The Campaign Builder's Guild

This is the great theme war between Raefilin and me, moved here so as not to hijack claypigeon's thread.



[spoiler=Raefilin]
Uhk, another vanilla setting. @_@ I suppose I should get straight to the actual criticisms rather than complain about "young'uns"... ^_^

I guess this is your first homebrew? My first homebrew was effectively core with my own geography and I suppose there isn't anything wrong with that. If you're happy, cool, but I'm going to go ahead and rant on how to distinguish your setting and cast off ye oppressive coils of yon plagaristic forefathers.

First of all, I'll talk about theme. Theme is the driving force behind a campaign and it is what separates Eberron from Greyhawk or Call of Cthulhu from d20 Modern. The basic principle behind theme is that your world is a work of art and thus conveys a message. This theme (or themes) should be the present everywhere in the world. Some example themes are
- Power Corrupts
- Old vs. New
- Good Always Triumphs
- Technology is Evil
Once you have a theme, you should be able to condense your setting into a 25, 50 and 100 word summary. These summaries will help you understand how the world should play out in terms of tone and content.

Tone is often confused with theme. If theme is the deeper message behind a painting, tone is the form of art used to convey that message. A sculpture about humankind's darkest fears might be very different from a watercolor of the same thing. Tone is usually fairly easy to pick out and you don't even need to put it into words.

Content is the substance of the setting. Built around theme and seen through the lens of tone, content is everything that actually "exists" in your world.

I'm out of time for now, but you should be able to get something useful from that. ^_^[/spoiler]

[spoiler=CYMRO]
To provide a counterpoint to Raef the AntiElf, I applaud your approach so far.
Work out geography, history, society, races and classes FIRST.
You are building a world here, there is plenty of room in most worlds to allow for several concurrent "themes" or "tones".
As you work out the details, themes and plot devices will fall into their appropriate places.
To say one theme should envelope your entire world is to limit your world. [/spoiler]

[spoiler=Raefilin]
A counterpoint?! Blasphemous! And backed with reasoning! Hath the world come to an end?
I think I'll just counterpoint the counterpoint!
To build a setting and then let the themes fall in is like hammering wood together and hoping it makes a boat. Realistically, when you "blindbuild" you are actually taking themes into account either through subconscious decisions or by taking elements from other pieces of art, and thereby taking the themes. The problem with this is that you'll eventually find inconsistencies in the style of the world that will degrade it as a whole.

True. A world should have as many themes as are needed to convey the deeper message that any piece of artwork strives to convey. However, like campaign elements, if you add too many themes the work seems scatterbrained and loses it's ethos.

Wow, I dear say I have opinions! Give me feedback so I might have more!

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=CYMRO]
"Blindbuild" is too simplistic a term. Rather, "naturalbuild." It hardly results in inconsistencies. It results in a world of flavors, a world that is dynamic and alive, even if lacks literary or artistic neatness. Similar to the real world.
It does not degrade Altvogge to have every region or nation traveling along a different thematic stream. If a character is in Drimia, he might find the theme from your list to be "Good always Triumphs". That certainly is not the case within the undead realm of Gianpa. "Innovation is evil" would be the theme in a campaign in Lyryana.


The deeper message, or ethos, of a world, from my point of view, is, "Funny old thing, Life."
A Campaign world should not be a piece of artwork, it should be a gallery full of works of art. [/spoiler]

Let the duel continue!!!
(whenever you get back)

Dag nammit. I saw the other thread and posted this there before I saw this one.

[spoiler=:twocents:]

Quote from: RaelifinTo build a setting and then let the themes fall in is like hammering wood together and hoping it makes a boat.

Realistically, when you "blindbuild" you are actually taking themes into account either through subconscious decisions or by taking elements from other pieces of art, and thereby taking the themes.[/blockquote]
 :twocents: False on both accounts. Firstly, it is impossible to subconsciously create or utilize a theme. A theme is a construct of conscious thought; if no one consciously recognizes that a theme exists, then the theme does not exist. A painting cannot have a theme of "redemption" if no one who looks at it has ever consciously decided that "redemption" is its theme.

Secondly, borrowing material drawn from a larger work of art does not necessarily perpetuate the theme of that larger work of art. A work of art as a whole creates and conveys its theme; the theme isn't something that is spread evenly througout. Only the tone of a work of art will be evident in most parts of the work without having to view the work as a whole.

QuoteThe problem with this is that you'll eventually find inconsistencies in the style of the world that will degrade it as a whole.

:twocents: I fail to see how inconsistencies would degrade a world. Consistency in a static creation such as a painting or a novel is a good thing, but in an ever-evolving medium, consistency is just evidence of oversimplification. If you can clearly delineate every element of an entire world as belonging to one of a limited number of styles or themes (except where necessary for game mechanical purposes), then you have created a world that is very unrealistic.[/spoiler]

No one is coming to defend Raef's position...

This could spell doom for themes and ethoi!

Quote from: CYMRO.  Have you heard the good news about cabbage?No one is coming to defend Raef's position...

This could spell doom for themes and ethoi!

To me, ethopodes sounds better.

Anyhoo! The leaving of the campaign alone for half a year is actualy a bad idead. A very bad idea. The state of your life that you left behind will never return. Kinda like how my father wrote some music sketches a few decades ago and now he can't get back into the right frame of mind to arrange them in a proper format. He can write new stuff, but the old stuff is trapped in limbo.

I do agree with CYMRO.

Quote from: CYMROA Campaign world should not be a piece of artwork, it should be a gallery full of works of art.

When I tried making a campaign settiing for Mirafar, one theme for a redion was "Paladins are a stupid concept". Overzealous sword swinging drunkards were at war with the city of Mirafar because it openly accepted vampires as an integral part of it's society. Nevermind that Mirafar was the most succesful economic center in that world. I had other plans for the world; other themes and concepts.

Quote from: the_takenAnyhoo! The leaving of the campaign alone for half a year is actualy a bad idead. A very bad idea. The state of your life that you left behind will never return. Kinda like how my father wrote some music sketches a few decades ago and now he can't get back into the right frame of mind to arrange them in a proper format. He can write new stuff, but the old stuff is trapped in limbo.

Exactly the point I was getting at! The objective you have when building a boat doesn't change over time, but the objective you have when building a campaign just might. That's why using on overarching theme as the basic building block of a campaign setting can be dangerous if your in it for the long haul. You want to be able to have something fundamental (like a vague history or a basic geographical overview) that you can attach to a different theme, should your outlook change during the course of the creation process.

Quote from: CYMRO.  Have yo"Blindbuild" is too simplistic a term. Rather, "naturalbuild." It hardly results in inconsistencies. It results in a world of flavors, a world that is dynamic and alive, even if lacks literary or artistic neatness. Similar to the real world.
It does not degrade Altvogge to have every region or nation traveling along a different thematic stream. If a character is in Drimia, he might find the theme from your list to be "Good always Triumphs". That certainly is not the case within the undead realm of Gianpa. "Innovation is evil" would be the theme in a campaign in Lyryana.


The deeper message, or ethos, of a world, from my point of view, is, "Funny old thing, Life."
A Campaign world should not be a piece of artwork, it should be a gallery full of works of art.

To build a setting and then let the themes fall in is like hammering wood together and hoping it makes a boat.[/quote]The leaving of the campaign alone for half a year is actualy a bad idead. A very bad idea. The state of your life that you left behind will never return. Kinda like how my father wrote some music sketches a few decades ago and now he can't get back into the right frame of mind to arrange them in a proper format. He can write new stuff, but the old stuff is trapped in limbo.
[/quote]Realistically, when you "blindbuild" you are actually taking themes into account either through subconscious decisions or by taking elements from other pieces of art, and thereby taking the themes.
[/quote]The problem with this is that you'll eventually find inconsistencies in the style of the world that will degrade it as a whole.
[/quote] :twocents: I fail to see how inconsistencies would degrade a world. Consistency in a static creation such as a painting or a novel is a good thing, but in an ever-evolving medium, consistency is just evidence of oversimplification. If you can clearly delineate every element of an entire world as belonging to one of a limited number of styles or themes (except where necessary for game mechanical purposes), then you have created a world that is very unrealistic.[/quote]

Well, I think I'll leave this point for later. After nearly two hours of reading this thread, I think I'll take a break and see what my other points produce.

QuoteSo in this, you are right, a world is a gallery, but the focus needs to be on the artwork for thatâ,¬,,¢s where vision lies. To fulfil a vision, one must have a goal even if it is unreachable.

Why?  I create a world, a gallery if you will.  My players pick the thematic thread that interests them.  I do not force them to focus on a piece of art, or a particular theme.  They choose want interests them.  
It should be the players' goal, not the DM's that drives things.  I drop considerable plothooks along the way for my party.  Most are never pursued.  

QuoteHowever, it is my opinion that a world in itself is not art, merely a cold framework on which to drape other artwork.

Here, again, we differ.  The world should not be a cold framework, but a dynamic place that the party interacts with.  Those loose plothooks, for example, have a way in my world of being resolved, for good or ill, that keep everything spinning.  Consequences of action and inaction mean that no matter what the players choose to pursue, the world is moving with them, in its kaliedoscope of lives, themes, and conflicts.  

QuoteNow if we can see that the world (geography, ecology, politics, etc.) is best tied to a setting (theme, tone, vision, etc.) we can also see why it is best to keep a world bound to a single setting.

Can't say that I agree.  Your example is  little over the top.  Let us examine a bit of real world "setting" conflict.  Let us say we are running a Viking Campaign, very sterotypical of the Hollywood genre.  The party after awhile finds itself in Imperial China.  Completely different setting within the same world, but the theme, tone and vision of the Forbidden City will be completely at odds with Oslo, but both can exist dynamically in the same world without any great disruption.  Yes, the party will go through culture shock, but that is half of the fun for the DM.  

QuoteIâ,¬,,¢m not saying you should limit your entire world to a single idea, Iâ,¬,,¢m saying a single vision (idea, direction, etc.) should define your world.

Again, why?  Diversity of ideas and directions is much more fun.  Say, for example, my party wants a horror campaign.  I start the party in Gianpa, perfect for such a theme.  After a while, the party wants a new direction.  Maybe they have watched The Last Samurai one too many times, so a change of theme is in order. Waelun is already a dynamic part of the world, and the party can get to this thematically different area with little difficulty.  Alas, after awhile, the novelty wears off.  They are really looking for a military campaign.  Drimia calls to them.
The hardships of the battlefield get tiring after awhile, they really want some court intrigue. Off to Haelita.  And so on...
I try, as far as possible, with  Altvogge to cover every possible theme my players might want.  The world is not defined by a single vision, that would be too narrow, and not suit my players.  It is a fact that roleplayers are affected in their tastes by a multitude of influences.  By not binding yourself to a single theme, the party can sample whatever styles and themes that are currently interesting them.

QuoteThe point still remains, you cannot reliably make a decent setting by letting a thematically dead world define itâ,¬,,¢s own theme.

A world without one theme does not have to be "dead", it can be brilliantly alive with a myriad of themes and directions.  As themeless and vibrant as the real world, which is resplendent in themes, just none consistently overarching.

Holmgang, here I come!

Quote from: Epic Meepo:twocents: I fail to see how inconsistencies would degrade a world. Consistency in a static creation such as a painting or a novel is a good thing, but in an ever-evolving medium, consistency is just evidence of oversimplification. If you can clearly delineate every element of an entire world as belonging to one of a limited number of styles or themes (except where necessary for game mechanical purposes), then you have created a world that is very unrealistic.

All[/i] our fictional worlds are, to varying degrees, oversimplified counterfeits of the real world.

4.) Detail may beget realism, but simplicity begets ease of use. As the level of detail of a fictional world rises, it tends to become more realistic, but it also tends to become more intimidating, forbidding, and difficult to use. Therefore, for most purposes, a truly realistic world (that is, one of infinite detail) is not only impossible to achieve, but undesirable. Each participant in a fictional world (writers, readers, DMs, players... all of them) must find the particular balance between detail and simplicity that satisfies their preference.

And trends vary. We see throughout history when we study any of the creative arts that tastes fluctuate, pendulum-style, between Apollonian and Dionysian extremes. World-building, likewise, has proponents of both styles-- as this thread clearly demonstrates. I contend that the discussion is too polarized for its own good; that purely theme-based writing and purely realistic writing are both overhyped as goals.

And since the discussion seems to have wandered into talk of "patchwork" settings, which contain multiple contrasting cultures with their own theme/tone sets.

I'd suggest the following: by including such global variety with local themes, isn't a writer also including global themes, voluntarily or not? A world with the kinds of diverse cultures as CYMRO describes stands out to me as having global themes because of its variation. Perhaps "Humanoid life is infinitely varied," or even "Contrasting cultures create discord when they come into contact."

Holmgang! Holmgang! Holmgang!

Quote from: RaelifinHowever, it is my opinion that a world in itself is not art, merely a cold framework on which to drape other artwork. So in this, you are right, a world is a gallery, but the focus needs to be on the artwork for thatâ,¬,,¢s where vision lies.

This goal represents the theme or ethos of the art and thus is the unifying element in the creation of any artwork.[/blockquote]
Based upon my above comment, I am going to disagree, because depending upon your goal, you may not be creating a work of art at all. If my goal is to create a medium in which others can create their own works of art, then my goal has nothing to do with any theme that may or may not be used when someone puts my medium to use. A canvas and a pallet don't together have any theme at all.

QuoteThe world of Eberron and the world of Grayhawk are two different settings and worlds... Stripped bare of their themes, tones and thematic elements, the worlds both seem drab, but they still remain different. Each is built in a way that emphasizes and supports the settings they house. Placing the setting of Eberron (the theme, tone and thematic elements) onto the world of Grayhawk would be possible, but ultimately fall short of itâ,¬,,¢s true potential.

Many of the experiences that I have had with gaming run contrary to this. Several of my gaming groups are of the opinion that Eberron and Grayhawk, are, in fact, not very different at all. This stems from the fact that my gaming groups tend to adapts any setting to their own styles of play, regardless of the designers' and illustrators' prefered style of play.

Because Eberron and Grayhawk are both "if its D&D, you'll find it here" settings, my gaming groups content that they are, in fact, nearly identical campaign settings. A campaign setting is a framework for a campaign with a theme, and both of these frameworks use nearly identical pieces.

By contrast, my gaming groups would contend that Dragonlance is a distinctly different setting because Dragonlance is built upon a different subset of rules, as dictated by its cosmology and politics. No matter what theme the developers deign to attach to the cosmology and politics of Dragonlance, it is the actual choice of such elements that matters, not the motivation for that choice. Such a motiviation can be easily reimagined by any given gaming group.

QuoteThe thing that comes to mind is a setting which incorporates both the Jetsons and Alien fiction, two works of art with drastically different themes... Each looking through different lenses, you can fit Xenomorphs onto the floating cities with hovercars, but like I showed earlier, the setting should match the world for best results.

That Jetsons/Alien setting appears as the cafe scene in the movie Spaceballs. By picking his own theme for this combination of themeless elements, Mel Brooks creates a very amusing and very memorable scene.

QuoteI think the biggest problem with you argument is that you assume that having a vision in mind for a setting means that the world is confined by a static idea. In no way is this the case. Just as people change, the themes and tone of a setting will change as the creator(s) vision changes.

Having a vision is not the same as having a theme. "I want a world with lots of pixies" and "I want a world in which pixies are an important recurring element" are two different statements. A certain amount of intent is needed for something that recurrs to become a theme instead of just a preoccupation or a coincidence. What's more, that intent will often change depending upon which gaming group is currently making use of a campaign setting.

QuoteThe point still remains, you cannot reliably make a decent setting by letting a thematically dead world define itâ,¬,,¢s own theme. The only way that can ever occur is by building the world with a vision in mind and just not knowing it until you find that your setting has emerged.

You cannot make a decent setting (in the literary sense) without a theme, but you can make a decent setting (in the "backdrop for an as-of-yet unconcieved campaign) sense without a theme. That is why, in my arguments, I make a distinction between a setting used in a novel and a setting used for a game in which there is no specifically attached storyline.

QuoteI define a theme as a more solidified form of the goal of a vision. If someone has a brainstorm where they see pixies playing in the woods and that person decides to make a setting based on that vision, the setting will have themes even if the creator wasnâ,¬,,¢t consciously taking them into account.

If my goal is "I don't want to impose any given theme", then that goal cannot possibly be a theme. That is why I prefer to use a definition for the word theme that is closer to "a recurring element" along with some sort of requirement that the recurring element be more than mere astheitc preference or coincidence.

Quote from: Luminous CrayonAnd since the discussion seems to have wandered into talk of "patchwork" settings, which contain multiple contrasting cultures with their own theme/tone sets.

I'd suggest the following: by including such global variety with local themes, isn't a writer also including global themes, voluntarily or not? A world with the kinds of diverse cultures as CYMRO describes stands out to me as having global themes because of its variation. Perhaps "Humanoid life is infinitely varied," or even "Contrasting cultures create discord when they come into contact."

The deeper message, or ethos, of a world, from my point of view, is, "Funny old thing, Life."

Quote from: CYMROThe deeper message, or ethos, of a world, from my point of view, is, "Funny old thing, Life."

The liches and vampire lords of Mirafar feel very much negelcted and insulted by your necrecist ethos.

Quote from: the_taken

Quote from: CYMROThe deeper message, or ethos, of a world, from my point of view, is, "Funny old thing, Life."

The liches and vampire lords of Mirafar feel very much negelcted and insulted by your necrecist ethos.

That'll larn 'um to be undayud!

Quote from: Luminous CrayonThe only truly realistic world is the real one. Our aggregate real-world experiences become the yardstick by which we measure the "realism" of a fictional world.

Detail begets realism. The more detailed and nuanced a setting becomes, the more potential for verisimilitude it accumulates (and not coincidentally, the more resemblence it bears to the real world, which for our purposes, we may describe as infinitely detailed.)[/blockquote]
I'm not convinced that level of detail should be equated with realism. Level of detail can help to facilitate realism, but detail in and of itself is not realism. Realism arrises when we are able to accept that something fictional is logical, given that we accept its fiction premises as true. Thus, a theme must be mitigated by sufficient context to create some sort of logic that frames it.

Also, the real world is only infinitely detailed if the observer is omniscient.

QuoteI contend that the discussion is too polarized for its own good; that purely theme-based writing and purely realistic writing are both overhyped as goals.

Regarding my particular line of argument, this assertion is a straw man. I am not claiming that world building should be devoid of theme to accomodate realism. I am simply refuting the claims that it is self-defeating to build a world without first choosing a theme and that a world without a theme is necessarily lifeless.

Alright, I think I've gained something useful from this thread. From my perspective I have found at least two major ways to approach the process of creating a fantasy world. This post will attempt to detail the rough process, merits and failings of each. There are some points I could argue against, but this is my best shot at "we're both right and here's why:"

Ethocentric

An Ethocentric World is one built around a single idea, the vision of the creator. In an Ethocentric world, each element makes up a great tapestry that is tied together by that central idea.

Process:

*Inspiration. It all begins with an inspirational vision in the eyes of the creator. Whether conscious or not, this vision has a goal or final product. This product is often unreachable.

*Ethos. The destination in mind defines a direction, which, in turn, defines the core ideas for the artwork to be. These ideas (or idea) are the core of the artwork and will become central themes in the product. This step is often done mentally or subconsciously.

*Tone. Now that the core theme(s) for the art is in place, the style in which the work is presented must be decided upon. In more traditional art, this might be the medium used, such as poetry, sculpture or watercolor. In an  Ethocentric world, it is the tone in which the setting is presented.

*Core elements. The focus of the artwork is built with the core theme heavily in mind. In a novel, core elements would be characters and major events. With an Ethocentric world, these might be the major areas or defining laws of nature.

*Major Background. Only now is the actual substance of the artwork filled in. The supporting elements that help build upon the main theme without distracting from the focus of the work.

*Detail. Once the hub of the art is finished, return and add detail that fills in blank space. This detail need not heavily support the ethos, but it must not counteract it heavily.

*Horizon. Now that the art is more or less finished stylistically, it is important to return to the edges of the work and round it out so that the work feels complete. This backdrop shouldnâ,¬,,¢t convey anything in itself, but should instead channel attention and provide a sturdy foundation for the core statement. In an Ethocentric world, this means building the actual lands that support the setting as well as mapping out the frontier (be it space, the ocean or far off lands) so that the focus is supported and doesnâ,¬,,¢t feel alone.

This process often requires revision as the creatorâ,¬,,¢s vision changes or a piece is left out.

Merits:
Ethocentricality means that the product will be art. I has a message and can stand by itself as communication of an idea that cannot be put into mere words.

Failings:
Ethocentric worlds are incredibly focused on the creator and are thus selfish and unyielding. This tends to make a less versatile world for interaction as it will constantly press itâ,¬,,¢s ideas and message into all who touch it. It also means that if you wish to convey a different message than intended, you must work against the grain of the setting.

Divset (Diverse Setting)

A Divset world is one built to be a plausible environment or a backdrop to other fictional works. Divset worlds are intended to provide options and possibility, without forcing it on others.

Process:

Quote from: Epic Meepo

*Creating a plausible background that can accomodate any number of themes is less like creating art and more like setting up an art studio. You have to decide what tools (campaign elements) you want to be available to the artists (players) without indicating how those tools are supposed to be used.

For example: when choosing what game mechanics to apply to your setting, use those rules that you believe would be easiest and/or the most fun to use. Show preference to game systems that are versatile instead of those that best represent particular genres, and err on the side of including character options instead of restricting them for flavor purposes.

The approach is less obvious - but still valid - when designing elements that are rule-independent. In this case, you consider what environments and populations you think GMs would best be able to use in any of various adventures. Be vague about the relationships between various elements; imply plots that might take place without actually initiating those plots.

For example, don't say, "the hordes of Nation A have joined the legions of Nation B on the battlefield." Instead say that "violence has errupted between Nation A and Nation B" or "Nation A currently occupies parts of Nation B." Notice that neither of the second options requires countries or NPCs to take specific actions or use specific tactics. Depending upon the genre your players prefer, Nation A might have obliterated part of Nation B with dangerus spells of mass destruction, invaded Nation B with a disciplined military force, or secretly unleashed a shadowy plague of nightmare creatures upon the countryside in order to subdue parts of Nation B.

As another example, compare "a dark realm where helpless peasants huddle in fear and despair as horrid undead prowl the night" to "a dark realm where undead prowl the night." The second description, while not as evocative of a specific feel (in this case horror), is much more versatile. With that description, rooted more in plain fact than in gripping imagery, you could run a horror campaign where peasants huddle in fear, you could run a military campaign where the forces of the king valaintly hold off hordes of marauding undead, or you could run a superhero campaign where a league of heroes contends with a host of recurring undead foes.

Essentially, choose game mechanics and design an environment strictly to facilitate the largest spectrum of adventures of types that you like to play. Then develop factual descriptions of people and places that could function in tandem with any of several themes. Be vague. Imply things that might exist, but do not make them prerequisites for the proper use of your setting. Create conflicts, but do not state if or how they will play out. Have different factions that accept different descriptions of reality, creating a menu of possible truths for a DM to choose from.

Worlds created in this manner are distinguished not by unique themes, but by unique and inventive combinations of elements that a DM can use to achieve a particular purpose. When done correctly, these worlds are not evocative in the way that art is evocative, but elegant in the way a scientific theory is elegant.

Merits: [/b]
Divset worlds make excellent resources for Game Masters who want to create their own art without making their own world. They also provide a haven for players who like to define their own themes and ideas. By dissociating from themes and tones, Divset worlds are also much more malleable and easy to change.

Failings:
Because they are not intended as art themselves, Divset worlds often seem boring or generic when viewed objectively. Divset worlds also provide less potential depth with any one theme as they strive to accommodate a variety.


Well, what do you think? Am I nuts? Are there other major methods for constructing worlds? Can you present failings and merits that Iâ,¬,,¢ve not taken into account?

I think it is possible that those are the extremes, and that many world will fall somewhere in the middle.  But that's just my experience in creating settings.

I would guess a Divset world is likely to have many Earth-like features in order to allow for as many settings and genres as players might expect.

Yes, and if anyone wants a better name than "Divset" they should suggest it.

I think that while they may be "extreme," there is a very important distinction of whether you intend to create art or a framework for art.

Quote from: RaelifinYes, and if anyone wants a better name than "Divset" they should suggest it.

I think that while they may be "extreme," there is a very important distinction of whether you intend to create art or a framework for art.

I thought the intention was to create an egaging and dynamic game environment for the players.  I thought the art/framework was merely an analogy.

Points aside, your analogies are apalling!

"Campaign Building as Art"
WRONG. No matter what art you compare it to, camaign building is unique. Visual artists aren't supposed to "say" anything. They are simply supposed to create aesthetically pleasing works of art... attributing a theme or a moral is something scholars do AFTER the fact... a literary critique of a visual medium. The subject matter doesn't just fall into the artist's lap, mind you... an artist has biases and preferrences based on his or her experience and opinions... that is the business of the ARTIST and not the ART.

On to literature... literature takes time and meaning into account, but in ways campaign building does NOT. A campaign must take into account not only the secrets to be revealed about the world as part of the general plot resolution, but the posible changes the world might undergo as the results of a character's actions.

I'm going to skip drama (a small facet of the DM's job... which the campaign builder may facilitate at his/her liesure) and dance (likewise small scope...the PCs handling of roleplaying) and music (...) and just say that campaign building is closer to the preparations for a semi-improv comedy sketch (in that you have to take into account both premise and possibility) and cooking (in that it is a mix between a science and and art... and you need to allow some room for guests at your table to do as they will, be it salting their food or mixing their peas and potatoes).

That said, there are four pillars of campaign design, each with its oposite, which you must keep balanced. These are meat and spice (your content and theme, respectively) and method and madness (your premise and possibility, respectively). They are all well and good individually, but one must take ALL into account for a campaign setting that is to house a good campaign... sometimes we forget that that's what a campaign setting is for. PLAYING. If you can't play in it and have fun, who the hell cares if it's consistent or thematic or how you built it, right?

Or am I just rambling?

Quote from: RaelifinYes, and if anyone wants a better name than "Divset" they should suggest it.

That, and Ethnocentric has a rather negative connotation. I'd have called your two approaches Signal and Ground, respectively.

Of course, that may well be a lack of sleep talking.

And speaking of a lack of sleep talking... THEME WARS: The Campaign Setting! (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?10959.last)

Warning: I was too lazy to proof-read this post. I may contain ramblings and/or rants.  :soap:

-----------------------------------------------------

@Meepo: Heh, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to add an "n" to Ethocentric. X-) Signal and Ground might actually be better names, but I wanted to produce something that is easily identified out of context.

Nice setting btw. It gave me a chuckle.

@CYMRO: No, sorry. I was actually talking about art. I'll get to that in a sec.

@Beejazz:

Quote from: beejazzOn to literature... literature takes time and meaning into account, but in ways campaign building does NOT. A campaign must take into account not only the secrets to be revealed about the world as part of the general plot resolution, but the posible changes the world might undergo as the results of a character's actions.

I'm going to skip drama (a small facet of the DM's job... which the campaign builder may facilitate at his/her liesure) and dance (likewise small scope...the PCs handling of roleplaying) and music (...) and just say that campaign building is closer to the preparations for a semi-improv comedy sketch (in that you have to take into account both premise and possibility) and cooking (in that it is a mix between a science and and art... and you need to allow some room for guests at your table to do as they will, be it salting their food or mixing their peas and potatoes).

That said, there are four pillars of campaign design, each with its oposite, which you must keep balanced. These are meat and spice (your content and theme, respectively) and method and madness (your premise and possibility, respectively). They are all well and good individually, but one must take ALL into account for a campaign setting that is to house a good campaign... sometimes we forget that that's what a campaign setting is for. PLAYING. If you can't play in it and have fun, who the hell cares if it's consistent or thematic or how you built it, right?

I said it before, bit Iâ,¬,,¢ll say it again. I am not talking about a campaign; I am talking about a setting or world (depending on whom you ask.) A campaign is an entirely different beast, which can also be art, but is beside the point.

Quote from: RaelifinAll art begins with inspiration.
The inspiration produces vision. The artist gains an insight, whether small or large, into what they want to create.
All art is creative. The artist will create something, even if it is non-physical like a song.

Now lets lay down some â,¬Å"facts.â,¬Â

...

I agree whole-heartedly with your current refutation of the bold claims made earlier (holmgang, halmgang, holmgang!), but I also happen to think that you are defining art too broadly. Art is more than just a creative process that produces something that fits the creator's vision. Only works that are specifically meant to convey an emotion or meaning constitute "art." It is possible to create something that is entirely functional instead of evocative or symbolic, in which case the product should not be considered a work of art.

Happily for the two of us, in this case, my objection actually supports your current argument. I would content:

1) Not only does art have a theme beyond that ascribed to it by outside observers, but
2) The intent to evoke a theme is a prerequisite for counting a mere creative effort as "art."

A painting, song, story, campaign setting, or anything else produced by its creator for a purpose other than the conveyance of a theme (either a literal message or some amount of abstract emotional content) is not art. Thus, the "Divset" or Ground approach to campaign design can create a framework for art without itself being art.

(Incidentally, we need a "Holmgang!" smiley.)

QuoteI believe a session of role-playing can be art, it just is less likely to have inspiration, given itâ,¬,,¢s ad-lib nature.
I think Iâ,¬,,¢ll head-off your first counter-point â,¬Å"But art can exist without the artist having vision! Art is defined by the eye of the beholder, not the mind of the creator.â,¬Â

Playing a game is not Art, it is Leisure.  While some fiddly bits of art go into setting up an role-playing game(the writing, the drawing of maps and pix, etc.) playing the game ain't art.  Any more than playing chess is art, though some artistry went into the carving of the pieces and the making of the board.

I look at my own role of DM/world creator as a Leisure activity, because I do it for fun and to facilitate fun for others.

insert :HOLMGANG: smiley

Quote from: RaelifinA Divset world is one built to be a plausible environment or a backdrop to other fictional works. Divset worlds are intended to provide options and possibility, without forcing it on others.

Process:

*Heck if I know! I never build Divset worlds. Help me out here and give me your feedback on how you make your Divset worlds.

Creating a plausible background that can accomodate any number of themes is less like creating art and more like setting up an art studio. You have to decide what tools (campaign elements) you want to be available to the artists (players) without indicating how those tools are supposed to be used.

For example: when choosing what game mechanics to apply to your setting, use those rules that you believe would be easiest and/or the most fun to use. Show preference to game systems that are versatile instead of those that best represent particular genres, and err on the side of including character options instead of restricting them for flavor purposes.

The approach is less obvious - but still valid - when designing elements that are rule-independent. In this case, you consider what environments and populations you think GMs would best be able to use in any of various adventures. Be vague about the relationships between various elements; imply plots that might take place without actually initiating those plots.

For example, don't say, "the hordes of Nation A have joined the legions of Nation B on the battlefield." Instead say that "violence has errupted between Nation A and Nation B" or "Nation A currently occupies parts of Nation B." Notice that neither of the second options requires countries or NPCs to take specific actions or use specific tactics. Depending upon the genre your players prefer, Nation A might have obliterated part of Nation B with dangerus spells of mass destruction, invaded Nation B with a disciplined military force, or secretly unleashed a shadowy plague of nightmare creatures upon the countryside in order to subdue parts of Nation B.

As another example, compare "a dark realm where helpless peasants huddle in fear and despair as horrid undead prowl the night" to "a dark realm where undead prowl the night." The second description, while not as evocative of a specific feel (in this case horror), is much more versatile. With that description, rooted more in plain fact than in gripping imagery, you could run a horror campaign where peasants huddle in fear, you could run a military campaign where the forces of the king valaintly hold off hordes of marauding undead, or you could run a superhero campaign where a league of heroes contends with a host of recurring undead foes.

Essentially, choose game mechanics and design an environment strictly to facilitate the largest spectrum of adventures of types that you like to play. Then develop factual descriptions of people and places that could function in tandem with any of several themes. Be vague. Imply things that might exist, but do not make them prerequisites for the proper use of your setting. Create conflicts, but do not state if or how they will play out. Have different factions that accept different descriptions of reality, creating a menu of possible truths for a DM to choose from.

Worlds created in this manner are distinguished not by unique themes, but by unique and inventive combinations of elements that a DM can use to achieve a particular purpose. When done correctly, these worlds are not evocative in the way that art is evocative, but elegant in the way a scientific theory is elegant.

Or, if you prefer, worlds without themes are like message boards, each of which comes with its own combination of members and available tools. Certain combinations of these elements prove more enjoyable than others, meaning that one message board is not necessarily a dry copy of another just because the two each contain posts, threads, and forums organized in a similar way.

I'll post something here later, but I feel I need to comment on just how facsinating this discussion is. You guys-- on all sides and viewpoints of this issue-- are simply amazing.

And we definitely need a :holmgang: smiley.

@Epic Meepo:
You're right. Art is communication via creation. Thanks for the correction.

Thanks for your insight on Divset worlds. Iâ,¬,,¢m beginning to think that Divset doesnâ,¬,,¢t have a real â,¬Å"processâ,¬Â to follow, as you can start anywhere.

@LC:
Modern holmgang! :rgun:   :sniper:

@CYMRO:
Yes, I agree with you there. With Meepoâ,¬,,¢s insight, I see that a play is only art if someone is approaching it as an artist. After all, with art being defined by the artist, and art requiring communication, it is impossible to make art when you arenâ,¬,,¢t trying. So yes, gaming is leisure until someone steps up and tries to make it art. I think either way is great, with the system being more set up for leisure.

Basically Div-set worlds are throwing the PC's in a library full of books with no titles, or titles in an unknown language would be a better analogy. They have to rely more on guesswork than what they know, but eventually they figure out most of the words and know how to pick the books they want to read.

Ethocentric worlds are more like putting the PC's in the same library, but this time with a dictionary for the language. They have the immediate ability to function in the world but will be extremely confined in the actions they will attempt.

 I find Ethocentric worlds tend to survive longer as a sand box. But the Div-set worlds tend to be more controlled by the DM, particularly with inexperienced players.

Quote from: Endless_HelixI find Ethocentric worlds tend to survive longer as a sand box. But the Div-set worlds tend to be more controlled by the DM, particularly with inexperienced players.

Actually with Div-set, the opposite is true.  The DM has many paths prepared, the party choses the  path. depending on which stimulus they react to.

QuoteBasically Div-set worlds are throwing the PC's in a library full of books with no titles, or titles in an unknown language would be a better analogy. They have to rely more on guesswork than what they know, but eventually they figure out most of the words and know how to pick the books they want to read.

Not really.  The players know quite alot of factual information, it is just up to them which "thematic" section they sample, and when.  It is also up to them when to look at a different book.

A better analogy would be that Div-set is like a library, where the party can pick or choose from any volume, clsoing said book at any time, and reaching for another.  Ethocentric is like being handed one volume and told that that is all there is.

I agree with CYMRO. Though his analogy is a bit annoying. :P

Quote from: Endless_HelixI find Ethocentric worlds tend to survive longer as a sand box. But the Div-set worlds tend to be more controlled by the DM, particularly with inexperienced players.

Actually with Div-set... [t]he DM has many paths prepared, the party choses the  path. depending on which stimulus they react to.[/quote]
I'm not so sure that a DivSet world guarantees DM preparation; instead, a DivSet world allows any given DM to easily turn the DivSet framework into an Ethocentric world of his own choosing. It is certainly possible that a given DM's interpretation of a particular DivSet world could constitute a very narrow Ethocentric world that rules out quite a few paths.

Quote from: Epic Meepo

Quote from: CuirassierCYMROActually with Div-set... [t]he DM has many paths prepared, the party choses the  path. depending on which stimulus they react to.

From my own. vantage point, a high level of preparation in necessary for me to run any adventure, creating as many options as possible, because players rarely do what is expected.
It is a mistake, in my opinion, to think of a world in an ethocentric way.  It is a world, variety is its life spice.

You are thinking too much in terms of fitting large concepts into narrow definitions.
I create, as far as is possible, a living world in all its varied thematic splendor for the players to find the adventure that suits their mood best.  it is impossible to fit Altvogge into "theme" or an "ethos" because it hass the potential to encompass all themes.  Why would my players or I want it any other way?  Why be limiting to the players?  It is all well and good to say you are creating a horror themed CS, but what if your players are ready for a political intrigue game?  Or a war campaign?  Is the single themed campaign setting going to maintain interest?  If the DM is not prepared for a player aboot face, will the game suffer?
Hence, the need, in my opinion, for a campaign world, ready to drop the party into whatever sort of crap they are itching for.

Quote from: CuirassierCYMROFrom my own. vantage point, a high level of preparation in necessary for me to run any adventure, creating as many options as possible, because players rarely do what is expected.
It is a mistake, in my opinion, to think of a world in an ethocentric way.  It is a world, variety is its life spice.

You are thinking too much in terms of fitting large concepts into narrow definitions.
I create, as far as is possible, a living world in all its varied thematic splendor for the players to find the adventure that suits their mood best.  it is impossible to fit Altvogge into "theme" or an "ethos" because it hass the potential to encompass all themes.  Why would my players or I want it any other way?  Why be limiting to the players?  It is all well and good to say you are creating a horror themed CS, but what if your players are ready for a political intrigue game?  Or a war campaign?  Is the single themed campaign setting going to maintain interest?  If the DM is not prepared for a player aboot face, will the game suffer?
Hence, the need, in my opinion, for a campaign world, ready to drop the party into whatever sort of crap they are itching for.

My latest point had nothing to do with what should be done or what works well. My latest point was that if you create a world that has no theme and then hand it to a random DM, the ack of theme does not guarantee that the random DM will take advantage of the options available in that world.

Whether a world is Ethocentric or DivSet in construction, any specific campaign set in that world will depend entirely upon the abilities of the DM. A bad DM is a bad one, even if you hand him a versatile and realistic world on a platter. Likewise, a good DM is a good DM, even if you stick him with the driest and/or most unrealistic world you can conceive. If a designer hands his world to a random DM he has never met, his own strengths and weaknesses as a DM do not tranfer to the random DM, no matter how well designed the campaign world.

Quote from: Luminous CrayonYou guys-- on all sides and viewpoints of this issue-- are simply amazing.

:stupid:

I felt like commenting on this discussion in a way similar to LC a couple of times already, but now he made it really easy on me: I just needed to quote him and use the appropriate smiley. :D

Anyways, I just really felt like saying I have been following this discussion from the start, and this discussion has turned into a massive collection of amazing insight in campaign world creation.

I might be more contributive later, but for now: thank you all, I'm learning a lot from this thread.

Túrin

Quote from: Luminous CrayonYou guys-- on all sides and viewpoints of this issue-- are simply amazing.

:stupid:

What both of them said :D

Yeah, since it seems to be the appropriate time, I would just like to thank you guys for this discussion; though I don't feel as though I can contribute in the amazing way you guys, it has easily been the best read on this site in quite some time (discounting campaign settings, of course ;)).  Hopefully it lasts forever :)

Quote from: IshmaylYeah, since it seems to be the appropriate time, I would just like to thank you guys for this discussion; though I don't feel as though I can contribute in the amazing way you guys, it has easily been the best read on this site in quite some time (discounting campaign settings, of course ;)).  Hopefully it lasts forever :)

(http://www.thecbg.org/e107_images/emotes/archivedSmilies/werd.gif)

Quote from: Epic MeepoMy latest point had nothing to do with what should be done or what works well. My latest point was that if you create a world that has no theme and then hand it to a random DM, the lack of theme does not guarantee that the random DM will take advantage of the options available in that world.

Hand a random DM a complete world (one not trapped in a single theme) and he will probably never take advantage of all it has to offer, but at least it is there for his group, if and when...

QuoteWhether a world is Ethocentric or DivSet in construction, any specific campaign set in that world will depend entirely upon the abilities of the DM. A bad DM is a bad one, even if you hand him a versatile and realistic world on a platter. Likewise, a good DM is a good DM, even if you stick him with the driest and/or most unrealistic world you can conceive. If a designer hands his world to a random DM he has never met, his own strengths and weaknesses as a DM do not tranfer to the random DM, no matter how well designed the campaign world.

True, but the broader the scope, the easier for any DM to find inspiration appropriate to their desires and skills.


[tangent]
I remember, back in the bad ol' days, when Greyhawk was new, and we all thought, "Gee, is that all there is?"  
It said it was the World of Greyahwk, but the map clearly was only part of a world.  Where was the rest?  
So, after running a few Greyhawk adventures, I endeavored to create not a Tolkienesque region, but a world.  If memory serves, it sucked pretty bad.  But I got better with time...
[/tangent]

Quote from: RaelifinWarning: I was too lazy to proof-read this post. I may contain ramblings and/or rants.  :soap:

-----------------------------------------------------

@Meepo: Heh, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to add an "n" to Ethocentric. X-) Signal and Ground might actually be better names, but I wanted to produce something that is easily identified out of context.

Nice setting btw. It gave me a chuckle.

@CYMRO: No, sorry. I was actually talking about art. I'll get to that in a sec.

@Beejazz:

Quote from: beejazzOn to literature... literature takes time and meaning into account, but in ways campaign building does NOT. A campaign must take into account not only the secrets to be revealed about the world as part of the general plot resolution, but the posible changes the world might undergo as the results of a character's actions.

I'm going to skip drama (a small facet of the DM's job... which the campaign builder may facilitate at his/her liesure) and dance (likewise small scope...the PCs handling of roleplaying) and music (...) and just say that campaign building is closer to the preparations for a semi-improv comedy sketch (in that you have to take into account both premise and possibility) and cooking (in that it is a mix between a science and and art... and you need to allow some room for guests at your table to do as they will, be it salting their food or mixing their peas and potatoes).

That said, there are four pillars of campaign design, each with its oposite, which you must keep balanced. These are meat and spice (your content and theme, respectively) and method and madness (your premise and possibility, respectively). They are all well and good individually, but one must take ALL into account for a campaign setting that is to house a good campaign... sometimes we forget that that's what a campaign setting is for. PLAYING. If you can't play in it and have fun, who the hell cares if it's consistent or thematic or how you built it, right?

Being an artist, and a rather obsessive one at that, I highly doubt if your accusation that I misunderstand the creative process is true *grits teeth*. What I meant to point out is that campaign building is far more technical, a little less aesthetic, and (by necessity) should be more adaptable than the majority of the arts. Also, anyone who builds a campaign setting while failing to account for a possible campaign is failing at his post, in any sense. To whoever said that art was supposed to be evocative of emotion, I have three words: no it isn't. I'm just not going to dignify the statement with a counterpoint.And to say that art cannot be functional, again, just plain wrong. The defining value of art is the aesthetic. A functional object which is aesthetically pleasing is still art. An aesthetically pleasing object which does not evoke emotion is still art. The second defining trait of art is that it is manufactured or artificial. The third (and possibly most dubious) trait is that it is original or intentional. I'm not going to get into a debate about that last, as what is "original" can be called into question (the upside-down urinal titled "fountain" springs to mind) as can "intentional" (the drip paintings of... of... well this is one hell of a time to forget names, now isn't it?).

My point in saying all of this is not to call into question whether campaign building is an art, but to point out what is and is not necessary in terms of the creative process. So long as you (originality) made (manufactured) something that looks good (aesthetics), that is art. After the piece is made, the importance of every brush and paint and stroke can be analyzed and rehashed, but these are only means to an ends. Because you make an excellent watercolor does nothing to disparage oil painting or sculpture or differrently sized canvas.

My second point in saying all of this is to point out that campaign building is unique among creative processes. Every art preforms a different function and produces a different finished work. A visual artist puts out a painting or a sculpture, while an actors (together with a good tech crew, scriptwriter, director, etc) put on a play, which is an entirely different variety of work.

My third point is that means aside, campaign building does have a goal in mind: not only to create a setting, but to create a CAMPAIGN setting- a setting wherein one might run a campaign. If an enjoyable campaign can be run in a setting, I honestly don't care where the writer of that setting started.

I go on to point out a few areas of importance to that purpose (chiefly flexibility), but even there, my point remains a simple one: Art's principle purpose is entertainment, and can find all kinds of ways to go about it... none of which are inherently better than all the others.

Quote from: BeejazzBeing an artist, and a rather obsessive one at that, I highly doubt if your accusation that I misunderstand the creative process is true *grits teeth*.

What I meant to point out is that campaign building is far more technical, a little less aesthetic, and (by necessity) should be more adaptable than the majority of the arts. [/blockquote]

I agree on all points.

QuoteAlso, anyone who builds a campaign setting while failing to account for a possible campaign is failing at his post, in any sense.

I agree with the exception of building a setting for another purpose, such as for a book or simply a world/setting as an entity in itself.

QuoteTo whoever said that art was supposed to be evocative of emotion, I have three words: no it isn't. I'm just not going to dignify the statement with a counterpoint.

As much as I loathe the idea of not supporting your statement, I do agree that art does not have the intention of evoking emotion by definition. I do think that all art communicates an idea (the word â,¬Å"ideaâ,¬Â doesnâ,¬,,¢t quite fit, but Iâ,¬,,¢ll use it anyway.) This idea may be an emotion or a concept or whatever, but it is still there. See previous posts for supporting argument.

QuoteAnd to say that art cannot be functional, again, just plain wrong. The defining value of art is the aesthetic.

I never said that art cannot be functional. In fact, if you read my posts youâ,¬,,¢ll find the exact opposite. However, I disagree with the statement that art is defined by looking nice. Iâ,¬,,¢m sure youâ,¬,,¢ll find plenty of art that is not â,¬Å"aesthetically pleasing.â,¬Â Thus you cannot define art based on aesthetics.

QuoteA functional object which is aesthetically pleasing is still art. An aesthetically pleasing object which does not evoke emotion is still art.

I think youâ,¬,,¢re confusing art with entertainment or beauty (Iâ,¬,,¢m not sure which). Something that is beautiful (read: â,¬Å"aesthetically pleasing â,¬Å") is not art by definition. Iâ,¬,,¢ve already argued on why art must be defined by the intentions of the artist, not on the ideas or reactions of the beholder.

QuoteThe second defining trait of art is that it is manufactured or artificial.

I agree. I have stated that art must be a creation, and that seems to mesh quite well with your ideas.

QuoteThe third (and possibly most dubious) trait is that it is original or intentional. I'm not going to get into a debate about that last, as what is "original" can be called into question (the upside-down urinal titled "fountain" springs to mind) as can "intentional" (the drip paintings of... of... well this is one hell of a time to forget names, now isn't it?).

Iâ,¬,,¢m not so sure about original (it feels right, though), but I do agree that art must be intentional. Beauty found in accidents is no more art than beauty found in nature.

QuoteMy point in saying all of this is not to call into question whether campaign building is an art, but to point out what is and is not necessary in terms of the creative process. So long as you (originality) made (manufactured) something that looks good (aesthetics), that is art.

I believe that you must have a vision in mind when creating artwork. This falls in with â,¬Å"intentionalâ,¬Â as stated earlier. Closing your eyes and throwing paint on a canvas is nothing more than hoping you get a pretty picture; it is not art. I think that intentional creations always have â,¬Å"visionsâ,¬Â or â,¬Å"inspirationâ,¬Â behind them, whether conscious or subconscious. Now that I think of it, youâ,¬,,¢re right; originality is a key factor in art. Putting together a doll via a blueprint is not art.

QuoteAfter the piece is made, the importance of every brush and paint and stroke can be analyzed and rehashed, but these are only means to an ends.

A means to what ends? Iâ,¬,,¢m not saying that themes are found after creation, Iâ,¬,,¢m saying they are inherent in all artwork. Iâ,¬,,¢ve already spoken on this point and would rather not reiterate myself. 

QuoteBecause you make an excellent watercolor does nothing to disparage oil painting or sculpture or differently sized canvas.

What does this have to do with anything? I never said that one type of art is better than another! >_>

QuoteMy second point in saying all of this is to point out that campaign building is unique among creative processes. Every art performs a different function and produces a different finished work. A visual artist puts out a painting or a sculpture, while an actorâ,¬,,¢s (together with a good tech crew, scriptwriter, director, etc) put on a play, which is an entirely different variety of work.

Yes, campaign building is a unique form of art. Itâ,¬,,¢s still art, but it is closest to the art of description, which is a very unexplored avenue of the artistic field.

QuoteMy third point is that means aside, campaign building does have a goal in mind: not only to create a setting, but to create a CAMPAIGN setting- a setting wherein one might run a campaign. If an enjoyable campaign can be run in a setting, I honestly don't care where the writer of that setting started.

I think what CYMRO said about gaming as leisure, not art has hit me the hardest of anything in this thread. I need to re-think my ideas on gaming and the creative process for a while. ;)

QuoteI go on to point out a few areas of importance to that purpose (chiefly flexibility), but even there, my point remains a simple one: Art's principle purpose is entertainment, and can find all kinds of ways to go about it... none of which are inherently better than all the others.

â,¬Å"Art's principle purpose is entertainmentâ,¬Â
Hmmâ,¬Â¦ I would have said â,¬Å"Art's principle purpose is communication.â,¬Â
I mean, we have entertainment and we have art. Art can be entertaining, but entertainment canâ,¬,,¢t be art. Iâ,¬,,¢m sure youâ,¬,,¢ll disagree with me there but consider: If art is defined by the intentions of the artist, wouldnâ,¬,,¢t a creation be art before itâ,¬,,¢s entertainment?

Quote from: beejazzAn aesthetically pleasing object which does not evoke emotion is still art.

From dict.org (http://www.dict.org):

  AEsthetic \[AE]s*thet"ic\, AEsthetical \[AE]s*thet"ic*al\, a.
     Of or Pertaining to [ae]sthetics; versed in [ae]sthetics; as,
     [ae]sthetic studies, emotions, ideas, persons, etc.
     [1913 Webster] -- [AE]s*thet"ic*al*ly, adv.


  AEsthetics \[AE]s*thet"ics\, Esthetics \Es*thet"ics\ (?; 277),
     n. [Gr. ? perceptive, esp. by feeling, fr. ? to perceive,
     feel: cf. G. [aum]sthetik, F. esth['e]tique.]
     The theory or philosophy of taste; the science of the
     beautiful in nature and art; esp. that which treats of the
     expression and embodiment of beauty by art.
     [1913 Webster]

  Pleasing \Pleas"ing\, a.
     Giving pleasure or satisfaction; causing agreeable emotion;
     agreeable; delightful
     [1913 Webster]

An aethetically pleasing object must necessarily evoke emotions; without emotional content, an object fails to meet the definition of "pleasing." Otherwise it is merely aesthetics which, as can be seen above, relates to beauty and taste, but pertains to art only as a special instance.

He has a point.

Quote from: RaelifinHe has a point.

I think what beejazz might have meant was that a piece of art "accepted" as being "aesthetically pleasing" by The Art World might be looked at as unevocative by the individual.
Case in point:  The Mona Lisa.  Art critics and historians rave about it.  I see nothing there but an old painting.  I do not like it.  I do not dislike it. I do not care.  It is, though, by the accepted definition, still art, no matter what I think.

Quote from: CYMRO, Brassica Brigadier

Quote from: RaelifinHe has a point.

I think what beejazz might have meant was that a piece of art "accepted" as being "aesthetically pleasing" by The Art World might be looked at as unevocative by the individual.
Case in point:  The Mona Lisa.  Art critics and historians rave about it.  I see nothing there but an old painting.  I do not like it.  I do not dislike it. I do not care.  It is, though, by the accepted definition, still art, no matter what I think.

What I mean is that you go into painting (and I speak from personal experience) without a specific feeling in mind.

Lets say I paint an expansive landscape... lets say it's a lagoon of incredible depth (I'm talking about perspective, not water depth). One person sees it and feels liberated by the very largeness of it. Another sees it and feels a lonely emptiness. Hence the emotion is attributed post-creation. The important things in terms of the painting (from the painter's perspective) are light, line, color, shape, volume, etc. Not "liberation" or "loneliness".

*shrug* It seems we go about creating art in different ways, then. When I create something artistic, I always choose a subject that has meaning to me; otherwise, I'd lack the motivation to paint it (or whatever), no matter how technically accurate my representation of it could be.

QuoteWhen I create something artistic, I always choose a subject that has meaning to me; otherwise, I'd lack the motivation to paint it (or whatever), no matter how technically accurate my representation of it could be.

I am reminded of all of those bowls of fruit I sketched and painted in art class that did nothing emotionally for me, yet made my instructor cry tears of frustration and rage...

Lol... but seriously, that's more subject than theme. In a parallel to my landscape analogy, my campaign has the orc homeland (once a proud civilization) overrun by fiends after the collapse of the hells. The orcs scatter across the globe in history's most massive epic teleportation error EVER. The orcs are shunned by societies unwilling to give up their own land to accomidate the refugees. Orcs across the globe become "nomads" "raiders" and "dangerous squatters"... This is the subject.

The theme can be later interpreted as "racism" "the search for home" or "analagous to the Jews in Exodus." All are right... but none need be intentional.

[off topic]@beejazz: Incidentaly, every time I read one of your posts, I inevitably get to the end and start reading the sig about chocolate bunnies as though it were the next point being made in your argument before catching myself.

When I talk about a theme, I talk about an idea or element that ties several things together. If you have the idea of "nomads," then everything you create that adds to that idea follows that theme. Most of the time this is clearly subconcious and in most art, that is fine. But if you make something as deep and complex as a world, sometimes it helps to try and conceptualize these themes so that you don't become scattered or diverted.

QuoteBut if you make something as deep and complex as a world, sometimes it helps to try and conceptualize these themes so that you don't become scattered or diverted.

But shouldn't a campaign world be scattered and diverse?

Only a world built for entertainment. Like a divset. Art needs focus. We've been over this before. >_>

Quote from: RaelifinOnly a world built for entertainment. Like a divset. Art needs focus. We've been over this before. >_>

That is because it is a circular argument. ;)

No. You're just bringing it up again. :P

Again, let's get back to making the distinction between subject and theme. Subject is the concrete (objective, therefore necessarily decided by the artist) where as theme is abstract (subjective, decided by the viewer). One of the critereon for classic lit is, after all, its universiality!
@Meepo: That's exactly what I want you to think! Muahahaha!

By your definition, subject is what has already been created. But can you create something without an idea of that thing? That's all a theme is, really; it is an idea that is present in two or more elements. You talk about themes as being things like "analogous to the Jews in Exodus." but that's a comparison, not a theme (unless you are making art about "analogous to the Jews in Exodus.")

Anything you think of, is an idea. An apple is an idea, a nation is an idea and the concept of "youth" is an idea. When you create art of an apple, you aren't making an apple, you are communicating the idea of one. It is this subjective perspective that makes art so appealing. When you make a world that has "nomads," you are communicating your idea of nomads. If you also apply the idea of "nomads" to another element in your world, they share the theme of "nomads" because a theme is an idea that is present in two or more elements. Now without any outside presence, your creation has themes. Everything has themes, they are present in the entire world. By your definition "subject," the objective material, is nothing more than oils on a canvas, clay in a pile or words in a book.

@Raelifin: I'd be careful about using a defintion of "theme" that is that liberal. I'm hard pressed to think of a man-made creation that would not have a theme according to your definition.

Yes. Though I find that definition to be true. I think it is important to focus on "core themes" when discussing worlds. That is, themes/ideas that are part of a meta idea or vision. See prior posts for details.

Okay, on the assumption that "nomads" are, in and of themselves, a theme: What if not all the players are interested in "nomads"? If "nomads" are in fact a theme, then the unification of that theme runs counter to the goal of a *campaign* setting... in that a campaign cannot be run which is enjoyable for all players. Let's say we add "vengeful nemesis" "a pathetic villain" "corrupt clergy". The omnipresence of any one "theme" by your definition stifles the creative process rather than guiding it. Getting back to painting, you never just paint an apple... not unless you have an apple-shaped canvas, anyway!

Exeunt Omnes.


Next:
A Midsummer Night's Theme

and

The Comedy of Divers

Quote from: CYMRO of the TRUE Cabbage CabalExeunt Omnes.


Next:
A Midsummer Night's Theme

and

The Comedy of Divers

Eagerly awaiting act two!

Quote from: beejazzOkay, on the assumption that "nomads" are, in and of themselves, a theme: What if not all the players are interested in "nomads"? If "nomads" are in fact a theme, then the unification of that theme runs counter to the goal of a *campaign* setting... in that a campaign cannot be run which is enjoyable for all players. Let's say we add "vengeful nemesis" "a pathetic villain" "corrupt clergy". The omnipresence of any one "theme" by your definition stifles the creative process rather than guiding it. Getting back to painting, you never just paint an apple... not unless you have an apple-shaped canvas, anyway!

Ah, but you are still thinking too narrowly. When I talk about the ethos of the setting, I talk about the vision that inspires the artist. It's hard for me to give good examples without going too small because the ethos of a world is an immense thing. Summarizing the essence of a setting is an exercise some of us do, but it's largely impossible. Only through the artwork itself can one express the goal. I'm going to ask that you picture your own world, Diis Manubus, right? That idea, right there, is the ethos of the world. If you picture a world that has "gun-slinging action," that isn't the ethos of your world, only a core theme; only a single facet of the jewel as a whole! You see, I'm not encouraging the stifling of creativity, merely the dedication to keeping toward the general theme of the original vision. If you change your vision in mid-creation then the work will become inconsistent and lose potential. You don't change what you're painting/drawing/whatever halfway through, right?

I think my favorite analogy for the whole thing is the book metaphor. Two writers sit down and begin to write a book (or book series). One writer writes a novel length story. This story has a consistent vision and the plot of the story is consistent. The other writer decides to write a digest of short stories because he thinks that it would be wrong to write a single story that a reader might dislike. Instead his writing is all over the place. A little romance here, some horror there, etc. In the end, I'll look at both books, if the novel has a theme I like, I'll read it. Otherwise I'll go look for a different novel because the digest doesn't have enough depth. Just because someone might read your book doesn't mean you need to write it for them. And yes, this means I still think that Divsets are inferior. :P

P.S. Diis Manubus is next on my "to read" list. It looks like a great ethocentric world based on the blurb. :P

Well, I'm not arguing that theme does not exist, only that it exists post-creation. Themes arise from the interpretation of content. For example, when building Baron Sanguin I satated with. "You know what's cool? A lich." And then I thought "But everybody does liches, and they're all the same." Then I thought "Let's make him morbidly obese... that'll show 'em... Ooo, and a blood magus. Yes, he will sit around in a bathtub full of blood and eat fish and chips. Even though he lives in a landlocked city. I'm sure there's a reason, I'll add it later. And, of course, he's got to be kingpin of the criminal underworld. You never see a lich do that, but I don't see why not." And then I'm like, "Hey, he's gotta have a son. A retarded son. A retarded son that he wants to put on the throne... none of this infinitely patient post-death couldn't care less about worldly things bull." So, how is he connected to the magocracy? "Well... he's a sorcerer. He's one of the two sons of the Baron Lugwaif from back in the old aristocracy. Both of that baron's children were sorcs. House Nagual, the sorcerous branch of the government, is dexcended from Sanguin's brother Nagual. When power changed hands, Sanguin lost his wife (who would not come back because that would be lame) and because his retarded son, Rex, had no sorcerous powers... well, you can see why Sanguin has dreams of a coup." But Rex is like twenty. The revolution happened a WHILE ago. "Living zombie minions. The whole aging thing can be partially shunted off onto victims." And so on. Not only do "inconsistencies" not hurt, but they actually help the creative process. Furthermore, while I might have created a villain with a tragic past, I only did so as a result of "liches are totally badass."

Theme might exist, but for me, it'll always be second to content.

I'm confused to how you can think that "'inconsistencies' [do] not hurt, but they actually help the creative process." I certainly can't see any supporting statements.

As you think about the Baron, you have a core idea of him. If this idea changes before you create any actual material, that's fine. However, once you begin to change the idea mid-creation you become inconsistent. Like I said, think up a subject then draw it. Don't change the drawing half-way through. Inconsistency sucks.

Content is important. It is the actual picture, and without a picture there is no art. I'm not saying that the subject of the art is more important that the picture itself, I just think that it's important to have an idea of what you're creating and stick with that idea from start to finish. That's roughly what ethocentricity is.

My point is that theme (the tragic background, the hedonistic lifestyle, and the corrupt ambition) is the result and not the precedent of content (his wife's death, the morbid obesity, and the dreams of coup respectively).

As for drawing... you'd be better off comparing to painting. Acryllics specifically. The whole appeal of charcoal and oils and clay is that you *can* go back. Hence you *can* just draw what comes to you as it comes.

As for inconsistencies aiding the creative process, see above. Every inconsistency creates a question for which an answer must be supplied. The question about mortal lifespans (an inconsistency in the chronology) leads  directly to the use of living zombies. Even the question about the fish in the landlocked city has a suitable answer, but that's a little more sinister and is being saved for my secrets thread (who'd 'ave thunk? fish and chips leads to terrible horrible things).

Quote from: beejazzAs for drawing... you'd be better off comparing to painting. Acryllics specifically. The whole appeal of charcoal and oils and clay is that you *can* go back. Hence you *can* just draw what comes to you as it comes.

As for inconsistencies aiding the creative process, see above. Every inconsistency creates a question for which an answer must be supplied. The question about mortal lifespans (an inconsistency in the chronology) leads  directly to the use of living zombies. Even the question about the fish in the landlocked city has a suitable answer, but that's a little more sinister and is being saved for my secrets thread (who'd 'ave thunk? fish and chips leads to terrible horrible things).
[/quote]
Yes, a good answer must be supplied or you detract from the whole thing. In each example you've provided, it seems to me that you had a solution in mind for each apparent "inconsistency" as it arose. What you say is that throwing ideas around and then justifying the ideas afterworld makes you creative. It's true that adding chaos to the art can inspire you, but if not used in severe moderation it will give the work an air of haphazard inconsistency which will be irreparable.

Quote from: RaelifinActually, I think charcoal is a great metaphorical medium because in writing you CAN go back. It just sucks. I mean, who wants to re-write 200 pages of material just because you've decided to take ratfolk out of your world? >_<

I don't think anyone would want that, but you can't say it doesn't happen, even if you're building ethocentric. Campaign setting creation is a long and labour-intensive process, and it tends to be endless in the sense that it's never really done. As you elaborate on the original idea, you will eventually want to change things here or there, and you will have to edit/update/rewrite material. This can not be avoided by using an ethocentric method of creation.

:2cents: Túrin

Ethocentric vs. DivSet?

For me, there are three essential elements in creating a great setting, and they have nothing to do with themes as opposed to diversity, or whatever superfluous, ideological insanity you crazy berks have conjured up.

Awesomeness
Is my setting gonna be pure, undiluted, irradiated, liquid awesome?  I ask myself this before I've even put any ideas to paper, when I've just got the most basic idea (i.e "city inside a giant bug" - and no, that ain't a theme) squirming around like an illithid pup in my brain-box.  It's not the result of objectively looking at what I aleady have and saying "what I have is awesome," but rather, before the fact, asserting that "that-which-has-not-yet-been-conceived" is preemptively awesome, even as an unthought potentiality.  If I cannot see the awesomeness of my work as a forgone conclusion resulting from the simple intent of world creation, then my efforts have already failed.

Beauty
Is it lyrical?  Is it vivid? Is it sensual?  Does it get your jones on and dampen the sheets?  It had better, because otherwise I fucked up somewhere along the way.  When I write, it ain't just a setting, it is art; it's goddamned poetry in motion, but it sure as heck ain't that l'art pour l'art crap.  Art for its own pure sake is the province of those whose flair for creation is eclipsed by their impotence in the ascription of substance to that opus.  Make it gorgeous, but if it means nothing, it's like a porcelain effigy: beautiful, but pointless.

And is not the message an element of its beauty?

(But I digress)

Fact is, anything can possess it's own kind of lyrical beauty.  To make poetry, I need a subject.  Not a theme (though it often helps), not a berth of material, just something to craft into a sensual experience worth participating in.

Believability and Loveability
I set out to create worlds.  Big freakin' chunks'o'rock with water and islands and continents and shit, and poeples to populate those locales.  But more importantly, I create worlds with people worth getting to know.  When I think of oceans, I think "is there anyone in the ocean?" and "what are they like?" and so on.  Then I ask what they do, who opposes them, how they think, blah blah frikkity blah blah.  All the while, I'm also thinking of oceanic-inspired themes.  My cephalopods are based on the "psychic octopus" idea, and their central theme, I suppose, is "the conflict and cooperation of intellect and emotion".  The theme very much defines how they might be perceived by those who view the setting, but they are first and foremost PSYCHIC OCTOPI.  That's the clincher: it's awesome - the awesomeness that motivates me to keep thinking up crazy ideas for them - and awesomeness above all else dictates my work.  Should the initial theme fail to suffice, it'll be thrown out the window, and I'll use a new one.  Never kowtow to your ideologies; in the creation of art, they are your instruments. (And yes, I acknowledge that for most, setting design is not approached with the intention of creating art - I merely state that the DMs I am most closely affiliated with do)

When I look at the way I design settings, I'm actually rather confused by this Ethos/DivSet mumbo jumbo.  Do I think of themes when I write?  Not really.  That's only a factor when other people need to be guided in their perusal of my setting.  Do I make sure it's uber-expansive and diverse?  Hell no.  I won't badger myself into making sure my setting has "X diversity factor."  I simply ask myself this: is it beautiful, is it believable, and will it rock their motherfucking socks off?

Can you honestly tell me I'm doing anything wrong?  Is my work not teh shit (I think you shall find that it is).  I'm writing to write, but not for the sake of writing; to conceive ideas, but not for the sake of ideologies; to provide a universe in which my friends on this board and any  other realmscape can partake of my creations, but not for the simple sake of gaming.

As a DM, I'm an artist, but the purpose  and method of my art is neither explicable nor necessary in the justification of the practice.  There are a hundred million reasons why I do it, but it all boils down to this:

It's an experience I never want to do without.

It's not chicken-or-egg, or chicken-and-egg, or even some bastard half-born chicken-egg abomination that comes pecking and proselytising from the misbegotton womb of some hellforged demon-hen.  Theme arises from the natural evolution of a setting, and vice versa.  Shit, sometimes I can't even tell the difference, and for me, it never makes a difference.

[spoiler=ALSO]Careful with all those analogies, guys.  A world is neither comparable to a gallery nor a painting (or drawing, etcetera).  It's the art and it contains the art.  A world can be a setting and contain settings within itself - it's both macro- and microcosmic.  Settings can segue seemlessly together, such that the distinction between is all but void.  Maybe I'm simply not that analytical in my design process, but it seems to me that comparing world creation to any other artistic medium is rather erroneous.[/spoiler]

Just my two drachma.  Peace out, brethren.

Quote from: Salacious AngelCareful with all those analogies, guys.

Quoted for truth.

<Oops.  Not yet.>

Quote from: Salacious Angel..or even some bastard half-born chicken-egg abomination that comes pecking and proselytising from the misbegotton womb of some hellforged demon-hen.

YES! TEH CHIKINEGG!!1

You know, sometimes I worry about you...

Yeah... I get that alot.

My question, in short, is if it's DivSet when you're not trying to be diverse even though it is diverse, and if it's Ethocentric when some prominent themes/motifs arise, emergently, rather than as your main intention.

If magic in my setting is "an extention of consciousness, and a manipulation of perceptual experience", and by virtue of that motif the setting becomes otherwordly, fantastical and dreamlike, does that make my setting ethocentric based on that magical principle, seeing as it appears throughout the entirety of the setting?  In my case, I'd argue not, because that "theme" emerged as a simple result of my endeavours to rationalise magic within a quasi-scietific framework.

Dystopia is a diverse setting, to be sure, but not because I specifically wanted it to be diverse.  What I wanted was to have creatures dwelling in an oceanic environment, and I couldn't justify the presence of anthropods in the deep sea, so I used cephalopods (besides, cephalopods are cool).  Similarly, I wanted to have some kind of sentience in the far southeast, but I couldn't justify organic life in a place aptly called the "Dessicated Plain".  Hence, I used crystalline and earthen creatures.  This is consistent across the setting: I created different races, sometimes with vastly alien intellects, a) because they were awesome, and b) because they made more sense given their location.  I didn't do it for the sake of diversity or because of a theme, but because they were cool (for myself and the players), and believable.  I mean, what the smeg is a humanoid doing in the abysm of the deeps?  We're not made for that!

In a sense, I like my settings to be reminiscent of the diversity of our own world, and the way that emerges from something simpler of different.  It's not "I want a nation of sword-wielding puritans" (Like Calthaire), and then I go and do it, it's "the ulven of Baennet Zzar came to the Corlainthii mainland from Zaanuril, and following a great schism, the puritans moved south, establishing the territories of Calthaire".  You see, the theme evident in the first quote exists, and upon its inception it did serve as a focus of sorts (not as a conscious motif; simply the incessant crie of "more swords, more knights, more horsies!", which served me well enough) but the thought process by which Calthaire was inspired came first, and that was a logical course, not a theme.

In short, I assert that:

A setting is only Ethocentric when the foundations are thematically focused, rather than the theme arising emergently after the setting has begun and not taking a central role in the creation process.

A setting is only DivSet when there is a focus on diversity (for the sake of variety of play or the exploration of multiple themes - realism as a motivator doesn't qualify under our definition)

A setting is both when you strive to accommodate both because you want an emphasis on theme and diversity.

A setting is neither under circumstances including:

the beginning or central idea (eg. humans took over Heaven; robotic dragons; the stars are literally falling; hobgoblins rule the worrrld! [as they should] and so on) is not in itself a theme, and a theme does not subsequently emerge that dominates the setting (if that does happen, it is either Etho or Etho-Div).

Your original theme ends up not being a focus for your setting, or not even present at all, but the ideas it inspired (none of which are the

new focal theme) remain.[/list]

You have a million immortal monkeys at a billion typewriters for a trillion years, and generate your setting from the result.

Even shorter, I assert that the dichotomy does not apply when either ethos or diversity arise after, or are secondary to, other intentions (such as realism and Awesome factor - in my opinion, realism and Awesome are a better focus, and themes should arise from Awesome, not the other way around).




NOTE: For the record, while I contend that Dystopia is neither, Tammurand, its spiritual successor, is probably both.

Uhg, I hate this. You make me think. :P

We've already established that "finding" core themes after a work is created does not constitute ethocentricity. The object is to communicate the central idea, and thus it is the active participation that drives it's ethocentricity.

I think one of my biggest setbacks on this whole thing is the word "theme." I'd just like to point out that while I think the word theme can be used, as defined in a particular way, that it should not be used to describe a setting's ethos, there's just too much confusion there.

An ethocentric campaign is one where the setting creator has some idea of exactly what the world is. There must be a vision of the setting and the creator must try to communicate that vision. Note that the ethos (the central idea of the setting) can be subconscious. Just as a painter can paint and paint but never be happy until finally she/he finds the right image, a worldbuilder can express herself/himself and continually tweak the setting to reach the goal. In these cases, the artist knows what they want, but it's too elemental to be conceptualized.

My school of thought (Raelian), which should not be confused with true ethocentricity, is that ethos should be conceptualized for the sake of creating a more consistent and refined world.

DivSet is the absence of ethos. At the point where there is not a central idea to express, the setting becomes divset. This can arise from chaos (monkeys), too many minds (inclusive/group projects), poor design (melting pot), or intentional avoidance of ethocentricity (CYMRian School of Thought).

When I wrote my blurb for the CBGuide, I paraphrased the major conflict being discussed (at the time) in this thread. I had started with the idea that ethos was important to conceptualize when designing a setting. Cymro challenged this and opened my eyes to intentionally avoiding ethos. What a bizarre concept! What I listed as a definition of DivSet in the CBGuide was not true DivSet nature, merely the school of thought where Divsetricity is actively sought. I apologize for this confusion and I admit there are more options than what I presented in the CBGuide. You've opened my eyes to yet another school of thought on this issue! I do not think that it would be good to add another word on the same level as Ethocentric and DivSet as I see those words as good at describing the presence/absence of central vision.

What I do see is that you seem to be FOR ethocentricity, but AGAINST planning. (I nominate this sentence for the â,¬Å"most likely to be quoted and fought overâ,¬Â award) This would make another school of ethocentric thought where what I originally coined as â,¬Å"blindbuildingâ,¬Â is the goal. Please give me your feedback on my thoughts. I think this discussion is paramount to the wellfare of the worldbuilding community as a whole. Then of course, I do subscribe to Raelian philosophy. ^_^
[spoiler=Random!]'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
 - Mark Twain

I guess I just removed all doubt. >.<
At least I don't have a million monkeys on a billion typewriters.
[/spoiler]
[note]Throughout this article I talk about taxonomy in great detail. Here I will propose a different idea on the naming conventions. The main post body suggests that Ethocentric and DivSet be used to refer to the on-off nature of vision and then there are various â,¬Å"schools of thoughtâ,¬Â that determine the actual process for developing a world/setting.

Another option would be to use Ethocentic and DivSet to apply to the Raelian and Cymrian schools of thought, add another word for Angelian and then make two more words for the on-off nature of vision. Once again, thoughts would be appreciated.[/note]

Quote from: Epic MeepoActual on-topic statements follow...[/ic]
Prior to semantic arguements about the meaning of the terms "ethocentric" and "divset," I was under the impression that the Theme Wars involved a simple binary argument: either a setting should be designed to intentionally convey a theme that was chosen at the outset of its creation, or not.

At least according to my impression of the crux of the argument, there need only be two sides in the debate. Either you should choose a theme before you start or you shouldn't. If you don't want to state any theme, you belong to the second camp. If you just want something awesome and an emergent theme appears later, you belong to the second camp. If you want readers to draw their own conclusions and thus choose vague wording that might fit any of several themes, you belong to the second camp.

That, at least, had been my understanding of the fundamental debate. (My opinion, of course, is that it isn't necessary to choose a theme at the outset of campaign creation. In particular, I beleive that many of the best campaign settings are those that let readers draw their own conclussions. Especially considering the fact that "awesomeness" is an entirely subjective concept.)

Indeed, awesomeness is entirely subjective.  I just wish we could all embrace the glory of the hobgoblin...

I agree wholeheartedly with Raelifin that I am, at least by his definition, an ethocentrist and a blindbuilder (you sooo did not coin that; I've been using it for years!).

Thus, having presented your argument in a clearer manner, I find myself... not so much converted as having no reason to debate further.  You think my style is ethocentric, and if your terminology describes me as such, so be it.  I can live with definitions external to myself.  Heck, I didn't name myself in the first place (or even ask to be here - oh why God, why???).

Oh yeah.  And it seems that Ethocentric and DivSet, as terms, don't really work in opposition.  Ethocentric is an intentional design style, but while DivSet is evocative of intent, there needn't be any such intent.  One of the reasons why this debate confused me was because it seemed that you were either for one, or for the other, rather than simply for Ethos or not for Ethos.

As the term is Ethocentric, you could simply say "one either has a central ethos, or one hasn't."  Ethocentric, or not.  Much less confusing, as you only have to define one side and everything that is not that is automatically the other.

Of course, folks, all this semantic polemic means precisely squat if you've been world-building just fine thus far without any knowledge of it.  After all, all this debate did for me was say "hey, according to us, you're this, and mine is better than yours," and while it's great that we can weave cogent terminologies, putting an arbitrary name to something that would find its own definition superfluous doesn't achieve anything tangible.

Nice think tank, though.

Now what would be nice, is an analysis of ethos-driven setting building that will actually help some of the more confused or lost folks on this board clearly explicate their personal thematic vision.  Particularly, how to weave themes into the setting effectively through symbolism, allegory, tropes, archetypes, conceits and so on.  That, I think, would prove a very productive endeavour for everyone who's contributed to this thread, as you're some of the brightest people I know, anywhere.

Seriously.  I'd enjoy that.

...And to think Rael thought I was going to rip his argument to shreds!  Perish the thought.  I am a gentle creature.  With teeth.

Okay, good ideas here. I think I'll run past some finalizing terminology for the sake of having a closed argument.

Ethocentric. A setting that has central vision.

Not Ethocentric. A setting without central vision.

BlindSet (Blindbuilt setting). An ethocentric setting that does not attempt to conceptualize it's ethos.

ConSet (Conceptualized setting). An ethocentric setting where the ethos is conceptualized and drives design.

DivSet (Diverse Setting). A setting that actively avoids ethos.

I'm sure at some point someone will bring up other modes of setting creation (such as the melting pot), so when the time comes, make sure to follow the B(lind), C(on), D(iv), E(thos) convention. ;)

Quote from:  Mr. AngelNow what would be nice, is an analysis of ethos-driven setting building that will actually help some of the more confused or lost folks on this board clearly explicate their personal thematic vision.  Particularly, how to weave themes into the setting effectively through symbolism, allegory, tropes, archetypes, conceits and so on.  That, I think, would prove a very productive endeavour for everyone who's contributed to this thread, as you're some of the brightest people I know, anywhere.

Seriously.  I'd enjoy that.

Wouldn't that be ConSet philosophy? I thought you were for the idea of not ̢,"clearly explicating their personal thematic vision.̢," but rather focus on the awesome & realism factors. :P

I'm all for it and it sounds great. ^_^ Any thought on where to begin?

I personally don't like to explicate my personal thematic vision in current projects, but I know for a fact that such a strategy works - having used it to great effect myself in the past - and farbeit from me to deny others the opportunity to use such a process if it works.  I'm not some kind of stiff ideologue; besides, as a lover of literature and philosophy (and the creator of a setting that throws the word "conceptual" around like it was confetti), I love talking about themes, even if I don't focus on them.

QuoteAny thought on where to begin?

Honestly?  Yeeeaaaah- No...

So we've got a threefold division here, right? Ethocentric settings (which can be subdivided in ConSet/Raelian and BlindSet/Angelian settings) stand against Diverse Settings (DivSet/CYMRian), with the option of having neither deliberate ethos nor deliberate diversity completing the trichotomy.

[I'm hesitant to say this because it might open up the semantics debate again, but at this point it seems to make sense to me to fold Ethocentric and DivSet into one side. More specifically, DivSet seems to me to be a specific form of Ethocentric, where the central vision is that the setting should be as diverse as possible. This would reduce things to a dichotomy again, where Ethocentric (subdivided in Raelian, Angelian and CYMRian) stands against non-Ethocentric.]

My personal stance is ambivalent. I don't think either Ethocentric or non-Ethocentric is always preferable over the other, but, when I go with Ethocentrism (as I did for my only serious project, Orden's Mysteries), I have a preference for ConSet/Raelian method, to encourage consistency and focus.

Quote from: Salacious Angel (hey, you've got your name back!)Now what would be nice, is an analysis of ethos-driven setting building that will actually help some of the more confused or lost folks on this board clearly explicate their personal thematic vision. Particularly, how to weave themes into the setting effectively through symbolism, allegory, tropes, archetypes, conceits and so on. That, I think, would prove a very productive endeavour for everyone who's contributed to this thread, as you're some of the brightest people I know, anywhere.

Being a proponent of Top-Down building (which I believe is closely related to ConSet building: I can not imagine a ConSet setting being built Bottom-Up), I'd say the first step would be in trying to put your vision to paper. Even if you don't want to actually write down the central vision of your setting (you may not know it or you may not want to write it down for some reason) I say you should at first try to establish the primary ideas that are motivating you to start this project. This can range from a very cool NPC idea you had to an abstract reasoning about what makes a good campaign setting. From there, you can establish a road-map (I want to build this first, then that, then that, etc.) which has the advantage of (subjective) completeness but might be found restraining (or even make it feel like work *shudders*) by some people. The other option is to just expand on things in whatever direction strikes your fancy.

A lot more can be said about these things, and I don't think I even got close to answering SA's question. This is just food for thought: flame it if you will, that will get the creative juices flowing.

Túrin

Quote from: TúrinSo we've got a threefold division here, right? Ethocentric settings (which can be subdivided in ConSet/Raelian and BlindSet/Angelian settings) stand against Diverse Settings (DivSet/CYMRian), with the option of having neither deliberate ethos nor deliberate diversity completing the trichotomy.

[I'm hesitant to say this because it might open up the semantics debate again, but at this point it seems to make sense to me to fold Ethocentric and DivSet into one side. More specifically, DivSet seems to me to be a specific form of Ethocentric, where the central vision is that the setting should be as diverse as possible. This would reduce things to a dichotomy again, where Ethocentric (subdivided in Raelian, Angelian and CYMRian) stands against non-Ethocentric.]

Ah good! More semantics! :P
The way I laid it out in my last post was thusly:

Quote------- Ethocentric ---------- Non-Ethocentric ----------------
----------|----|----------------------|------------------------
------ConSet--BlindSet-------------DivSet----------------------

Whether DivSet is actually Ethocentric is a big discussion waiting to happen. I think it'll mainly boil down to whether the intentional avoidance of central ideas counts as a central idea. >.> I'll leave that debate to the DivSetters.

[ooc]One question on the side for anyone reading the thread: Which sound better: the ___Set (ConSet) names or the ____ian (Raelian) names?[/ooc]

Quote from: RaelifinThe way I laid it out in my last post was thusly:

Quote------- Ethocentric ---------- Non-Ethocentric ----------------
----------|----|----------------------|------------------------
------ConSet--BlindSet-------------DivSet----------------------

Good. That's what I meant.

QuoteWhether DivSet is actually Ethocentric is a big discussion waiting to happen. I think it'll mainly boil down to whether the intentional avoidance of central ideas counts as a central idea. >.> I'll leave that debate to the DivSetters.

I vote for the ___Set-names, because they are more easily associated with their meaning. In particular, I'd hate to have to drop the word DivSet from our vocabulary, sice it's become fully-integrated (ahum). ;)[/ooc]

Túrin

[ooc]I agree, but I thought I'd ask around because you were using the others.[/ooc]
[ooc]Whatever happened to Orden's Mysteries? I really enjoyed reading what little you had on your uploaded "site."[/ooc]

I'm coming in late here, and I will go back and read everything after this post. I was asked to post my questions and concerns here, because the act of working through them might help this discussion.

So far, I enjoy it emensely when a world has an easily seen theme. Because of this enjoyment, I've grown disheartened that my own setting seems to lack unity in theme in my eyes. For the most part, I've been focused on getting the mechanical aspects of my world to match up with the descriptions I've given them in fiction, but I don't think the mechanics can suport the world on their own.

Here is the introduction for my setting: http://www.thecbg.org/settings/29/3worlds.html

What could help is for others to tell me what they think the theme of the world is. If I've managed to express a desirable theme in my introduction, then I'm doing better than I thought; if not, more discussion will be required.

Now, off to read the thread.

[ooc]Orden's Mysteries is still there, though I don't really expand upon it anymore. Lack of time and inspiration is a killer combination. I am playing a campaign in it at the moment, though. Funny how you call what I have "little" (as would I) while many have deemed it to be of intimidating size.[/ooc]

[ooc]A lot of settings seem larger than they are.
One night on vacation I got wireless internet and read through most of the Orden's Mysteries and Altvogge (I think) website material.[/ooc]

Anyway, we were talking about how to help the community and I was talking to Xev here about ConSet philosophy. He had a problem and I thought it might be a good place to start brainstorming on the practical applications that salacious suggested.

I command thee, thread, to RISE!

Guys, I just looked up the stuff on ethocentricity on the wiki and am forced to ask "wtf?"

QuoteThe philosophy championed by Raelifin became called Ethocentric, meaning "with ethos being at the heart of all things." In this instance the word "ethos" being used to describe a central idea, vision or theme for the setting. In the thread, Raelifin described Ethocentric as thus:

    An Ethocentric World is one built around a single idea, the vision of the creator. In an Ethocentric world, each element makes up a great tapestry that is tied together by that central idea.

    Merits: Ethocentricality means that the product will be art. I has a message and can stand by itself as communication of an idea that cannot be put into mere words.

    Failings: Ethocentric worlds are incredibly focused on the creator and are thus selfish and unyielding. This tends to make a less versatile world for interaction as it will constantly press it's ideas and message into all who touch it. It also means that if you wish to convey a different message than intended, you must work against the grain of the setting.

Later on, Raelifin wrote another summary of Ethocentric philosophy for the Campaign Builder's Guide:

    Ethocentric: A world or setting that is intended as art in its own right. The concept here is that art always has a unifying vision and this vision becomes the "central ethos." Everything in the setting is designed to work toward that ethos and thus has unifying theme. Ethocentric worlds are thought by most to have more focus, depth and potential.

has a message and can stand by itself as a communication of an idea that cannot be put into words?

Really? Art has to communicate? Certainly, after drawing between a half hour and... I guess eight hours on any given day for twenty years, I must have created NO ART. Because none of it was intended for a communicative purpose! And apparently, neither have any poets, playwrights, or authors, because they used words to do it! And apparently all the analysis and essays written about plays, poems, and books must have been total bunkum and point missing, because the real point can't be put into words.

-_________- whaleface is not pleased.

Also, we can define ethocentric things as having an intentional focus, but must it also be intended as "art?"

I'm sorry to nitpick, but pretense like this just kills me. Especially as an artist.

EDIT: And here it is again in the FAQ!

QuoteThe concept here is that art always has a unifying vision and this vision becomes the 'central ethos.'