Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Afrodyte" data-source="post: 4173397" data-attributes="member: 8713">To address the topic at hand, I've had some time to think about things.&nbsp; Since I'm not too tired to formulate a coherent response, I'll attempt to do so now.I'll address some of the larger cliches mentioned on the blog I linked to earlier.EUROCENTRISMThis is a big one for me, for obvious reasons.&nbsp; It's been done to death (and then had raise dead cast on it repeatedly) and doesn't reflect the multicultural reality I live in.&nbsp; Even Middle-earth, that bastion of worldbuilding, has more diversity.&nbsp; However, most people who imitate Tolkien don't exactly flatter him with their attempts.In any case, an idea I've been playing with is having the default cultural context be Native American, particularly Algonquin and Iroquois.&nbsp; There would be tribes and territories, perhaps even powerful city-states, but no kingdoms.&nbsp; Think Pathfinder (the movie, without the Mandatory White Protagonist).&nbsp; However, I won't simply reverse the cliche and make Europeans the &quot;uncouth savages.&quot;&nbsp; I prefer putting non-humans in that role.Speaking of non-humans, that goes to my next idea.RACIAL DETERMINISMI don't mind different races (as in human, elf, dwarf, etc.) having unique traits.&nbsp; I don't mind them being more capable than humans.&nbsp; I also don't mind them being exaggerations of various facets of humanity.&nbsp; What I do mind is when race is the same as personality.&nbsp; If I have to play a dwarf as a surly, ax-wielding Scotsman to play it &quot;correctly,&quot; I get annoyed.&nbsp; However, playing a dwarf as the embodiment of the pursuit of excellence is cool.&nbsp; Elves as innately good and wise are dull.&nbsp; Elves as the incarnation of nobility (of stature, not class or moral worth) is cool.&nbsp; Orcs similar to Disney's Gargoyles are cool.&nbsp; Mindless minions get on my nerves.&nbsp; And so on and so forth.CHOSEN ONE SYNDROMESimply put, I wouldn't do prophecies at all.&nbsp; In fact, I lean toward people &quot;editing&quot; history after the fact to make it seem like fate had a hand in things.EPICSee what I said about Eurocentric.&nbsp; Without empires and kingdoms and such, it's easy to avoid making everything about the Fate of the World.&nbsp; Although the scale is bigger, in play it's actually quite limiting since it's pretty hard to find something worthwhile to do after the Big Event.&nbsp; I'm more interested stories about characters seeking to improve their own little corner of the world.&nbsp; It strikes me as more personal and (dare I say it) realistic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Afrodyte, post: 4173397, member: 8713"] To address the topic at hand, I've had some time to think about things. Since I'm not too tired to formulate a coherent response, I'll attempt to do so now. I'll address some of the larger cliches mentioned on the blog I linked to earlier. [U]EUROCENTRISM[/U] This is a big one for me, for obvious reasons. It's been done to death (and then had [i]raise dead[/i] cast on it repeatedly) and doesn't reflect the multicultural reality I live in. Even Middle-earth, that bastion of worldbuilding, has more diversity. However, most people who imitate Tolkien don't exactly flatter him with their attempts. In any case, an idea I've been playing with is having the default cultural context be Native American, particularly Algonquin and Iroquois. There would be tribes and territories, perhaps even powerful city-states, but no kingdoms. Think [I]Pathfinder[/I] (the movie, without the Mandatory White Protagonist). However, I won't simply reverse the cliche and make Europeans the "uncouth savages." I prefer putting non-humans in that role. Speaking of non-humans, that goes to my next idea. [U]RACIAL DETERMINISM[/U] I don't mind different races (as in human, elf, dwarf, etc.) having unique traits. I don't mind them being more capable than humans. I also don't mind them being exaggerations of various facets of humanity. What I do mind is when race is the same as personality. If I have to play a dwarf as a surly, ax-wielding Scotsman to play it "correctly," I get annoyed. However, playing a dwarf as the embodiment of the pursuit of excellence is cool. Elves as innately good and wise are dull. Elves as the incarnation of nobility (of stature, not class or moral worth) is cool. Orcs similar to Disney's Gargoyles are cool. Mindless minions get on my nerves. And so on and so forth. [U]CHOSEN ONE SYNDROME[/U] Simply put, I wouldn't do prophecies at all. In fact, I lean toward people "editing" history after the fact to make it seem like fate had a hand in things. [U]EPIC[/U] See what I said about Eurocentric. Without empires and kingdoms and such, it's easy to avoid making everything about the Fate of the World. Although the scale is bigger, in play it's actually quite limiting since it's pretty hard to find something worthwhile to do after the Big Event. I'm more interested stories about characters seeking to improve their own little corner of the world. It strikes me as more personal and (dare I say it) realistic. [/QUOTE]

Verification