Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CruelSummerLord" data-source="post: 4327081" data-attributes="member: 48692">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...</blockquote>

Verification