I was wondering if we could make a meta-analysis of how we analyze campaign building.
Besides the threads about actual campaign settings, there are a lot of threads about the Why and How of campaign creation. Top-down or Bottom-up? Ethocentric or Div-Set? High or Low magic/tech/fantasy? These are all key issues in that kind of threads. But how do these threads work? What kind of criteria do we use? How do we analyze campaign building and why in that way?
Something in particular I noticed, for example in the How do you not get depressed by dark settings? (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?28622)-thread, but also in the Theme Wars thread, is that heavy use is made of analogy. Dark settings are compared to dark caves and heroes to candles. In the Theme Wars thread, there was heavy discussion of whether an art-analogy holds for campaign building, and if so what kind of art it is comparable to. These analogies are almost always used as an argument to make a point, and more than once has been the only argument that was provided.
Are analogies a good way to make a point about campaign building? If so, why is that? Is campaign building perhaps too abstract to allow direct analysis? What criteria can we use to see if an analogy is used correctly or incorrectly (if two analogies lead to opposite conclusions, at least one of them must be a wrong analogy, unless the entire point under discussion is moot or indecidable)?
Also, what are some of the patterns you guys noticed in our analyses of campaign building?
Túrin (Meta-Philosopher)
Whoa... Worldbuilding theory. Nice approach!
As for analogies... I think they're a good way to make a point, period, especially when talking about something abstract. Is worldbuilding abstract? I think parts of worldbuilding are abstract, especially (as in any artform) the tone. "Dark settings" in and of itself is abstract, as Xiluh, technically, has just as much color saturation as Shadowfell, Dystopia, Jade Stage, Fiendspawn, etc.: It's black letters on the same light background. If we're going to use the term "dark" to describe an intangible tone (which is the most reasonable way to use the word, of course), then we're getting deep into abstract. Well, arguably, expressionist, but still.
I agree with sdragon about abstractive tones. The fact is, every one of us (or at least, most of us) have spoken before of tone, theme, Core Ethos, etc in our campaign building. However, tone is extremely subjective. {insert analogy} As a musician, I find sometimes that the tone I found pleasing one day makes me miserable the next. It's all a matter of relativity, so I think analogies are really the only way to talk about how we build. Otherwise, we would all have to accept that tone means one specific thing, and all the different moods, tones, styles, flavors, etc available for our use must mean exactly the same thing to every person reading about it. Which, I'm pretty sure, we can all agree won't happen. But I'm going to stay away from this thread since I'm writing an article on Campaign Building right now and don't want to be subconsciously influenced ;)
I think the primary reason that the "How do you not get depressed by dark settings?" thread failed to generate any real "traction" on either side of the discussion is because we were all talking in terms of abstractions and analogies. There is a limit to the usefulness of discussions of candles, darkness, and green paint, and almost nobody in the discussion backed up their thoughts with specific, concrete examples of what their symbols actually mean.
No wonder we really failed to make any discursive headway! The whole thread was about "dark themes", but I doubt we're all using that phrase to mean the same thing. What, specifically is a "dark theme"?
I think analogies can be used to make a point elegantly and effectively. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother using them. The problem is when a discussion begins to orbit the analogy, and stops dealing with the issue the analogy was supposed to represent. As a community, we seem to have a chronic case of taking analogies much too far, and forgetting the substance of the discussion at hand. I'm especially guilty of that!
I agree.
I was asked to write something for a friend who was working on an essay about transformation. Since he knew I was into world building he asked for a bit about that. Here is that piece:
Creating a world is designing reality. And what can get much better than that? I take the physical laws and societal norms of our world and shatter them. From that pile of shredded existence I forge a whole new reality for others to explore. Whether that be my characters as they explore my world first hand or the readers as they explore it through my characters. It is a feeling of empowerment to create something from scratch. I beg, borrow, steal, and kidnap ideas from wherever I can, but what is important is the way that I put them together in a way that no one else could have. It makes the world mine.
But that is also the problem with creating a world. I have to build the illusion from the ground up that only I have seen. It is the age-old quandary of how to explain a rainbow to someone that canâ,¬,,¢t see. Threading parts of our reality (that the reader can intuitively understand) through the fabric of my world is important so that there is a grounding for the reader. Otherwise they will have no point of reference to start their exploration of my world. Since I see these far away lands so vividly in my mind I can forget that others donâ,¬,,¢t know what Marit or Five Realms looks like. The hard part is giving the reader enough depth so that they can relate without losing the mysterious and fantastic quality that made them want to journey there in the first place.
Analogies are the threads of our reality that help us relate to what the other's are building. I know the example isn't perfect, but I think that they can help us get a real world comparison. Now even real world comparisons are subject to individual interpratation, but it gives us a starting point.
I think that analogies and metaphors are a completely valid way of discussing and communicating. When the conversation gets hung up on the metaphor the problem lies with the participants not with the method.
I'd like to bump this up a bit and try to get this discussion started again. It might sound silly to say that a "world-building theory" (nice phrase, Corn) could be developed, but I think it would be a worthwhile project. A really nice essay to put into a future issue of the Campaign Builder's Guide... It could come in really handy, and maybe even spark a debate or two about best practices, which could possibly help people to discover underlying "rules" they had been following without knowing it.
Anyone interested?
edit *cough* I know I post at strange times throughout the day, but I do have a job... I work from home, which has the benefit of great freedom, with the price of uneven productivity. ie, for every 5 minutes I spend working on something fun during the day, I have to spend 7 minutes in a few weeks rushing to meet a deadline while promising myself some rubbish about modifying my work habits.
I think metaphor and analogy are better expressive than deductive tools. Watch Dr Phil much? You can compare article A to anything else in the universe, but what holds true for article B will not necessarily hold true for article A just by virtue of the comparison.
But as to why... Yes campaign building is abstract, but I think it's not just that. I think its also that so much of it is just a preferrence thing... alot of stuff is just arbitrary on the basis of that.