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.