Worlds of Design: Escaping Tolkien

In my previous article we discussed technological differences; this article focuses on cultural differences. Perhaps the cultural differences aren’t as clear in one’s awareness, but can be very important and just as far-reaching. Don’t underestimate culture!

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

Part of world building is figuring out the consequences of changes you make from the technological and cultural background that you start with. You always start with something. For example, there’s often an assumption that there are horses large enough to be ridden in the world, even though for thousands of years of real-world history, they weren’t large enough to ride.

Trapped by Tolkien​

Some world builders get “trapped by Tolkien” as I like to put it. They think elves must be like Tolkien’s (even though those aren’t traditional), dwarves must be like Tolkien’s, etc. Imagine elves with the capabilities of Tolkien’s, but inclined to be Imperials! It’s a change of culture only, but a mighty one. Imagine if dwarves and orcs tended to work together! Similarly, monstrous humanoids aren’t necessarily antagonistic towards humans and vice versa. These are cultural changes that can differentiate your fantasy world from so many others and while subtle, but they can make a big difference. Turn your imagination loose, don’t let it be constrained by a single author or book.

Magical Attitudes​

Attitudes toward magic make a big difference on how a setting works. In one setting the magic users may be the rock stars, while in another they may be dreaded and avoided shadowy figures; they can be as rare as professional athletes or an everyday occurrence.

Modern Attitudes​

It’s probably inevitable that modern attitudes will shape how game masters create their fantasy worlds. Using slavery as one example, whether or not it “makes sense” in a world must also be balanced by how it will be represented in the game. If you are going to take on mature topics for a fantasy world that has a long history similar to our world (including the unpleasant parts), you should consider how your players will deal with the topic.

Intentions​

I haven’t said much about intentional versus unintentional change to a fantasy world, because in the end it’s the change that matters, not the intention. I suppose you’re more likely to figure out what changes will occur, when you’re intending to introduce changes. But a world is a huge collection of interactions, and any change is likely to affect more than you intended.

Your Turn: In your experience, what was the change (from the “default”) in world-setting that made the biggest difference?

 

[Raduin711]

I wonder sometimes how when we subvert a trope how much we really escape the thing we subvert. Like when Dragon Age presents us with elves that are treated as slaves and second-class citizens, we go "Ah, well, that's different..." but it's only really different because of Tolkien. Part of their uniqueness derives from it's relationship to Tolkien.

Or if we take elves and put them down in a cyberpunk setting and try to work out what elves might be like in this new context... and you end up with something like the elves of Shadowrun. But have we really escaped Tolkein's shadow? We had to invent a lot of stuff to put them in this new setting, sure, but the seed is still there.

I think if we try to say "I have elves in my story, but they aren't Tolkien's elves!" I wonder if we are really being honest about our influences. The professor has a very, very long shadow and I think if you really want to get out from under it you have to look for a new source... if you look older than him, you run the risk of growing along comfortable pathways that were laid by him. I think it can be done though (but not in the context of D&D; that's a lost cause.) Most likely this means looking to other mythologies or even outside of the western cannon. Just be wary of what you bring with you.

Or maybe it's just easier to give Tolkien his due and just get on with making the fantasy stuff you love.

 

[Haldrik]

This is a fascinating case where the title - the editor's title, not mine, mine was something like "World-building: effects of cultural change" - has gotten more attention than my intention, which was to write about how cultural change must modify a world from whatever people think is the norm or expectation or the real world.

I would love setting cultures (and classes) to break out of D&D polytheism.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

As people here have said (and was pointed out in the GURPS simulation of it, Dungeon Fantasy), D&D has become its own genre, with elements such as gender equality, multiple nonhuman intelligent races working together, vast metropolises selling magic items, and massive underground complexes that never existed in either the source material or the historical Middle Ages. Wizards, with their predefined spells, objective, analytical approach, and academic towers and books, behave much more like scientists of the supernatural than anything else. (One of the Chaosium BRP supplements has the shamanic, priestly, and wizardly approaches to magic, and this has it to a T).

The concept of a default setting has, perhaps, become most mind-numbing aspect of modern gaming.

Don't get me wrong. I love Tolkien, Jack Vance, and Greek mythology, but I prefer Tolkien to do Tolkien, Vance to do Vance, and Greek myth to go Greek myth. I don't want to sit down at a gaming table to play Tolkien, Vance, or Greek myth. I was to sit down at a gaming talk to explore the DM's unique and well-crafted fantasy world. The DM might borrow and combine aspects of Tolkien, Vance, and Greek myth, but I don't want to feel like I'm walking into a knock-off. I want to see fantasy from a new angel, through a cerebral prism unique to that Dungeon Master.

Hell, I even like the Forgotten Realms, but I want them to stay Greenwood's table. I like Eberron, too, but but if I sit down to your game, I prefer to explore your world, not Keith Baker's.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

This is a fascinating case where the title - the editor's title, not mine, mine was something like "World-building: effects of cultural change" - has gotten more attention than my intention, which was to write about how cultural change must modify a world from whatever people think is the norm or expectation or the real world.

The editor’s change is unfortunate. But the attention is it’s own evidence that Tolkien’s presentation is the elephant in the room everyone is trying to ignore in D&D all the time. At this point, it’s basically it’s own essential quality of the game.

D&D settings have tried at times. Like how Birthright made halflings shadow realm exiles, I badly wish the core rules would have taken that opportunity to bring that aspect into greater circulation in the core rules as new editions came around.

Or how Red Steel/Savage Coast and Al Qadim both had each race have the culture of the nation they were born in. Refreshing in their own way.

 

[MGibster]

I would love setting cultures (and classes) to break out of D&D polytheism.

I'd be happy of they broke out of the oddly monotheistic polytheism. It seems like most D&D characters are only concerned about their one god and pay no mind to the myriad of others that might exist within the setting. And usually it's only the clerics who care. For one of my characters, a fighter, I once wrote "As Needed" under his deity of choice and the DM gave a little chuckle at that but it wasn't meant as a joke. When going into a fight my fighter prayed to the god of war, when it was harvest time he prayed to the appropriate god, and when he had to do on a sea voyage he prayed to that god. But for a game where some characters literally channel the power of divinity, D&D is an oddly irreligious game.

 

[MGibster]

The editor’s change is unfortunate. But the attention is it’s own evidence that Tolkien’s presentation is the elephant in the room everyone is trying to ignore in D&D all the time. At this point, it’s basically it’s own essential quality of the game.

D&D settings have tried at times. Like how Birthright made halflings shadow realm exiles, I badly wish the core rules would have taken that opportunity to bring that aspect into greater circulation in the core rules as new editions came around.

Or how Red Steel/Savage Coast and Al Qadim both had each race have the culture of the nation they were born in. Refreshing in their own way.

And I don't think you'll ever see too many D&D settings where you can't play an elf, dwarf, or halfling. These things exist in the PHB and it would be off brand to create a setting where you couldn't use the basic races in the PHB.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'd be happy of they broke out of the oddly monotheistic polytheism. It seems like most D&D characters are only concerned about their one god and pay no mind to the myriad of others that might exist within the setting. And usually it's only the clerics who care. For one of my characters, a fighter, I once wrote "As Needed" under his deity of choice and the DM gave a little chuckle at that but it wasn't meant as a joke. When going into a fight my fighter prayed to the god of war, when it was harvest time he prayed to the appropriate god, and when he had to do on a sea voyage he prayed to that god. But for a game where some characters literally channel the power of divinity, D&D is an oddly irreligious game.

Yeah, in real polytheism your fighter's attitude is the norm. There are of course are priests and other people who dedicate to (mostly) serving one god, but they're the exception not the norm. D&Ds 'multiple competing monotheisms' version of polytheism is weird. I do normal polytheism in my settings.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And I don't think you'll ever see too many D&D settings where you can't play an elf, dwarf, or halfling. These things exist in the PHB and it would be off brand to create a setting where you couldn't use the basic races in the PHB.

Which is shame and silly. Not that I have anything against these species, but I think the creatures that inhabit the setting define it a lot. Designing what prominent intelligent species the setting has is usually the first thing I do, and in terms of D&D this usually means homebrewing rules for the species even if they were based on the same core archetypes. My current setting technically has orcs, dwarfs and elflings, but they're so different from the normal PHB versions that I had to rewrite their rules to properly reflect them.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Which is shame and silly. Not that I have anything against these species, but I think the creatures that inhabit the setting define it a lot. Designing what prominent intelligent species the setting has is usually the first thing I do, and in terms of D&D this usually means homebrewing rules for the species even if they were based on the same core archetypes. My current setting technically has orcs, dwarfs and elflings, but they're so different from the normal PHB versions that I had to rewrite their rules to properly reflect them.

I've been working on a new world, and that's one road I might have to trot down.

 

[Mercurius]

The concept of a default setting has, perhaps, become most mind-numbing aspect of modern gaming.

Don't get me wrong. I love Tolkien, Jack Vance, and Greek mythology, but I prefer Tolkien to do Tolkien, Vance to do Vance, and Greek myth to go Greek myth. I don't want to sit down at a gaming table to play Tolkien, Vance, or Greek myth. I was to sit down at a gaming talk to explore the DM's unique and well-crafted fantasy world. The DM might borrow and combine aspects of Tolkien, Vance, and Greek myth, but I don't want to feel like I'm walking into a knock-off. I want to see fantasy from a new angel, through a cerebral prism unique to that Dungeon Master.

Hell, I even like the Forgotten Realms, but I want them to stay Greenwood's table. I like Eberron, too, but but if I sit down to your game, I prefer to explore your world, not Keith Baker's.

I like your point, but the problem is that the worlds of many DMs aren't as well thought out or deeply made as Baker's (or Greenwood's, etc). Many teams have neither the time nor the interest to do the significant amount of work it takes to bring a "secondary world" to life. Some DMs are good at design-as-you-go, but oftentimes the gaps start appearing in the paper-thin world, and the feeling of immersion diminishes. Published worlds are an easy way to at least provide some pre-made depth and density to the campaign setting.

Now I personally always design my settings - mostly because I love the process. But I can understand why many DMs go the route of a pre-published setting, and if they have no interest (or skill) in world-design, maybe that isn't a bad thing?