TheRPGSite

Thinking lately about sins against world building related to ttrpg s I can't ever seem to find a world that avoids these traps.

-global pantheons, most seem guilty of this. The entire word worships a single pantheon.
-time locked, most fantasy settings set in a pseudo medieval period spend way too much time there. They like get to the Middle Ages and just stop inventing shit. If your medieval period is 10,000 years long that's excessive.
-gods are ever present, communicative and all powerful. This just strips mortals of their agency and meaningful choices.
- resurrection, god I hate this spell. It really lowers the stakes. High profile assassination of emperor bigus dickus? Shame he's obscenely wealthy and is just gonna be brought back to life shortly.
- the power of magic in the world should be proportional to its rarity, I'm surprised faerun hasn't just fallen due to the law of entropy.
-magic is too common for how little it effects the world. For a medieval setting they have a surprising lack of medieval problems.
-world peace is the rule, seriously too many campaign settings have every nation of similar alignment just allied or friendly with each other. When there is war it's some evil necromancer or orc horde never just mundane reasons where politicians try and get people killed. Peace is the exception not the rule
-meaningless titles, nobility in worlds like faerun mean jack shit other than occasionally being called lord or sir. Even knights should be loaded with cash. Fitted Medieval plate armor accounting in terms of modern currency is like buying a Ferrari and easily can cost in the millions.
-language barriers, they should exist.
- cultural diversity and cultural exchange. Quit sticking random outliers smack in the middle of things. Cultures bleed over on each other, historical maps showcase this the best you shouldn't have Mongolians popping up between france and Spain.
-your kingdoms aesthetic should represent their environment. You aren't going to have a landlocked kingdom or even mostly landlocked kingdom subsist primarily on seafood.
Anyway just a topic I was thinking of much to my frustration on most settings I read about.

Quote-global pantheons, most seem guilty of this. The entire word worships a single pantheon.

If gods are actually real, that's hardly surprising. Worshipping multiple pantheons is a side effect of gods being imaginary.

That aside, Forgotten Realms has multiple pantheons, even without considering Kara-Tur and Zakhara.

Quote-gods are ever present, communicative and all powerful. This just strips mortals of their agency and meaningful choices.

The whole premise of Dragonlance to start with is that the gods didn't answer any prayers and had forsaken the people of Krynn, and it once again returned for Dragonlance 5th Age.

Quote- resurrection, god I hate this spell. It really lowers the stakes. High profile assassination of emperor bigus dickus? Shame he's obscenely wealthy and is just gonna be brought back to life shortly.

You still need a portion of the body to do a resurrection, and there are spells to make sure someone can't be resurrected. But that means you need a party - someone to infiltrate and get the wizard in, and someone to actually cast the finishing spell.

Quote- the power of magic in the world should be proportional to its rarity, I'm surprised faerun hasn't just fallen due to the law of entropy.

Proportional to its rarity in what way? More rare means more powerful or less rare means less powerful?

Quote-magic is too common for how little it effects the world. For a medieval setting they have a surprising lack of medieval problems.

Are you sure you meant to write that? Common magic would be exactly why there is a lack of medieval problems.

Quote-meaningless titles, nobility in worlds like faerun mean jack shit other than occasionally being called lord or sir. Even knights should be loaded with cash. Fitted Medieval plate armor accounting in terms of modern currency is like buying a Ferrari and easily can cost in the millions.

It makes more of a difference than just that in Cormyr for instance. Fitted plate armor is very expensive in AD&D.

Quote-language barriers, they should exist.

They do, it's baked into D&D mechanics. DMs choosing not to enforce it has nothing to do with worldbuilding.

Quote- cultural diversity and cultural exchange. Quit sticking random outliers smack in the middle of things. Cultures bleed over on each other, historical maps showcase this the best you shouldn't have Mongolians popping up between france and Spain.

I guess you don't know anything about the Basque, Albanians, Finns or Hungarians?

Quote-your kingdoms aesthetic should represent their environment. You aren't going to have a landlocked kingdom or even mostly landlocked kingdom subsist primarily on seafood.

I agree, but what do you have in mind that actually falls into this trap, given you say that you can't find a world that avoids them. But then you've specifically named Faerun and it does avoid a number of the traps you listed.

Quote from: migo on April 24, 2022, 05:44:12 PM

Quote-global pantheons, most seem guilty of this. The entire word worships a single pantheon.

If gods are actually real, that's hardly surprising. Worshipping multiple pantheons is a side effect of gods being imaginary.

That aside, Forgotten Realms has multiple pantheons, even without considering Kara-Tur and Zakhara.

Quote-gods are ever present, communicative and all powerful. This just strips mortals of their agency and meaningful choices.

The whole premise of Dragonlance to start with is that the gods didn't answer any prayers and had forsaken the people of Krynn, and it once again returned for Dragonlance 5th Age.

Quote- resurrection, god I hate this spell. It really lowers the stakes. High profile assassination of emperor bigus dickus? Shame he's obscenely wealthy and is just gonna be brought back to life shortly.

You still need a portion of the body to do a resurrection, and there are spells to make sure someone can't be resurrected. But that means you need a party - someone to infiltrate and get the wizard in, and someone to actually cast the finishing spell.

Quote- the power of magic in the world should be proportional to its rarity, I'm surprised faerun hasn't just fallen due to the law of entropy.

Proportional to its rarity in what way? More rare means more powerful or less rare means less powerful?

Quote-magic is too common for how little it effects the world. For a medieval setting they have a surprising lack of medieval problems.

Are you sure you meant to write that? Common magic would be exactly why there is a lack of medieval problems.

Quote-meaningless titles, nobility in worlds like faerun mean jack shit other than occasionally being called lord or sir. Even knights should be loaded with cash. Fitted Medieval plate armor accounting in terms of modern currency is like buying a Ferrari and easily can cost in the millions.

It makes more of a difference than just that in Cormyr for instance. Fitted plate armor is very expensive in AD&D.

Quote-language barriers, they should exist.

They do, it's baked into D&D mechanics. DMs choosing not to enforce it has nothing to do with worldbuilding.

Quote- cultural diversity and cultural exchange. Quit sticking random outliers smack in the middle of things. Cultures bleed over on each other, historical maps showcase this the best you shouldn't have Mongolians popping up between france and Spain.

I guess you don't know anything about the Basque, Albanians, Finns or Hungarians?

Quote-your kingdoms aesthetic should represent their environment. You aren't going to have a landlocked kingdom or even mostly landlocked kingdom subsist primarily on seafood.

I agree, but what do you have in mind that actually falls into this trap, given you say that you can't find a world that avoids them. But then you've specifically named Faerun and it does avoid a number of the traps you listed.

It's rare setting will have all of them but some have more than others in the case of the last one it's rokugan. They tried keeping it pseudo Japanese but removed everything that made Japan well Japan.

In faerun all the gods are different names for the same beings. They have a global deity set.

If they lacked medieval problems then you'd think they wouldn't be so stagnant.

As for magic it's the more powerful it is the more rare it should be. By powerful I mean it's ability to shape the world not just obliterate one dude. Also you shouldn't have to vaporize the corpse to prevent resurrection

I think a lot of this is because fantasy is built around mythology. In myth, people generally assume very little technological development. This is why Greek myth generally looks classical or even Hellenistic, even if a lot of it was supposed to happen hundreds of years before. Something similar happened to Arthurian myth.

QuoteIn faerun all the gods are different names for the same beings. They have a global deity set.

You're simply wrong. There's the standard Faerunian pantheon and then there's the Mulhorandi pantheon, just as one example. Then there's the Zakharan non-pantheon and the separate Kara-Tur pantheon.

QuoteIf they lacked medieval problems then you'd think they wouldn't be so stagnant.

If you have magic, there's no drive to solve problems with science and technology. And using FR as an example, they're hardly stagnant either. Look at Halruaa.

QuoteAlso you shouldn't have to vaporize the corpse to prevent resurrection

Why not? With modern medicine you have to work harder to make sure someone stays dead, whereas in medieval times you could rely on infection doing it.

Need to do this one point at a time lol, with modern medicine we can fix a lot but we can't fix dead. Someone gets their brains splattered or their heart exploded they're done. It doesn't take a wizard to ensure they can't be brought back

It's a fantasy world, you shouldn't be complaining that it's not like the real world.

Quote from: migo on April 24, 2022, 06:10:07 PM
It's a fantasy world, you shouldn't be complaining that it's not like the real world.

That is a really dumb way to look at it. The world needs to make sense and throwing your hands up and saying it's fantasy it doesn't need to make sense is lazy writing at best.

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 06:22:21 PM

Quote from: migo on April 24, 2022, 06:10:07 PM
It's a fantasy world, you shouldn't be complaining that it's not like the real world.

That is a really dumb way to look at it. The world needs to make sense and throwing your hands up and saying it's fantasy it doesn't need to make sense is lazy writing at best.

Realism is the basis of all meaning. A fantasy world that has no realism in it is meaningless by definition. It would be just the imaginal equivalent of radio static.

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 06:22:21 PM

Quote from: migo on April 24, 2022, 06:10:07 PM
It's a fantasy world, you shouldn't be complaining that it's not like the real world.

That is a really dumb way to look at it. The world needs to make sense and throwing your hands up and saying it's fantasy it doesn't need to make sense is lazy writing at best.

The world does make sense - you can't just kill someone, you need to make sure they stay dead. It's internally consistent and if you want to make sure that someone stays dead, you can't rely on purely mundane means.

But if we want to talk being dumb, we have you saying that worlds have a single pantheon, specifically talk about Forgotten Realms when it explicitly has multiple pantheons. So you're complaining about settings having characteristics that they don't actually have. It would be another thing for you to be unaware of some niche setting that hardly anyone has played, but to be as wrong about Forgotten Realms as you are is really dumb.

I generally feel that pantheons and religions can't be done well in worldbuilding, period. It might not literally be true that it's irritating and preachy 100% of the time, but it feels like the ratio of preachy and moderately distasteful worldbuilding to non-preachy and not distasteful worldbuilding is...10 to 1, anyway.

Generally, my problem with RPG worldbuilding comes from the authors' approaches. Most RPG worlds are either inspired by a pre-existing world or mythology (which the designer either romanticizes or critiques, both are problems) or they are built from fictional worldbuilding you might find in a novel. In my opinion, both approaches fail. What you actually need to do is start with the question, "what are the players supposed to do to change the world?" Because, let's face it, in a healthy campaign, the PCs change the world they're in.

The only major RPG which really gets this right is Call of C'thulu, and I think that's a product of raw dumb luck that if you put Lovecraft and RPGs together, this kind of approach self-assembles and falls out. There's basically no way I'll accept that designers who thought that pairing Call of C'thulu--a setting filled with fundamentally unknowable mysteries with a percentile system did this on purpose. However, dumb luck is still better than dead wrong, which is basically the problem D&D has. D&D basically has the worldbuilding of a B-grade fantasy novel in that it is massively overbuilt, as there's a bloody multiverse, a huge pantheon, and the worldbuilding is all about magic and 0% about character or theme development.

Actually, I stand corrected. When D&D was published that was B-grade. These days D&D is probably actually D-grade, as stuff that far up rats nest alley is rare even on FanFiction.net.

The TL;DR here is that I've basically moved away from medieval-style worlds in favor of Modern, and Near Future.

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 05:25:34 PM
-time locked, most fantasy settings set in a pseudo medieval period spend way too much time there. They like get to the Middle Ages and just stop inventing shit. If your medieval period is 10,000 years long that's excessive.

A related principle: History is too long. From Dragonlance to Bluffside, the authors always seem to like big numbers, and place events thousands or even hundreds of thousands of year ago, when it would make far more sense if they happened a 100 years ago. This could potential make sense if they were exploring the juxaposition of short-lived and long-lived races, but they never are.

Quote from: Pat on April 24, 2022, 07:08:40 PM

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 05:25:34 PM
-time locked, most fantasy settings set in a pseudo medieval period spend way too much time there. They like get to the Middle Ages and just stop inventing shit. If your medieval period is 10,000 years long that's excessive.

A related principle: History is too long. From Dragonlance to Bluffside, the authors always seem to like big numbers, and place events thousands or even hundreds of thousands of year ago, when it would make far more sense if they happened a 100 years ago. This could potential make sense if they were exploring the juxaposition of short-lived and long-lived races, but they never are.

Oh yeah especially when the events are thousands of years old. Can't really game them they're just background info.

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 08:17:59 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 24, 2022, 07:08:40 PM

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 05:25:34 PM
-time locked, most fantasy settings set in a pseudo medieval period spend way too much time there. They like get to the Middle Ages and just stop inventing shit. If your medieval period is 10,000 years long that's excessive.

A related principle: History is too long. From Dragonlance to Bluffside, the authors always seem to like big numbers, and place events thousands or even hundreds of thousands of year ago, when it would make far more sense if they happened a 100 years ago. This could potential make sense if they were exploring the juxaposition of short-lived and long-lived races, but they never are.

Oh yeah especially when the events are thousands of years old. Can't really game them they're just background info.

What I find weird is the stuff that happened thousands of years ago that's treated like it happened in the fairly recent past. For instance, Bluffside is based on a meteor strike, that the cultures in the area haven't fully recovered from yet.

A meteor strike that happened 300,000 years ago.

I would agree that most published fantasy settings are pretty bad, and official D&D settings are among the worst. The good news is that you can make your own setting and apply the concepts in world building that you think are important. There are a number of resources on the market to help you do so. Have at it. If it comes out well, publish it. I might want to buy it. If it doesn't go well, you can go back to FR with a new appreciation of how hard it is to make a world that is both sensibly realistic and fun.

I think the extremely long timelines are because of having long-lived races, not the other way around.  Someone thinks, "If I want to know how this happened, I'll go ask an elf that was alive then."  So the next step is to stretch out the timeline so that elves don't know it.  Whereas in many cases it would make a lot more sense to have the elves not live as long, or at least not be around the campaign world as long.  You can get around the problem with a little more subtlety by having elves be extremely xenophobic and isolationists--and hey look, that's been done too.

That's an example of the kind of thought that sometimes leads to sub optimal world building:  Trying to come up with some bizarre reason to make a race, class, creature, magic, etc. fit the world instead of deciding what kind of world it is going to be, and then picking all the other stuff to match.  The more kitchen sink the world gets, the bigger the problem--at least in someone's eyes.   

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 05:25:34 PM

-time locked, most fantasy settings set in a pseudo medieval period spend way too much time there. They like get to the Middle Ages and just stop inventing shit. If your medieval period is 10,000 years long that's excessive.

-magic is too common for how little it effects the world. For a medieval setting they have a surprising lack of medieval problems.

I often wonder if these two could be related. In our magically barren world, we as a species are pushed to invention to make our lives easier. If magic is real, or even common, it could make the drive to invention muted IMO. This could slow progress of technology. Much of this would depend on the commonality of magic, and how it is wielded. In many societies, magic could be common enough that there is little need for technological advancement, in others it could drive the non-magic masses to create FASTER in order to compete. Sadly, in most games, this dynamic is not explored either way.

I appreciate TSR D&D having more restrictions on Resurrection spells than during WotC. Just the "each [rez] permanently lowers your Constitution 1 point" (IIRC with also a permanent cap, so even Wishes cannot undo it). Then add System Shock, because the spell could succeed but you might just not make it coming back. And then there was the natural age limit, which meant bringing you back so old and frail you're just gonna give up the ghost again.

It was one of those things that I thought I wanted 'fixed' when playing TSR, but in seeing things in 3e and later realized I missed the sense of defined limits. Sometimes restrictions really help the imagination. And one learns to appreciate endings.

But this is a fun topic. There are a lot new settings out there that feel far more sloppy in their people pleasing. Take a stance, embrace the implications, and let us decide if it is a place we want to explore. Trying to please everyone (be it a product that is a mere cash-grab or afraid to take chances) makes pabulum that pleases little to no one.

The constitution loss is permanent, but can be reversed with a wish, because wish raises the score, it doesn't restore it. What it is is the initial constitution score is the maximum number of times you can be raised or resurrected - even if your constitution loss is compensated for somehow, that's your limit. So what you're going to see is after being killed and raised a few times, a character will want to retire from adventuring.

Also, Resurrection is a 7th level priest spell, which means the caster had to be 14th level or higher. Even if 2e's more generous racial level caps are used, only a Half-Elf would qualify, and they don't have that much extra lifespan to tolerate being aged 3 years by casting the spell.

If prime requisite bonuses are used, an Elf capable of casting 7th level spells could be 15th level as a priest, so finding a high level elf priest willing to perform the resurrection would be the easiest way. But then it's also not just a matter of casting the spell, the deity needs to approve it. If the deity doesn't want a particular character being brought back to life, resurrection isn't going to work either. Also, anyone who is capable of casting Resurrection is going to be quite powerful and influential, and may be happy with improving their position politically by leaving the assassination target dead. Manshoon isn't relying on Fzoul Chembryl to resurrect him, for instance.

This is distinct from Raise Dead, which is a 5th level priest spell, doesn't require the priest to have 18 wisdom, and doesn't impose any penalties on the priest casting it. There you just need to make an appropriate donation to the temple where you're getting raised, and it will be easier to find temples doing it just for a profit. You still need to account for poison or disease, so if you carry out the assassination by poison, and the poison is still in the system, they'll die right away again. It's also limited by how long the body has been dead, and parts aren't restored. So decapitate the assassination target and bring the head back and there's no raising possible.

The 'world of hats' cliche in setting annoys me. All dwarves are mining gruff types, all elves are fruity nature lovers, etc, etc. This extends to fantasy human cultures as well.

Also, if you have a high-magic/magi-tech setting, recognize there will be repercussions (not all of them bad, though). You might want to advance your overall world depiction from the usual medieval/Renaissance to something closer to Victorian era or even pre-WW1.

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 05:25:34 PM
Thinking lately about sins against world building related to ttrpg s I can't ever seem to find a world that avoids these traps.

I'm going to just put your conditions in bold and answer each directly for my own setting (the default for the system I'm finally done writing beyond grammar/layout edits) since I had similar complaints and tried to answer them as part of my setting.

-global pantheons, most seem guilty of this. The entire word worships a single pantheon.
I have four competing religions just in my starting region with similar, but different enough to cause theological strife in three of them and a fourth that is monotheistic and claims the others are worshipping false gods entirely. The assumption is each region has its own religions and sects.

-time locked, most fantasy settings set in a pseudo medieval period spend way too much time there. They like get to the Middle Ages and just stop inventing shit. If your medieval period is 10,000 years long that's excessive.
The only history anyone is 100% certain of in my setting occurred in the last 200 years. History from the last 2000 years is fragmented and about as good as our understanding of Rome. History from 5000 years ago is little more than myth and legend and ancient ruins akin to the pyramids of Egypt. The world is currently just starting to recover from an apocalyptic event and pre-cataclysm clearly had tech more advanced than the present society can replicate.

Also relevant, the setting is only intended as a snapshot of time. The extant sapient species and their conflicts with each other are those alive right now... other than humans, most have existed in the world for hundreds or at most a few thousand years and the presumption is that, if you checked back in 1000 years from the setting's time, many would be extinct or on their way there. It's basically a period akin to when modern humans and Neanderthals co-existed.

-gods are ever present, communicative and all powerful. This just strips mortals of their agency and meaningful choices.
No one in my setting can even prove the gods even really exist or which ones are actually real. "Divine" magic might just be arcane magic (a sufficiently advanced technology) with an AI mediator (at least if you believe certain arcanists).

- resurrection, god I hate this spell. It really lowers the stakes. High profile assassination of emperor bigus dickus? Shame he's obscenely wealthy and is just gonna be brought back to life shortly.
By default it only works within a relatively short time frame if the person really has some pressing reason to come back and, no, being a ruler doesn't seem to be enough (apparently the afterlife is something so beyond earthly comprehension that only those who have things like selfless quests to complete seem to come back.

Or you could use the optional rule that raise dead only works at all if started within 10 minutes of death... making it more like saving someone who's only "mostly dead." The GM Guide includes discussions of how to tune them to achieve certain genre expectations and already tested optional rules for tweaking things to fit.

- the power of magic in the world should be proportional to its rarity, I'm surprised faerun hasn't just fallen due to the law of entropy.
First, Faerun is a hell dimension run by a sadistic overgod and where turning someone into an undead to free them from the gods' clutches is arguably a moral act. It deserves so much worse than just falling due to entropy. It needs to be consumed utterly by the Far Realm, lost forever amidst the things that cannot be.

Second, combat magic in my setting is about as effective as a strong warrior with a good weapon. It's main advantage is allowing people who'd never be able to physically complete to have an equalizer (it's not an accident in my fluff that far more women/older men employ it as adventurers than young strong men do). There's numerous bits of minor magic that is still quite common; leftovers from before the apocalypse, but the bigger the effect, the rarer it becomes (even that which is readily available tends to have a price in what some players have referred to as "peasant years").

-magic is too common for how little it effects the world. For a medieval setting they have a surprising lack of medieval problems.
As mentioned, my setting is more post-post-apocalyptic and only "medieval" in the way Thundarr the Barbarian is. There's the odd airship, some places have reengineered steam power or have arcane engines. There are teleportation circles, but without the sigils of a destination circle they can't re-establish the network that made the fallen civilization truly global in scope... making finding those sigils in the ruins one of the larger treasures (in a bring back the previous civilization sense) someone could find.

-world peace is the rule, seriously too many campaign settings have every nation of similar alignment just allied or friendly with each other. When there is war it's some evil necromancer or orc horde never just mundane reasons where politicians try and get people killed. Peace is the exception not the rule
No alignments in the game and the default setting has strife both within and without the various realms is the rule.

The Free Cities hasn't had a successful peaceful transfer of power in its 200 year history.

The Elven kingdom is buckling under its own oppressive caste system and theocracy.

The Orc empire (who are Roman Empire style rather than Mongols) is in a four way civil war between the heirs of the last Emperor who died/ascended (if you believe the Orcish branch of the broader Via Praetorum religion) and this often spills over onto their neighbors as resources and slaves can help their faction win the civil war.

Ironhold is facing a war of attrition as the bulk of the Orc Empire lies right against its border and their resources are limited.

Riverhold is run by kleptocractic oligarchs and is facing a Robin Hood style rebellion growing in their territory... that's just within the default region that's barely 100x150 miles in area.

-meaningless titles, nobility in worlds like faerun mean jack shit other than occasionally being called lord or sir. Even knights should be loaded with cash. Fitted Medieval plate armor accounting in terms of modern currency is like buying a Ferrari and easily can cost in the millions.
The Free Cities doesn't even have nobility. It's got an elected Warden for each of its wards/districts (who in turn elect a First Warden from among their number to be head of state) and each community has its own elected Sheriff (who appoints deputies as are needed for the territory) and Justice. Given the entire population is barely 35,000 this is deemed sufficient.

In more fuedal areas they have many different titles from region to region, but they basically boil down to Warrior (knight, baronet), Lord (baron, chief, reeve) and Overlord (king, prince, emperor, duke).

-language barriers, they should exist.
In my setting, dialects change even with regions and can impact communications. For example within the region of Old Praetoria there is Classical Praetorian but also differing dialects for the Bloodspear, Free Cities, Ironhold, Riverhold and the Toria tribes that is roughly analogous to the differences between Classical Latin and the Vulgar Latin spoken in different parts of the Empire that eventually became the Romance languages... or in this case more like the many variations of Italian until it was formalized relatively recently... since other regions from the Praetorian Empire have their own dialects that are even less familiar than the ones common to Old Praetoria.

- cultural diversity and cultural exchange. Quit sticking random outliers smack in the middle of things. Cultures bleed over on each other, historical maps showcase this the best you shouldn't have Mongolians popping up between france and Spain.
The Free Cities were an Elven "protectorate" for 150 years and only became independent of them (because the elves needed their troops to protect their heartland from the orc empire that was still unified under its Emperor). Their clothing styles are still very Elven, but deliberately feature far less ornamentation or embroidery (the wealthy set themselves apart by using more exotic materials; like hydra leather that self-repairs scuffs and scratches) as a way to set themselves apart from their former overlords. The most recent trend has been adoption of some cultural elements from the Toria Tribes to the north as they played a major role in liberation the Free Cities from its previous king (Malcer the Mad - a religious zealot who only came to power when his father and older brother were killed in an accident) by the man currently serving as First Warden... most notably their more egalitarian system of government and tolerance for their religion (the First Warden became a convert to the Old Faith during his time in exile and so demanded religious tolerance as part of the Free Cities' new charter of government since the majority were followers of the Via Praetorum and they'd just gotten free of one madman who'd been forcing his radical interpretations on people).

-your kingdoms aesthetic should represent their environment. You aren't going to have a landlocked kingdom or even mostly landlocked kingdom subsist primarily on seafood.
The Free Cities sit mostly on a peninsula between a large lake and a Mississippi-like river. Their primary protein is fish and their staple grain is oats. The capitol is Blackspire, the bottom 24 floors of a ruined skyscraper in which city blocks are effectively squeezed onto each floor. The upper hundred floors lays in a twisted wreck to the southeast and has been the source of much of the steel used to forge their weapons and armor since their founding.

That said, they are also sitting at the crossroads of three trade routes (the large river which remains navigable for another 150 miles, the network of smaller rivers that feeds the lake, and along the major land route up and through the eastern mountain pass to the lands of Bestia) so they are reasonably cosmopolitan or, at least, not openly xenophobic towards strangers who show up on the docks or in a caravan along the East Road.

So, that's how I answered those issues in my own setting.

If gods are real and powerful (but not all-powerful), single-pantheon worlds can arise when gods destroy or absorb one another (and their followers) in holy wars. These can be recent or very, very old events. In some worlds, the current age may even be the late stages of such events.

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 05:25:34 PM
Thinking lately about sins against world building related to ttrpg s I can't ever seem to find a world that avoids these traps.
-global pantheons, most seem guilty of this. The entire word worships a single pantheon.

I agree with some of your points, but many of them seem to be just a personal preference thing.  For clarity of discussion I'll break out my responses to the different points.

On global pantheons, if there is just one actual pantheon and they actively interact with mortals, it would make a lot of sense that there would be just one worldwide pantheon.  If there are multiple actual pantheons or less interactivity, then multiple makes sense.  It could also go the other way around.  If a religious jihad/crusade conquered the world in the name of an imaginary or actual god then one pantheon would make sense.  And ancient Israel turned to idols when Moses went up to the mountain after experiencing a series of massive miracles.  Short version, either way is fine as long as it's consistent with the rest of the setting.

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 05:25:34 PM
-time locked, most fantasy settings set in a pseudo medieval period spend way too much time there. They like get to the Middle Ages and just stop inventing shit. If your medieval period is 10,000 years long that's excessive.

We have exactly one data point on what a world's historical advancement should look like, our own.  I don't think that's enough to draw any strong conclusion from.  Throw in fantasy elements or changes in science, and it would make sense that something completely different would happen.  As an easy example, if magic works much better than technology, there's not much reason to research tech.  And if magic is also difficult to improve through research, advancement will be slow overall.  Or if there's just no good way to generate electricity then you'll never see anything like our modern age. 

Also considering that the the stone age went on for millions of years and the period of ancient history for thousands, I think just about any world design choice for historical advancement is fine as long as it's consistent with the rest of the setting.

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 05:25:34 PM
-gods are ever present, communicative and all powerful. This just strips mortals of their agency and meaningful choices.

See Greek, Roman, and just about any other mythology for counterexamples.

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 05:25:34 PM
- resurrection, god I hate this spell. It really lowers the stakes. High profile assassination of emperor bigus dickus? Shame he's obscenely wealthy and is just gonna be brought back to life shortly.

I hate resurrection too, but it just results in a world that's weird, which is fine if that's what you're going for.  Personal preference.

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 05:25:34 PM
- the power of magic in the world should be proportional to its rarity, I'm surprised faerun hasn't just fallen due to the law of entropy.
-magic is too common for how little it effects the world. For a medieval setting they have a surprising lack of medieval problems.

These two belong together.  Common powerful magic should change the world.  If it doesn't, then that's a worldbuilding error.  A world with medieval society and technology but advanced magic isn't really "medieval" at all.  It has advanced technology of different sort.

Common, powerful magic also results in a world that's unfamiliar to us, which makes gaming more difficult because our real world intuition doesn't apply to game event.  I would avoid such for that reason, but if that's what's wanted there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 05:25:34 PM
-world peace is the rule, seriously too many campaign settings have every nation of similar alignment just allied or friendly with each other. When there is war it's some evil necromancer or orc horde never just mundane reasons where politicians try and get people killed. Peace is the exception not the rule

Agree with this one.  Lots of folks seemed to think history was over until Russia got antsy a few weeks ago.  On the other hand peacetime makes for a different type of adventure, so if that's what's wanted, then why not?  Also, historically, large regions of the Roman Empire and China were at peace overall for extended periods of time.

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 05:25:34 PM
-meaningless titles, nobility in worlds like faerun mean jack shit other than occasionally being called lord or sir. Even knights should be loaded with cash. Fitted Medieval plate armor accounting in terms of modern currency is like buying a Ferrari and easily can cost in the millions.

See modern UK for counterexamples.

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 05:25:34 PM
-language barriers, they should exist.

Yes, but it makes playing the game more difficult.  I love how the real world has many languages each reflecting the culture of the speaker.  But dealing with that in a game is tedious.  Sadly, most of my games have a lingua franca in addition to local languages.

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 05:25:34 PM
- cultural diversity and cultural exchange. Quit sticking random outliers smack in the middle of things. Cultures bleed over on each other, historical maps showcase this the best you shouldn't have Mongolians popping up between france and Spain.

Agree with this one, especially about cultural bleed.  This is one of the things that bugged me about the Horizon:Zero Dawn video game.  The starting tribe has black characters and white characters who treat each other equally, which is nice.  But that's been the case for generations – they should have evened out in color by now due to intermarriage.

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 05:25:34 PM
-your kingdoms aesthetic should represent their environment. You aren't going to have a landlocked kingdom or even mostly landlocked kingdom subsist primarily on seafood.
Anyway just a topic I was thinking of much to my frustration on most settings I read about.

Agree here, consistency is important.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 25, 2022, 01:42:48 PM

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 05:25:34 PM
- cultural diversity and cultural exchange. Quit sticking random outliers smack in the middle of things. Cultures bleed over on each other, historical maps showcase this the best you shouldn't have Mongolians popping up between france and Spain.

Agree with this one, especially about cultural bleed.  This is one of the things that bugged me about the Horizon:Zero Dawn video game.  The starting tribe has black characters and white characters who treat each other equally, which is nice.  But that's been the case for generations – they should have evened out in color by now due to intermarriage.

By forcing diversity they're implying a heavily segregated society.

Quote from: Fheredin on April 24, 2022, 06:57:05 PM
Call of C'thulu--a setting filled with fundamentally unknowable mysteries with a percentile system did this on purpose. However, dumb luck is still better than dead wrong, which is basically the problem D&D has.

Actually Sandy Peterson was tasked with making a Cthulhu based version of the RuneQuest game, (Chaosium was designing all of it's games around that engine at the time) so yeah, it WAS intentional.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 25, 2022, 08:43:07 AM
The 'world of hats' cliche in setting annoys me. All dwarves are mining gruff types, all elves are fruity nature lovers, etc, etc. This extends to fantasy human cultures as well.

Also, if you have a high-magic/magi-tech setting, recognize there will be repercussions (not all of them bad, though). You might want to advance your overall world depiction from the usual medieval/Renaissance to something closer to Victorian era or even pre-WW1.

I'm okay with the world of hats, because the alternative is every race starts feeling like modern Western humans, with some minor physical differences. Because that's an inevitable result of creating races with all the diversity and range of human societies. Without a clear, easily grasped stereotype, they all just feel like humans. That's why I prefer starting with a strong, clear center, and reinforcing it by having all the major representatives of that race play to the stereotype. It defines the race, in the eyes of the players, in the most efficient way.

Plus, as more attention is paid to a particular race, they'll naturally become more diverse, and more varied. Once you start developing a world where all dwarves are gruff mining types, you'll inevitably develop counter examples, and dwarves who run against the grain. Which are more effective and interesting, if you start with a strong central stereotype for them to be a reaction against.

Quote from: Pat on April 25, 2022, 02:10:22 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 25, 2022, 08:43:07 AM
The 'world of hats' cliche in setting annoys me. All dwarves are mining gruff types, all elves are fruity nature lovers, etc, etc. This extends to fantasy human cultures as well.

Also, if you have a high-magic/magi-tech setting, recognize there will be repercussions (not all of them bad, though). You might want to advance your overall world depiction from the usual medieval/Renaissance to something closer to Victorian era or even pre-WW1.

I'm okay with the world of hats, because the alternative is every race starts feeling like modern Western humans, with some minor physical differences. Because that's an inevitable result of creating races with all the diversity and range of human societies. Without a clear, easily grasped stereotype, they all just feel like humans. That's why I prefer starting with a strong, clear center, and reinforcing it by having all the major representatives of that race play to the stereotype. It defines the race, in the eyes of the players, in the most efficient way.

Plus, as more attention is paid to a particular race, they'll naturally become more diverse, and more varied. Once you start developing a world where all dwarves are gruff mining types, you'll inevitably develop counter examples, and dwarves who run against the grain. Which are more effective and interesting, if you start with a strong central stereotype for them to be a reaction against.

This one's tough.  Yes races should have variety, but how to make the varieties of elf different but all elves?  We discussed this on my thread on race design.  By his explicit statement, Tolkein's races were designed to represent elements of humanity.  So if one follow this design, as D&D does, it just makes sense that elves, frex, are going to have much less variety than humans.  I prefer to give races psychology and physiology very different than humans, which makes it easier to design variations, but also makes them alien, less relatable, and more difficult to rp.  It's a tradeoff, world verisimilitude vs ease of play.  Much like every other element of rpgs, I suppose.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 25, 2022, 02:34:08 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 25, 2022, 02:10:22 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 25, 2022, 08:43:07 AM
The 'world of hats' cliche in setting annoys me. All dwarves are mining gruff types, all elves are fruity nature lovers, etc, etc. This extends to fantasy human cultures as well.

Also, if you have a high-magic/magi-tech setting, recognize there will be repercussions (not all of them bad, though). You might want to advance your overall world depiction from the usual medieval/Renaissance to something closer to Victorian era or even pre-WW1.

I'm okay with the world of hats, because the alternative is every race starts feeling like modern Western humans, with some minor physical differences. Because that's an inevitable result of creating races with all the diversity and range of human societies. Without a clear, easily grasped stereotype, they all just feel like humans. That's why I prefer starting with a strong, clear center, and reinforcing it by having all the major representatives of that race play to the stereotype. It defines the race, in the eyes of the players, in the most efficient way.

Plus, as more attention is paid to a particular race, they'll naturally become more diverse, and more varied. Once you start developing a world where all dwarves are gruff mining types, you'll inevitably develop counter examples, and dwarves who run against the grain. Which are more effective and interesting, if you start with a strong central stereotype for them to be a reaction against.

This one's tough.  Yes races should have variety, but how to make the varieties of elf different but all elves?  We discussed this on my thread on race design.  By his explicit statement, Tolkein's races were designed to represent elements of humanity.  So if one follow this design, as D&D does, it just makes sense that elves, frex, are going to have much less variety than humans.  I prefer to give races psychology and physiology very different than humans, which makes it easier to design variations, but also makes them alien, less relatable, and more difficult to rp.  It's a tradeoff, world verisimilitude vs ease of play.  Much like every other element of rpgs, I suppose.

I don't think Tolkien is the best analogy. A lot of RPG authors or even GMs seem to get caught up in the act of sub-creation, to borrow Tolkien's term. But Tolkien had vast professional and scholastic expertise, spent decades developing a legendarium, wrote long and discursive books, and created huge volumes of backstory that never made it into play in his two major works (The Hobbit and the LotR).

Conversely, the basic structure of an RPG is a discourse between the players and the GM. It's dynamic, active, improvised, casual, verbal, and as a result there's a far less bandwidth to convey things like rich backstories or subtle psychological differences. We are, by necessity, forced to use extreme shortcuts. We play a lot of elves, because people already know what elves are, thanks to previous works, including Tolkien. As a result, all the GM, or an RPG author, has to convey is what makes their elves different. Are they plants? Are they emotionless? Something else?

A small handful of traits is all we really have the bandwidth for. And to ensure the players learn those divergent traits and associate elves or dwarves with the correct set of attributes, we need to use heavy reinforcement. And that's where stereotypes and playing to stereotypes comes in, because it's a lot easier and more visceral to teach what a race is like by presenting examples that match the baseline expectations, than by presenting examples that go against those expectations before the expectations have been established.

Quote from: Pat on April 25, 2022, 02:10:22 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 25, 2022, 08:43:07 AM
The 'world of hats' cliche in setting annoys me. All dwarves are mining gruff types, all elves are fruity nature lovers, etc, etc. This extends to fantasy human cultures as well.

Also, if you have a high-magic/magi-tech setting, recognize there will be repercussions (not all of them bad, though). You might want to advance your overall world depiction from the usual medieval/Renaissance to something closer to Victorian era or even pre-WW1.

I'm okay with the world of hats, because the alternative is every race starts feeling like modern Western humans, with some minor physical differences. Because that's an inevitable result of creating races with all the diversity and range of human societies. Without a clear, easily grasped stereotype, they all just feel like humans. That's why I prefer starting with a strong, clear center, and reinforcing it by having all the major representatives of that race play to the stereotype. It defines the race, in the eyes of the players, in the most efficient way.

Plus, as more attention is paid to a particular race, they'll naturally become more diverse, and more varied. Once you start developing a world where all dwarves are gruff mining types, you'll inevitably develop counter examples, and dwarves who run against the grain. Which are more effective and interesting, if you start with a strong central stereotype for them to be a reaction against.

Also, specific biological and supernatural differences will give each race a distinct feel. Dwarves can see well underground and in the dark, and they have a talent for finding their way around underground. Obviously they're going to take advantage of that for defensive purposes, and the culture of a race that lives underground is going to be different from one that doesn't, and also more similar to a race that lives on the plains, in cities, in forests and mountains.

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 05:25:34 PM-global pantheons, most seem guilty of this. The entire word worships a single pantheon.

I strongly disagree with this. If the sun is a flaming disk being carried across the sky by a chariot, then it is possible for the players to fly up to the sky and see which Sun God is actually doing it. Similarly, they can travel to the underworld and see which god really controls the underworld.

So any game world with real gods will automatically only have one pantheon, because only one god can be responsible for the sun rising and setting. Only one god can be the ruler of the underworld, etc. These gods might have different names across the world, but they will be the same god.

Many of these are not worldbuilding sins, but rather worldbuilding features. The key is understanding what are the concerns of your setting thematically and what are they not.

Most settings are not highly concerned with ambiguity.

• Multiple pantheons create a great deal of ambiguity
• Uncertainty about historical events creates a great deal of ambiguity
• Language barriers can create a great deal of ambiguity
• Cultures/Races that aren't clearly defined create a great deal of ambiguity

Ambiguity is realistic, in a certain sense, but most TTRPG settings are probably not deeply concerned with it. If you want a deeply ambiguous world it becomes difficult to tell a straightforward story. That's particularly troublesome when you're trying to run a tabletop game that relies on a shared-understanding of the game world.

If you want to run a Game of Thrones-inspired world, where the PCs are morally grey, operating in a world of ambiguity and uncertainty, I think that's fine. But in my experience it is very difficult to get all players to understand this thematic element and cooperate with it. It's much harder to accomplish than telling a straightforward LOTR-story or Conan-story.

I also think that the a TTRPG by its very nature exposes the structure of the game world in a way that narrative fiction might not. If your setting has a mechanically distinct category for "arcane" vs. "divine" magic, this creates a real thing your players will understand even if the setting leaves "gods" ambiguous.

This just seems like a laundry list of general annoyances and greivances.

Most of what you listed is no more a sin then wanting a red hat. Can it be a bad idea? Yes. Is it always one? No.

Edit: Stuff like being bothered by 'Species of Hats' bugs me:

'Uh, these alien races are too exciting and exotic. Can't they sit around farming dirt and complaining about taxes like everybody? Unless something is a reflection of human society, its unrealistic'.

Just play WFRP 1e. It sorts a lot of that shit out.

The idea that gods being real precludes the existence of multiple pantheons is highly overblown. This assumes that only one god can fill any single role, or comes from a literalist view of mythology (the god of the sun literally pulls the sun while riding a sky chariot), as opposed to a symbolic one (the chariot is just a metaphor that only exists in a heavily plane of existence at most, but the actual sun operates more like the scientific view of the world).

If the gods are more like archetypal or animistic forces or thought constructs that are "real", but exist only in other realms of reality (how they tend to be viewed in modern pagan, polytheistic religions), or perhaps rely on the belief of their worshiper to maintain their power (as in American Gods) or are formed based on how various cultures or spiritual traditions relate to divinity, then multiple pantheons of "real" gods become a possibility. It all depends on how the world's cosmology is constructed and how spirituality operates within it.

I would say that a setting based on real world myth (or some approximation of it) where the gods of various cultures are real would operate more like this.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on April 25, 2022, 06:37:42 PM
This just seems like a laundry list of general annoyances and greivances.

Most of what you listed is no more a sin then wanting a red hat. Can it be a bad idea? Yes. Is it always one? No.

Edit: Stuff like being bothered by 'Species of Hats' bugs me:

'Uh, these alien races are too exciting and exotic. Can't they sit around farming dirt and complaining about taxes like everybody? Unless something is a reflection of human society, its unrealistic'.

Yeah it really is more of annoyances and pet peeves. Title got attention though, get in some good discussion about world building.

Scope and scale is a big thing too, like if it's one region you're probably good with a single pantheon but if you want a continental or global scale it makes places feel more foreign

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 25, 2022, 07:05:46 PM
The idea that gods being real precludes the existence of multiple pantheons is highly overblown. This assumes that only one god can fill any single role, or comes from a literalist view of mythology (the god of the sun literally pulls the sun while riding a sky chariot), as opposed to a symbolic one (the chariot is just a metaphor that only exists in a heavily plane of existence at most, but the actual sun operates more like the scientific view of the world).

If the gods are more like archetypal or animistic forces or thought constructs that are "real", but exist only in other realms of reality (how they tend to be viewed in modern pagan, polytheistic religions), or perhaps rely on the belief of their worshiper to maintain their power (as in American Gods) or are formed based on how various cultures or spiritual traditions relate to divinity, then multiple pantheons of "real" gods become a possibility. It all depends on how the world's cosmology is constructed and how spirituality operates within it.

I would say that a setting based on real world myth (or some approximation of it) where the gods of various cultures are real would operate more like this.

This.

Also, on the subject of technology, I don't assume that the laws of physics work the same as in the real world. For example, guns canonically do not work in the World of Greyhawk -- the one character who has guns, Murlynd, is a gunslinger from the Old West who somehow became a demigod, and projects an aura around him in which our world's physics apply, allowing the guns to work within a certain distance of him.

A late medieval/early Renaissance technological base may be right at the limit of what that world's laws allow.

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on April 25, 2022, 08:04:50 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 25, 2022, 07:05:46 PM
The idea that gods being real precludes the existence of multiple pantheons is highly overblown. This assumes that only one god can fill any single role, or comes from a literalist view of mythology (the god of the sun literally pulls the sun while riding a sky chariot), as opposed to a symbolic one (the chariot is just a metaphor that only exists in a heavily plane of existence at most, but the actual sun operates more like the scientific view of the world).

If the gods are more like archetypal or animistic forces or thought constructs that are "real", but exist only in other realms of reality (how they tend to be viewed in modern pagan, polytheistic religions), or perhaps rely on the belief of their worshiper to maintain their power (as in American Gods) or are formed based on how various cultures or spiritual traditions relate to divinity, then multiple pantheons of "real" gods become a possibility. It all depends on how the world's cosmology is constructed and how spirituality operates within it.

I would say that a setting based on real world myth (or some approximation of it) where the gods of various cultures are real would operate more like this.

This.

Also, on the subject of technology, I don't assume that the laws of physics work the same as in the real world. For example, guns canonically do not work in the World of Greyhawk -- the one character who has guns, Murlynd, is a gunslinger from the Old West who somehow became a demigod, and projects an aura around him in which our world's physics apply, allowing the guns to work within a certain distance of him.

A late medieval/early Renaissance technological base may be right at the limit of what that world's laws allow.

If you're going to assume the laws of physics work differently in a fantasy world, why would you import the modern view of cosmology and deities as abstract things removed from the material world? Because that's also a modern conceit, created to explain how gods can still exist in a world which is known to a high degree of precision thanks to science. Why not use a historical version of how cosmology works, and the nature of gods?

I like to reject the modern view of as much as I can, when creating or running fantasy worlds. It can be difficult, because we're modern people who are deeply imprinted on modern ways of thinking. And it can sometimes be a hard sell, because a certain subset of engineers and internet geeks often have a hard time thinking figuratively. But it creates a much more fantastic and alien world, so I push that way when I can.

Quote from: Pat on April 25, 2022, 08:35:16 PM

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on April 25, 2022, 08:04:50 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 25, 2022, 07:05:46 PM
The idea that gods being real precludes the existence of multiple pantheons is highly overblown. This assumes that only one god can fill any single role, or comes from a literalist view of mythology (the god of the sun literally pulls the sun while riding a sky chariot), as opposed to a symbolic one (the chariot is just a metaphor that only exists in a heavily plane of existence at most, but the actual sun operates more like the scientific view of the world).

If the gods are more like archetypal or animistic forces or thought constructs that are "real", but exist only in other realms of reality (how they tend to be viewed in modern pagan, polytheistic religions), or perhaps rely on the belief of their worshiper to maintain their power (as in American Gods) or are formed based on how various cultures or spiritual traditions relate to divinity, then multiple pantheons of "real" gods become a possibility. It all depends on how the world's cosmology is constructed and how spirituality operates within it.

I would say that a setting based on real world myth (or some approximation of it) where the gods of various cultures are real would operate more like this.

This.

Also, on the subject of technology, I don't assume that the laws of physics work the same as in the real world. For example, guns canonically do not work in the World of Greyhawk -- the one character who has guns, Murlynd, is a gunslinger from the Old West who somehow became a demigod, and projects an aura around him in which our world's physics apply, allowing the guns to work within a certain distance of him.

A late medieval/early Renaissance technological base may be right at the limit of what that world's laws allow.

If you're going to assume the laws of physics work differently in a fantasy world, why would you import the modern view of cosmology and deities as abstract things removed from the material world? Because that's also a modern conceit, created to explain how gods can still exist in a world which is known to a high degree of precision thanks to science. Why not use a historical version of how cosmology works, and the nature of gods?

Magic. Divine and not divine.

Quote from: Pat on April 25, 2022, 08:35:16 PM

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on April 25, 2022, 08:04:50 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 25, 2022, 07:05:46 PM
The idea that gods being real precludes the existence of multiple pantheons is highly overblown. This assumes that only one god can fill any single role, or comes from a literalist view of mythology (the god of the sun literally pulls the sun while riding a sky chariot), as opposed to a symbolic one (the chariot is just a metaphor that only exists in a heavily plane of existence at most, but the actual sun operates more like the scientific view of the world).

If the gods are more like archetypal or animistic forces or thought constructs that are "real", but exist only in other realms of reality (how they tend to be viewed in modern pagan, polytheistic religions), or perhaps rely on the belief of their worshiper to maintain their power (as in American Gods) or are formed based on how various cultures or spiritual traditions relate to divinity, then multiple pantheons of "real" gods become a possibility. It all depends on how the world's cosmology is constructed and how spirituality operates within it.

I would say that a setting based on real world myth (or some approximation of it) where the gods of various cultures are real would operate more like this.

This.

Also, on the subject of technology, I don't assume that the laws of physics work the same as in the real world. For example, guns canonically do not work in the World of Greyhawk -- the one character who has guns, Murlynd, is a gunslinger from the Old West who somehow became a demigod, and projects an aura around him in which our world's physics apply, allowing the guns to work within a certain distance of him.

A late medieval/early Renaissance technological base may be right at the limit of what that world's laws allow.

If you're going to assume the laws of physics work differently in a fantasy world, why would you import the modern view of cosmology and deities as abstract things removed from the material world? Because that's also a modern conceit, created to explain how gods can still exist in a world which is known to a high degree of precision thanks to science. Why not use a historical version of how cosmology works, and the nature of gods?

Because that only works if you have a cool concept where one culture's crazy mythological view of the world is the one true way that the cosmology and theology actually works. Which is fine if you want to build an entire world around this one culture, and you could make it work, but the moment you want to expand that world to include multiple cultures with clashing views of the world without prioritizing one culture above others that begins to fall apart.

Plus this also assumes that ancient cultures had a literalist view of their own mythology, which is doubtful, considering that some of those mythologies included stuff like the idea of a flat Earth, while people from ancient times simultaneously knowing that the Earth was actually spherical since the Classical Age from observing ships disappearing into the horizon. And it also ignores that ancient people did not always have a consistent, central theology, and there were lots of regional variations and syncretism going on, with religious views evolving over time, and lots of mystery cults and other stuff existing at the margins.

Again, this could work, but it requires you to build your entire world around a narrow view of cosmology and theology privileging one culture (or at least building all cultures around that cosmological and theological framework), vs simply establishing something resembling real world cosmology as the common ground for clashing cultures, and otherworldly stuff laid on top as some sort of parallel reality that exists on a separate layer over the natural world without necessarily affecting it, and can only be experienced in trance states/astral perception Shadowrun style, or by visiting those worlds through portals.

EDIT/PS: Basically, it depends on what you want the world to be about and what sort of stuff you want to include in it.

Quote from: Zelen on April 25, 2022, 05:52:14 PM
Many of these are not worldbuilding sins, but rather worldbuilding features. The key is understanding what are the concerns of your setting thematically and what are they not.

Most settings are not highly concerned with ambiguity.

• Multiple pantheons create a great deal of ambiguity
• Uncertainty about historical events creates a great deal of ambiguity
• Language barriers can create a great deal of ambiguity
• Cultures/Races that aren't clearly defined create a great deal of ambiguity

Ambiguity is realistic, in a certain sense, but most TTRPG settings are probably not deeply concerned with it. If you want a deeply ambiguous world it becomes difficult to tell a straightforward story. That's particularly troublesome when you're trying to run a tabletop game that relies on a shared-understanding of the game world.

If you want to run a Game of Thrones-inspired world, where the PCs are morally grey, operating in a world of ambiguity and uncertainty, I think that's fine. But in my experience it is very difficult to get all players to understand this thematic element and cooperate with it. It's much harder to accomplish than telling a straightforward LOTR-story or Conan-story.

I also think that the a TTRPG by its very nature exposes the structure of the game world in a way that narrative fiction might not. If your setting has a mechanically distinct category for "arcane" vs. "divine" magic, this creates a real thing your players will understand even if the setting leaves "gods" ambiguous.

I appreciate this conversation of Ambiguity and Shared Clarity, Zelan. It reminds me of estar's (IIRC) Bag of Things (tropes?), where familiar shared ideas are used as short-hand to communicate some things clearly quickly. Which is useful because an RPG is already filled with a lot of ambiguous questions for new players in the shared imagined space.

Managing world presentation dials allows campaign personalization focus which helps "same page" player expectations. What are your play priorities? How is personal touches differing from official canon, and why? How much setting ambiguity are you willing to embrace before it confuses your audience?

And that brings up why many published worlds end up take a 'safer' path. But is it truly better, or a lost opportunity? We can become focused on elegance to the point it too creates problems.

Quote from: Pat on April 25, 2022, 08:35:16 PM
If you're going to assume the laws of physics work differently in a fantasy world, why would you import the modern view of cosmology and deities as abstract things removed from the material world? Because that's also a modern conceit, created to explain how gods can still exist in a world which is known to a high degree of precision thanks to science. Why not use a historical version of how cosmology works, and the nature of gods?

Ackchually... pointing out contradictions and absurdities in the ancient Greek myths and either rejecting them or reinterpreting them was a favorite pastime of many ancient Greek philosophers, predating modernity and modern science by quite a bit. Origen pointed out that taking Genesis 1 literally makes no sense, and proposed an allegorical interpretation in the 3rd century.

From what I can tell, to the extent that the literal truth or falsehood of myths becomes an issue at all, it does so because of the rise of philosophical thinking in a society.  Before then, I don't think you can ascribe either a literalist or non-literalist theology to most cultures: the question simply doesn't arise and they simply don't give it any thought. Even today the issue only really comes up in communities where many or most people have had some degree of higher education.

Your average folk believer believes in the power of God or the gods, and that's the important thing; the rest can sort itself out later.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 25, 2022, 09:59:19 PM
Plus this also assumes that ancient cultures had a literalist view of their own mythology, which is doubtful, considering that some of those mythologies included stuff like the idea of a flat Earth

Even better examples:

Beowulf includes the hero staying underwater for hours at one point. The Sage of the Volsungs involves people swapping appearances with no explanation; it's just something they can do. The Eddas explains the daily tides as Thor attempting and failing to drink the ocean, an event which happened only once.

ETA: Or consider a classic atheist "gotcha": where did the waters go after the Great Flood? Did it evaporate back above the firmament? Did it sink into underwater reservoirs? Did God just hoover it up? The Bible doesn't say, and honestly probably approximately zero people would have given two shits if you asked them.

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on April 25, 2022, 08:04:50 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 25, 2022, 07:05:46 PM
The idea that gods being real precludes the existence of multiple pantheons is highly overblown. This assumes that only one god can fill any single role, or comes from a literalist view of mythology (the god of the sun literally pulls the sun while riding a sky chariot), as opposed to a symbolic one (the chariot is just a metaphor that only exists in a heavily plane of existence at most, but the actual sun operates more like the scientific view of the world).

If the gods are more like archetypal or animistic forces or thought constructs that are "real", but exist only in other realms of reality (how they tend to be viewed in modern pagan, polytheistic religions), or perhaps rely on the belief of their worshiper to maintain their power (as in American Gods) or are formed based on how various cultures or spiritual traditions relate to divinity, then multiple pantheons of "real" gods become a possibility. It all depends on how the world's cosmology is constructed and how spirituality operates within it.

I would say that a setting based on real world myth (or some approximation of it) where the gods of various cultures are real would operate more like this.

This.

Also, on the subject of technology, I don't assume that the laws of physics work the same as in the real world. For example, guns canonically do not work in the World of Greyhawk -- the one character who has guns, Murlynd, is a gunslinger from the Old West who somehow became a demigod, and projects an aura around him in which our world's physics apply, allowing the guns to work within a certain distance of him.

A late medieval/early Renaissance technological base may be right at the limit of what that world's laws allow.

The Cat is right, Greyhawk only had laser guns.

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on April 26, 2022, 12:13:25 AM

From what I can tell, to the extent that the literal truth or falsehood of myths becomes an issue at all, it does so because of the rise of philosophical thinking in a society.  Before then, I don't think you can ascribe either a literalist or non-literalist theology to most cultures: the question simply doesn't arise and they simply don't give it any thought. Even today the issue only really comes up in communities where many or most people have had some degree of higher education.

Your average folk believer believes in the power of God or the gods, and that's the important thing; the rest can sort itself out later.

This is a modern assumption with zero evidence.  It's a trope repeated by various academics at various times, often copying each other and/or taking it as received wisdom.  Human nature being constant, it is far more likely that we have always had the full range of human behavior.  That is, there have always been tall-tales, people who told them, and them some who lent them various levels of credence and others at various levels of skepticism.  This naturally spins into attitudes about truth (whatever it is) that sounds like a tall-tale.

If you doubt it, take any small, random slice of media from our time, project 2,000+ years into the future, assume a break in the historical record akin to the dark ages, a reborn society, and then consider what the usual suspects are going to "determine" from that random slice.

That is why, if you want fantastic and ambiguity, you can make your elves or lizardmen or whatever extremely alien, but make them seem human by having a similar range of beliefs and skepticism.  Or if you want their thoughts to be really alien, you can constrict that range or even put a spin on it, while otherwise leaving things along. 

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 25, 2022, 09:59:19 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 25, 2022, 08:35:16 PM

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on April 25, 2022, 08:04:50 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 25, 2022, 07:05:46 PM
The idea that gods being real precludes the existence of multiple pantheons is highly overblown. This assumes that only one god can fill any single role, or comes from a literalist view of mythology (the god of the sun literally pulls the sun while riding a sky chariot), as opposed to a symbolic one (the chariot is just a metaphor that only exists in a heavily plane of existence at most, but the actual sun operates more like the scientific view of the world).

If the gods are more like archetypal or animistic forces or thought constructs that are "real", but exist only in other realms of reality (how they tend to be viewed in modern pagan, polytheistic religions), or perhaps rely on the belief of their worshiper to maintain their power (as in American Gods) or are formed based on how various cultures or spiritual traditions relate to divinity, then multiple pantheons of "real" gods become a possibility. It all depends on how the world's cosmology is constructed and how spirituality operates within it.

I would say that a setting based on real world myth (or some approximation of it) where the gods of various cultures are real would operate more like this.

This.

Also, on the subject of technology, I don't assume that the laws of physics work the same as in the real world. For example, guns canonically do not work in the World of Greyhawk -- the one character who has guns, Murlynd, is a gunslinger from the Old West who somehow became a demigod, and projects an aura around him in which our world's physics apply, allowing the guns to work within a certain distance of him.

A late medieval/early Renaissance technological base may be right at the limit of what that world's laws allow.

If you're going to assume the laws of physics work differently in a fantasy world, why would you import the modern view of cosmology and deities as abstract things removed from the material world? Because that's also a modern conceit, created to explain how gods can still exist in a world which is known to a high degree of precision thanks to science. Why not use a historical version of how cosmology works, and the nature of gods?

Because that only works if you have a cool concept where one culture's crazy mythological view of the world is the one true way that the cosmology and theology actually works. Which is fine if you want to build an entire world around this one culture, and you could make it work, but the moment you want to expand that world to include multiple cultures with clashing views of the world without prioritizing one culture above others that begins to fall apart.

Plus this also assumes that ancient cultures had a literalist view of their own mythology, which is doubtful, considering that some of those mythologies included stuff like the idea of a flat Earth, while people from ancient times simultaneously knowing that the Earth was actually spherical since the Classical Age from observing ships disappearing into the horizon. And it also ignores that ancient people did not always have a consistent, central theology, and there were lots of regional variations and syncretism going on, with religious views evolving over time, and lots of mystery cults and other stuff existing at the margins.

Again, this could work, but it requires you to build your entire world around a narrow view of cosmology and theology privileging one culture (or at least building all cultures around that cosmological and theological framework), vs simply establishing something resembling real world cosmology as the common ground for clashing cultures, and otherworldly stuff laid on top as some sort of parallel reality that exists on a separate layer over the natural world without necessarily affecting it, and can only be experienced in trance states/astral perception Shadowrun style, or by visiting those worlds through portals.

EDIT/PS: Basically, it depends on what you want the world to be about and what sort of stuff you want to include in it.

There are recurrent themes and tropes throughout myth and legend, repeated stories and ways of thinking. There are whole fields of scholarship on the subject. It's not about picking one thing as much as it is adopting a degree of magical or mythological thinking.

And I'm not arguing for pure literalism. The human ability to think abstractly predates history.

I'm arguing against a modern, scientific worldview. Against the God of the Gaps, where the role of the divine is diminished to such an extent that it can only be abstract or inferred.

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on April 26, 2022, 12:13:25 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 25, 2022, 08:35:16 PM
If you're going to assume the laws of physics work differently in a fantasy world, why would you import the modern view of cosmology and deities as abstract things removed from the material world? Because that's also a modern conceit, created to explain how gods can still exist in a world which is known to a high degree of precision thanks to science. Why not use a historical version of how cosmology works, and the nature of gods?

Ackchually... pointing out contradictions and absurdities in the ancient Greek myths and either rejecting them or reinterpreting them was a favorite pastime of many ancient Greek philosophers, predating modernity and modern science by quite a bit. Origen pointed out that taking Genesis 1 literally makes no sense, and proposed an allegorical interpretation in the 3rd century.

From what I can tell, to the extent that the literal truth or falsehood of myths becomes an issue at all, it does so because of the rise of philosophical thinking in a society.  Before then, I don't think you can ascribe either a literalist or non-literalist theology to most cultures: the question simply doesn't arise and they simply don't give it any thought. Even today the issue only really comes up in communities where many or most people have had some degree of higher education.

Your average folk believer believes in the power of God or the gods, and that's the important thing; the rest can sort itself out later.

The Greeks are an interesting example, because in a lot of ways they were very modern in their thinking. There's a reason why they're the root of Western tradition.

I think you hit on that, with your reference to philosophical tradition. Because that's where science started. Originally, it was originally all philosophy. And then the various fields cleaved off.

But with things like relativity and quantum theory, the modern view is still an extreme outlier, compared to even the most rational of historical philosophers.

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 05:25:34 PM
Thinking lately about sins against world building related to ttrpg s I can't ever seem to find a world that avoids these traps.

-global pantheons, most seem guilty of this. The entire word worships a single pantheon.
-time locked, most fantasy settings set in a pseudo medieval period spend way too much time there. They like get to the Middle Ages and just stop inventing shit. If your medieval period is 10,000 years long that's excessive.
-gods are ever present, communicative and all powerful. This just strips mortals of their agency and meaningful choices.
- resurrection, god I hate this spell. It really lowers the stakes. High profile assassination of emperor bigus dickus? Shame he's obscenely wealthy and is just gonna be brought back to life shortly.
- the power of magic in the world should be proportional to its rarity, I'm surprised faerun hasn't just fallen due to the law of entropy.
-magic is too common for how little it effects the world. For a medieval setting they have a surprising lack of medieval problems.
-world peace is the rule, seriously too many campaign settings have every nation of similar alignment just allied or friendly with each other. When there is war it's some evil necromancer or orc horde never just mundane reasons where politicians try and get people killed. Peace is the exception not the rule
-meaningless titles, nobility in worlds like faerun mean jack shit other than occasionally being called lord or sir. Even knights should be loaded with cash. Fitted Medieval plate armor accounting in terms of modern currency is like buying a Ferrari and easily can cost in the millions.
-language barriers, they should exist.
- cultural diversity and cultural exchange. Quit sticking random outliers smack in the middle of things. Cultures bleed over on each other, historical maps showcase this the best you shouldn't have Mongolians popping up between france and Spain.
-your kingdoms aesthetic should represent their environment. You aren't going to have a landlocked kingdom or even mostly landlocked kingdom subsist primarily on seafood.
Anyway just a topic I was thinking of much to my frustration on most settings I read about.

Why use dashes instead of bullet-points?

Quote from: Pat on April 26, 2022, 08:29:01 AM

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on April 26, 2022, 12:13:25 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 25, 2022, 08:35:16 PM
If you're going to assume the laws of physics work differently in a fantasy world, why would you import the modern view of cosmology and deities as abstract things removed from the material world? Because that's also a modern conceit, created to explain how gods can still exist in a world which is known to a high degree of precision thanks to science. Why not use a historical version of how cosmology works, and the nature of gods?

Ackchually... pointing out contradictions and absurdities in the ancient Greek myths and either rejecting them or reinterpreting them was a favorite pastime of many ancient Greek philosophers, predating modernity and modern science by quite a bit. Origen pointed out that taking Genesis 1 literally makes no sense, and proposed an allegorical interpretation in the 3rd century.

From what I can tell, to the extent that the literal truth or falsehood of myths becomes an issue at all, it does so because of the rise of philosophical thinking in a society.  Before then, I don't think you can ascribe either a literalist or non-literalist theology to most cultures: the question simply doesn't arise and they simply don't give it any thought. Even today the issue only really comes up in communities where many or most people have had some degree of higher education.

Your average folk believer believes in the power of God or the gods, and that's the important thing; the rest can sort itself out later.

The Greeks are an interesting example, because in a lot of ways they were very modern in their thinking. There's a reason why they're the root of Western tradition.

I think you hit on that, with your reference to philosophical tradition. Because that's where science started. Originally, it was originally all philosophy. And then the various fields cleaved off.

But with things like relativity and quantum theory, the modern view is still an extreme outlier, compared to even the most rational of historical philosophers.

My point was that interpreting myths symbolically was not because of the world now being (as you stated) "known to a high degree of precision thanks to science. It has to do with the rise of a systematic and literal mode of thinking.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 26, 2022, 08:05:18 AM
This is a modern assumption with zero evidence.  It's a trope repeated by various academics at various times, often copying each other and/or taking it as received wisdom.  Human nature being constant, it is far more likely that we have always had the full range of human behavior.

Of course we've always had the full range of behavior, but what I'm talking about isn't a matter of ability, but values. Ancient people were able to distinguish between literal and non-literal truth, they just didn't care most of the time.

Nor, for that matter, do we!

You know how people hate That Guy who insists on correcting the details of the stories they're telling, or asking awkward questions? The sort of person who the phrase "You must be fun at parties," is talking about? That lax attitude toward literal truth is what I'm talking about, and it's what philosophy rejects in order to allow logical deductions.

For your average Christian, they might repeat the slogan that the Bible is the literal Word of God, but do you think they really care whehter the story of Balaam and the talking donkey literally happened? What they really care about is that true enough: that they're not wasting their time going to church, that they'll see their loved ones again after death, etc. In fact, one of the most common causes of loss of faith I've seen is when a believer or a loved one gets sick, and they pray and pray but God doesn't heal them. Why? Because now the power of God wasn't there for them when they needed it. So either he doesn't really exist, or doesn't care.

Quote from: Pat on April 26, 2022, 08:22:14 AM
I'm arguing against a modern, scientific worldview. Against the God of the Gaps, where the role of the divine is diminished to such an extent that it can only be abstract or inferred.

Huh? The esoteric/symbolic interpretation of religion is pretty much the opposite of the God of the Gaps, since it's expressly not being invoked to explain natural events.

Quote from: VengerSatanis on April 26, 2022, 11:33:34 AM

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 05:25:34 PM
Thinking lately about sins against world building related to ttrpg s I can't ever seem to find a world that avoids these traps.

-global pantheons, most seem guilty of this. The entire word worships a single pantheon.
-time locked, most fantasy settings set in a pseudo medieval period spend way too much time there. They like get to the Middle Ages and just stop inventing shit. If your medieval period is 10,000 years long that's excessive.
-gods are ever present, communicative and all powerful. This just strips mortals of their agency and meaningful choices.
- resurrection, god I hate this spell. It really lowers the stakes. High profile assassination of emperor bigus dickus? Shame he's obscenely wealthy and is just gonna be brought back to life shortly.
- the power of magic in the world should be proportional to its rarity, I'm surprised faerun hasn't just fallen due to the law of entropy.
-magic is too common for how little it effects the world. For a medieval setting they have a surprising lack of medieval problems.
-world peace is the rule, seriously too many campaign settings have every nation of similar alignment just allied or friendly with each other. When there is war it's some evil necromancer or orc horde never just mundane reasons where politicians try and get people killed. Peace is the exception not the rule
-meaningless titles, nobility in worlds like faerun mean jack shit other than occasionally being called lord or sir. Even knights should be loaded with cash. Fitted Medieval plate armor accounting in terms of modern currency is like buying a Ferrari and easily can cost in the millions.
-language barriers, they should exist.
- cultural diversity and cultural exchange. Quit sticking random outliers smack in the middle of things. Cultures bleed over on each other, historical maps showcase this the best you shouldn't have Mongolians popping up between france and Spain.
-your kingdoms aesthetic should represent their environment. You aren't going to have a landlocked kingdom or even mostly landlocked kingdom subsist primarily on seafood.
Anyway just a topic I was thinking of much to my frustration on most settings I read about.

Why use dashes instead of bullet-points?

Typed it on my phone and bullet points suck to try and do. Formatting on boards is a pain

Quote from: VengerSatanis on April 26, 2022, 11:33:34 AM

Quote from: Ocule on April 24, 2022, 05:25:34 PM
Thinking lately about sins against world building related to ttrpg s I can't ever seem to find a world that avoids these traps.

-global pantheons, most seem guilty of this. The entire word worships a single pantheon.
-time locked, most fantasy settings set in a pseudo medieval period spend way too much time there. They like get to the Middle Ages and just stop inventing shit. If your medieval period is 10,000 years long that's excessive.
-gods are ever present, communicative and all powerful. This just strips mortals of their agency and meaningful choices.
- resurrection, god I hate this spell. It really lowers the stakes. High profile assassination of emperor bigus dickus? Shame he's obscenely wealthy and is just gonna be brought back to life shortly.
- the power of magic in the world should be proportional to its rarity, I'm surprised faerun hasn't just fallen due to the law of entropy.
-magic is too common for how little it effects the world. For a medieval setting they have a surprising lack of medieval problems.
-world peace is the rule, seriously too many campaign settings have every nation of similar alignment just allied or friendly with each other. When there is war it's some evil necromancer or orc horde never just mundane reasons where politicians try and get people killed. Peace is the exception not the rule
-meaningless titles, nobility in worlds like faerun mean jack shit other than occasionally being called lord or sir. Even knights should be loaded with cash. Fitted Medieval plate armor accounting in terms of modern currency is like buying a Ferrari and easily can cost in the millions.
-language barriers, they should exist.
- cultural diversity and cultural exchange. Quit sticking random outliers smack in the middle of things. Cultures bleed over on each other, historical maps showcase this the best you shouldn't have Mongolians popping up between france and Spain.
-your kingdoms aesthetic should represent their environment. You aren't going to have a landlocked kingdom or even mostly landlocked kingdom subsist primarily on seafood.
Anyway just a topic I was thinking of much to my frustration on most settings I read about.

Why use dashes instead of bullet-points?

Maybe his keyboard doesn't have a bullet point key.  Does yours?

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on April 26, 2022, 01:18:46 PM
For your average Christian, they might repeat the slogan that the Bible is the literal Word of God, but do you think they really care whehter the story of Balaam and the talking donkey literally happened? What they really care about is that true enough: that they're not wasting their time going to church, that they'll see their loved ones again after death, etc. In fact, one of the most common causes of loss of faith I've seen is when a believer or a loved one gets sick, and they pray and pray but God doesn't heal them. Why? Because now the power of God wasn't there for them when they needed it. So either he doesn't really exist, or doesn't care.

God can be all-loving and care, but be non-interventional. God answering everybody's prayers would be reduced to an all-powerful slave.

Quote from: Jason Coplen on April 26, 2022, 04:11:31 PM

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on April 26, 2022, 01:18:46 PM
For your average Christian, they might repeat the slogan that the Bible is the literal Word of God, but do you think they really care whehter the story of Balaam and the talking donkey literally happened? What they really care about is that true enough: that they're not wasting their time going to church, that they'll see their loved ones again after death, etc. In fact, one of the most common causes of loss of faith I've seen is when a believer or a loved one gets sick, and they pray and pray but God doesn't heal them. Why? Because now the power of God wasn't there for them when they needed it. So either he doesn't really exist, or doesn't care.

God can be all-loving and care, but be non-interventional. God answering everybody's prayers would be reduced to an all-powerful slave.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm pointing out that it was the (perceived) power of God that mattered, not the minutiae of whether the Bible is literally true or not.

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on April 26, 2022, 04:21:08 PM

Quote from: Jason Coplen on April 26, 2022, 04:11:31 PM

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on April 26, 2022, 01:18:46 PM
For your average Christian, they might repeat the slogan that the Bible is the literal Word of God, but do you think they really care whehter the story of Balaam and the talking donkey literally happened? What they really care about is that true enough: that they're not wasting their time going to church, that they'll see their loved ones again after death, etc. In fact, one of the most common causes of loss of faith I've seen is when a believer or a loved one gets sick, and they pray and pray but God doesn't heal them. Why? Because now the power of God wasn't there for them when they needed it. So either he doesn't really exist, or doesn't care.

God can be all-loving and care, but be non-interventional. God answering everybody's prayers would be reduced to an all-powerful slave.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm pointing out that it was the (perceived) power of God that mattered, not the minutiae of whether the Bible is literally true or not.

Fair enough.  :D

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on April 26, 2022, 01:18:46 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 26, 2022, 08:22:14 AM
I'm arguing against a modern, scientific worldview. Against the God of the Gaps, where the role of the divine is diminished to such an extent that it can only be abstract or inferred.

Huh? The esoteric/symbolic interpretation of religion is pretty much the opposite of the God of the Gaps, since it's expressly not being invoked to explain natural events.

Huh back. The God of the Gaps isn't about explaining natural events, but about finding a place where an expression of divinity doesn't conflict with what we know of natural law.

Role playing occurs in the heads of the participants. If you are going to reinvent the wheel again and again for Pantheons and cultures your gonna create something like Glorantha or Tekemal which many people find a bit too alien. Better to do the pistache thing to make things readily accessible.

A setting only has to be real enough.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 26, 2022, 01:23:39 PM
Maybe his keyboard doesn't have a bullet point key.  Does yours?

It'd be nice if this board supported markdown IMO instead of BBCode.
Wonder what it would take to upgrade the board forum software.

Quote from: Shasarak on April 26, 2022, 12:56:36 AM
The Cat is right, Greyhawk only had laser guns.

And blasters and needlers, IIRC.

Quote from: Ruprecht on April 26, 2022, 07:31:21 PM
Role playing occurs in the heads of the participants. If you are going to reinvent the wheel again and again for Pantheons and cultures your gonna create something like Glorantha or Tekemal which many people find a bit too alien. Better to do the pistache thing to make things readily accessible.

A setting only has to be real enough.

Greetings!

I agree, Ruprecht! I'm a detail guy, and I have detailed my game world for geesus, 40 years now? *Laughing* Honestly, though, probably 50% of it all is overkill. The players like it--some really love it all, too. However, having said that, I have also learned through the years to appreciate simplicity and a certain measure of minimalism. There are, after all, tools, tables, and some prep work that can more than suffice, which allows the DM to avoid slaving away creating far too much detail that most players are not likely to ever appreciate. The campaign only has to be "Real Enough". ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

So I took a look at your accussations?

Quote-global pantheons, most seem guilty of this. The entire word worships a single pantheon.

God I wish. In my experience it's totally different.
In D&D worlds - Greyhawk, Faerun, Golarion, Midgard - multiple racial and regional pantheons is common, and rarely there is any unity.

Three gods of tyranny for Europeans, Asians and Elves... got it. Five mother earths for Europeans, Africans, Dwarves, Halflings and Draconians - you get it. And so on, and so on.

With D&D like deities my prefered model is limited number of real gods, and widely diverse methods of worship accross cultures, that makes mundane people think who is who across it.
Nevertheless if gods are real, and at least somehow more obviously interfering than God/gods in our world, then it seems quite obvious they gonna be recognized... widely.

Quote-time locked, most fantasy settings set in a pseudo medieval period spend way too much time there. They like get to the Middle Ages and just stop inventing shit. If your medieval period is 10,000 years long that's excessive.

That I agree.

Quote-gods are ever present, communicative and all powerful. This just strips mortals of their agency and meaningful choices.

Perfectly aligned with pagan vision of heroism. May be not for your taste, alas it's common mythical thing.

Quote- resurrection, god I hate this spell. It really lowers the stakes. High profile assassination of emperor bigus dickus? Shame he's obscenely wealthy and is just gonna be brought back to life shortly.

I do not as much hate this spell - as certainity it's gonna work.
Make it hard as fuck, and occassional ressurection won't hurt as much.

Quote-world peace is the rule, seriously too many campaign settings have every nation of similar alignment just allied or friendly with each other. When there is war it's some evil necromancer or orc horde never just mundane reasons where politicians try and get people killed. Peace is the exception not the rule

That's logical result of high fantasy with objective cosmic alignment. Maybe try to play other games not D&D.

Quote- cultural diversity and cultural exchange. Quit sticking random outliers smack in the middle of things. Cultures bleed over on each other, historical maps showcase this the best you shouldn't have Mongolians popping up between france and Spain.

I mean it took time. Hungarians started as Asian horde between Germany, Czech and Byzantium and they evolved from it.

Quote-your kingdoms aesthetic should represent their environment. You aren't going to have a landlocked kingdom or even mostly landlocked kingdom subsist primarily on seafood.

I must say I've always seen seafood in seafaring nations in my fantasy as main thing, so maybe I'm lucky.

Quote-meaningless titles, nobility in worlds like faerun mean jack shit other than occasionally being called lord or sir. Even knights should be loaded with cash. Fitted Medieval plate armor accounting in terms of modern currency is like buying a Ferrari and easily can cost in the millions.

While all those divine and magical elements are more matter of taste, here I shall agree - economy in D&D is BULLSHIT, objectively on any level.
If your magical artifact is not powerful enough to nuke entire cities, it won't be bought for value of entire kingdom sorry. Sorry but your +5 demonslaying halberd won't be that a) easy to sell b) valuable in simple cash c) probably local authorities gonna try to take it away and lock in castle dungeon to use if necessary when demons endanger kingdom, not let some random hobo wander with such strategic asset.

QuoteSo any game world with real gods will automatically only have one pantheon, because only one god can be responsible for the sun rising and setting. Only one god can be the ruler of the underworld, etc. These gods might have different names across the world, but they will be the same god.

Joke, on you. In my recent D&D mini-campaign DM decided after my joke, to make canonical lore of our world that each region has it's own sun god, ruling over sun's nature in specific place. If two major sun gods are fighting over territory that really fucks up day and night cycles. ;)

A good compromise between a billion real gods and one global pantheon is distant god with many faces... not all of whom are recognized.

For example;

- The beastmen have a goddess of dreams a batkin who delivers the dust of sleep upon untroubled souls and torments the wicked in their dreams. Their goddess of death is associated with wolves and winter and hunts the undead.

- The local humans have a maiden of dreams associated with the moon who is worshipped, and a queen of nightmares who is worshipped against... typically by offerings to the maiden for protection. The humans have a death goddess virtually identical to the beastmen, but also a demonic goddess of undeath.

- The elves have a High Queen associated whose aspect shifts from benign to malevolent with the phases of the moon and is said to have two faces. Unlike the beastmen and humans, they do not have a goddess of death (they reincarnate) but believe what the other species experience as a death goddess is actually a demon preying upon lesser creatures who are doomed to die (unlike themselves).

Common elements exist among them all, but the interpretations in each culture are different. It points to their being some underlying truth, but not which version (if any) is actually correct. And the differences are more than enough to have religious wars over.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 25, 2022, 04:18:50 PM
So any game world with real gods will automatically only have one pantheon, because only one god can be responsible for the sun rising and setting. Only one god can be the ruler of the underworld, etc. These gods might have different names across the world, but they will be the same god.

The gods could be real and the myths human created lies to justify things they don't understand. Gods might be indifferent to the stories told about them as long as their power increases. In such cases you could have hundreds of Sun Gods.