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.