Regions in your homeworld?

[Ferret]

Ah psion that was the distinction I was trying to find. whether people clustered the elves here but split them up into regions, and the dwarves go there but are still split up.

The reason I'm asking is that I trying to make a world with 3 races, Ilamei, Aitan, and the Kyei. Think of the Kyei as native africans, with the Aitan enslaving. The Ilamei are opposed to this stop them, thus begins a war. But if I add in regions (definate) things change.

The problem is I have no idea how they should react to each other in relation to feelings with mere foreigners. See what I mean?

 

[Turjan]

I'm afraid I don't quite get your point. You want to have one definite way how the three different races cope with each other, or what?

 

[Psion]

Ah psion that was the distinction I was trying to find. whether people clustered the elves here but split them up into regions, and the dwarves go there but are still split up.

Well, I even split up demihuman subraces geographically, though I assume that their longevity makes for less cultural drifts between separated enclaves than it would among humans.

The problem is I have no idea how they should react to each other in relation to feelings with mere foreigners. See what I mean?

When you say "each other", do you mean members of the same races in different cultural regions? Some might get along fine, others wouldn't, perhaps based on cultural drifts or historical events creating bad blood.

 

[TerraDave]

Has anyoneintroduced regions into your world where the races speak different languages, different cultures and so on? How has it worked?

Yes, and it has worked well--like a few other posters, I have an "Earthish" campaign borrowing heavily from RL geography and culture. Details in sig.

Did you use different races? Where the regions solely populated with different races of did you get races with the same culture? Anything?

We don't have a single "kingdom of the elves", because of the Earthish nature of things, other races are assumed to live smaller dispersed communities--though certain regions might have (more of) a particular race or sub-race. Dwarves do have kingdoms, but more then one.

As mentioned above, keep a tab on languages--and be sure players know what is available and how this will be important.

We use language groups and dialects--Elves have a common language but multiple dialects for example. This allows for richer linguistics, but still keeps things simple enough in play: Someone from Florence would speak differently from someone from Paris, due to the dialects, but they still have a good chance to be able to communicate, and can learn to speak to one another eventually without any skill points being lost.

We also use regions and (sub)races to restrict starting class and available armor and weapons and some other equipment to make them a little more distinctive and important--but in practice things remain pretty flexible.

 

[Hand of Evil]

First the map, then defining the campaign area, population, "common" is the language of the most common race in the campaign area. When, I look at a city population, I look at the % of that race and say that is the chance that common will be known, adding any half-what not to the chance.

 

[the Jester]

My world is humungous. I have lots of different cultures, languages and regions. The elves from really far away speak elfisti rather than elven- clearly related, but not quite comprehensible.

Hmm, I just had a thought- I think I'll make learning a language closely related to one you already speak only cost 1/2 skill rank.

Anyhow, 'Common' is a different language depending on where you come from. If you're from near Forinthia, it's prolly Forinthian. If you're from the Peshan area, you prolly speak Peshan. If you're from Tirchond, you can choose from Elven or Dwarven as your 'common tongue.' And so forth.

 

[The Shaman]

No, all the cultures in my world are the same: the architecture is the same everywhere, everyone speaks the same language, dresses alike and wears their hair the same way, and no one looks different or has different customs, rituals, or beliefs.

I call my homebrew, "Vanillaworld."



Yes, I enjoy creating diverse, richly detailed cultures all over my campaign-worlds. This is one of my favorite, if most demanding and time-consuming, parts of GMing and homebrewing.

 

[DragonLancer]

To be honest I've never bothered fleshing a setting out like that. Its so much easier to just assume that "Common" is the trade tongue and everyone uses it for simple ease.

 

[Ferret]

What I want to guage is how people have put the populations in their regions, and also I always get the impression that when Elves from the otherside of the world meet that stop, hug, one invites the other to tea, and they have an immediate trust of each other (Which I don't for one minute happens anywhere other then in R.A Salvador books.) This is in the light of having foreign and native people of the same and different people, and sounds even more ridiculous now...

I think I'll develop my thoughts, and then respond again.

 

[nopantsyet]

Hmmm...no dissenting opinions. That's always a bad sign.

I've done that. In past campaigns. The bwahahaha moment, "You don't understand a word of what they're saying." But only on a limited basis, where it actually served a plot purpose. Never universally.

There's a game decision to be made as to how large a role you want language to play in your campaign. Were I of the same brand as Tolkien, I would create rich languages to wrap cultures around, and I weave present a rich tapestry as a backdrop for my campaign. Then my players would think I was the best DM in the world. Then they would show up, not be able to communicate with anyone, and leave.

It eventually reduces to an arbitrary obstacle. Either they know the language or they don't. And if they don't, everything is a lot harder and they curse themselves for wasting all those skill points on Diplomacy. Unless you're actually creating those languages and adding something to the richness to the world besides the name of a language and the fact that the party can or cannot communicate in it, there's nothing to balance the addition of another obstacle.

Now, maybe you want the game to feel more "realistic," and that's just fine. I've certainly done my own thing in the name of "realism" before. But at some point you've got to let go and give in to the abstract or else your game will have to take place in real time and the DM will have to become omniscient. Ugh! As for myself, I'd rather spend my time on plot, NPCs and interesting cultures and locales.

So there's your obligatory dissenting opinion. Your normal programming will now resume.

Clarification: I do fill my worlds with many diverse regions, each with its own demographics, culture, social structures, politics, economics, etc. But I don't give them different languages. There's Common, and there's, "Common with an accent."

Edited: Added Clarification