realistic vs. cliche cultures

redwing

First Post
Do you prefer playing or running a campaign that uses a Very detailed and realistic setting like the Harn setting or do you prefer to use the "Hollywood" cliche type of campaign like a Greyhawk setting.
If you don't understand what I'm saying I'll explain: Take any givin ancient culture that was the basis for your campaign. Is it based on how the culture actually was or what most people now think it was like.
For example, if anyone is running a Norse setting is it full of peaceful villages with merchants that travel the seas to foreign lads to trade and a couple of raiding, pillaging barbarians (the actual historical "viking") or do you use a country full of stupid, beer-drinking, party-animals that kill, rape, and steal (the "cliche" way)?

By the way: I tried to make this a pole but it was unseccesful. I couldn't figure out how to do it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

a little bit of both:

Ihave an ongoing campaign with lots of intricate plaot lines and details...

but the small- mini-campaigns are hollywood types. And I striong those together in a long and drawn out campaign...

Hollywood is made for peopel with attention span- that is why people cant stand to watch a 4 hour movie- or hey start to squirm after 2 hrs.

In the same way, peoplel ike variety and change in their routine- so after dispatching of a small baddie- there is another they can focus on- instead of chasing oen BBEG for 20 levels to have a single climactic battle...but that is usually the case in 3e
 

I prefer settings which make sense. Harn is a snapshot in time, and gives only vague support for future-dating probable events. Greyhawk and FR are ever-evolving, but IMO Greyhawk has a better sense of continuity than FR.
 


Hmmmm....

Realistic? Monsters cavorting across the land? Demons raising armies of conquest? Mages with the power to shoot lightning bolts from their arses? (australian spelling used for the weak-of-heart)

Flumpfs??

The whole point is to ESCAPE reality.

Not have a lovely time at harvest festival.

SNOOOORRRRE!!!
 

yeah but when is it too much? I'm getting fed up with FR and I never got into Greyhawk because they are very overused cliches.

I find a healthy mix of both cliche and realistic works best
 

Hmmmm....

Realistic? Monsters cavorting across the land? Demons raising armies of conquest? Mages with the power to shoot lightning bolts from their arses? (australian spelling used for the weak-of-heart)

Flumpfs??

The whole point is to ESCAPE reality.

Not have a lovely time at harvest festival.

SNOOOORRRRE!!!

Since it seems that you're jumping on the use of a word, exchange every instance of realistic with "that which does not harm one's Suspension of Disbelief."

Escaping reality is one thing, but being blatantly silly is another...
 

redwing said:
or do you prefer to use the "Hollywood" cliche type of campaign like a Greyhawk setting.

I don't understand where this judgement of Greyhawk comes from. Let's break it down:

Baklunish Humanity: These guys have their roots in Arabian real world cultures, but were never really developed enough to see whether Gygax was going for the stereotypes. It is worth noting that most canonists, including iirc, Erik Mona, are adamant about not using strictly Arabian source material, such as the old Al-Qadim stuff, as background for the Baklunish. IMO, the work LGG coauthor Fred Weining has done with developing them gives them a unique, non-cliche feel.

Flan Humanity - This culture seems to draw its roots from Native American and Celtic sources, but they are also creditted with spawning mysterious ancient kingdoms, which were partly responsible for villains such as Vecna. They obviously swerved away from the "Native American/Celtic = tree hugging peaceful goody goody sissies" here.

Oeridian Humanity = Warlike nomads with roots probably derived from both Mongol and Germanic civilizations. Again, not very well developed, but they show a marked habit of deciding to peacefully mingle with their peers when that course of action was called for, which isn't exactly cliche behavior from the stereotypical warlike 'barbarian' cultures of real world earth.

Rhennee Humanity = Gypsies, but with a twist. They live on riverboats and ply the waters of the central Flannaess. Probably not a unique idea, but defintely not cliche for its time. They do, unfortunately have the gypsy cliche of being untrustworthy thieves and liars, but IMO this is once again due to the lack of any real in depth treatment of them in the canon material.

Suel Humanity = The roots of this race is hard to pinpoint. Moorcock's Melniboneans are the usual suspect. The common 'corrupt empire of wizards' cliche is used here, but doesn't represent the whole of the culture, and IMO was not cliche 25 years ago when Gygax created them.

Elves, sadly, do follow a Tolkien-esque cliche, haughty, arrogant and aloof. But it is certainly worth noting that in the original, Gygax material, the elves were never said to be in any decline or retreat from the world. They lived in their own nations, with handfulls scattered around the rest of the Flanaess, but I never got the impression they were a dying race, which is the most common, and IMO most unimaginative cliche out there. Later authors such as Carl Sargent and Roger Moore did start aluding to this garbage, and IMO the settings integrity suffered for it.

Dwarves, same thing, aloof and sort of mysterious, and sheltered away in their mountain fastnesses, but never said to be in decline or dying. This basically stands in current canon, Dwarves aren't common in the Flanaess, but I for one get the feeling that their may be legendary dwarven realms in the unexplored parts of Oerth.

Halflings and Gnomes were never detailed much, so it's hard to tell. Halflings in the current rules are split between the Tolkien and Dragonlance cliches, and Gnomes, unfortunately, are falling into Dragonlance cliches as well, but IMO this is 3e's fault, not Greyhawk's. The LGG authors, having little canon source material to work with, had to work within the framework of 3e's ideas about these races.
 

I do homebrews and being and having a double maj0or in anthropology and sociology tend to like developing real 'culktures' for any part of my world - be it a place or a race.

I tend to have a major 'culture region' in which the campaign mainly takes place and have a well developed real culture for it.
The surrounding nations and less prominent 'monster races' have less defined 'hollywood-esqe cultures'

My four main settings have been
1 Yuan Empire: Mongol Empire during reign of Ogedei (Ghenghis Khans son) but in which the equivalent of Europe was conquered

2 Anziko based on an amalgam of the medieval African Kingdoms (Mali, Songhay, Kanem-Boru) with mixtures of Ethiopian 'Sheba and Axum' and of course Kem (Nubia-Egypt)

3 The world of Solomon Kane (15-17th century Europe/Africa/Asia) in which the Puritans have conquered England and northern France, the Scorcery-using Grand Inquisitor has become Pope, the Lammusa Ottoman Empire threatens Europe, the Seelie courts have return to Scotland and Vampires and werewolves rule Eastern Europe.

4. Mythic Polynesia
 

Re: Re: realistic vs. cliche cultures

chatdemon said:
I don't understand where this judgement of Greyhawk comes from.

This may be wrong, but Greyhawk seems plagued by crazy wacked-out monsters who fill strange crypts and holes in the ground with nothing better to do than wait around and kill wandering homeless people who have death wishes and are intent on looting and/or killing everything they see if they don't get killed first by the traps that suck your soul to oblivion you if you look at them the wrong way.

This might not be what Greyhawk's like, but some people can't help but have that impression.
 

Remove ads

Top