial. Male dragons are often gossipy, stopping to chat with any dragon or humanoid who they think has an interesting story to tell. They spread news of distant events to their more sedentary female counterparts, and often know the territorial limits of every female dragon they've ever met or heard of. .

When a male dragon visits the territory of a fertile adult female, he often attempts to court her. The courtship process can last several years, and involves singing, hunting, conversation, and other demonstrations of skill, strength, and intelligence. Female dragons have little interest in mating with strangers, and personality conflicts are the most common cause of failed courtships. If the courtship is successful, the mating results in a clutch of three to six eggs being laid roughly six months later. The eggs are hard-shelled and extremely durable, but are too small and awkwardly-shaped for the parents to move or relocate safely. About fifteen months after being laid, the egg shells begin to weaken and become brittle, and within a month the baby dragons will hatch. The wyrmlings are quite strong for their age and size, and are capable of walking and clumsily defending themselves, but more advanced skills, such as flight, speech, and hunting, are taught by their parents. Male dragons will generally remain with their mate and offspring for about 20 or 30 years, departing when the juvenile dragons are old enough to hunt on their own. An adult female dragon can lay one clutch of eggs every 100 or so years. They remain fertile even into old age, but their clutches get farther and farther apart as they age.

Dragons are big eaters, but they are very few in number. Their numbers have been severely culled by past wars, conflicts, and the occasional humanoid dragonslayers. Their low birthrate has kept their population low, and there are often vast distances between the territories of any two females. With so little claimed territory, females can afford to be picky when setting up a new lair, and young females who have recently left their mother's nest will sometimes spend several decades seeking the perfect place to establish their territory. Territorial disputes had been known to happen in the ages when dragons were more numerous, but in recent centuries, they are almost unheard of unless two young female try to set up shop in the same area at the same time.

Despite their solitary tendencies, dragons are social animals, like any other mortal. Males spread gossip and news with nearly any dragon they meet, and it's not uncommon for males and females alike to eagerly seek updates on the affairs of dragons they have never even met. Many dragons learn spells that facilitate long-distance communication, enabling them to stay in touch with friends and family members who live thousands of miles away. When news spreads of the hatching of a clutch of wyrmlings, dragons will come from far and wide to meet the youngsters, though they tend to carefully arrange such visits with the parents so there aren't too many guests visiting at once. A humanoid who befriends a dragon has access to a globe-spanning, if quite dragon-focused, information network.

Not all dragons are hoarders. Tales of dragon hoards are generally exaggerated, though the few material goods a dragon is likely to keep do tend to be highly valuable in humanoid society. They prefer works that require little maintenance, which tends to mean things made of gold, gemstones, and other objects that won't decay over a lifespan that spans many centuries. Some dragons learn how to enchant objects to make less durable mementos able to survive the ages.

[DefKab]

I'm hoping into this a little late, but I wanted to resurrect some points. Firstly am I the only one that LOVES drawing islands? Not big ones, just the little one off my coastlines. I get carried away tho, and they end up everywhere...

And Dragons. I don't see dragons as being a problem, much. Dragons are intelligent. They work like all the other races, and while they're naturally more powerful, they're not invincible. It may take an army to defeat one dragon, but with a dragon born only every 70 years, they're not about to martially control anything. I like my dragons to be less confrontational about it. Sure, an adult red might crash a nation's party and dominate it physically, but a Gold is much more likely to earn a controlling title, whether by being named King, or being the best candidate in an electorate, I think Dragons as rulers are a viable option. Not only that, but unless your world is 'All Dragons All the Time!' then it's real easy to give EACH and every dragon you have a name, personality, and background, which makes them, in my mind, easier to control than say an Orcish warband.
I look at it like this. 5 Dragons in an area the size of Iceland traverse that area on whims, so I play dragons in Iceland like I would play a human in a small town. They have their favorite places, somewhere to eat, a leader (the mayor) to go to, and finally their home. The rest of the creatures, to a dragon, are creatures like us. We have intelligent dogs in our fantasy settings, and we treat them as seems reasonable. I suggest that Dragons treat humans in much the same way as humans treat Blink Dogs... So, yeah... My dragons are different tho. :smalltongue:

And finally, regarding races, I don't think there's a right number of races. I think any number can work, but you have to play with it right. A large number of races should, in theory, cut down on the amount of racism in your world. When you have Wood Elves, High Elves, Eladrin, Half-Elves, and Drow, why, that's five different kinds of elves. It's kind of hard to hate a particular race type when that type blends almost seamlessly with yourself. What you need to focus on is Culture and Religion of these worlds. If all my races mingle with each other, then the Battle Lines are drawn in the sands of Religion and Physical distant. It's not 'I don't like them Dwarves', it's more 'I don't like those fool-worshipping Northerners' which would comprise every race that fits the description... Originally, Races were Races like in Real World. The different cultures that seperate themselves by these lines we seperate. Elves just were DIFFERENT than dwarves. Worshipped a different god. Talked different, looked different, and lived in different places. Once elves stop doing that, they stop being a Race (because culturally they're now similar) and become a Species (same ecology, different genetic traits).
In fact, I think I'm now never going to use the term 'Race' unless I mean it. Now all my 'Races' are 'Species'. Species with different races, for diversity. Gold Dwarves, Rock Dwarves and Wood Dwarves. They have the same 'Genetic' line. Same species. But different cultures. Different races...

Woah. Long post... Sorry.

[00dlez]

Epic thread is epic.

After reading 3 pages, I feel it's time to just jump in and go back to read the rest later.

I am currently in the process of creating my first complete setting. I have done multiple campaigns before, but nothing that spaned all the world for all time.

I originally started down the encyclopedia track, but I simply don't have the energy to see it through. I'm much better at getting down a paragraph or two about people/places/events than getting every detail down at once and being "done" with that person/place/event. I've not restarted my efforts, but have since diverted into a new "plan of attack".

I've now taken a snap shot of "Day 1", what the world looks like on the first day of a campaign. Who the PCs are and where they are isn't important. From there I'm in the process of working out a world history that brings us to present day. It is much harder than I thought it would be. I am now leaning towards a very vague history that is full of blanks and filling in those blanks as players interact with the world.

---

I'd also like to comment on something that was brought up earlier concerning the PCs as non-primary actors in the world - level 15 errand boys etc etc. My personal DMing style almost forces the PCs into a, stricly speaking, secondary role. They aren't the biggest, baddest, or most powerul in the world... but that doesn't mean their actions can't have meaning or purpose! Look at Frodo in LotR!

[Yora]

There are reasons E6 is a thing. There are many situations in which it is desireable to keep the PCs at relatively modest levels.

Regarding history, you should remember on focusing on events that are relevant to the present. Because players will mostly remember things about the world that are relevant to the descisions they make. Focus on things that explain why the currently existing nations are at war with each other or allied. Stories about ancient nations that no longer exist are unlikely to stick.

[00dlez]

There are reasons E6 is a thing. There are many situations in which it is desireable to keep the PCs at relatively modest levels.

Agreed! I love E6, at least, I love my limited exposure to E6!




Regarding history, you should remember on focusing on events that are relevant to the present. Because players will mostly remember things about the world that are relevant to the descisions they make. Focus on things that explain why the currently existing nations are at war with each other or allied. Stories about ancient nations that no longer exist are unlikely to stick.

I'm not sure this is devils advocate, but let me press you a little despite agreeing with you.

Part of the major problem I am having with writing the world history is that whether or not the historical event was directly relevant to the present, the fact is that it still happened and should be recorded... eventually. I will grant you that prioritization needs to play its part.

I the game world, most of history has indeed been forgotten (A global war, followed by a dark age, followed by another global war will have that effect), but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and just because something isn't relevant to my "Day 1" scenario, doesn't mean that the PCs will venture down a path where is becomes relevant on Day 3487.

[Haldir]

History becomes more relevant the more it is practiced. If 00dlez has a world that was sophisticated enough to commit global war and have a history of it, there is likely a strong commitment to history socially, so people in general will be more cognizant of it, and it will have a greater influence on their day to day choices and will shape their environment.

Decisions on culture, technology, magic/science, and religion can't be made in a world without consideration of it's history. The history of a world absolutely effects the adventurer on Day 1. It is the ultimate deciding factor of the food he or she eats, the gear he or she has, and the obstacles he or she will be facing.

[Everyl]

I the game world, most of history has indeed been forgotten (A global war, followed by a dark age, followed by another global war will have that effect), but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and just because something isn't relevant to my "Day 1" scenario, doesn't mean that the PCs will venture down a path where is becomes relevant on Day 3487.

Assuming you're running D&D with fairly standard races and cosmology, don't forget to account for the influence of long-lived races, divination, and immortals on how much of history is forgotten. It's a lot harder for the past to be completely lost in a world where some people live for centuries, and ageless Outsiders can be consulted with enough effort. One of my newbie DM mistakes way back in the day was figuring that 850 or so years would be long enough for the details of a major world event to be largely lost from general knowledge. Upon later reflection, there would actually be living elves who heard first-hand accounts of that event from their parents.

[Sam113097]

I don't like the incredibly long lives of some races in D&D, because it can lead to so many problems regarding plot. Realistically, when you think about it, races that live for 1000s of years would have so much more knowledge than other races just because they have experienced so much more compared to a human.

[Everyl]

I don't like the incredibly long lives of some races in D&D, because it can lead to so many problems regarding plot. Realistically, when you think about it, races that live for 1000s of years would have so much more knowledge than other races just because they have experienced so much more compared to a human.

That's basically a flaw with the steep power curves in D&D as characters rise in level. Logically, a 350-year-old elf is going to be considerably higher in level than a 70-year-old human, and thus far more powerful, especially if they're in a caster class. The problem largely disappears in E6, since power begins to plateau much earlier - the ancient elven archmage would still be more powerful than a human wizard of similar relative age, but the differences wouldn't be nearly as noticeable. It makes the conventional explanation that humans are more influential in the world than elves due to faster population growth actually make sense, at the very least.

[00dlez]

Assuming you're running D&D with fairly standard races and cosmology, don't forget to account for the influence of long-lived races, divination, and immortals on how much of history is forgotten. It's a lot harder for the past to be completely lost in a world where some people live for centuries, and ageless Outsiders can be consulted with enough effort. One of my newbie DM mistakes way back in the day was figuring that 850 or so years would be long enough for the details of a major world event to be largely lost from general knowledge. Upon later reflection, there would actually be living elves who heard first-hand accounts of that event from their parents.

I do, somewhat. The first world war started 14,000 years ago, lasted only several hundred, and gave way to the millenia long Dark Age which stomped out a vast majority of knowledge/civilization. Only in the last 1,500 years or so has it regained a portion of what it once was.

I find that people tend to over estimate the long lived races, though. Just because an Elf CAN live to be 900 doesn't mean that a great amount do. The FR wiki page says "Usually up to 200" for their average lifespan. Just for arguement I'll give you the 900 figure - but just because they live that long doesn't make that the "generation" age. Humans have generations every 25 years or so, call that every 250 elf years. So in my 1,500 span, that's still 6 elven generations and many more for the less longlived races... plenty of time to lose information on historical events.

[urkthegurk]

I think the only really important factors are the numbers of people and the distances between the major settlements. If there's a decent density of farming villages around the cities, it's not a problem if huge stretches of area are completely uninhabited.
Compared to Bangladesh, the size of Canada is massive but has only 20% as many people. In an area of any given size, there are more than 300 times as many people living in Canada, but when you go to the few big cities, they are just as crowded as anywhere else in the world.

They aren't. They're denser than the prairies, sure, but there's enough elbow room on even the busiest streets downtown. The biggest city,Toronto, has 5.6 million people in the metropolitan area. London has 15 million.

[SquidOfSquids]

They aren't. They're denser than the prairies, sure, but there's enough elbow room on even the busiest streets downtown. The biggest city,Toronto, has 5.6 million people in the metropolitan area. London has 15 million.

The same concept applies at a smaller scale too. Toronto may be overall less dense than London, but a block of downtown condos in Toronto is still similar in density to a block of condos in London.

(In fact, Toronto might actually be more dense due to building height restrictions in London.)

[urkthegurk]

It might be. I get your basic premise, and I think there are probably examples to back you up. Canada, in general, has a fair bit of sprawl, although Toronto is certainly (based on my observation) the densest followed, possibly, by Montreal. But even there, there's just room, and people tend to spread out if they can. Its not that there isn't density, I just feel that its mitigated by several percentage points.

But Canadian cities aren't a perfect model for DnD cities! (sadly). What with wandering monsters, rival city-states, and the need for walls and Dimensional wards as defences, people would probably cluster much closer together, especially in relatively hostile regions like the North.

[Everyl]

I do, somewhat. The first world war started 14,000 years ago, lasted only several hundred, and gave way to the millenia long Dark Age which stomped out a vast majority of knowledge/civilization. Only in the last 1,500 years or so has it regained a portion of what it once was.

I find that people tend to over estimate the long lived races, though. Just because an Elf CAN live to be 900 doesn't mean that a great amount do. The FR wiki page says "Usually up to 200" for their average lifespan. Just for arguement I'll give you the 900 figure - but just because they live that long doesn't make that the "generation" age. Humans have generations every 25 years or so, call that every 250 elf years. So in my 1,500 span, that's still 6 elven generations and many more for the less longlived races... plenty of time to lose information on historical events.

Actually, I was going by the SRD age range for elves. Their "venerable" age category has a max of 350 + 4d100 years. While that doesn't necessarily mean that a typical elf will actually live anywhere near that long, it does mean that there will be a few outliers who live 700+ years, and in the case of my example, it only takes a handful of elves that age to retain second-hand knowledge of that 850-year-ago event. That was much fresher than I intended such knowledge to be in my newbie game setting back in the day.

Also, your generation estimate is accurate for averages, but again, outliers. I come from a long line of people who married and reproduced late; my grandfather would have been well over 80 years old if he'd lived to see the day I was born. Last I checked, there were still a few children of American Civil War veterans alive today. Once in a while, those long generations do happen.

All that being said, it sounds like you have a long enough time frame for this to not be an issue in your setting. I just wanted to explain where I was coming from.

[00dlez]

^ I get it, and appreciate the opinion. Outliers mean that the knowledge is retained to a degree, but perhaps my point was poorly worded. My point was more akin to "world knowledge" - a dozen elves scattered around the world will have a time of it trying to educate the common citizen of the world about the events of past centuries that have no written record to speak of anymore.

[TheStranger]

Do we really know how fast historical knowledge disappears? I would think at least several full lifespans for a major event, as long as it's locally relevant. I consider myself to have a more-or-less average knowledge of history, and I can tell you the basics of the American Revolution, which was 3-4 full lifetimes ago. I couldn't give you more than a couple names, dates, or battles, but I know that it's a thing that happened. And if I lived in a town that had a major battle, I could probably tell you a lot of detail about that based on local lore. It might not be 100% accurate, but nobody's going to forget that it happened.

Some of that is because of a relatively high standard of education and literacy, but that's not all of it. As recently as the 17th century (and maybe more recently), judges in England were still quoting Roman law to settle tough cases, despite the fact that the Roman Empire had been gone for a thousand years and the dark ages had happened in between.

If it's just a matter of knowing what day-to-day life was like a bunch of years ago, or where the old bridge used to be, that would obviously fade much faster. (Although it's always fun when old-timers give directions using landmarks that haven't existed for decades.)

But if you're saying that the major events were ~15,000 years in the past, and that it's just been a slow rebuilding process since then, I think you're fine. People may know that, a bunch of years ago, this city wasn't here, but that's not really a problem.

The bigger problem I run into is that memory tends to outlast any physical evidence. Which means that by the time everybody's forgotten about the ruins, they've pretty much fallen apart, so you can't use them as a dungeon. Things like the pyramids are probably the exception, not the rule.

[Yora]

People tend to forget about things very, very quickly.

For information to survive, you either have to seen it yourself, or you'd have to have heard a very memorable retelling of it.
How long people will remember that there used to be an old woman living in the forest depends pretty much on how often people tell stories about it to their kids. If it's a good story that gets popular, it can survive for a very long time. If it's not really relevant, then it will be very soon forgotten once nobody lives who remembers it first hand.

Assume some guy comes back to the tavern and tells a story how he found an overground grave in the wilderness. Could be an exiting story for that evening, and he might tell it again a week later, but since there isn't really much to tell about it, people won't be talking about it just a few days later.
Come back 10 years later and ask around if anyone knows about a grave in the wilderness, and some people might remember that once there was a guy who said he found something. Come back 50 years later and probably nobody remembers ever having heard anything about it.
Now, if the original story includes actually seeing some walking dead at the grave, that story would be repeated a lot more often, and people would tell their grandchildren not to go to that area because they remember that undead have been seen there.

It really comes down to how long the story remains part of the local folklore and tavern tales. If it is good entertainment or fuctions as an explaination for a special or unusual role, it will survive a lot longer.
It really depends on how relevant it is. People might remember the assassination of a king for a very long time. But the name of the murderer and who exactly was present at the event is information that is not relevant for the telling of the story for entertainment, so these things will get lost very quickly.

And human memory also is notoriously bad. People do not have videocameras in their heads and can rewind the tape to any point they want. The brain much rather works like writing down a report and saving the report. And when you remember the thing later, the brain will create new images that match the memory of the report. Details that you didn't consider important at the time will most likely not make it into that memory report and therefore won't show up in the recreated images as well.
In courts, witnesses are generally considered to be the worst kind of evidence and persecutors and lawyers will almost always try to prove things in any other way before trying to rely on a witness.

[urkthegurk]

On the other hand, jury's will often find it difficult to convict someone WITHOUT eyewitness testimony. People are strange.

[Tzi]

So I'm considering going into (For me) uncharted waters. As I tinker with my setting a plausible issue arises....

I am considering replacing all Magic with Psionics. Well at least replacing the conventional system of "magic" with that of "psionics" and using psionic classes in its place. Part of this is my deep abiding love for the Warhammer 40k universe and its great source of inspiration for me.

HOWEVER, its a land I've never tread upon. I'm using Pathfinder and am considering just using Psionics unleashed however, I'm not sure if this would be a radical a change as I assume or if it would be relatively easy. Things like monsters, "healing," the whole system of clerics and Gods, ect.

Anyone gone exclusively psionic or have any tips or ideas for that?

[Everyl]

I've been tossing around the idea of a psionics-only setting lately, too. I have zero experience with Pathfinder, though, so I've been limiting myself to d20 SRD materials on the subject. So I apologize if any of these considerations don't apply to PF, it's entirely outside my experience.

One plus, IMO, is that psionics is almost completely separated from the concept of "expensive material components." You don't have to worry about things like how the market price of diamonds affects game-balance in a setting where diamonds aren't the key to a wide variety of important spells. It's minor from a gaming standpoint, but makes it a lot easier for me to suspend disbelief in the game world; YMMV.

Personally, I'm taking the angle that the different disciplines of psionics are associated with different peoples and regions. They get access to their specialty power lists because the traditions and teaching methods used in those areas are specialized toward that style of power. It adds flavor to an area to ask, "How does it affect this society if 95% of all psions in their borders are Shapers? Egoists? Nomads?" Just as one example, a culture with mostly Egoists around will not consider fast-healing powers to be nearly as rare as elsewhere. They'll basically have better healthcare than anywhere else, possibly meaning higher populations and longer lifespans. Psions there will likely have a very different social role from, say Nomads in their homeland.

As for healing, I considered the low-healing setting to be a feature, not a bug. Fighting is dangerous, and even the best healers aren't really that good at it. Death becomes a bigger deal, since the only raise-dead equivalent for other people is Egoist-only (barring other Psions taking a feat just for it) and it only works within a short window after death.

I'm working on adapting some of the secondary-caster classes to use psionics. My hope is to have at least one secondary-caster or non-caster class associated with each discipline. Psychic Warriors are already Psychometabolism-focused, Bards will adapt well as Telepaths, etc. Other classes will need more work, like trying to make a psychic Ranger to go with Psychoportation - there isn't a convenient psionic class to copy the power and psi point progression from in that case.

Beyond that, psionics is basically just another magic system. D&D (or, AFAIK, Pathfinder) doesn't rely on Vancian spellcasting to make the game work. Switching to point-based spellcasting isn't that fundamental of a shift, and might even make your game more accessible to newbies with video game RPG experience.

[Tzi]

I've been tossing around the idea of a psionics-only setting lately, too. I have zero experience with Pathfinder, though, so I've been limiting myself to d20 SRD materials on the subject. So I apologize if any of these considerations don't apply to PF, it's entirely outside my experience.

One plus, IMO, is that psionics is almost completely separated from the concept of "expensive material components." You don't have to worry about things like how the market price of diamonds affects game-balance in a setting where diamonds aren't the key to a wide variety of important spells. It's minor from a gaming standpoint, but makes it a lot easier for me to suspend disbelief in the game world; YMMV.

Personally, I'm taking the angle that the different disciplines of psionics are associated with different peoples and regions. They get access to their specialty power lists because the traditions and teaching methods used in those areas are specialized toward that style of power. It adds flavor to an area to ask, "How does it affect this society if 95% of all psions in their borders are Shapers? Egoists? Nomads?" Just as one example, a culture with mostly Egoists around will not consider fast-healing powers to be nearly as rare as elsewhere. They'll basically have better healthcare than anywhere else, possibly meaning higher populations and longer lifespans. Psions there will likely have a very different social role from, say Nomads in their homeland.

As for healing, I considered the low-healing setting to be a feature, not a bug. Fighting is dangerous, and even the best healers aren't really that good at it. Death becomes a bigger deal, since the only raise-dead equivalent for other people is Egoist-only (barring other Psions taking a feat just for it) and it only works within a short window after death.

I'm working on adapting some of the secondary-caster classes to use psionics. My hope is to have at least one secondary-caster or non-caster class associated with each discipline. Psychic Warriors are already Psychometabolism-focused, Bards will adapt well as Telepaths, etc. Other classes will need more work, like trying to make a psychic Ranger to go with Psychoportation - there isn't a convenient psionic class to copy the power and psi point progression from in that case.

Beyond that, psionics is basically just another magic system. D&D (or, AFAIK, Pathfinder) doesn't rely on Vancian spellcasting to make the game work. Switching to point-based spellcasting isn't that fundamental of a shift, and might even make your game more accessible to newbies with video game RPG experience.

Pathfinder has some great 3rd party Psionic sourcebooks that makes them IMHO much better then 3.5e Psionics. Plus a whole host of rebooted and new classes that can easily replace traditional magic classes and still have playability. All the major party roles would no be lost but such a transition.

[urkthegurk]

I'm working on adapting some of the secondary-caster classes to use psionics. My hope is to have at least one secondary-caster or non-caster class associated with each discipline. Psychic Warriors are already Psychometabolism-focused, Bards will adapt well as Telepaths, etc. Other classes will need more work, like trying to make a psychic Ranger to go with Psychoportation - there isn't a convenient psionic class to copy the power and psi point progression from in that case.



I think bards are more empaths than telepaths. Their songs are more about influencing emotions and behaviour, not reading minds. Rangers I don't know if you need to change... just make them manifest powers instead of casting spells and say they're minor talents who've turned their abilities towards hunting, both monsters and other psychics.Adapt some Mage Slayer feats or AMF effects for the Ranger, and you've got a potent Damper-type class.

[Everyl]

Pathfinder has some great 3rd party Psionic sourcebooks that makes them IMHO much better then 3.5e Psionics. Plus a whole host of rebooted and new classes that can easily replace traditional magic classes and still have playability. All the major party roles would no be lost but such a transition.

Yeah, I've heard all kinds of nice things about Pathfinder. My lack of experience with it stems mostly from the fact that I moved across the Pacific Ocean from my gaming group shortly before Pathfinder came out; I didn't even hear about it until earlier this year. I still get a bit of online gaming in via IRC, but not nearly enough to justify investing time and money into acquiring and learning a new game system.

Maybe someday, but not today.



I think bards are more empaths than telepaths. Their songs are more about influencing emotions and behaviour, not reading minds. Rangers I don't know if you need to change... just make them manifest powers instead of casting spells and say they're minor talents who've turned their abilities towards hunting, both monsters and other psychics.Adapt some Mage Slayer feats or AMF effects for the Ranger, and you've got a potent Damper-type class.


Detect Thoughts is a level 2 Bard spell in 3.5. A great many other bard spells that have psionic equivalents also fall into Telepathy - charms, illusions, empathic manipulation, etc. The conversion will basically just mean choosing a thematically-appropriate power list and giving them Psychic Warrior powers and PP progressions.

Rangers need to be changed because "just" saying they manifest powers instead of casting spells isn't that simple of a change. There are no SRD psionic classes that parallel a Ranger or Paladin's spell progression the way a Psychic Warrior parallels a Bard's. It's entirely possible that something exists somewhere that would do the trick, but in the interests of keeping the cash price of developing the setting at zero without resorting to pirating books, I'm not using any of that stuff. So I either beef up their psionic abilities and weaken them in other areas, or I have to mess with creating a third-tier psionic progression myself. On top of that, other aspects of the setting make stuff like favored enemies a little less easy to work with - the only humanoids are humans, and there will probably be a sharply reduced variety of monsters around (details pending).

I'm not sure what Mage Slayer feats, AMF, or Dampers are. I can infer the first and last from context, but I'm guessing the details are in a book I don't have access to? Regardless, psion-hunters don't really fit the setting I'm working with. Psions are generally well-integrated into society, with powerful criminals and troublemakers rare enough that there wouldn't be cause to have specialists trained in killing them.

[Tzi]

Detect Thoughts is a level 2 Bard spell in 3.5. A great many other bard spells that have psionic equivalents also fall into Telepathy - charms, illusions, empathic manipulation, etc. The conversion will basically just mean choosing a thematically-appropriate power list and giving them Psychic Warrior powers and PP progressions.

Rangers need to be changed because "just" saying they manifest powers instead of casting spells isn't that simple of a change. There are no SRD psionic classes that parallel a Ranger or Paladin's spell progression the way a Psychic Warrior parallels a Bard's. It's entirely possible that something exists somewhere that would do the trick, but in the interests of keeping the cash price of developing the setting at zero without resorting to pirating books, I'm not using any of that stuff. So I either beef up their psionic abilities and weaken them in other areas, or I have to mess with creating a third-tier psionic progression myself. On top of that, other aspects of the setting make stuff like favored enemies a little less easy to work with - the only humanoids are humans, and there will probably be a sharply reduced variety of monsters around (details pending).

I'm not sure what Mage Slayer feats, AMF, or Dampers are. I can infer the first and last from context, but I'm guessing the details are in a book I don't have access to? Regardless, psion-hunters don't really fit the setting I'm working with. Psions are generally well-integrated into society, with powerful criminals and troublemakers rare enough that there wouldn't be cause to have specialists trained in killing them.

Well I also might not necessarily port classes. Like the class Paladin would not exist but a Lawful Good Soulknife or Psychic Warrior would in Roleplay terms fulfill the same basic role.

Same with Bards, or any of the standard classes that use magic. Some will simply cease in my setting and be simple character concepts. Not mechanical classes.

[Everyl]

Well I also might not necessarily port classes. Like the class Paladin would not exist but a Lawful Good Soulknife or Psychic Warrior would in Roleplay terms fulfill the same basic role.

Same with Bards, or any of the standard classes that use magic. Some will simply cease in my setting and be simple character concepts. Not mechanical classes.

That's basically what I'm doing. Clerics, druids, wizards, and sorcerers don't exist beyond as social roles for some of them. Paladins might exist in some way, shape, or form, but I'm inclined to say no on them, too. Bards weren't going to make the cut until I started working on the fluff differences between the different psionic traditions in my setting. Basically, while all psionics is fundamentally a question of willpower and mental conditioning, each tradition employs different training techniques which can affect the way they act while manifesting psionic effects. Telepaths use song as a major part of their training techniques; a telepath who is struggling to focus will probably sing softly, a group of telepaths cooperating toward a combined effect will sing in harmony, etc. IRL, singing in a group can cause people's brain activity to synch up, so it seemed like a natural fit. And once I decided that, adapting bards as a second-tier manifester class similar to psychic warriors proved to be so easy that I thought, why not?

Rangers, on the other hand, may bear so little resemblance to their SRD equivalent that I might start looking for a different name for the class. To maintain parallels between all of the major nation-groups in my setting, I'm trying to get one non-primary manifester class associated with each tradition, and outdoorsey, independent rangers seemed like a natural warrior class to match Nomads. Favored enemies are a pretty big component of RAW rangers, though, and I don't think they work well in a setting where there will be dramatically fewer creature types. Figuring out exactly what to do with the ranger-like psychoportation-using wilderness warriors is a lower priority than fleshing out the setting enough to start a proper thread for it here, though; I'm not likely to have a player group for this setting in the foreseeable future, but I enjoy world-building, so here I am.

[urkthegurk]

Well for favoured enemy you could have it keyed to specific groups, guilds, cults, organizations, etc. Have a ranger with favoured enemy 'criminals', another with favoured enemy 'blood cult of psi-orcus'

[Tzi]

-snip-

Well with regards to a ranger, Ranger's are, at their boiler plate distilled level simply (Often anyway) range weapon wielding people who are good at navigating the wilderness and wilderness survival. Pathfinder's Psionics has a ranged weapon focused Psi-class called The Marksman (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/marksman) which with minor tweaking or even just creating an archetype (Basically alt features for the class) you can have a more classic ranger.

Getting rid of the actual mechanical classes of say Sorcerer for example leads me to one other conclusion. In Pathfinder Sorcerers are empowered by their blood line. Say Fey, Infernal, Abberant, Elemental, ect... without the Sorcerer and indeed without traditional magic I am a bit freer to cut out what I consider to be clutter in the world. There is now no mechanical reason for me to need all these types and sub types and am more free to create my own. In a sense Psionics is so rarely used that there is no preset lore for me to get stymied in.

And when speaking of fleshing out a setting I've found it's easier now since I'm not trying to work around mechanics and player expectations but instead can freely make things without being encumbered by having to find a place in the world of Sorcerer bloodlines, all of the various types and subtypes, carefully defined Gods and Realms for them. Basically I've clung to Psionics partly because its a short cut that allows me to focus on less crunch and more lore and geography and ecology.

And I too will likely have a player problem. Within my local circle my campaign world design style isn't very well received as I tend to be more restrictive. (These are the races of this world, these are the classes). My goal being to make a world with as few seems as possible and as few logical inconsistencies as possible.

[Yora]

Found this one and wanted to share it:

Book of Tigers (http://videogamesawesome.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/snapshot8.png)

"Tigers are not araid of the dark. Because a tiger knows that there is nothing more dangerous in the dark than tigers."
It's a couple of ideas for creatures that evolved specifically to hunt humanoids.
Now creatures that evolved to penetrate plate armor, resist bullets, and be able to deflect magic spells are rather unlikely, but things that have evolved to be able to deal with the basic humanoid advantages and exploit human weaknesses are not that much of a stretch.
I'd say the absolute super-powers of humans are teamwork and planning ahead. Pretty much every advantage modern humans have over animals are the result of these abilities. Tigers are in fact a good example, as they have superior hearing and night vision, excelent stealth, and natural weapons powerful enough to kill pretty much instantly. When hunting at night, they can't be seen, they can't be heard, and any humans they might encounter are likely to be alone or only in small groups, since everyone else is sleeping.

[Eldan]

Humans have, I think, more than just those basic advantages.

The arm: originally evolved for climbing, but the ape shoulder is quite a bit changed from the basic mammalian one. The human shoulder is changed further. It gives us the ability to accurately throw objects over a distance.

The hand: is awesome. It allows for tool use more than most animals can.

Endurance running: no one beats a human on a marathon. At least a trained one. Our breathing, sweating, musculature, metabolism, everything makes us a perfect long-distance runner.

And then, yes, intelligence. Teamwork, tool use and planning.

That said, all of these advantages work together. A human alone can run down a gazelle, sure. But if they can also throw stones at it and make it bleed, it's much quicker. If you have a group of humans cooperate, they can set traps and hunt as a running pack, like wolves. Planning is that much more important if you can plan with a group and tools.


Edit: oh, and bat**** insanity, which may be connected to the intelligence thing. The best example I can think of is that video I once saw of three unarmed Massai walking up to a pride of lions with their kill, taking the kill from the lions and retreating. If you walk slowly and show no fear whatsoever, the lions will retreat, because they are confused by your behaviour.

[Yora]

I think one thing to take away is that such creatures would have to be exceptionally smart to be able to really keep up with humanoids. Building on that, they could use deception and have a great awareness of when it is a bad time to allow a confrontation and keep their distance until a good opportunity presents itself.
Cats do sneak up on their prey and go straight for a target that seems most easy to take down, but I am not sure if they normally have the ability to plan ambushes or wait for hours or even days while waiting for an opportunity they expect to happen in the forseeable future.

[Eldan]

The cat's greatest skill is indeed ambush hunting. What should not be discarded in a lot of great cats, however, is their expert knowledge of the terrain. I've worked on a reintroduction project before with a certain species of large cat that we can't mention on this forum. They often spend six days out of the week walking about their terrain, memorizing it and all the animals that move within it, then one day hunting. At that point, they know all the routes deer usually take, where they eat, drink and sleep.

Tigers do still kill humans every now and then in India. Usually single humans, away from the communities and from ambush. The problem is that you then get revenge hunts where a troop of armed men goes out and kills the tiger.

So, what would be important would be planning, stealth and an ability to get far, far away after a kill or hide so effectively that humans can't find you.

[Yora]

I meant not simply hiding in a bush near a herd and waiting for an animal to wander a bit closer, but actually memorizing movement patterns and picking an ambush site. I'm not sure cats think that far ahead.
When hunting herd animals, it also wouldn't be very efficient since those tend to wander around in the open in large groups. But since humans tend to follow plans and schedules most of the time, it's a lot easier to figure at what time and place an easy target will show up, and then you can pick a spot where the terrain works entirely in your favor.

[Eldan]

I meant not simply hiding in a bush near a herd and waiting for an animal to wander a bit closer, but actually memorizing movement patterns and picking an ambush site. I'm not sure cats think that far ahead.

They absolutely do think that far ahead. As I said, they memorize movement patterns in their prey and pick the best ambush spots where the prey regularly moves by and is most vulnerable.

[TheStranger]

The biggest issue with anything evolving to go after humans is how insanely adaptable humans are. This is mostly a function of our intelligence - we can change things about ourselves overnight that most other animals just can't. As a species, we don't stick with low-survival behavior very long; an individual person might get killed by a tiger or whatever, but then other people either stop doing whatever got the first person killed, or they band together and go kill the tiger (and, in extreme situations, all the other tigers they can find, just in case). And they'll take the time to think of the best way to do it, invent new tools, etc. Basically, the idea of, "if it has stats, you can kill it," applies in real life, too.

Put another way, any individual human, or group of humans, can stop, reconsider its behavior, and then do something completely different based on abstract thinking rather than trial and error. We can also communicate with each other, sharing ideas and strategies that are successful. there aren't many animals that can do all that, or that can think on the fly well enough to deal with a behavior that they haven't seen before.

What I'm thinking is, an animal that could overcome these advantages would need to either be insanely powerful or be intelligent enough to adapt as quickly as humans do. Which might well require tool use, at which point you're basically looking at one of D&D's many intelligent races. Which makes me think this is a good way to refluff gnolls, or something.

[Yora]

Maybe evolving to be efficient at hunting humans is not the primary objective of adaptation to living close to humans? After all, humans are really difficult to hunt and risky to engage. Those animals who do kill humans just do so when there's a really good and also rare opportunity, but most of the time they hunt something else.
But a much stronger selection pressure would be evolving to a form that can resist being hunted or pushed out by humans. Being good at escaping from hunters is one thing, but keeping your territory and get fed dispite human interference is just as vital. In Europe, we have pretty much removed any competition from predators, and those that are still here only feed on things that we don't want to, like insects or garbage.
Having competitors who can prey on game animals and lifestock without being removed by humanoids could make quite interesting creatures.

On a different note, something with much more direct relevance to worldbuilding:
What's needed for a setting? (http://dungeonofsigns.blogspot.de/2013/10/whats-needed-for-setting.html)

[Eldan]

It would be interesting to have an intelligent solitary creature, though. Their mental makeup would be quite different.

They wouldn't need much communication, so they wouldn't develop a culture.

I'm thinking of Octopodes here. They are extremely intelligent and adept at tool use, individually, but due to their short lifespans, can not develop a culture or cooperation. I've also read at least one article that their memory is extremely bad: if you give an octopus a test, it will solve it very well. If you give it the same test some days later, it will solve it again, but it will take it just as long as the first time and it may come up with an entirely new solution.

[Tzi]

So, has anyone used Incantations from UA in 3.5e?

I have an idea, well an addition to an idea I've already started to run with. Basically in my setting I've replaced the traditional magic and magic classes with psionic's and psionic classes. (Using Pathfinder and the Psionics Unleashed) But as a way to keep "magic" still there I was considering using Incantations to be the "magic," of the world.

So for example trying to raise the dead, communicate with the dead, invoke Gods, Open Portals, summon and bind elementals and other beings, change the weather ect all become the domain of "true magic," and require incantations and specialized rituals.

No idea how this might play out in gameplay terms though.

[Eldan]

Yes, I've used them a lot. I've started to use them to replace various spells, too. But then it morphed into my own ritual casting system and bears little resemblence, now.

I don't actually like psionics, though, so I've just split the spell list. All the most powerful spells and most utility spells become rituals.

[Tzi]

Yes, I've used them a lot. I've started to use them to replace various spells, too. But then it morphed into my own ritual casting system and bears little resemblence, now.

I don't actually like psionics, though, so I've just split the spell list. All the most powerful spells and most utility spells become rituals.

I've kinda settled on Psionics as being the most common form of doing supernatural things. Peoples own latent power and ability, however magic I kind of want to keep more mysterious, unusual, dangerous. And thematically and mechanically kinda more occultic.

Using Incantations to do things like say, necromancy, binding and summoning, or even communing with Gods... ect. Were you might need a large number of people, or people with specific abilities, sacrifices, ect. Or having to make deals with beings beyond the mortal plane.

The idea being "The more we do this the greater the risk the Universe will become aware of us." Which may or may not be a bad thing.

[Eldan]

Quite. Really, the most fun thing was coming up with lists of bad stuff that could happen if you screw up a certain ritual.

[Tzi]

Quite. Really, the most fun thing was coming up with lists of bad stuff that could happen if you screw up a certain ritual.

Any examples?

I'm kinda making a table for incantations depending on what they are.

Like well also making differing degrees of incantation. Like Minor Arcana and Major Arcana. So like Minor Arcana Necromancy ritual would be like using a Spirit Board to communicate with the dead. So perhaps maybe you get the wrong person, or at worst summon a wraith or something.

Major Arcana would be like actually bringing a dead person back to life. Were they might come back as something akin to a Necropolitan or a fully living person.

I might also see how I can combine and enhance Alchemy for these rituals. For example some require Alchemical ingredients or maybe even machines and delicate instruments.

[Eldan]

Look at the ritual system in my signature. It's under "Arcane Magic", about the fifth post in that thread. I especially like Planar Binding, but Shadow Walk and Animate Dead are fun too.

[00dlez]

I usually avoid psionics in my campagins, mostly because its another layer of mechanics, but also because I've always just viewed the sorcerer as a psionic - unpracticed, usuing force of will alone to reshape the world. I get the difference between the arcane and psionics fluff wise, I just never found it compelling enough to drag into my settings.

[Eldan]

I just don't like the psionic mechanics very much. Power points are terribly uninspired for a mechanic.

[00dlez]

Meh - the mechanic doesn't bother me so much. I mean, if power points were the original mechanic for spells and psions used "Psionic Level Slots" which do you think people would think is more cumbersome?

I just didn't ever buy into the NEED for psionics... What would be wrong with just fluffing a sorcerer to accomplish the same feel? I mean, other than to sell some new books, spells, abilities, etc.

[Eldan]

Honestly, elegance or simplicity for a mechanic is often quite secondary to me. Sure, power points maybe simpler to understand. But to me, at least, prepared slots just lend themselves very well to writing fluff about them.

[Tzi]

I usually avoid psionics in my campagins, mostly because its another layer of mechanics, but also because I've always just viewed the sorcerer as a psionic - unpracticed, usuing force of will alone to reshape the world. I get the difference between the arcane and psionics fluff wise, I just never found it compelling enough to drag into my settings.

Well in my setting i just ax'd all the arcane/divine traditional magic.

So classes like Ranger, Paladin, Sorcerer, Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Oracle, Witch ect... (Yes running Pathfinder) are replaced with Psion, Soulknife, Marksmen, Wilder, Vitalist and a few homebrew and archetype classes.

Psionics are the main "Supernatural," ability. With Magic being kinda more occultic and involving the invocation of mysterious forces and intelligence's.

So I've avoid the "Another new mechanic," but ditching the original mechanic.

[Yora]

I simply renamed psions "adepts", gave oracles the spellcasting of psions and call them "shamans", and use rangers that just don't get any spells (10th level is maximum anyway), and that's pretty much it.
Barbarians, fighters, and rogues are also available, and that covers anything I really need to represent all characters that could exist in the setting.

I am willing to use almost any spellcasting system. As long as it is not spell slots. :smallbiggrin:

[Tzi]

I simply renamed psions "adepts", gave oracles the spellcasting of psions and call them "shamans", and use rangers that just don't get any spells (10th level is maximum anyway), and that's pretty much it.
Barbarians, fighters, and rogues are also available, and that covers anything I really need to represent all characters that could exist in the setting.

I am willing to use almost any spellcasting system. As long as it is not spell slots. :smallbiggrin:

I adopted that somewhat, well the idea of Psions and Psionic powers as simply adepts. These are people with supernatural power and with training can grow in it.

"True Magic," often comes naturally to these types as they have the intellect and force of will to practice it. However the danger in my setting is that these incantations and invocations over time run the risk of "Making the universe aware of you." Which can be terrifying if your accustomed to being a simple person on your pale blue marble. XD

[Everyl]

I've had a psionics-only setting on the back burner for a while now. It's also tentatively E6, meaning that the ritual magic system from UA would be really handy if there are any high-level effects I want to still be available in the setting. I don't think of the ritual system as something inherently different, but rather as the way that psions in the setting work together to accomplish greater feats. I've been working on ways to make the six discipline-focused psion subclasses feel philosophically and thematically distinct from one another, and this is reflected in the rituals they create. For example, the culture that specializes in Telepathy tends to create rituals that involve organized singing or music-making - things that actually cause people's brain activity patterns to synchronize in the real world. Shapers, on the other hand, tend to work together on making a device or construct that can accomplish their goals.

The slot-based casting system used in most editions of D&D to date feels cumbersome and awkward to me now. Maybe I've been playing too many other RPGs over the last few years. Why mess with the details of preparing daily spell lists or tracking up to 10 separate pools of different powers if you can just say, "This is what you can do, this is your fuel for doing it," and get on with the game? It was the realization that I could chuck the slot-based casting system entirely that got me interested in running D&D again. Furthermore, since I've moved far away from the hardcore gamers I used to play with in my college days, I think it will help my efforts to recruit newbies if I use the point-based system instead.

[Tzi]

Everyl, that is mainly my big love of psionics, I think points is simple and more intuitive then spell slots. Beginners will understand it easier.

Bringing another topic,

Orcs, how to have them in a campaign world? Or more specifically playable Orc's. I've recently decided to incorporate some sort of Orc like race. Though I'm using Pathfinders Half-Orc's for a statistical base. And it is set that they don't call themselves Orc's but instead have legions of names for themselves based on language of the group.

However the major temptation with Orc's is to make them either bestial evil marauders.... OR.... proud warrior race/noble savages. Neither of which appeals to me. I do have an idea of making them akin to say humans at the dawn of civilization. Have several erecting say giant stone monoliths, building cities, say Aztec/Maya style pyramids, Ziggurats, Easter Island heads, ect.... a decidedly "Early culture" but that is doing well until encountering these other races whom in my campaign world have been living "Off world." in one way or another and essentially emerge and encounter these much more primitive societies and largely decimate them sending them into crisis.

There might also be differing Orc's. For example the Mainline playable Orc's would have Half Orc Pathfinder stat bloc's. They would be culturally similar to Ancient Humans, then there would be an offshoot race or cousin race with actual Orc stats' akin to say Neanderthal's or differing branches of the Orc family tree.

[QED - Iltazyara]

That bestial marauder/noble savage problem got me too for a while. Due to Warcraft orcs and the D&D orcs it can be hard to figure out what to do. Eberron did them better than most, but didn't expand on them much.

I've ended up going with a brutal warrior society, for one group anyway. I think one of the best ways to make a race more playable is to make it diverse, with multiple cultural groups.

I'm using them as a threat, but as they are a Big Threat towards one of my Evil Nations it's kinda hard to say if they're a good threat or a bad one. Then again, my whole setting is designed to make that distinction difficult, painful and likely to stab you in the back later.

My personal views on orcs as a warlike race came out in one of my setting quotes, here;

“Orcs, history calls them brutes, beasts and cruel beings uncaring for anything save war. To our more modern eyes, enlightened by society this is true. But remember, once we were savages, raiding and pillaging the riches and glories of a society a thousand times greater than ours. Those civilisations are long since destroyed, gone to dust and ashes as we rise upon a pearly towers above the Orcish hordes. We were once as they, and one day they may be as we, fight to survive, but do not claim righteous justice; only the right to survive.”

Humans replaced elves, who replaced dragons, who replaced some long dead great race... And humans will get replaced by orcs, maybe. I think the quote fits what you're saying anyway.

[Tzi]

That bestial marauder/noble savage problem got me too for a while. Due to Warcraft orcs and the D&D orcs it can be hard to figure out what to do. Eberron did them better than most, but didn't expand on them much.

I've ended up going with a brutal warrior society, for one group anyway. I think one of the best ways to make a race more playable is to make it diverse, with multiple cultural groups.

I'm using them as a threat, but as they are a Big Threat towards one of my Evil Nations it's kinda hard to say if they're a good threat or a bad one. Then again, my whole setting is designed to make that distinction difficult, painful and likely to stab you in the back later.

My personal views on orcs as a warlike race came out in one of my setting quotes, here;

“Orcs, history calls them brutes, beasts and cruel beings uncaring for anything save war. To our more modern eyes, enlightened by society this is true. But remember, once we were savages, raiding and pillaging the riches and glories of a society a thousand times greater than ours. Those civilisations are long since destroyed, gone to dust and ashes as we rise upon a pearly towers above the Orcish hordes. We were once as they, and one day they may be as we, fight to survive, but do not claim righteous justice; only the right to survive.”

Humans replaced elves, who replaced dragons, who replaced some long dead great race... And humans will get replaced by orcs, maybe. I think the quote fits what you're saying anyway.

I'm thinking of making "Orc's" the main indigenous race to the world. While the world was dying, and being terraformed back to life the creatures called "Orc's" endured and colonized the world while the other races had not dared to trod upon it. The other races are races that have been "reintroduced."

Orc's had begun developing their own civilization on a world that was entirely theres as the only real sapient species on the surface. The were discovering metallurgy, astronomy, mathematics, psionic powers, building cities and practicing agriculture. Another race, the Tyr Elves arrived and obliterated many of these primitive civilizations. After all the Tyr had alchemical weapons, black powder (Tech akin to the Iron Kingdoms campaign world).

They are actually only called Orc's by the Tyr Elves, whose ancestors the Sylvan Elves used as a general word for savage feral creature. The other race is the Azaren whom are the descendants of Humans whom fled the world during its dying days to settle within one of its moons. They eventually became vampiric (I was inspired by Pandorum XD ) Whom have incredible psionic abilities. Several Azaren even pose as God's to the Orc's whom are swayed by their incredible powers and longevity.

Their main advantages are that biologically they are very resilient to pain, disease, and in times of great crisis their females can induce themselves to be able to have 5-7 children in one sitting. Meaning that in spite of the calamities they are very difficult to completely wipe out.

[Yora]

I've been pondering the issue of orcs for quite some while. And in the end, my solution was not to have any orcs in the world at all.

There is a race that is 95% Warcraft orcs and looks a bit like a blend of hobgoblins and shifters (Eberron), but I think the only really important change is to not call them orcs. For the kind of world I have in mind, orcs are just too simplistically evil.
How simplistic they are really becomes apparent when you start to think of enemies for low-level adventures or big war campaigns. Every ten steps I find myself wanting to just place a band of orcs and be done with it. If you don't have orcs to use and have to make the NPCs humans, dwarves, or maybe elves or halflings, the whole dynamics suddenly change quite substentially.

I do have goblins, though. However, I made them a race that is entirely subterranean and serves the role of intermediaries between the normal humanoids of the surface world and the really weird creatures of the underworld. They usually don't raid surface settlements, but are rather the first beings one encounters when descending into the Underworld. And being still relatively familiar, they can also be guides to introduce PCs to this very new world they are about to enter.

I'd like to mention here that the problem of having orcs as simply evil masses even caused some headache to Tolkien, the man who pretty much invented them. A race of thinking mortals that are still evil by nature and not by choice was actually quite a serious problem to the way he thought a well thought out fantasy world should be like. He just had painted himself into a corner and couldn't really do anything about it after he had his famous novels published.

[00dlez]

One of my groups is starting a homebrewed setting wherein orcs are actually the worlds saviors. They are "cursed humans", having taken on a very ugly form after a past apocalypse type event. Mechanically they are the same as the MM would depict them, and in many regards are still savage fighters, but the greater fluff behind them, I think, gives them a fresh new look.

Rather than raise hordes to pillage human lands, orcs now stay put on ancient, sacred (and to the rest of the world, secret) sites and protect them in order to prevent a second apocalypse event.

[Eldan]

My main solution to the "orc problem" was to make sure that differences are more cultural than biological and that neither side is clearly evil. It makes things complicated to write, of course, but much more satisfying in play.

In one world I once wrote, two societies were mainly at odds over how magic should be used. At the most basic level, almost everyone in both populations had some telepathic ability, enabling them to get a vague sense of where others were and how they were feeling. Their power got stronger when they got more familiar with someone, up to enabling full mental communication and a host of other small magics.
The first society was mainly based on farming. They used their ability to openly communicate in groups. Their society was democratic to a degree: to make decisions they sat in circles and debated until everyone felt that everyone else was happy with the decision to a degree. However, due to this, they saw anyone who wasn't participating in group activities as a giant problem. They did everything in groups, to strengthen their group telepathy, their entertainment was a kind of entrancing dancing and singing in groups, they lived and slept in communal huts, they never worked alone. The very idea was abhorrent to them and Solitaires, as they called them, were exiled from their tribes very quickly, often as children. In war, they fought in phalanxes.
The other society were mainly nomadic wanderers. Hunting trips often involved small bands of four or less people with their dogs, as did their raids and warbands. Their society was strictly hierarchical and leaders would establish their dominance by subduing others with sheer telepathic power, often rendering them unconscious. Telepathic power was strictly regulated: leaders were feeling everyone's emotions, but even accidentally sensing what your superior or elder was feeling was a grave faux-pas. Close telepathic connections were only allowed between siblings, married couples or members of the same warband and had to be based upon years of trust and oaths. Unlike the first group, however, they allowed connections to their dogs and horses.

Now, there's plenty of cultural points for friction, without ever mentioning species. The farmers think the nomads are cold, brusque and brutal. The hunters think the farmers are uncivilized morons who are constantly shouting their emotions at the top of their telepathic lungs, so to speak, and never learned proper focus. The very idea of bonding to animals felt unclean and wrong to the farmers and was utterly normal to the hunters, after all, you need to communicate with your hunting animals somehow and shouting or whistling would scare your game. For the hunters, telepathic connection is a sign of intimacy and deep trust. For farmers, not immediately opening your mind means you have something to hide.

[Tzi]

Currently I'm making Orc's almost fulfill the role of Humans in a sense since my world lacks Humans.

Well they fulfill many roles.

A big one is they provide the world with ancient ruins and landmarks more recent. Were as true human ruins are going to be mostly these cities of twisted metal and rubble, Orc ruins would be the traditional "Ancient Temple filled with treasure and traps." ect style ruins.

In a sense they are a race of diverse nations all with the same problem, other races have displaced them to one degree or another pushing them to the extremes and unto lands that are often harsh and unforgiving. So there is evidence of great culture and civilization but now crisis has destroyed that leaving holdout city states and societies, and mostly nomadic bands struggling to adapt to this new world and upset at the loss of ancestral lands and glory to what amounts to invaders from the sky.

[Everyl]

I've worked on two different settings in recent months, and I used two different solutions to the "orc problem."

In one, I simply decided that it's a humans-only world, because there's plenty of room for conflict and warfare without needing to make different "races" to fill different roles. This is a simple and clean solution, but many players prefer worlds with the traditional Tolkien-esque races in them, so it's not for everyone.

In the other, I embraced the dizzying racial diversity of D&D, but in a different way from the core books. I wanted to create a setting vast enough that there could be more than a dozen different races, and each and every one of those races could have multiple distinct cultures and societies. Thus, there is no "typical" orc any more than there is a "typical" human IRL. Races still get stereotyped by other races, but those stereotypes tend to reflect whichever cultures have met one another thus far. Orcs as semi-nomadic hunter/raiders do exist and have given their cousins a bad name in some circles, but orcs living in lands more capable of supporting agriculture and settled lifestyles are as prone to seeking out those stable lifestyles as any other race. Racial alignment in this setting doesn't exist, and pretty much every race has its more Good-leaning and more Evil-leaning representatives.

[Vitruviansquid]

I think our problem with traditional fantasy orcs stems from misunderstandings about proud warrior races and marauders. Throughout real world history, there have been cultures that value warrior ideals and peoples for whom raiding is a viable, even lucrative economic activity. In fact it's been so common to kill people and take their stuff that I would even consider it unrealistic if your setting *didn't* have a race of marauders and warriors.

However, portrayals of orcs frequently get a couple things wrong about these societies.

1. The people from these societies would not make war on other people if they didn't have a large advantage of some kind. It makes no sense for you to try to rob someone when you're weaker than they are, but this happens a lot in depictions of fantasy orcs. Orcs are portrayed as having no magic, no strategy, poor leadership and discipline, and then attempting to take on human, elven, or dwarven neighbors who have those in spades, which is totally like the weak bookworm trying to beat up a football player for his lunch money. Broadly speaking, raiders in the real world often had some sort of transportation advantage over the people they attacked, such as the Vikings' ships and Asian steppe nomads' horses. At the same time, they generally had some kind of technological advantage in actual warfare (Conquistadors) and more sophisticated military methods than their victims.

2. The people from raider societies generally have other dimensions of their lives than raiding and fighting. Of course your life is going to be ridiculously short if you fought a battle every day or every week, even as a member of a warrior society. Raiders often raid as a supplement to another, much more pedestrian economic activity, like farming or herding. As well, raiding societies can also have poetry, manufacturing, law, philosophy, innovation, and everything that we consider a part of a complete culture. A lot of raiding/warrior societies can even treasure peace and hospitality because societies are made up of many different, sometimes contradictory impulses. Just look at your own society and try to sum it up with one value.

[urkthegurk]

In my campaign, Hobgoblins are the first ones with access to large-scale 'teleportation circle' tactics, using scry-and-die tactics on enemy settlements, etc. And Orcs are the first to start really effectively using Gate. It helps if you re-write Orcs to not have the Int penalty... I gave them a Dex and Cha penalty and left it at that.

[QED - Iltazyara]

The problem with a lot of these ideas on changing Orcs is that, well, they stop being Orcs.

There are three things that define Orcs in my mind: Strength, Green, Not Civilised.

Orcs using Gate? That looks rather like the product of socially advanced wizardry, it doesn't feel... Right. The Int minus is part of the Orc just as much as the Str plus, they are big and strong, but not that bright.

Vitruvian has it very well put, warrior societies aren't all about battles. My main region's Orcs, rampaging hordes of death that they are, are only that way for a reason. Overpopulation. Orcs live shorter lives than humans, (In my view, anyway), but breed faster. In the mountains they control there are only so many resources, but because of some level of unified religion they don't fight each-other. Instead attacking the nearest owners of arable, fertile land, a human nation.

They aren't "Orcs are raiding, because Orcs" but instead "Orcs are raiding, because they have too many hungry, lusty, angry young males." And such raids only happen every four or so generations, letting everything repopulate.

I don't think the solution is to change what Orcs are, because they may as well be called Tal'var, or whatever, because they don't fit what people think of as Orcs. Better to instead figure out how Orcs, as seen by outsiders, really would work.

Then there's my position of; Orcs are no more evil than humans, they're probably just more hungry, and humans are in fact on the menu. Evil is by perspective, to humans Orcs are really bloody evil, to Orcs humans are really bloody greedy, all those sheep and cows wandering around that they won't share.

[Tzi]

The problem with a lot of these ideas on changing Orcs is that, well, they stop being Orcs.

There are three things that define Orcs in my mind: Strength, Green, Not Civilised.

Orcs using Gate? That looks rather like the product of socially advanced wizardry, it doesn't feel... Right. The Int minus is part of the Orc just as much as the Str plus, they are big and strong, but not that bright.

Vitruvian has it very well put, warrior societies aren't all about battles. My main region's Orcs, rampaging hordes of death that they are, are only that way for a reason. Overpopulation. Orcs live shorter lives than humans, (In my view, anyway), but breed faster. In the mountains they control there are only so many resources, but because of some level of unified religion they don't fight each-other. Instead attacking the nearest owners of arable, fertile land, a human nation.

They aren't "Orcs are raiding, because Orcs" but instead "Orcs are raiding, because they have too many hungry, lusty, angry young males." And such raids only happen every four or so generations, letting everything repopulate.

I don't think the solution is to change what Orcs are, because they may as well be called Tal'var, or whatever, because they don't fit what people think of as Orcs. Better to instead figure out how Orcs, as seen by outsiders, really would work.

Then there's my position of; Orcs are no more evil than humans, they're probably just more hungry, and humans are in fact on the menu. Evil is by perspective, to humans Orcs are really bloody evil, to Orcs humans are really bloody greedy, all those sheep and cows wandering around that they won't share.

Well in the context of the game world, creatures called "Orc's" are done so by outsider. The creatures in question never even heard of the word until outsiders introduced it to them. They simply use words that basically mean "Person," In fact in the game world context (My setting) these creatures are somewhat hinted to be the descendants of Humans whom survived underground, only re-emerging after a great cataclysm had past to settle the now empty surface.

Statistically I use the Pathfinder Half Orc stats for these creatures so they don't necessarily have a minus to any stat.

[Tzi]

In my campaign, Hobgoblins are the first ones with access to large-scale 'teleportation circle' tactics, using scry-and-die tactics on enemy settlements, etc. And Orcs are the first to start really effectively using Gate. It helps if you re-write Orcs to not have the Int penalty... I gave them a Dex and Cha penalty and left it at that.

The Orc's most capable of marauding and raiding are actually those whom have been gifted incredible technology by another race that has posed themselves as God's to the more primitive Orc's. Basically think "Chariots of the Gods," Or the Cuotl from Rise of Legends.

I use the Half-Orc Stats for the things called "Orc" in my setting so they just get a floating +2 to any one stat.

[urkthegurk]

Gate is 'advanced' but its not necessarily 'socially advanced', whatever that means. They could just be ripping open the fabric of space/time, or using ancient rituals, but whatever it is they can take spellcasting levels just like the rest of us. That's one reason I nixed the Int penalty, so they could advance as wizards.

[Yora]

It's a common misconception that a penalty to an ability score means the race is incapable of using that ability score.
Orcs with Int scores of 19 are just as common as humans with Int 21. An orc wizard 17 would get three fewer bonus spells per day and -1 to all save DCs. He's still throwing 9th level spells.

[QED - Iltazyara]

Good thread is slowly falling down the page! No!

On a reasonable note, I do actually have something to post.

Recently I've been going over my pantheons, the greater world one and the regional one I'm focusing on. In doing so I've realised something, I have no sodding clue what gods are expected by people beyond the most obvious ones. Those being God of Magic, Death, War and Cheese (Note to self, need a god of cheese).

I'd like to know what everyone here thinks are the important gods, and what ones are more superfluous and secondary.

I should probably stop using indirect questions. What type of gods do you think are the important ones? Racial gods, elemental gods, conceptual gods or otherwise.

[00dlez]

^

I'd say a great deal of this depends on specific settings and the fluff that surrounds them. As a perhaps obvious example, a setting that takes place entirely below ground (for whatever reason) will have little/no use for a sun god, where as other settings feature them prominently.

As an indriect answer to your indirect question, I'd say the most important gods are those that have the most direct impact/appeal to the populations in your world.

A world run by orcs is going to favor Grummish types and other strength/war deities. One domianted by elves might focus more on arts, music, and other sissy stuff.

[NothingButCake]

Yeah, I think defining what a given culture values will determine what gods they worship. Also, there may be vastly more gods than the ones you name or list that simply are minor or local.

For example, I have dwarves who used to worship a pantheon of gods of natural things and they are more precisely minded, so instead of a god of earth, they have a god of marble, a god of iron, a god of gold, a god of limestone, etc. But they see these gods as obsolete because what is vastly more important is what can be done with those natural elements. So, more prominent are saints, legendary dwarves who have actually applied turned these elements into technology, and these saints are idols to be emulated but not worship, since prayer is a waste of time when you could be working. So you have the woman who created the first aqueduct system for the dwarves now considered the saint of aqueducts, who inspires those who oversee or engineer distribution of resources, and the saint of the arch, who inspires those who seek to shape elements to have far greater strength than they do in nature.

On the other hand, the eladrin (4e) rotate between four royal courts, each ruling for a season, so they think in terms of long cycles and believe in social order. Their gods are the constellations, who take turns being the sovereign of all heavens by sitting on the moon-throne. So, there is no moon god, per se, but rather, a constellation god who is ruling over a certain era from the moon (and is thus absent from the sky in that you can't see its constellation).

[Everyl]

Good thread is slowly falling down the page! No!

On a reasonable note, I do actually have something to post.

Recently I've been going over my pantheons, the greater world one and the regional one I'm focusing on. In doing so I've realised something, I have no sodding clue what gods are expected by people beyond the most obvious ones. Those being God of Magic, Death, War and Cheese (Note to self, need a god of cheese).

I'd like to know what everyone here thinks are the important gods, and what ones are more superfluous and secondary.

I should probably stop using indirect questions. What type of gods do you think are the important ones? Racial gods, elemental gods, conceptual gods or otherwise.

If anything, I think there's a little too much emphasis on having gods "of" something. Many real-world religious pantheons don't neatly divide their membership into clearly-defined roles, and the ones that do often blur those divisions repeatedly in the legends about those gods. For example, in Norse mythology, earthquakes are caused by the tortured thrashing of Loki, a god who is otherwise not associated with the earth or with strength. In Greek mythology, they're caused by Poseidon, who is generally considered the sea god, perhaps because of their association with tsunamis.

Personally, I'd recommend making whatever 4-12 gods you think fit the setting best, and if you need more associations, find ways to have those gods cover them. A God associated with the sky and/or weather could be worshiped by sailors and farmers, but a legend or two could easily add something else to that, perhaps making him the patron of brewers or cartographers, or maybe he causes volcanoes erupt when he tries to steal clouds from the earth. If the people practice sky burials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial), then a Goddess of Death might also be associated with birds, and carrion birds probably wouldn't have negative associations.

[QED - Iltazyara]

I do believe my question was misinterpreted, I have, well and truly, got the gods that fit the region. That is hardly an issue, I was more asking "What do people think are the important gods to have for players?"

I have gods that wouldn't work elsewhere in my world due to culture, hell one of them is a god of the really freaking long river I have! Doesn't cross over to other places much.

But I have no god of healing, no god of the sun, no 'dedicated' god of magic or war. So in terms of pantheons, I am missing Apollo and Ares, but have someone like Poseidon and even as far down the chain as the Oracle of Delphi.

My most peculiar gods are probably my Twin Goddesses, who are the ones for sibling bonds, platonic love, freedom and the breaking of the norm to expand one's horizons. My gods don't just do one thing.

But at the same time, I'm wondering if I'm missing something important.

[Vitruviansquid]

I'm going to second Everyl and suggest you don't try and neatly divide your Gods into "Gods of X" and "Gods of Y."

Think of your pantheon more as a crazy extended family who happen to have cosmic power.

edit: Darn. Ninja'd

[Everyl]

The important gods for players are whatever gods are important for the setting. I wouldn't add a god of war to a setting just to let players have the option of following a god of healing. If anything, I might ask myself what gods that already fit into the setting could be seen in that way by at least some of their followers. You might not have a god of healing, but there might be an order of priests who are renowned for their healing prowess who follow a god who is, himself, perhaps only distantly interested in healing. Almost any god who is associated with a specific nationality or ethnic group can serve as a god of war when that group is in conflict with outsiders.

In short, I don't think there is a list of divine roles that need to be filled for the players' sake. If a player wants to play a cleric of a variety of god that didn't find a role in your setting on its own, then existing gods can probably be used to accommodate that player.

[Yora]

I should probably stop using indirect questions. What type of gods do you think are the important ones? Racial gods, elemental gods, conceptual gods or otherwise.
My setting is very much animistic, so the primary "Greater Gods" are Sun, Moon, Earth, Ocean, Sky, and Darkness. All the other deities are mostly local spirits of the land who primarily demand respect by the local people and symbolic offerings in return for keeping the land healthy and allowing the people to live there.
A few of the minor gods are very popular and worshipped over extremely large areas, like the Demigod of Hunting, the God of the Major Forest, the Demigoddess of Twilight, Deception, and Secrecy; and the Snake God of Rulership, Treachery, and Intrigue.
Finally, there are also some of the Great Ancients, the most powerful of the abominations of the underworld. Known at the surface are the Lord of Ancient Knowledge (Dagon), the Mother of Monsters (Shub-Niggurath), the Lord of Violence and Transformation (Tharizdun, Juiblex, Ghaunadaur), and the Mistress of Madness (Pale Night). The Goddess of Darkness and the Demigoddes of Twilight and Deception are actually also Great Ancients, but they have still a great importance in the present world so they became gods rather than having to retreat into the underworld.

The Spirits of the Land are served like they are the supreme rulers of the land, but there isn't usually a lot of spiritual devotion to them. The people know they would die if the spirit no longer wants them to live on its land, but that's not too different to being banished from the clan by the chief.
The Gods are much more distant and they are treated more like manifestations of philosophical concepts. Even the priests can't ask questions from the gods and get any kind of reply. The gods are simply there, more or less eternal, and mortal worshippers try to gain some understanding of their nature and attempt to emulate it as much as they can, to be in harmony with the universe.
The Faith of the Sun is a cult devoted to strength, dedication, clear minds, and reliability. These are the primary virtues for the faithful, which they believe are embodied by the Sun, which is their most shining example. The Faith of Darkness is devoted to silence, solitude, and questioning your perception and believes. There are priests who base their training of magic on these principles and virtues, but in some ways it could be said that the Gods don't actually exist. They are more concepts than beings.

[Eldan]

If you're asking what kinds of gods players normally need, think of what kind of clerics your players normally play. Most clerics in D&D are normally quite martial, so worshipping deities of valour, war, protection, slaughter or similar concepts makes sense, since in a pantheon, those would probably be the most warlike. That said, many gods could have clergy like that. Perhaps a god of trade has an order of clerical caravan guards.

If you don't play the average dungeon campaign, as I suspect many here do, your options expand. Add gods that fit the campaign. In a court intrigue campaign, there will be gods of trickery, art, poetry, kingship and other such civilized concepts. In a seafaring campaign, gods of travel, storm and waves, or luck to pray to for protection against the ocean. And so on.

[Yora]

It also works the other way round. The available choice of common deities will influence what kind of clerics you will get both as PCs and NPCs. With gods like Bane, Helm, and Tempus, there surely will be lots of warpriests. But if all the gods are more like Chauntea, Oghma, and Mystra, the definition of what is a common cleric will change quite a lot.

[Eldan]

I was thinking more of common player clerics, though. And I'd suspect that 99% of them will have to swing weapons at some point in their career.

[QED - Iltazyara]

This was somewhat the issue I was having, no god of war, battle or even something close. Well, aside from a xenophobic god, but he's nasty and rules out all non-humans as worshipers by default.

I've ended up tying a goddess of Dawn into being the champion of holy light, and crusades against darkness. This'll cover the 'sword happy holy clerics' while having secondary purposes as well.
I am going to ignore a god of healing however, probably have healers worship the god of knowledge instead.

And the idea of "having different gods will change the common cleric" assumes one basic thing; the players actually pay attention. I don't truly have that, "random Jesus" being the latest god in a series of many erased ones on the ranger's character sheet.
NPCs are defined by the world, players will refute being defined by the world unless it was their idea in the first place. In my experience at least.

[Yora]

Working on my next campaign, I noticed that there seems to be a strong tendency for settings with a more grim tone to be very low on outright fantastic elements. There are always monsters, but those monsters tend to fall into the category of fictional large animals most of the time. Giving the flying monitor lizard a fire breath doesn't really change that much.
Those settings that do go to quite some length to include impossibly fantastic elements somehow strike me as having a more light hearted feel. Not saying that Planescape and Eberron are not awesome, but I feel like their greatness comes from being rediculously over the top awesome. Among the D&D settings, Dark Sun and Ravenloft could be considered more grim than others, but Ravenloft plays it safe with established classic creatures and archetypes, and Dark Sun doesn't have many strikingly magical elements either. There are the sorcerer kings and psionics are common, but overall it's pretty basic bronze age fantasy with weird looking animals.

Working on my setting, I've been taking a lot of inspiration from Conan, Dragon Age, and the Witcher, but these are all playing it safe and conventional (excuse to Conan for establishing many of those conventions) and so I feel I am drifting towards a pretty generic world in the end. Dark Sun at least has the desert wasteland theme, which makes it stand out clearly from other worlds.

I don't really have a point to make yet, just this observation. Any thoughts you have about this subject?

[Eldan]

Well, there's the always-popular Lovecraftian settings. With space travel, psionics and tentacle monsters from alternate dimensions. Also, parasitic colours, if you take the wilder tales.

[QED - Iltazyara]

Low magic fantasy = grim world is something I've noticed as well, although I am trying to subvert somewhat.

Not in a happy low-magic land, gods no. (Gods saying no is completely accurate here.)

But as a higher fantasy with the grim elements in it, magic gone rather badly wrong. Eberron did have this; the Mournland. But it wasn't a focus, more of an prior event than anything else.

High fantasy leads towards more over-the-top nice places for a few reasons I think, the first of which is quite easy to describe to people from this forum.
The Tippyversse.

Then you get problems in the other direction, if magic is that strong why hasn't anyone broken the world yet?
Which, I suppose could be said to lead to things like Dark Sun.

Lycanthropy is one of the low fantasy grim pieces, but it somewhat falls of in high fantasy due to magical cures and the like.
I somewhat work on that vein in my world to end up with a sub-breed of angels/demons being formed solely from mortals overdosed with holy/unholy energies.

Then dragonborn being people kiddnapped and made to serve dragons... etc, my world isn't particularly forgiving. But it is most definitely high fantasy. Gods walk the land, heroes champion the gods and perform great deeds, dungeons lie buried under countless generations of buildings. And so on.
But safety away from civilised defences? Not happening.

[thethird]

I'm trying to reconcile space operas with dark fantasy. Which surprisingly ties with the idea of attempting to not play it "safe" anymore. Ideas an advice would be appreciated, but as is I have the following main ideas:

- Mix the awe and sense of wonder common to space operas with the grim and fatalistic view of a lovecraftian wild world.
- Have two common enemies, the environment itself and the other tribes/cultures. The world changes really fast and adapting is difficult.
- Throw the unexplored into the mix, only a relatively small area is charted. Exploration is necessary.

Also if you want a higher magic darker place take cyre, just before it was obliterated in the mournland and patch it into the realm of dread (i.e. ravenloft) the things that the Cyrans were doing during the war were pretty terrifying. That is how the campaign world in which I normally play with my friends started.

[urkthegurk]

Wild West style Horror-fantasy game following the 'Age of Worms' adventure path. I'm retconning parts of the story arc to include tasteful elements of time travel. Fairly well rounded story world, but still lots of conceptual space. Anything to include that's really a must? Suggestions.

[Tzi]

So as I toy with my campaign world, I've considered rewriting some major lore to it. Mainly the "Genesis," story or at least the origin of how the characters and their respective races came to be were they are.

The idea being the campaign world is actually one that is fairly recent. Most of the races being colonists from other worlds lost in a great war across the planes and stars that has only just recently concluded. The magi of these races found a world far from the conflicts and its problems and have begun establishing themselves upon this new world. The last of the greatest of these Mages using powerful magic to shape the world into the more hospitable place it is today.

Originally everything happened on one dying world that was terraformed back to life but I almost like the idea of colonizing and setting root on a newer world. Plausibly with the ruins of alien like beings or having to face the remnants of the ancient war in the stars.

[Yora]

The one really important thing when adressing the creation story of worlds and races is "what would change if the world and races just evolved naturally?". There was a time when it was really fashionable to have worlds inhabited by magic using barbarians, but saying it's the Earth of the distant future. But everything would be identical if the setting is just a very early stage of that planet, than this fact becomes nothing more than a gimick that simply clutters things up.
At a more basic level, all backstory must be directly relevant for players in the present, or you shouldn't really bother with it. Star Trek coined the term technobabble, and lots of fantasy settings suffer from bad cases of historybabble. When a detail has no apparent relevance to the situation and descisions of the PCs, the players might as well hear "blabla history blabla something about ancestors". It's more padding than actual content.

If you are going to bother with writing these things and telling players about them, then they need to have a relevance to the current game and the PCs in it.

[Tzi]

The one really important thing when adressing the creation story of worlds and races is "what would change if the world and races just evolved naturally?". There was a time when it was really fashionable to have worlds inhabited by magic using barbarians, but saying it's the Earth of the distant future. But everything would be identical if the setting is just a very early stage of that planet, than this fact becomes nothing more than a gimick that simply clutters things up.
At a more basic level, all backstory must be directly relevant for players in the present, or you shouldn't really bother with it. Star Trek coined the term technobabble, and lots of fantasy settings suffer from bad cases of historybabble. When a detail has no apparent relevance to the situation and descisions of the PCs, the players might as well hear "blabla history blabla something about ancestors". It's more padding than actual content.

If you are going to bother with writing these things and telling players about them, then they need to have a relevance to the current game and the PCs in it.

I guess personally an origin story is necessary to justify multiple races living in close proximity (The same world) to one another. "How did they get here?" the idea being if all or at least most are colonists, then it would give grounds for conflict, exploration, ect.

Plus a large background conflict would in my mind give rise to current conflicts. The old wars are not really over. Lurking in the deep dark void are the echos of the past waiting to be renewed again kinda thing.

[Yora]

Here's something to think and talk about: What kinds of groups, organizations, and factions have you created for your settings? Creating a landscape and its creature is all nice and well, but in the end it's the power groups that PCs will interact with and be affected by the most.

[Frozen_Feet]

I should probably stop using indirect questions. What type of gods do you think are the important ones? Racial gods, elemental gods, conceptual gods or otherwise.

No gods are important as setting facts. You don't need factual gods at all for either religion, magic or other reasons.

I would instead phrase the question this way: "what kinds of things do people usually worship?" For humans, the answer to this question is: gods who have access to strategic social information. Strategic social information, if you're unfamiliar with the concept, basically means "who did what?" The most important gods, saints or whatever are always those who can tell you most about other people. The second most important gods are those who have access to the same sort of information of things that are relevant for survival and health - prey animals, weather, etc. Quite often, prey animals are venerated as gods.

Gods who are not interested in human endeavors usually fall to the wayside, even when they are supposedly omnipotent. To a normal human, beings like Lovecraftian gods (distant beings with awesome power but no interest in humans) are irrelevant. They are uninteresting - they inspire neither fear or love, and thus are not worshipped. When faceless forces of nature are worshipped, they are always antropomorphized first. They are always given human interests, emotions and personalities.

For more information, I suggest reading Pascal Boyer's Religion explained.

Now, when it comes to non-humans, the question becomes: what intuitions and instincts do those non-humans have? What is important to them? For example, in my setting, crows and many other scavengers and predators worship the Mors (gods of death) purely as a form of barter: they gather souls of the dead to Mors, and get limited immortality in returned. The Mors themselves worship the Queen of the Sky via mimicking human habits and rituals, but only for her amusement. They expect, and get, nothing in return. The Mors are not concerned with society or seeking knowledge, and that shows in their, uh, "lives". They do not usually even have bodies, and don't interact socially with one another with even remotely human frequency or way. In fact, now that I think of it, I can't even say they think of their sole target of worship as important. They worship her, because she's there. In fact, it may be just to mock humans.

While I've toyed with the idea a lot lately, I have not implemented other examples, and can't really think of good examples from media at large. But here's something to consider: religious thoughts are largely tied to intuition. Intuition in D&D is largely tied to Wisdom. As such, species with higher Wisdom would tend to be more religious.

Superstition is also related to intuition, but usually those cases where intuition has gaps and gives incorrect information on one's surroundings. As such, a case could be made for superstition to be caused by low Wisdom. One common form of superstitiousness is anthropomorphization of things that aren't human; attributing human personality and motives to non-human operatives. We can replace "human" with name of another species to approximate the effects.

Meanwhile, analytical thinking decreases superstition and (to a degree) religiousness. As such, species with higher intelligence would tend to be less superstitiuos and religious. Analytical thinking also contributes to abstract thinking, so we'd expect highly intelligent people to be more versed in high-level, abstract concepts.

But there's more: religions can be divided roughly into two categories: natural religions, and book religions. The former tend to emphasize personal experience and mysticism that are not transferable, while the latter emphasize a codified vision that can be transferred from person to person. As you should've guessed, the dividing line between these more often than not is literacy. In fact, book religions tend to directly cause and speed up the formation and codification of written language. In D&D, literacy is tied to Intelligence; a just assignment, as literacy is perhaps the biggest singular factor in developing abstract thinking, also associated with Int in D&D.

Based on this, we can give rough generalizations of how religious different species would be in comparison to humans (baseline WIS and INT 10), and in what ways. Consequently, we can estimate what sorts of gods they might value:

Lower WIS, same INT: Less religious, but more superstitious. Gods have little importance, but things like astrological signs are held as important. People use rituals to influence abstract entities, such as chance: think of real world "magic". People will usually not think of such arcane rituals as religious, even if in essence, they are.
Higher WIS, same INT: More religious, but less superstitious. Gods are held as very important and tend to be heavily personalised to mimic the species. Gods are probably thought to be distant, and affecting the world much like mortals, explaining why they don't routinely interfere with the world (remember, WIS influences senses.) On the other hand, "magical" practices like in the prior entry are scoffed at; why would anyone waste effort to appeal to things that aren't there?
Same WIS, lower INT: About as religious, but religion tends towards natural rather than book religions, with heavy dose of superstition and ritualism. This would probably appear as what we think of "primitive" religions to be like; shamans dancing around a bonfire, people forecasting the weather from chicken bones etc.
Same WIS, higher INT: About as religious, but heavily leaning towards book religions. Considerably less superstitious. Gods will likely be thought to be abstract entities, with hard-to-quantify effects on the world. Idea of gods being similar to the species are probably scoffed at. "Magical" practices are approached from a scientific viewpoint: do they have a chance of working? If not, they are likely abandoned (and scoffed at). If inconclusive, they may remain as a matter of habit. If they work, you can see increase in popularity.
Lower WIS, lower INT: Areligious but superstitious. Gods are not given a thought, but various "magical" practices abound. What religion there is, is very much the natural sort. Book religions are virtually non-existent.
Higher WIS, higher INT: More religious, but extremely non-superstitions. Theology will likely be highly complex, and possibly tied to academic or scientific advancement. If gods factually exist in a setting, these guys will be the most likely to find that out and tailor their practices to match the real, verifiable traits of those gods. If not, these guys are still likely to be religious, but instead of gods (which are likely dismissed) they will focuse on leading a moral life or venerating abstract ideals. On the other hand, "magical" practices with no verifiable basis will be basically non-existant.

We can also add Charisma as a third factor. In D&D, Charisma governs social behaviours, artistic endeavors and rituals. Human religious practices tend to heavily mirror our social interactions, so it stands to a point this would reflect in religious tastes of other creatures:

Lower Cha: religion is unlikely to involve mass gatherings, and more likely to be a private matter. If gods are of import, they are worshipped minimally or simplistically. Prayers are short and to the point, elaborate rituals don't exist and there won't be extensive religious poetry or music. Instead, worship will focus on concrete offerings: building fancy temples, animal sacrifices etc.. Basically, if you think of interaction with gods as social interaction between people (and you should), these are the guys who, when going to the convenience store, quickly pay the clerk and never stop to chat pointlessly. Consequently, gods with social functions are of less import, while gods of invidual efforts are more so. Gods are worshipped less for caring, and more for hoping they will stay out of the way. (Think of a socially awkward person dealing with his/her boss at work.)
Higher Cha: religion is even more of a social endeavor than it is to us. Religion is very much a public thing and proselytizing is normal. Religious song, dance and poetry are common, and if gods are held as important, it is common for people to believe they can use words to sway them to their side. Gods in possession of strategic social information become even more; meanwhile gods with no such information are probably laughed at. Think of people who fast-talk the shop clerk to give them a discount, or look down their nose on their socially less apt boss.




High fantasy leads towards more over-the-top nice places for a few reasons I think, the first of which is quite easy to describe to people from this forum.
The Tippyversse.

Then you get problems in the other direction, if magic is that strong why hasn't anyone broken the world yet?
Which, I suppose could be said to lead to things like Dark Sun.

Over-the-top niceness is something of a misconception. In Tippyverse, the big utopian (or dystopian) cities only form due to military concerns, namely, inability to defend large territories of land, combined with ability to produce a lot of goods in a tiny area. As a result, any land that is not the cities is unprotected, uncivilized and unhospitable; all capable people basically migrate to the cities, leaving only the uncapable people, monsters and wild animals behind.

It interesting you brought up Dark Sun. Another poster recently realized how big part the Wilds are of the Tippyverse, and remarked Tippyverse is basically Dark Sun, just without all the orginal, interesting fluff. :smallamused:

Another setting that is basically post-apocalyptic Tippyverse, is Jaconia of the Finnish RPG Praedor. Jaconia is a circular patch of land, 1000 miles across. Around it, is the Wolf's Desert - and beyond the desert, is Borvaria, an immeasurable destroyed city filled with anomalies and monsters. A long time in the past, the world was ruled by Wizards, who through dimensional gates brought endless wealth upon earth. Everyone, from nobles to commoners, enjoyed benefits of an immortality elixir, meaning the population just grew and grew as the older generations never died out.

But then, the over-use of the gates brough multiple worlds crashing down. Borvaria was devastated, with the inhabitants either dying as foreign laws of nature impacted their world, or becoming nameless monsters as their bodies were fused together or mutated by overlapping entities.

Jaconia survived, because some wizards had foreseen this disaster, and used a vast magic crystal to create a sanctuary within the chaos. Inside this sanctuary, several great cities were build, where the wizards reigned supreme, trying to retain their former glory. However, since the area of Jaconia was limited, not everyone could be given the immortality elixir. As such, a lower class was formed of the mortal humans, fit only to be servants, slaves and fodder. Things continued this way for ages. However, as time passed, some of the mortal servants escaped their masters, and formed their own tribes and nations in the wild parts of Jaconia. In time, they rose to such power that they began placing demands on the Wizards. Even worse, leader of one of the cities was becoming insane, and several Wizards feared that his experimentations would lead to replication of Borvaria's fate - not in vain, as exactly that soon happened. Because of this, several of the Wizards sided with the mortals, and sought to usurp the remaining Wizard Kings. They eventually succeeded, though with great cost. The last (and most powerful) Wizard King could not endure the loss of station - he thought that if he can't have the world, no-one can. As his city was located in the very center of Jaconia and contained the crystal protecting Jaconia from the ravages of Borvaria, he tried to bring everything down with him. One of the Demon Knights, an anti-magic soldier backed by mortal armies and bening Wizards, managed to slay him, but not before he partially opened a gate to another realms. As a result, his whole city had to be barred, a great wall put up to seal it completely. To this day, the horrible spell waits there, waiting to be finished.

Naturally, among players of Praedor it is extremely popular to completely disregard both Borvaria and the Wizards and instead focus on lives and cultures of the Jaconian mortals. Amusingly enough, this means that while Praedor has an extremely high-magic setting, in practice it appears to be a gritty, Conan-esque low-magic adventure game. Wizards are banned as player characters and so the best you can get in that regard is an Alchemist - but alchemist derive most of their power from normal science. So while some supernatural elixirs and potions are available for player characters to make, for high-tier Alchemy the game actually suggests creation of firearms, steam engines and air balloons.

[QED - Iltazyara]

That was a wall of text I was not quite expecting.

I have not had to study read in a while, took a few tries to reset off of skimming. Reading that post in about forty seconds the first time around did not help comprehension much.

You've put out some very interesting pieces; especially on the correlation of mental attributes to how religion, or just general belief, is structured. It's hard to say how I'm working with my gods; I mean I have a number of them posted on here in my setting thread, but they are... Physical, tangible, concrete and difficult to deny in-world. But at the same time they are not all powerful, nor entirely consistent. Being both created by and from mortals, while evolving past them.


"what kinds of things do people usually worship?" was basically what I was asking, really. Though I didn't got an answer to that variant of my question before.

I think my point about the Tippyverse-(read as; utopian high-fantasy) very much was that it was a fallacy, that much power lying around means something is going to go wrong. Badly wrong. Which is why I prefer to work with wizards, clerics and other casters rarely getting to level ten, let alone above.

Edit because I derped and forgot to actually say what I meant.

And if anyone gets into the high teens there is more pressing business than taking over a continent.

Generally I'm probably trying to reach for; all this magic is around, but won't go wrong because it already has, and the powerful gods are working to stop and reverse it, while drafting any competent mortal into the fight. Without stopping personal agendas getting in the way and causing conflict.

Anyway, onto;

Here's something to think and talk about: What kinds of groups, organizations, and factions have you created for your settings? Creating a landscape and its creature is all nice and well, but in the end it's the power groups that PCs will interact with and be affected by the most.

I've looked at several organisations, inevitably governments seem to fold into this, along with some religious orders. Order of Holiest Dawn would be the example of a religious order, paladins dedicated to the dawn, bringing light to the darkness and aiding sinners in repenting and rehabilitation. Somewhat cliche; but certainly not a bad thing.

The Oracles of Seralis, while not really a organisation, would certainly be a power group players work with. Somewhere anyone who makes the trek can ask questions about the future, so long as they shed no blood on the road to the oracle. Basically incredibly out of the way divination and prophecy, a way to give out plothooks if they get stumped.

The third one I can think of, that might be somewhat unique, is the Silver Wing Messengers, a enclave of angels that serve the God of Roads. They can be called with the right incantation (which changes monthly) at one of his way shrines, to carry a message to any living being whose name you know. Players would interact with them by having to find out the incantation, which isn't even known by the clerics of the God of Roads. Or by the fact that they are hunted down and captured by one of the major regions near their southernmost enclave, because of the xenophobia of that region.
Being sent on a hunting mission for a "demi-human" only to piss off a small army of angels? 'tis a thought.

Otherwise governments, kings, queens, theocrats, councilmen, mayors, emperors, elders. Those are what make up the majority of the power groups I have, well, in the southern areas anyway.

[Vanzanze]

I don't know how far the discussion has come, but I wanted to chime in with some thoughts.

My homebrew world has 117 different gods. Why? Well, because I didn't figure the humans would worship the same deities as the elves, who wouldn't worship the same as the dwarves, and so on.

Each pantheon reflects its race in turn: elves have very few gods that control a wide variety of apparently unrelated things each, dwarves have a close-knit family of gods who are responsible for the 2-3 things dwarves actually care about (stone, family, hard work), and humans have almost a god for everything important to them like Catholic saints ("There's a god for that."), gnomes worship an ascended spirit born of a computer program that they can talk to through special teletype/instant messenger things, orcs are patterned after Babylonian gods, and halflings more or less just have "very important halflings" that they revere rather than worship. Figure in a few giant, draconic, goblinoid, and other sundry deities, and you've got over 100 figures who are worshiped across the world.

It's always bothered me that pantheons somehow cover all races equally. Christianity doesn't feature Allah, nor does Judaism feature Thor, and we're all one race.

[QED - Iltazyara]

It's always bothered me that pantheons somehow cover all races equally. Christianity doesn't feature Allah, nor does Judaism feature Thor, and we're all one race.
I think this happens because it becomes significantly hard to refute another groups deities when they are walking around doing miracles in plain sight. Another point comes up when the gods acknowledge other gods, which might cause a religious schism if people disbelieve hard enough.

I ended up overbudget with my gods (Although how I set myself a budget I don't know), of 36 planned and named gods I have two, and nineteen others detailed and in use.

Personally, I like the idea that gods have different faces depending on the situation, the same guy who is despised in one place for being patron of necromancers is revered elsewhere for being the guardian of departed spirits. It might seem contradictory, but if it's that god's position that disturbing the tombs of the dead disturbs the spirit, then having the cadavers fight off intruders isn't that farfetched.
And reincarnation is a thing in my setting, so "The long dead shall guard the newly departed" is one of his proverbs, as the bodies of the 'long dead' don't have a spirit in them that can be disturbed anymore.

[Frozen_Feet]

You've put out some very interesting pieces; especially on the correlation of mental attributes to how religion, or just general belief, is structured. It's hard to say how I'm working with my gods; I mean I have a number of them posted on here in my setting thread, but they are... Physical, tangible, concrete and difficult to deny in-world. But at the same time they are not all powerful, nor entirely consistent. Being both created by and from mortals, while evolving past them.


Well, as they are concrete beings, the first question you should ask is: how relatable are they? Just as in the case of national leaders, pretty face + speaking in a way people understand = boom, succesfull god with lot of worshippers.

You can expect higher INT people to take a more cynical attitude towards them. The higher their INT is in proportion to their WIS, the more likely you'll be hearing phrases like "they're just powerful outsider", "they're not real gods" etc. Low INT & WIS people probably don't care at all. Low Cha people probably just want to be left alone.

Higher WIS people will be devout worshippers, but will also have more realistic expectations of the gods; they probably won't expect them to "fix everything" or meddle in things below their status. This is where the likeness of gods becomes important. If the gods are human-like, then humans will worship them strongly, even if they are evil; fear is a powerful factor, and let's not forget what awe originally means. Meanwhile, non-humans will be less loving and more wary of human-like gods. It is possible for non-humans to declare human-like gods to be demons/devils, especially if they're of the nasty sort; and vice versa.

If WIS and INT are proportional and both high, you will probably find folks who view themselves as moral or intellectual equals to the gods; this depends on how intelligent and wise the gods themselves are. If it's possible for mortals to mentally eclipse gods, this attitude will eventually turn into miso- or dysteism: the most mentally gifted people will come to think of gods as irrelevant to their well-being, or perhaps even a bit pitiable.

As gods are fallible and concrete, you will see high CHA people trying to woo their way to their favor. Think of old myths, where mortals might have tricked gods or stolen something from them.

As gods are concrete, you will see the distinction between "believing" and "having faith" becoming more distinct. Only stupid or uneducated people will think the gods don't exist; however, whether they trust them to be all they claim to be will vary. If someone "lacks faith", it basically never means they question a god's existence, but it does mean they don't think the god will deliver their promises and probably feel they are thus not worthy of worship.

One trait I'd say won't be meaningful to most people is the exact origin of gods. How likely is it for them to even know? And even if they do know, does it really help them in their immediate situation? If the answer to one is no, people probably won't pay it much mind. No matter the past, there are extraordinarily powerful do-gooders or do-badders in the neighbourhood now.

Consistency is a trickier factor. What happens when a god doesn't do its job? The more disastrous the consequences, or the greater the returns, the more people will worship that god to either avoid disaster or to benefit. The harder to perceive a god's influence is, the less popular it will be. But in general: humans at least don't expect other people to be 100% consistent (save for the most naive cases), and will consequently go to lenghts to ensure a person will either keep acting, or make an exception, in their favor. However, they'll also try to jump the fence where it's lowest, so to speak. Ironically, this might mean the most consistent and most bening gods are least worshipped; why bother, the thing will keep doing what it's always done anyway. Again, a workplace comparison is useful. The guy who is loud and makes a show of himself will be loved or hated in much greater amounts than the shy quiet guy who is just doing his job, irrespective of who is actually the more useful worker.

[Tzi]

Here's something to think and talk about: What kinds of groups, organizations, and factions have you created for your settings? Creating a landscape and its creature is all nice and well, but in the end it's the power groups that PCs will interact with and be affected by the most.

One of the biggest is the remnants of a great country. Or at least the most powerful one. One nation, the Union of Ethor, which has since been largely broken but buried among the ruined cities and deep underground in hidden complexes lay the former government carrying on activities, various surviving groups. The Union was decimated during the "The Day Breakers War," when a secret group of Artificers working within the military mistakenly allowed an army of Azaren (A race that did exist on the worlds surface in hiding) who had been living within the worlds Moon. These beings had been afflicted with a bloodlust and madness causing them to be more intently aggressive. And had fallen under their own new god Thoth. The Azaren army that attacked had been listening in on the Unions magi-tech communication which unbeknownst to them were unsecured. Allowing the Azaren to also know the exact position of the Unions military, their strengths, weaknesses ect. Other nations who lacked this knowledge were unaffected.

Out of the ruins of Ethor is...

The Elders Council: Remnants of the former government, including the major ministries of War, Magic, and the Council of Electors whom effectively still rule the provinces of the former Union. Though their power is limited, buried deep in sequestered complexes underground they largely struggle to reclaim power over the ruins of their former homeland. The command the weapons of the former nation, and are semi-considered the legitimate rulers. Central to them is the "Protocols of the Sylvan Masters," which were set down by a handful of the last living true elves. Passing the instructions on how to live, the most powerful and secret spells, and general governing rules for the Union.

The Mathis Ranger Corps: Essentially a civilian survivalist group etching out a living on the frontier of former Union. Mainly the rangers former democratic communities among the rubble and ensure some degree of commerce and travel can happen in the desolate wastes. They however are not under the rule of the Elder Council.

Viconian Expedition: From the southern confederation of Viconia, once a bitter enemy of the Union, Viconia has moved in on the destroyed lands and proclaimed themselves the leaders of the rebuilding. Viconia arranged a deal during the dying days of the war to use their Balefire Mechanisms on the Unions cities to drive away the Azaren. The Viconian Expedition is the military force sent in that eventually defeated the Azaren with the remnants of the Union armies and other military allies. Ethorian citizens believe the Viconian's to be hated enemies whom have leveled their cities and that they brought the Azaren here.

Too name just some big players in a region.

[QED - Iltazyara]

I'm not sure how many of you have read the Belgariad; it's a series liken to Grand papa Tolkien's Lord of the Rings in that it was earlier on in modern fantasy, follows the same structure (Read, medieval romance standard), but has some very interesting insights in the notes book that was released. The Rivan Codex.

After rereading the Belgarion and Mallorion again (third time, I've been slacking, three times in four years? should have been seven.) I picked up the Rivan Codex I had and went over it again. The introduction alone gives me an idea of how a professional (and he is very professionally unprofessional about it) goes about building a world. Study, reading the genre, building the 'ologies', be they theologies or not, governments, kings and otherwise fit in to it.

It may speculate more towards novel writing than world building; but I find they are not too dissimilar. We are simply building the groundwork for others to tell their story, rather than building our own. Or in my case, building sever dozen of my own for others to blunder into catastrophically. I may be of the opinion the Legends and Histories make a world far more than a hundred thousand word piece on who lives 'what where and how'.

To pull a quote from the introduction of the Rivan Codex (which, I might note, is twenty four bloody pages!) "SF and Fantasy authors don't belong on the same shelf... (large wordy exposition and complaining). They get all bogged down in telling you how the watch works; we just tell you what time it is and go on with the story.

Which I take somewhat as 'fantasy readers, and fans, have a sense of disbelief, ready to accept so they can enjoy. SF guys will nit-pick for the fun of it, so half the words they read are explanations on how stuff works. Which then gets nit-picked to death'

I've sort of lost track of my heading here, and just say the Rivan Codex is a great insight into how an author works. He's even one who disapproved of the Victorianism of Medieval Romance, where all the blood, gore, adultery, incest and other not-so-nice bits got pulled out. Tolkien did that, Eddings even said "Do girls in Middle Earth exist below the neckline?" Or something to that effect.

Good insight, humourous way of describing his work, possibly even worth it for just the introduction.

[Tzi]

I may be of the opinion the Legends and Histories make a world far more than a hundred thousand word piece on who lives 'what where and how'....

I think currently I'm just in a moment of trying to create a coherent story to give a reason for this world to well... exist.

The current version is that the world has been settled by the descendants of adventurers who ended the last epic war.

Kinda Long story:
The war was fought across many worlds between a more or less united Human-kind and the Elves who once tried to wipe them out. Humanity being united under the rule of a God-like wizard whose mastery of spells and artifice allowed him to build humanity which on his world was little more then Iron age people into a magi-tech legion that can bridge the gulf between stars and world. He burned a path to the world humans originally came from in his quest to avenge the beings that nearly destroyed them. The Elves meanwhile were seeking means of survival. Some wishing to sacrifice most of the Cosmos and become beings of pure magic who would essentially be able to do anything and live forever.

At some point a collection of Elves and Humans came together recognizing that the battle between the Human emperor and the conclave of Elves would possibly unmake reality. They had created vast magical storms across the materiel plane that threatened all of existence. The Elves and Humans who united gathered many other races whom had wished to survive the cataclysm used means I've not even decided on to create a vast spell-storm that pulled the conflict into the timeless planes of chaos, locking them away from the material Cosmos. These Elves and Humans eventually joined to form a Half-Elven race, settling on a far away world. However the ghosts of the great conflict linger. Human's were scattered and changed into many races. Some of the Elves who wished to "ascend" at the expense of the rest of the Material plane still linger in various forms. The abominations of the war across the stars lingers.

Basically we have a kinda of Sci-Fantasy world. Which leaves me in an odd bind. A magi-tech adventure across a world(s) and needs a kind of epic backdrop to explain the existence of this world. The races of the main world are mostly differing ethnic groups of Half Elves that have formed. As well as occasional other arrivals. Such as a predatory race of vampiric humans. A legion of undead avian-like humanoids, Lich Elves among the Stars, and a nearly God-like former king of mankind who declared himself "The King of Kings, Lord of all the Stars" and various other races.

[Yora]

If most of the primary races are not native to the planet, then they must have reasons why they chose all to come to the same planet even though that meant getting into conflict with the other factions.
There must be something special about the planet, that makes it very valuable for all the groups. At best even for different reasons.

[Tzi]

If most of the primary races are not native to the planet, then they must have reasons why they chose all to come to the same planet even though that meant getting into conflict with the other factions.
There must be something special about the planet, that makes it very valuable for all the groups. At best even for different reasons.

That I'm still working on. I'd prefer it not just be "Random chance."

EDIT:

One idea is that the world just so happens to be the nearest habitable world. Which seems kind of lame. The settling races are either too depleted or lacking the magical and technical knowledge to travel extensively so it may just be "Here is the nearest livable place."

Another might be the world has a unique "vibration," making it suitable to live on. Orbiting a young star and having a unique magical signature, the world could play host to a great new beginning. Also several nearby worlds host life or hosted life.

It is also plausible that it was just a world selected because other forces were not directly aware of it.

[QED - Iltazyara]

One idea is that the world just so happens to be the nearest habitable world. Which seems kind of lame. The settling races are either too depleted or lacking the magical and technical knowledge to travel extensively so it may just be "Here is the nearest livable place."


Sadly, I think, the lamest ideas tend to be the most logical ones. It's certainly something that would force different conflicting groups together. It could also be the world was of some significance before, either as some kind of holy site, or a resource rich world that had been secluded before to protect its appearance. Or something like that.

Anyway, I have a question of my own.

What do people think is acceptable (or not, as the case may be) about Animorphs? By that I mean, catfolk, kitsune, even werewolves to a lesser extent. I tend to have a lot of them, as somewhat 'human', but not, races. And, at this point, I see them as no less original, or likely, than elves or dwarves. I may have even started seeing elves as rabbit humans and dwarves as badger humans. Not implementing that, but the image is stuck in my head now.

I personally think they work, so long as the 'they are cat people, they act like cats!' is avoided. I've also realised they are quite common in ancient myths as well; sirens, merfolk, satyr, selkies, kitsune, centaur, werewolves... And on and on.

[Tzi]

Sadly, I think, the lamest ideas tend to be the most logical ones. It's certainly something that would force different conflicting groups together. It could also be the world was of some significance before, either as some kind of holy site, or a resource rich world that had been secluded before to protect its appearance. Or something like that.

Anyway, I have a question of my own.

What do people think is acceptable (or not, as the case may be) about Animorphs? By that I mean, catfolk, kitsune, even werewolves to a lesser extent. I tend to have a lot of them, as somewhat 'human', but not, races. And, at this point, I see them as no less original, or likely, than elves or dwarves. I may have even started seeing elves as rabbit humans and dwarves as badger humans. Not implementing that, but the image is stuck in my head now.

I personally think they work, so long as the 'they are cat people, they act like cats!' is avoided. I've also realised they are quite common in ancient myths as well; sirens, merfolk, satyr, selkies, kitsune, centaur, werewolves... And on and on.

Well it depends on the context. I like it if in context it makes sense. For me, I'm torn about it. I have a catfolk kind of race but they are somewhat feline and manipulated to be that way by magic. They were once humans. ect ect... they have been manipulated to be what they are by other beings.

I'd like them but I'd still interject something not human in their behavior to them otherwise they seem.... well.... errr humans with funny hats.

As for a world, well I may keep its exact reasons for being so important unknown. I like the random chance, but it is also plausible that it is a world that was once somewhat important. I could run with that.

[TheStranger]

What do people think is acceptable (or not, as the case may be) about Animorphs? By that I mean, catfolk, kitsune, even werewolves to a lesser extent. I tend to have a lot of them, as somewhat 'human', but not, races. And, at this point, I see them as no less original, or likely, than elves or dwarves. I may have even started seeing elves as rabbit humans and dwarves as badger humans. Not implementing that, but the image is stuck in my head now.

I personally think they work, so long as the 'they are cat people, they act like cats!' is avoided. I've also realised they are quite common in ancient myths as well; sirens, merfolk, satyr, selkies, kitsune, centaur, werewolves... And on and on.

Acceptable if it's clearly NOT fetish fuel (and I'm not sure that's possible). If the GM seems a little too into the cat/rabbit/fox/marmoset people, I'm leaving that table so fast that I leave a cloud of cartoon dust. Ditto if other players are taking it in that direction. I mean, I respect everybody's right to do their own thing, but I don't want to be at that table because it's not my thing.

[QED - Iltazyara]

I think one of the problems with animal traited humanoids as fetish fuel is that... Well, when it comes down to it, many of them were greek in origin. And half of greek mythology isn't fetish fuel its a straight up fetish story.

I try to avoid it, certainly, but at this point there is a pointy eared elf fetish out there just as strongly, even ones for dwarves or other traditional fantasy races. It's a balancing act that is probably impossible to win, simply due to everyone having a difference sense of the balance.

One of the ways I make mine work is that some of the more interest ones, the fox-folk (inevitably pulled from Gumiho and Kitsune myths) have a rather lacking concept of human gender. They are foxes, they can shift their form into one that is humanoid; but don't really pay attention to the male/female end of it because the differences aren't the same as what they normally have. Short pieces to define their animal traits, but otherwise they are as separate from humans as humans are from humans; which is a lot when you compare differing racial groups on our own world.

Maybe the 'right' way to do animal races is to simply make a human race which focuses on a totem animal; so the Ox clan is stubborn, determined and strong, the wolf pack based with clear structure and more intelligent. But then add animal traits, work them in backwards rather than starting with them.

[TheStranger]

I disagree on the elf/dwarf fetish. I agree there are people for whom that is a thing, but that's more a result of "if it exists, it is somebody's fetish," and they don't serve the role of fetish fuel whenever they're present. Elves and dwarves were an established fantasy trope well before they were heavily fetishized. Whereas I'd say the rising prevalence of animal-traited humans is because it's fetish fuel for a growing segment of the gaming population. Yes, there are some mythological examples, but I don't get the sense that those are what's driving this trend.

[Tzi]

Acceptable if it's clearly NOT fetish fuel (and I'm not sure that's possible). If the GM seems a little too into the cat/rabbit/fox/marmoset people, I'm leaving that table so fast that I leave a cloud of cartoon dust. Ditto if other players are taking it in that direction. I mean, I respect everybody's right to do their own thing, but I don't want to be at that table because it's not my thing.

Yeah the fetish fuel thing is the main reason I usually shy away from it. It is just, I've had that player in campaigns before and it leaves me a little uncomfortable.

[Tzi]

I think one of the problems with animal traited humanoids as fetish fuel is that... Well, when it comes down to it, many of them were greek in origin. And half of greek mythology isn't fetish fuel its a straight up fetish story.

I try to avoid it, certainly, but at this point there is a pointy eared elf fetish out there just as strongly, even ones for dwarves or other traditional fantasy races. It's a balancing act that is probably impossible to win, simply due to everyone having a difference sense of the balance.

One of the ways I make mine work is that some of the more interest ones, the fox-folk (inevitably pulled from Gumiho and Kitsune myths) have a rather lacking concept of human gender. They are foxes, they can shift their form into one that is humanoid; but don't really pay attention to the male/female end of it because the differences aren't the same as what they normally have. Short pieces to define their animal traits, but otherwise they are as separate from humans as humans are from humans; which is a lot when you compare differing racial groups on our own world.

Maybe the 'right' way to do animal races is to simply make a human race which focuses on a totem animal; so the Ox clan is stubborn, determined and strong, the wolf pack based with clear structure and more intelligent. But then add animal traits, work them in backwards rather than starting with them.

The only humanoid animal race I've made was almost a joke at the expense of the fetish fuel. One race were basically catfolk but more in the almost neko cat person variety. They were humans captured and held in a terrarium zoo and magically altered and bred to have "entertaining traits," by a race of now undead creatures inhabiting a world of poison. They were made because the undead race grew bored and found them entertaining. The inspiration actually came from a day when I noticed an anime called "Cat Planet Cuties," (Its as ecchi and fanservicy as you'd imagine based on the title) and I think me and my girlfriend wondered who watches this and really like "gets into it," and the stereotype is like lifeless losers, so the wheels spun from there to create them. But they are almost a joke race I might not run with.

[QED - Iltazyara]

I suppose one reason why I've ended up not shying away from them as fetish fuel is simply that my players forced me to realise something.

Everything is fetish fuel. They went after everything; just how they acted and played, I was, once upon a time, a prude. Not anymore, although things tend to be distasteful.

Anyway, I think we've put out our points; and while I could certainly argue, that would invalidate me asking for opinions. So unless someone else decides to say something we're done with this topic for now.

I've asked about languages before, and got 'so long as it doesn't bog down play', but what about names?

Naming conventions are interesting things, as usually you can figure out where someone is from based on their name alone. And that's before you into 'Someguy Son of Somefather' or 'Someguy of Somecastle'.

Any thoughts on the importance, or uses for a setting?

[Frozen_Feet]

These days, I use Finnish (my native language) for everything in pen-and-paper games. If I'm drawing blanks, I'll fetch myself a list of most common Finnish names and surnames and match them up randomly. Or throw darts on the map to name regions.

If I need to use some other language (and I always use existing, real-world languages these days), I pop up the random name generator from Behind the Name and tune it to the correct language.

The combination of "First name, middle name, surname" is usually sufficient for most characters. Use surname when speaking formally or addressing military personnel, first name in casual use, and middle name if there are multiple persons with same first name in a group. Occasionally, nicknames will emerge, usually given by players. If they're catchy, use them.

[Tzi]

I suppose one reason why I've ended up not shying away from them as fetish fuel is simply that my players forced me to realise something.

Everything is fetish fuel. They went after everything; just how they acted and played, I was, once upon a time, a prude. Not anymore, although things tend to be distasteful.

Anyway, I think we've put out our points; and while I could certainly argue, that would invalidate me asking for opinions. So unless someone else decides to say something we're done with this topic for now.

I've asked about languages before, and got 'so long as it doesn't bog down play', but what about names?

Naming conventions are interesting things, as usually you can figure out where someone is from based on their name alone. And that's before you into 'Someguy Son of Somefather' or 'Someguy of Somecastle'.

Any thoughts on the importance, or uses for a setting?

That is actually a good point. My original reason for aversion is gone now anyway so I might run with animal humanoid races. Possibly even taking the catfolk thing as a serious idea.

I'm also considering having multiple inhabited worlds but one is at the center. Thus creating enough ecological room for some of these races. Partly inspired by Pathfinders "Distant Worlds" book.

As for languages. I pick language families and just say x race, take y languages. So like the Elves might be Romance languages. So the Sun Elves might have say Italian-esque names. The Moon Elves, French, the Jungle Elves maybe Romanian? ect you get the idea.

[Tzi]

So has anyone heard of or read Pathfinder's "Distant Worlds," source book? It is basically a brief setting guide to races and other planets in the same solar system as the "Main campaign world." I'm wondering if anyone else has done the multiple worlds thing?

I'm considering having that be an element to my setting. The main campaign world is the world of the Elvish race, or elf like race. It's neighbor or sister is the world of Humans but it has suffered some yet to be decided crisis thus some humans have sought ways to the Elves world since it is still idyllic by comparison.

Also just in general having multiple worlds for the sake of having a kind of Cosmic Fantasy adventure comes out.