Worldbuilding, nonhumans, and the inaccurarcy of Earth parallels

[Storm Raven]

Interesting thoughts, but I'm reminded of an essay I once discovered some time back (and don't know enough to get a link) where some history buff was trying to explain all the inaccuracies in an example paragraph of standard action fantasy while trying to make a case that changing all the details to be historically accurate would not make it any less fun.

And failing utterly.

Are you thinking of this?

http://www.sfwa.org/writing/thud.htm

I don't think Anderson failed, but its the only thing I can think of that comes even close to your description.

 

[Ambush Bug]

I'm not sure you have seriously considered that even among the inveterate D&D worldbuilders there's little call for this kind of inquiry. Most people build game worlds to house their knockoffs of Conan, LotR, and Naruto, not to run detailed simulations of (heavily Western-biased) technological development.

It's cool that you want to run Middle Earth through the Renaissance and Industrial Revolution, but not everyone shares that interest. It's not because they haven't thought things through, it's because they have and found that kind of thing doesn't serve their needs.

As in inveterate worldbuilder, I hereby call for this kind of inquiry. This kind of thing serves my needs.

Seriously, CSL's idea is really interesting to me. It's a great way to build a campaign that has lots of elements players will recognize, but that presents them in a new way. Sure, it's not for everybody. But it's for somebody - and I'd rather have that person in my game than someone who just wants to reenact LOTR. This is a great hook to build a setting around, and it's a setting that would be fun to explore. PCs would constantly be walking into situations that players half-recognize, which would make it easier to surprise them. That's what makes a good session.

 

[Mallus]

As in inveterate worldbuilder, I hereby call for this kind of inquiry. This kind of thing serves my needs.

Note that I said 'little call' and not 'no call'... besides, my point was it's not a good idea to suggest people with different tastes than yours aren't 'doing enough thinking'.

 

[fusangite]

And yet, your standard D&D fantasy setting continues for centuries, even millennia, without appreciable progress in science,

Isn't this setting-dependent? How long have 9th level spells been around? Were they always around or are they new tech.?

and retaining many of the same cultural and philosophical traits it did three thousand years ago.

As much as many cultural and philosophical traits in our society have changed in the past 3000 years, some have not.

But I'm not sure if many worldbuilders have seriously considered the effects of genuine nonhuman cultures would have on the development of their human neighbors, and their overall effects on the development of the world.

Some have and have reached different conclusions than you. Some have and have reached similar conclusions to yours. Some have not. And many have said, "Serious consideration!? This is D&D, right?"

If dwarves and gnomes are spread all over the world, is it not conceivable that through cultural interchange, human cultures based on real-world societies that historically didn't have access to finished metal goods for a long time, like North American Aboriginals or Africans, might in fact have access to metalsmithing and metal instruments?

Actually, most of Africa was producing iron by the time Europeans developed an interest in the place. And copper-working was taking place on every continent but Australia by 1450.

But much of our image of aboriginal cultures in America is not of them prior to their use of metal on a large scale but rather the kind of cultures they became when they started importing finished metal goods on a large scale.

So, the question arises: in a trading environment, why would a hunter-gatherer culture or migratory pastoralist culture start producing metal goods itself when it could just trade for them?

The cattle pastoralists of medieval East Africa are great examples of this. Why not just trade beef for iron?

In real life, while some cultural interchange allowed non-European civilizations to get their hands on such things as metal cooking pots or firearms, they were never able to acquire or develop them on the scale of Europe,

Wasn't per-capita firearm ownership higher amongst North American aboriginals in the 19th century than amongst colonists?

which led to the conquest of much of the rest of the world by the beginning of the 20th century.

This is a problematic and simplistic take on European colonialism.

Any colonizing civilization might find its job much more difficult if it has to compete with foreign cultures who match it in technology,

That's true. But you need to broaden your idea of "technology" -- social technologies like close-order drill, conscription, variolation and quarantining were more important than firearms in European conquest.

Industrial development requires fossil fuels to be able to power a lot of the machines that are eventually created.

While this argument might fly for a world with the physics of this world, you are really hitting upon the biggest problem with the fundamental premises underpinning your thread:

Fantasy worlds run by different physical worlds than this one. You are reasoning from the viewpoint that fantasy worlds have the same physical rules as our world. People in D&D worlds can make giant exploding balls of fire out of words; they can cure terminal diseases by touch; it therefore seems impossible to posit a similar course of technological development in a world with different physics than our world based on how tech developed in this one. Digging up coal is way less efficient than summoning fire elementals; fossil fuels make no sense in a D&D world.

So, leaving aside the idea that we could not have built the machines we have built powered by charcoal and ethanol instead of coal and gas, something I find dubious in the extreme, your theory still doesn't really hold together.

You want to develop gunpowder? It's a pity, then, that so many of the chemicals needed to develop it on a large scale are in the hands of giants and goblins

But D&D worlds are worlds in which earth, air, fire and water are elements.

If earth and fire are elements, how can sulphur also be an element?

Related to this point, humanity has had the world to itself. Different human civilizations fight each other, sure, but they've also had time to develop tremendous scientific and intellectual advancements, especially when internal disorder is suppressed and people don't need to spend every waking moment waiting for an attack. Europe was a savage place in the Dark Ages, with bandits and warlords everywhere, but a thousand years later the greatest source of conflict was between nations, which did not face internal disorder on nearly the same scale, giving its residents time to focus on things like philosophy and science.

Way more of Europe's economy was focused on funding the creation and development of philosophy during the "Dark Ages" than today.

And not to Godwin this thread but to posit the idea that scientific "progress" varies inversely with the savage barbarity of a civilization might be complicated by the experiences of a lot of Central Europeans during the twentieth century.

Now, turn it around and consider how countries react by having to deal with the constant attacks of orcs, ogres and giants.

I don't know. Perhaps they might build The Great Wall of China.

Along with the knowledge of metalsmithing, for example, who's to say how human cultures will be affected by the presence of nonhumans?

This is a good point.

But here's the thing: why would they view the non-humanity of a certain group as more problematic than humans have traditionally found linguistic, religious and/or cultural difference? Does "because he's a dwarf" necessarily trump "because he's a Muslim" as a reason for intractable, long-term conflict?

The constant attacks of humanoids requires a strong military leader to fend them off, which means that strong monarchs become a popular choice.

This certainly seems pretty axiomatic: cultures that have tended to face repeated barbarian incursions have tended to be more despotic than those which have not. But again, I have to ask: would the relationship between humans and gnolls necessarily be more adversarial than the relationship between the Rus and the Pechenegs or the Christians and the Muslims?

Mayan or Aztec-inspired cultures, under the influence of their dwarven neighbors, might place a tremendous value on precious metals and gems, and develop a very strong commercial tradition, or a strong tradition of engineering and science under the influence of gnomes.

That sounds cool.

But why did you pick Mayans and Aztecs in particular for this example?

Halfling influence might lead Viking-like societies to embrace the notions of the social contract,

I hate to tell you this but much of our ideas of social contract come from Germanic barbarians: tort law and representative democracy leap immediately to mind.

as the halflings offer their valuable agricultural knowledge to help their human neighbors feed themselves in the harsh northern climes,

I find your halflings a good deal more interesting than other people's halflings. Good job.

while the humans protect them from the ravages of orcs and goblins.

You might enjoy reading more about the relationships between agricultural and pastoral societies for other examples of real world cultural symbiosis along these lines.

Elven influence might lead a medieval Muslim-inspired society to have a very strong devotion to nature, incorporating it into the religious devotion that permeates the rest of their culture.

That's a cool idea with or without elves. The idea of Muhammad being all into the sacred groves sounds cool. The early medieval Abadi Muslims of the Maghrib were a bit like this.

Anyway, a thought-provoking piece. Happy gaming!

 

[fusangite]

I think a problem with this theory is the idea that everyone of a non human race acts the same.

I tend to find that the 19th century idea of how different human races acted has simply been transferred to non-human races in fantasy settings. 19th century racial theory has had a gigantic impact on RPGs and underpins a lot of people's assumptions.

The idea of culture as hard-wired is an idea of long-standing. In the medieval world, people saw behaviour as lineal; those views gave way to seeing it as racial. For whatever reasons, people seem to like imagining that those old ideas are real when they run RPGs.

Most fantasy settings divide up humans into countries and kingdoms. Each with its own traditions, customs, and laws. Yet non human races are just races.

Indeed. Kind of like how 18th and 19th century Europeans saw the world...

 

[Mallus]

Indeed. Kind of like how 18th and 19th century Europeans saw the world...

Well, it does make things simpler. Not to mention that it's morally defensible when you're talking about elves...

 

[Eric Tolle]

Are you thinking of this?

http://www.sfwa.org/writing/thud.htm

I don't think Anderson failed, but its the only thing I can think of that comes even close to your description.

Thud and Blunder was actually a reaction to the flood of badly-written sword-and-sorcery back in the day, before Tolkien became the default organizational model for fantasy.

As such, it made some excellent points that writers of the time needed to keep in mind. of course he also made some huge errors, generally when talking about swords. But back when he was writing, it was a conceit among writers that modern fencing or kendo were actually more viable combat forms than medieval swordplay, so the ignorance was widespread (and evidently the blame can largely be placed on Victorian "experts").

Thud and Blunder is, sadly, obsolete. That's why for today's fantasy, one really needs Diana Wynne Jones' Tough Guide to Fantasyland.

 

[CruelSummerLord]

I'll address many of the respondents who've replied to various aspects of my thesis:

-To White Whale, fusangite and others who have commented on how my thesis as to my assuming that the campaign setting would have the same kinds of scientific laws as our real world. This is in part a response to a debate I had with a couple of people over at Canonfire who commented on the apparent strangeness of oil being able to burn trolls but not being able to power an engine. This would, in a sense, be a justification as to why things don't change the way I don't want them to.

In truth, I agree with the notion that the campaign setting's science won't agree with the real world's, in that evaporated water doesn't expand. My own version of gunpowder just plain doesn't work most of the time, and when it does, it creates a massive explosion that destroys everything for miles around, starting with the idiot that tried to make it in the first place.

-In repsonse to Rhianni, my personal view is not that every single member of a nonhuman race acts the same, but rather each race will have its own tendencies and skills that it instinctively goes for. Humans are the jack of all trades, that can adapt to almost anything and have the greatest potential for variety, although they don't master specific traits. Elves are inclined towards naturalism and magic, dwarves towards mining and metalsmithing, gnomes towards engineering, naturalism and illusion, halflings toward pastoralism and agriculture, and so forth. These are not hard-and-fast rules, and allow for considerable variance, but by the same token they're major traits. Dwarves, as a race, are simply better at mining and metalsmithing than humans, although they're deficient compared to humans in other areas. Hence why they might trade metal goods and knowledge to humans that can help them in areas they aren't experts in.

-Gizmo33 has basically captured what I'm trying to do. I'm no expert on anthropology or anything like that, but by the same token I do try and justify why many aspects of the world are the way they are. This is by no means meant to be a full and detailled comparison to the real world, but I do try and include details and parallels so the readers can see what I'm going for.

-In repsonse to Mallus, I never for one minute intended to insult anyone whose tastes differ from mine. I love LOTR, so if you want to replicate it, I'd be down with that if I was playing in your game. I was merely saying that a lot of the worldbuilding discussion I'd seen before didn't, in my view, entirely consider the impact sentient nonhuman cultures would have on the development of a fantasy world, when they made parallels between our world and a D&D setting.

-To fusanigite again, what I mean by "scientific progress" I mean that the countries had, by and large, ceased to be plagued by large-scale banditry, powerful nobles who could defy central authority, and things like that. Doesn't mean that international wars or internal civil conflicts didn't flare up, but a certain amount of civil order was established, which had to have made it easier for scholars and scientists to do their thing without risking being massacred by invaders. As governments gained greater control of their territories, they also developed firmer economic bases, and their patronage obviously helped out as well.

I suppose by "barbarity", I mean "anarchy", which declined over the centuries, international wars aside, when one considers Europe, for example.

When I referred to Aztecs and Mayans, I merely picked a culture that dwarves are not typically associated with. In all my associations, I tried to match races with human cultures that aren't typically identified with the various demihuman traits. When it comes to halflings and Nordic barbarians, for example, the historical "barbarian" cultures certain contributed to them, but that's not what most people today associate barbarians with. I'm talking about your typical barbarian/Viking cultures in a fantasy milieu, which generally seem to go by the view of "might makes right", and monarchy based on combat prowess, rather that any stronger social contract.

-I'm also glad that Fusangite appreciated what I tried to go for with my halflings, for instance, and Ambush Bug sums it up very nicely-putting a fresh spin on an old idea. Players/readers will still find many elements they recognize, but they're presented in a different light than what they might be used to. It also allows for the mixing and matching of cultural traits, so that while various human cultures in the setting could have parallels with their real-life inspirations, they aren't straight ripoffs. The Baklunish might share a number of traits with the peoples of the MIddle East, and the Flan with the North American Aboriginals, but they're not straight ripoffs, and just like with the real life peoples that inspired them, there is considerable variation and difference among them.

What I'd be going for here is what both Fusangite and Ambush Bug have identified, to a certain extent; both adding new layers to the setting and its development, explaining just why things are the way they are, while simultaneously giving the audience, whether they be fantasy game players or readers of a fantasy novel, a unique twist on elements they still recognize. Guys like me and Ambush Bug, whose experiences are enhanced by these little details, can enjoy the former. OTOH, even if you're not all that concerned with the former, you can still enjoy the latter as a variation on the standard fantasy tropes.

Besides, in game terms, these variations might impact game play, if the DM and players can work these details out...

 

[Rhianni32]

You're very very VERY confused if you believe it was "cultural reasons" that stopped pikeman formations being replaced purely by musketeers. They were replaced pretty much as soon as technology allowed it. The cold hard fact is, people with primitive matchlock or even flintlock muskets are pretty terrible for assaulting positions, or for resisting cavalry charges or the like (particularly the latter). Until muskets became reliable enough, and gained bayonets, fielding a purely musket-bearing army would have been inviting your own massacre.

You are quite right and my examples as I put them were poor for my cultural reasons point. There are many many reasons why a nation does not take on new techniques or technology.
I guess a more broader example would have been better.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

-If dwarves and gnomes are spread all over the world, is it not conceivable that through cultural interchange, human cultures based on real-world societies that historically didn't have access to finished metal goods for a long time, like North American Aboriginals or Africans, might in fact have access to metalsmithing and metal instruments?

Why would they be spread all over the world? I tend to view most demihumans as not being as likely to spread out as humans are. I agree this is a question that needs answering - in my own campaign world, gnomes and dwarves are limited to specific areas where they have established realms. The orcs have been driven off into the deserts.

-Industrial development requires fossil fuels to be able to power a lot of the machines that are eventually created. But what happens if a lot of that oil and coal is controlled by hill giants or orcs? These races are unlikely to be interested in large-scale industrial development, instead using the oil to burn their cooking fires, treat their weapons and armor, and to create balls of flaming pitch to use in their catapults.

I like the idea of an industrial revolution, and plan on taking my gam that direction eventually. Note that I mentioned that the orcs were driven off into the deserts? This will eventually come into play.

You want to develop gunpowder? It's a pity, then, that so many of the chemicals needed to develop it on a large scale are in the hands of giants and goblins who you'll have to fight fang and claw to take it from. You want to develop an internal combustion engine? Gets mighty tricky if most of the oil and gas has to be saved for fighting invasion by those blasted trolls...

In my campaign, the critical component for gunpowder is ruby dust, and rubies are only found in one place - the area where the gnomes have settled...