Since everyone on this site is so good at coming up with settings and getting their ideas out I want to ask if you have any advice for how you stay on focus and come up with stuff?
An example is people talk about "themes", but I don't really get that: I try to think of a theme, and it just sounds like pretenscious BS. And if I stuck to it I'd probably end running out of ideas because I'd get too many that'd break the theme. How do you avoid this?
Don't get too complex in your themes. Keep things very simple. For example a theme in my world is that there is a sharp divide between wilderness and civilization. From that I have created my walled in city states and armored caravans concept. As well as something to push that fact (untrusting nomads, dangerous wildlife, vast expanses of hostile land, etc).
You also don't want just one theme, write down how you want the general feeling of your setting to be portrayed and extrapolate the needed themes from that. Then look at each and try to think of how you can push them appropriately.
I'm not sure how conscious my process is (I don't just sit down and decide "I'm coming up with ideas now"), but I think I probably start with image rather than theme. The works of others - books, films, comics, art, etc - play a big part. But usually I begin with a picture and begin to fill it in, often creating as I write. "Themes" always seem to emerge for me part of the way through the process, when I detect patterns in what I'm creating. After I've discerned some broad themes I might begin thinking about the world and creating more of it according to them; but I don't begin with them. I also never begin with maps - too big an image.
Well, I've always only been working on one single campaign that evolved through different versions. Mainly, i just try to make settings that can accomodate my ideas. If i have an idea i like, I'll try and make it fit somehow. I don't see themes as limits on your creativity, but rather as moodsetters. You're supposed to read them and get a sense of the tone and theme, but it would be a pity if you could predict all the originality in the setting out from the themes.
I get even simpler than that. I start by asking myself, "What kind of place would I want to explore for a while?" What would make a fun game? What's never been done before that might work well? You don't have to worry about being original if you're just making a setting for your own use, but if you want other GMs to take notice you need a way to get their attention. No matter what, you have to make it enjoyable in one way or another.
And if you know what game system you want to use, make sure the setting works with the system, not against it. If you want to use a crunchy combat-focused system, I'd recommend not making a setting full of political intrigue and moral ambiguity. Likewise, if you've got a system more geared toward creating a story, you naturally want the setting to be a conscious part of that story.
I pretty much just extrapolate a setting from a character I've thought up, usually incorporating some elements I like (I keep a notepad handy and jot down stuff all the time). The notepad is a good source of inspiration.
As for themes, I don't think I really have them at all.
well, if you want the "pro" approach, there is three important things to set down before you start:
theme, mood and setting.
the theme is a simple statement, like the tagline of a movie. for example the theme for what i'm working on atm is "mind over matter, steel over flesh." don't worry if it sounds corny, it's just something you should always keep in mind that touches on everything you put into the setting.
mood is more complex, it's basically the range of emotions you try to evoke in your players. in my case it would be guarded curiosity, a bit of frontier spirit, the choice between community and solidarity, but also horror.
setting is more important for a scripted campaign, but it's most useful to start with a small part of your fledgling world. most people tend to begin with things like interplanar location, the cosmology, pantheon and whatnot.
of course these steps are important, but for your players to care about your pantheon, you have to give them a background to act from. for example when designing a new campaign world, i do some rough mental sketches about the general shape of things and the metacontinuity, but focus first on a smaller part that i flesh out fully. most of the time that bit is county-sized. there you have an area to keep your players occupied for some time, while you get a feel for what they want to do. it's of no use if the elven forrest is fleshed out down to 20 species of herbs if the players want to go to the mountsins to visit the dwarves.
on the other hand, you should not create an island in the void (except for raveloft^^), but have some general gossip or prejudices for your NPCs at hand. e.g. "them traders have brought some shifty fellows from down south with them. dark skinned they are. best have an eye on your daughters, the things you hear about them."
okay, enough with the infodump. this is all grey theory, so if that way doesn't work out for you, try to use only your intuition. as banal as it sounds, keep mind and ears open, and the inspiration will come. if you decide to work from a theme, try to make it abstract or vague enough to not tie you down. to get back to my own example, it's mostly about the clash between magic and technology. this can manifest itself in thousand ways, people arguing over the choice of magical light versus glow-globes, rifles over magic bows, prosthetics over magical healing and much more. or it can be of actual plot relevance when the party's engineer friend is attacked by an angry mob of naturalists.
i hope this helps you a little bit. :)
"This would be cool to have in a setting" followed by putting it into the setting. I have more ideas than I can be bothered to write up though, by a long way, so progress is slow, as only the ideas that really feel amazing end up getting written.... and sometimes I can go ages without even getting round to writing them, they just float around in my head for months...
Honestly, if you're having problems with inspiration, just relax on it, don't try to force it. Read some good books, watch some good movies.... even bad books and movies might have something in them... live your life, observe, take in influences, and eventually, from all the jumble of input, some idea will form.
As far as I'm aware that's the best formula for creativity of any kind. Whenever I've tried to force myself to create something, be it a piece of prose or a piece of music (those are the only two artistic mediums I have any degree of competence with) the results have been disastrous, if there have been any at all.
Just wait til it all falls into place, and it feels right to be creative again.
Quote from: KindlingAs far as I'm aware that's the best formula for creativity of any kind. Whenever I've tried to force myself to create something, be it a piece of prose or a piece of music (those are the only two artistic mediums I have any degree of competence with) the results have been disastrous, if there have been any at all.
My exact feeling too.
Okay, thanks people. I'll try all of these.
Another thing to consider: players will never care about the setting as much as you do. In particular, they'll never remember anyone's names. So don't make them work any harder than they have to.
I agree with good old Shamus young here (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=854).
[ic]Nobody wants to play a campaign with Emperor Fred or High Chancellor Gary, and so the usual approach is to give everyone high fantasy names like King Geon'ai, Sir Lua'an-Eradin, or Lady Alaain Mera-Dovrel. You know, strange and fantasy-ish. Of course, this means the names will all be unpronouncable, difficult to spell, and easily confused. For fun, have your players describe the plot of your campaign after it's over. I promise it will sound something like this:
"The dragon guy with that black sword was oppressing the people that lived on those hills. Then that one king with the really long beard got that one chick with the crazy hair, and she went to that one lake. Then she got corrupted by that curse thing that made her attack that group of guys we found dead. You know, the ones that had that +1 sword and the bag of holding? Once we broke her curse she told us about the dragon guy and gave us that thing. And the map. Then we found the dragon dude and kicked his ass."
It's like living in a word without proper nouns. I've always wanted to make a campaign like this:
"The Dark Lord Walter, wielder of the Black Sword of choppery, was opressing the peoples of Pittsburgh. Then King George Washington enlisted the help of the Warrior Princess Rapunzel. Sadly, in the Land of Yellowstone she fell under a spell and slew the Steelers, Knights of Pittsburgh. At last the heroes freed the princess, traveled through the kingdom of Barstow, and confronted Walter in the land of Spokane."
Sure, it sounds stupid, but you have to admit: your players will be able to remember, pronounce, and even spell all of the important people and places. [/ic]
Yeah, I completely get that: I name a lot of my story characters after colors, I've used words like "tek" and "sonata" as race names.
I just wish he'd given some advice on how to pick the right words. :axe:
I think picking memorable and cool names is an art unto itself, I know my pc's get lost like its nobodies business when it comes to names, so most of my lesser characters go by regular, but uncommon first names (Gerard, Lucien, Viktor etc.) or easy stuff like Lord Bant or nicknames like Warspike or Hangnail. Half the time though, i find i'm just writing for myself. My pc's played two session before they remebered the name of the guy they were facing (Viktor Coering) and one of them wanted to call him vikki.
Good question. I certainly didn't do it deliberately.
My best inspiration comes from actual play.
Rules: "What the hell? You've been drowning for like... 20 minutes... something is frigging wrong here."
NPCs: "The farm is owned and operated by... uh... the Farmer family! Ooh, look, there's ghouls now!"
Locations: "Yes, there is a soup kitchen in this dungeon. No I don't think the kobolds will let you order soup."
Magic: "This corn has unique healing properties."
Other than caffeine and free time, what you really need to create is a willingness to create and a willingness to forget about one project until the ideas start coming. I've got a lot of idea notebooks with half-written album reviews and political rants as well as campaign material as done as I can get it now.
A "theme" for an entire world is probably not a good thing, unless it's something like a world in decay, an ice age, or a global war. Think more locally. My own setting takes place in a very small part of a larger continent (Think what Maine is to the American super continent). The local theme is "Anglo Saxons". I started with what I knew about them, furthered my knowledge in research, and applied it to a fantasy world, using magical things to supplement the old superstitions.
A "theme" can be anything, from a specific thing involving interpersonal relationships, to much broader things like culture.
M.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonGood question. I certainly didn't do it deliberately.
Here's a better answer, since I don't want my only contribution to this thread to be flippancy.
I started out with some basics: I drew a map and wrote some strange words all over it by way of place names. I thought about some different kinds of races and wrote them down. I thought about some different kinds of bland and boring gods for a vaguely greco-roman polytheistic pantheon, and I wrote them down, too. I was taking an astronomy class at the time, so I wrote down some notes on the shape of the world* and its surroundings.
Most of this was rubbish, of course, so bit by bit I threw it out and rewrote it all*.
Didn't realize at the time that I needed to rewrite or add anything, naturally. I had a map and some funky place names and some new gods, so I thought I was done. I started running D&D games in the Jade Stage-- and was pretty horrified at the results. The players didn't care about it, not one iota! (Which was entirely my fault, of course.) They happily dealt with evil cultists and their quasi-fascist organization, gleefully beat a member of a pacifist, charitable order of healers to a bloody pulp for information, and so forth. Not because their characters were amoral knaves, but because nobody except me realized that was what was going on. I had put in all this work, writing up the world, and the ungrateful bastards
were playing it wrong.So, it was about this point that somebody clued me in: they didn't care because I hadn't given them anything to care about. There was no world, yet; just a potpourri of goofy names. So I set about adding and rewriting, providing a world to go with those names.
Themes? Sort of, perhaps. They're more useful after the fact of writing, as a way of communication to readers and players what a world is "about" (if I can abuse the terminology in such a way.) I wrote in history for players to inherit, authorities for them to serve or to rebel against, injustices for them to oppose or to perpetuate, mysteries to explore, schemes to be schemed or to be unraveled, wars to be fought or to be prevented.... Themes are boring. Give me action! Give me choices! There's the interesting bits!
My writing process today is much the same as it has been for the last few years. I keep turning over ideas in my head, things I've already written, deciding whether they make sense or whether they're interesting enough. I add on to them and change them around, and I remove them entirely if I determine that they're entirely rubbish.
Occasionally I will come up with a brand new thing and add it to my little notebooks, and subject it to this same brutal process along with all the rest of the bits and pieces of my little world.
Most of this process couldn't properly be called "writing," because we already have this wonderful word called "editing" which suits it much better. I think of it like trimming a bonsai tree-- molding and growing existing material into a more pleasing shape.
[spoiler=*shape of the world]One of my astronomy assignments was to devise an explanation that would account for an Earth-dweller's view of the stars (changing as they do through the year), the changing tides, the seasons, and so forth. We had already discussed in class the ways in which these phenomena are
really brought about, so I decided to go in a totally different direction and postulate a flat earth, with ad hoc adjustments to support the various features I was supposed to explain.
I think the professor liked it. And anyway, I know that some of you readers seem to be pleased by it.[/spoiler][spoiler=*rewrote it all]Well, I rewrote almost all of it.
Most of the place names have been replaced at some point or another, I'm pretty sure. The map has been readjusted several times. Religion has very little resemblance to my original, childish notes on the subject (though many of the Cardan gods still have names that date back to that first draft, I'd like to think they have more personality now.) The only thing I really kept in full were the notes from astronomy class on the shape of the world and its properties, and those don't exactly see much use.
Goes to show, uh. Something, I guess.[/spoiler]
Well, y'know one of the possible problems is that I may not come up with terribly complex settings. I go "California superheroes......in space" and then add a few bits that need explaining and I'm done. Or at least until someone asks me a question and forces me to explain more.
I don't produce campaign settings, I make RPG travel brochures. :D
Quote from: Bill VolkAnother thing to consider: players will never care about the setting as much as you do. In particular, they'll never remember anyone's names. So don't make them work any harder than they have to.
I agree with good old Shamus young here (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=854).
[ic]Nobody wants to play a campaign with Emperor Fred or High Chancellor Gary, and so the usual approach is to give everyone high fantasy names like King Geon'ai, Sir Lua'an-Eradin, or Lady Alaain Mera-Dovrel. You know, strange and fantasy-ish. Of course, this means the names will all be unpronouncable, difficult to spell, and easily confused. For fun, have your players describe the plot of your campaign after it's over. I promise it will sound something like this:
"The dragon guy with that black sword was oppressing the people that lived on those hills. Then that one king with the really long beard got that one chick with the crazy hair, and she went to that one lake. Then she got corrupted by that curse thing that made her attack that group of guys we found dead. You know, the ones that had that +1 sword and the bag of holding? Once we broke her curse she told us about the dragon guy and gave us that thing. And the map. Then we found the dragon dude and kicked his ass."
It's like living in a word without proper nouns. I've always wanted to make a campaign like this:
"The Dark Lord Walter, wielder of the Black Sword of choppery, was opressing the peoples of Pittsburgh. Then King George Washington enlisted the help of the Warrior Princess Rapunzel. Sadly, in the Land of Yellowstone she fell under a spell and slew the Steelers, Knights of Pittsburgh. At last the heroes freed the princess, traveled through the kingdom of Barstow, and confronted Walter in the land of Spokane."
Sure, it sounds stupid, but you have to admit: your players will be able to remember, pronounce, and even spell all of the important people and places. [/ic]
Why not use names that, while not strange, sound like they would fit a typical fantasy world? Names like Micheal, Edward, Nathaniel, or Edgar? Women could have names like Michelle, Elizabeth, Mary Anne, or something like that. In particularly cosmopolitan areas, it wouldn't matter as much what race you were. In areas where the race that these names conjure (most likely human) is the most prevalent, it wouldn't matter much, either. Think of some famous hollywood action stars that came from China; does anybody bicker about how Chinese the name "Bruce" is?
Alternatively use fantastical names that are just easy to remember, pronounce and spell in their own right. There are plenty of examples of this (Bilbo, Conan, Elric, et cetera)
Or you could use English words in evocative combinations (Hawkmoon, Steerpike, and their ilk)
I think using "real" names, while not something that should be avoided on principle, can shatter immersion just as easily as unpronounceable nomenclature - not to mention that they're often just not as compelling as fantasy alternatives, at least not in context. Honestly, would you rather Conan or Colin? Elric or Eric? Gandalf or Gareth? Hawkmoon or Harold? Frodo or Freddie?
I like the mixed approach, go for English/Western names and use those evocative compound words as last names. James Firepike, Charles Bearclaw, Garrett Sunwatcher... It makes everything simple yet remains evocative enough to keep immersion.
I think there's a reason to sometimes use a Freddie. It's so much easier, and it really doesn't push the credibility of most settings. In fact, sometimes it makes things more believable. An example from my experience is names with apostrophes. My players hate, hate, HATE stereotypical fantasy names with apostrophes in them, but of course they never complain about apostrophes in real-world names like O'Brien or something.
It's basically impossible to remove all traces of the real world from a setting. Even if you did, the result would be impossible to identify with. And names made by smashing two generic words together, like Hawkmoon, make a setting sound too much like World of Warcraft. They're easy and tempting, but I try to avoid them.
Oh, and something I forgot to mention! Players have the maturity of six-year-olds when it comes to dealing with funny-sounding names. They'll even take names like Viktor and make them silly. So think twice before introducing a serious character named Enos.
My aim wasn't to avoid all traces of the real world with my views on names, just that... well, fantasy is about escapism, to a greater or lesser degree, and fantasy roleplaying doubly so. This escapist aesthetic is ruined when we're confronted with something overly familiar - just as our experience is ruined when presented with something so unfamiliar we, as people from the real world, cannot relate to it.
And as for the video-gamey-ness of Hawkmoon type kennings, yes, I agree they have become something of a cliche, but they still have their place, and can still be used effectively with a little imagination (i.e. don't call your villain Blackshade, your knight's sword Lionblade and your pyromancer Flamehand)
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawAn example is people talk about "themes", but I don't really get that: I try to think of a theme, and it just sounds like pretenscious BS. And if I stuck to it I'd probably end running out of ideas because I'd get too many that'd break the theme. How do you avoid this?
Don't see a theme as a
constraint. Instead, see it as a
lens through which to see the setting.
For example, the main theme of Urbis (http://urbis.wikidot.com/) can be summed up:
"Advances in magic within a generic fantasy world lead to a magical industrial revolution, the breakdown of the old feudal order, and the spread of vast and powerful city-states."
That doesn't mean that you have to limit yourself to describing those city-states - instead, you try to think how their presence affects other setting elements commonly found in other fantasy (or SF, or superhero, or whatever type of setting you are trying to build).
For example, quite a few settings include some "Elven Island Paradise in the West" where humans are forbidden to tread. Call it Aman, Evermeet, or Tir nan Og - the stories are fairly similar. But how would such place fare in a world with vast and powerful human city-states?
Here (http://urbis.wikidot.com/narevoreen) is one possible answer. The main theme of the setting is not directly represented here - and yet it affects this locale and allows you to give a new and interesting twist on a tired old trope. And this is how you should all "core themes" of a setting.
Well part of what I wonder is if analyzing an idea enough that you can articulate a theme like that robs it of some of its interest.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawWell part of what I wonder is if analyzing an idea enough that you can articulate a theme like that robs it of some of its interest.
In general, I don't think so, I think it highlights it. But every person's experience with art is unique and subjective, so it might have that effect on some people. I believe that more people will be drawn in than driven away by a clear summary of themes. It's the teaser that tells me whether I want to bother reading further (as the reader). As the author, it tells you if things are slipping away from you in too many directions (which is of course a bigger issue in ethocentric settings).
There seem to be two questions in OP:
1) How do you come up with things.
2) How do you stay focused on them.
#1 is harder, because the process is different every time. I rarely sit down and say, "I want to think up something new." But when I get ideas, I start to think how to combine them. A lot of my work is tightly based off of one or more mythologies or religions from the real world. Beyond that, the idea that sparks a setting can often be a simple concept.
#2 Not usually a problem. If I feel compelled to switch projects, I do until I get it out of my system. Then I come back to the best project, and occasionally mine the others for ideas. If I never come back to an idea or recycle it, it probably wasn't my best idea anyway. But if I have a new idea not related to a current project, I often find it'll nag me until I least get it down and out of my head.
Quote from: Jürgen Hubert"Advances in magic within a generic fantasy world lead to a magical industrial revolution, the breakdown of the old feudal order, and the spread of vast and powerful city-states."
So a theme doesn't have to be a statement of literary elements (yeah, I don't know what to call it) but can be just saying what you want to do? :huh: That's not something that ever occurred to me when I read the word "theme".
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Jürgen Hubert"Advances in magic within a generic fantasy world lead to a magical industrial revolution, the breakdown of the old feudal order, and the spread of vast and powerful city-states."
So a theme doesn't have to be a statement of literary elements (yeah, I don't know what to call it) but can be just saying what you want to do? :huh: That's not something that ever occurred to me when I read the word "theme".
Well, the change from a feudal, primitive past to a "modern" world order
is something that impacts pretty much all parts of the setting. But perhaps it helps if you replace the word "theme" with "core idea".
Obviously, some themes are less suitable than others for an RPG setting. Themes that lead to chaos and change (geographical, social, and so forth) are better than those that lead to harmony - after all, adventurers thrive in chaotic times, and there are no RPGs without conflicts.
A theme is often expressed as something vs. something else.
For example example, in Eschaton the main theme is fate vs. free will.
For another story I'm working on, it's Progress vs. Tradition.
Others might be love vs. duty, or that kind of thing.
In a way, it's often like the inner struggle a character may face. When you've got two conflicting desires, and both are valuable, then you have legitimate conflict. As opposed a situation when only one quality is laudable--then it is clear which side should win so you don't have as profound a conflict or theme. (Which is not to say black and white morality cannot sometimes be fun to play, only it usually makes a less interesting story.)
I don't know if this kind of thinking helps any.
Quote from: PhoenixI don't know if this kind of thinking helps any.
Well my problem is that "vs" thinking is often times very confusing to me. If I see a conflict where there is no clear "right" I don't see a reason to get worked up about it, it should be resolved through calm debate or people just doing their own thing, nothing to create any real "conflict" over.
It's not that I don't realize this happens, it's just that I can't understand it in the way necessary to reproduce it. At least not in a way that makes it more than an obviously stupid conflict.
Maybe you could think of it less as there being no clear "right" in the argument, and more as there being no clear "wrong"?
Imagine, for example, a religious conflict. The beliefs of Sect Alpha are obviously right, as they are the word of the Gods as interpreted by the Alpha Sect's founder and prophet, who spoke only the truth.
However, the beliefs of Sect Bravo must also be right, seeing as how they are the word of the Gods as interpreted by THEIR prophet, who was equally truthful.
Obviously, to an atheist or agnostic, this situation may seem somewhat trite, but to the religious types involved in either side of the debate, it is a very real and relevant conflict, in which both sides are, from their own perspective, entirely right.
Quote from: KindlingMaybe you could think of it less as there being no clear "right" in the argument, and more as there being no clear "wrong"?
Imagine, for example, a religious conflict. The beliefs of Sect Alpha are obviously right, as they are the word of the Gods as interpreted by the Alpha Sect's founder and prophet, who spoke only the truth.
However, the beliefs of Sect Bravo must also be right, seeing as how they are the word of the Gods as interpreted by THEIR prophet, who was equally truthful.
Obviously, to an atheist or agnostic, this situation may seem somewhat trite, but to the religious types involved in either side of the debate, it is a very real and relevant conflict, in which both sides are, from their own perspective, entirely right.
And ideally, it should not be clear that the atheist position is right either - there might be strong hints that
both sides have some truths to their dogmas.
Such conflicts work best if a neutral observer could say for each side: "I don't necessarily agree with them, but I can see their point."
Instead of a "theme," it may be easier for you to come up with a "pitch." By a pitch I mean one sentence (or less!) that conveys what makes the setting unique or enjoyable. It's more concrete than a theme. This could relate to the setting itself or the PCs roles within the setting. You could maybe try to reverse-engineer a setting from a pitch that sounds exciting to you. Odds are it will sound exciting to like-minded people as well.
Quote from: KindlingMaybe you could think of it less as there being no clear "right" in the argument, and more as there being no clear "wrong"?
Imagine, for example, a religious conflict. The beliefs of Sect Alpha are obviously right, as they are the word of the Gods as interpreted by the Alpha Sect's founder and prophet, who spoke only the truth.
However, the beliefs of Sect Bravo must also be right, seeing as how they are the word of the Gods as interpreted by THEIR prophet, who was equally truthful.
Obviously, to an atheist or agnostic, this situation may seem somewhat trite, but to the religious types involved in either side of the debate, it is a very real and relevant conflict, in which both sides are, from their own perspective, entirely right.
That's no different: neither has an answer that is "right" i.e. agreed upon by all or objectively right. Both sides should realize this and not get worked up about it any more than spirited debate, otherwise they would be wasting something valuable on an issue that they both know will not be resolved peacefully. If there are individuals who want to resolve the issue without peace then we have developed a situation with a clear "wrong" because imposing one's views upon another is always wrong.
So here's how I work it out:
An issue with no clear answer: Either ignore it or peacefully debate it.
If someone has moved beyond peaceful debate: Stop whoever it is. If you cannot stop them and the conflict does not affect you then leave it alone to be resolved by the participants (or until everyone is dead).
So thinking like that I can't wrap my head around those sorts of conflicts other than as the stereotypical "obviously silly issue perpetuated by people who need to be taught a Good Moral Lesson" type of Saturday morning plot. (I see
real conflicts of this type this way too.) I'm just
incapable of taking them seriously enough to figure out how to use them in any other way.
Quote from: Jürgen HubertAnd ideally, it should not be clear that the atheist position is right either - there might be strong hints that both sides have some truths to their dogmas.
Such conflicts work best if a neutral observer could say for each side: "I don't necessarily agree with them, but I can see their point."
If no one has a clear answer why is anyone fighting about it?
Quote from: KindlingMaybe you could think of it less as there being no clear "right" in the argument, and more as there being no clear "wrong"?
Imagine, for example, a religious conflict. The beliefs of Sect Alpha are obviously right, as they are the word of the Gods as interpreted by the Alpha Sect's founder and prophet, who spoke only the truth.
However, the beliefs of Sect Bravo must also be right, seeing as how they are the word of the Gods as interpreted by THEIR prophet, who was equally truthful.
Obviously, to an atheist or agnostic, this situation may seem somewhat trite, but to the religious types involved in either side of the debate, it is a very real and relevant conflict, in which both sides are, from their own perspective, entirely right.
Well put.
To expand a little, in speaking of inner conflict of a character (which applies to inner conflict of a setting), the reason to get worked up over two mutually exclusive "good" things is because you have a strong reason to care about both. It's what makes choice meaningful, and choice is not only the essence of playing a roleplaying game, but also an important aspect of conflict (the essence of fiction).
I say this in this way to try to get away from the idea of two sides of an issue having a rational debate in which the issue can be resolved--there is no good resolution to the issue, and often, the same person is plagued by both sides.
Or alternatively, you may have the extremist characters who represent a single side of the issue. These characters are almost certainly erring in some degree, because they cannot find a balance between meaningful values.
Regarding conflict in settings, having sympathetic characters on both sides of a big conflict is all well and good, but I would recommend trying to follow this rule:
Make it possible for the PCs to make decisions and have an effect.
Don't punish them for picking a side. I've been in one or two games where the politics were so gray-on-gray and the consequences for any course of action were so grim that there was no possible right answer. We were left with nothing to do. I'm lucky I wasn't playing a paladin, because it would have been literally impossible to keep my paladin abilities no matter what I did. The DM didn't just railroad us; he railroaded us into a dead end and tipped the train over.
So, instead of conflicts with no right answer, maybe you could allow for multiple right answers? We get enough unresolvable conflicts in the real world. They become tiresome.
Quote from: Phoenix....in speaking of inner conflict of a character (which applies to inner conflict of a setting), the reason to get worked up over two mutually exclusive "good" things is because you have a strong reason to care about both.
You have a strong reason to care about both separately but not both at the same time? If you can't choose then why stress yourself out working it over?
Quote from: PhoenixI say this in this way to try to get away from the idea of two sides of an issue having a rational debate in which the issue can be resolved--there is no good resolution to the issue, and often, the same person is plagued by both sides.
So why are they trying to resolve it, then, if there is no resolution?
Quote from: Bill Volk...instead of conflicts with no right answer, maybe you could allow for multiple right answers? We get enough unresolvable conflicts in the real world. They become tiresome.
Exactly: if there's no resolution then why bother fighting over it? What does it get you?
[blockquote=SilvercatMoonpaw]You have a strong reason to care about both separately but not both at the same time? If you can't choose then why stress yourself out working it over?[/blockquote]Because those two choices, even if both superficially "good," might be mutually exclusive.
Take Hamlet. On the one hand hand he could choose to do nothing and pacifistically weather the injustice of the world, choosing not to take revenge thus preserving his soul's purity and not contributing to the cyclic violence and death in his world. From one perspective, this is clearly a good choice.
On the other hand, this does nothing to address his uncle's crimes, and would be termed a cowardly option from the code of masculine honor deeply ingrained in Hamlet - just as deeply as the Christian code of non-violence. Avenging his father's death and righting wrongs (even at the cost of his own soul) also seems like a "good" option.
Trying to peaceably reason with Claudius, get him to abdicate the throne and give it to Hamlet, doesn't comprise a realistic third option given the situation.
Clearly Hamlet cannot both do nothing and take revenge, so of course he's going to "stress himself out" about it (hence all the soliloquies). This choice has meaning because it has consequences: it isn't just as an abstract decision or a theoretical one, but a decision that will affect the world (Claudius lives or dies, Hamlet does or doesn't marry Ophelia, etc). Even though it's an internal conflict - choosing between two different codes of behavior, two different perspectives - it will have real or external consequences, and that makes it meaningful. The conflict and the challenge is in trying to weigh those choices against one another or devise a different system for evaluating them both or picking one over the other. Extremism (always blindly choosing one side over the other) is very dangerous because it's action without consideration - and that kind of thought tends to perpetuate itself through ideology.
I'm not saying the Hamlet scenario is always the case or that peaceful diplomacy isn't a good thing. But sometimes complex situations don't have neat resolutions, and refusing to worry about them doesn't help either.
Quote from: SteerpikeClearly Hamlet cannot both do nothing and take revenge, so of course he's going to "stress himself out" about it (hence all the soliloquies). This choice has meaning because it has consequences: it isn't just as an abstract decision or a theoretical one, but a decision that will affect the world (Claudius lives or dies, Hamlet does or doesn't marry Ophelia, etc). Even though it's an internal conflict - choosing between two different codes of behavior, two different perspectives - it will have real or external consequences, and that makes it meaningful. The conflict and the challenge is in trying to weigh those choices against one another or devise a different system for evaluating them both or picking one over the other.
So how do you make decisions like that? Because all I can come up with is in that situation you're either stuck and nothing's gonna happen (which would be bad for an RPG), or you make a choice. And the way you put it those aren't the only outcomes.
Imagine if Hamlet were an RPG instead of a play. Kind of like The DM of the Rings (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?cat=14). The players might just kick in the door of Claudius' bedroom, kill him and take his stuff. Or they might try to investigate the murder until they have enough evidence to disgrace Claudius, if they're more keen on roleplaying than munchkinry. Or they might decide to go off the rails, make friends with Claudius, see if he can hook them up with some free ear poison, then maybe buy some ghost touch weapons and put Dad to rest. The one thing they will NOT do is angst over the decision like Hamlet did. If they get frustrated, they will blame you, the GM, not the NPCs.
Ah, good old violence. If it can't solve something it means you haven't killed enough people yet. :axe:
Quote from: Bill VolkThe one thing they will NOT do is angst over the decision like Hamlet did. If they get frustrated, they will blame you, the GM, not the NPCs.
Yeah, this is kind of where I stand: the issue seems too complex to foist on someone and expect them to really be able to do anything about it in the time frame and information load of an RPG.
Quote from: PhoenixA theme is often expressed as something vs. something else.
For example example, in Eschaton the main theme is fate vs. free will.
For another story I'm working on, it's Progress vs. Tradition.
Others might be love vs. duty, or that kind of thing.
And don't forget ninjas vs. pirates!
Actually, I'm fond of choices where it's just a question of priorities. Doing justice to angst-ridden decisions about right and wrong and personal codes of honor is too time-consuming. But consider this decision: two allies are facing difficulties, and you only have time to provide assistance to one of them. There will be a moment of debate as the PCs decide which ally to help out. But after that, the issue is resolved and you can move on to the action as the PCs provide assistance to one or the other of their allies.
Of course, that's just a short-term, situation-specific internal conflict, so I'm not sure you can use anything like that as the theme of a campaign setting. At best, it would serve to remind you that you need to include potential allies for PCs in addition to potential adversaries, and should include incentives for PCs to provide assistance to their allies from time to time.
If your a DM, ask your players for lots of suggestions. Of course you're not going to build directly off of them, especially if their too ridiculous to even consider, but just use them to try to come up with ideas.
If your not a DM or just don't like this idea, try a different approach. Look through Campaign Guides, watch some fantasy/sci-fi movies, browse through other settings here, and just try to scrounge up ideas. And the main thing is to not be afraid to start posting your ideas. If your to hesitant or are afraid that people won't like them, my advice is simply that it is not ever going to be in any way perfect. If your throw your ideas out there, especially the original ones, they'll catch on pretty quick.
My best advice, however, is to draw a map. Get a blank peice of computer paper and decide what your heading for: a continent, entire world map, or even a galaxy map of lots of different planets. Then let your ideas flow onto the paper. Even if your not good a drawing maps, just draw it, and it will naturally spring your thought process. A continent, for example, should be started with a basic outline of the continent. Then add in circles and lines inland for lakes and rivers, and little triangles where you want mountains. Add forests and deserts, volcanoes, tundras, other geographical features. Then sit back and think about what should go where. Try this, because its exactly what i did for my first setting.
Quote from: DrizztrocksLook through Campaign Guides, watch some fantasy/sci-fi movies, browse through other settings here, and just try to scrounge up ideas.
Trust me, I do this extensively: I've read a lot of reviews of RPG products soley for the purpose of getting ideas. I try to find movies and such that I'm willing to watch, it's just not easy. And I look at other peoples' settings, but they aren't designed for people like me and don't have the sort of elements I'd need to steal.
Quote from: DrizztrocksAnd the main thing is to not be afraid to start posting your ideas. If your to hesitant or are afraid that people won't like them, my advice is simply that it is not ever going to be in any way perfect. If your throw your ideas out there, especially the original ones, they'll catch on pretty quick.
I have absolutely no problem posting an out-there idea. The problem is getting any feedback. I don't blame anyone, as I know they have things that keep them busy. There's just very little reason to post something if I don't think it could get feedback. So I start threads like this in hopes that something someone says will allows me to figure out what I'm missing.
@Steerpike: well explained. :band:
Quote from: Bill VolkThe one thing they will NOT do is angst over the decision like Hamlet did. If they get frustrated, they will blame you, the GM, not the NPCs.
I disagree. I've played (and played with) plenty of players that do this, sometimes to an annoying degree.
Nevertheless, this is a conflict within a specific character (not the setting), and thus more relevant to the literature aspect of the theme discussion. That the players have to take ANY action in response to it is the conflict of the adventure (still not necessarily the setting), which is the conflict an RPG needs. It doesn't matter which course they take, the conflict prompts them to make a choice, which is what matters.
Conflict applies to literature, to settings, and to individuals campaigns within a setting, and it applies differently to each. Each is vaguely relevant to the others, and certainly relevant to discussions of theme, but we have to be careful not to conflate arguments about one with another.
And it is of course, possible, to have a setting with no theme (see Theme Wars, I don't want to devolve this thread any further on that point). It is even possible to have a setting without inherent conflict. It is not likely that a setting without
any conflict, however, will be fun to play, since it requires no meaningful choices on the part of the players. In the same vein, a story with no conflict is hard (understatement) to sell to an editor, whether the conflict is inherent in the setting or character-driven (many of the best stories have both--the classic literary bromide is the more conflict, the better for your story).
Quote from: Phoenix('¦'¦'¦the classic literary bromide is the more conflict, the better for your story).
Well now I know why I don't bother with the bookstore's fiction section any more. :?:
Quote from: Bill VolkAnother thing to consider: players will never care about the setting as much as you do. In particular, they'll never remember anyone's names. So don't make them work any harder than they have to.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawYeah, I completely get that: I name a lot of my story characters after colors, I've used words like "tek" and "sonata" as race names.
I just wish he'd given some advice on how to pick the right words. :axe:
Quote from: FurorI think picking memorable and cool names is an art unto itself, I know my pc's get lost like its nobodies business when it comes to names, so most of my lesser characters go by regular, but uncommon first names (Gerard, Lucien, Viktor etc.) or easy stuff like Lord Bant or nicknames like Warspike or Hangnail.
The name-related posts reminded me of my campaign setting.
For some of the upper classes, particularly the Nobles of the Terran Empire, I actually tried to do things the hard way and come up with some fantasyish naming conventions. Generally, something from the little bit of Latin that I know or would take the time to look up combined with the common name of a mineral.
For the lower classes and criminals, though I just went with a nickname or a name and a nickname with the name being a somewhat recognizable modern day first or last name. So the crime lords in Terra Prima might have names like Questionable Milton, Old Jenkins, Crazy Morton, and Sane Ned.
[blockquote=Silvercat Moonpaw]So how do you make decisions like that? Because all I can come up with is in that situation you're either stuck and nothing's gonna happen (which would be bad for an RPG), or you make a choice. And the way you put it those aren't the only outcomes.[/blockquote]Fair enough - there probably are other options. But there isn't an immediately clear solution to the problem - there are only debatable solutions. You said earlier that if there isn't a clear solution you have to either peaceably debate the situation (which definitely isn't an option considering Claudius as a character, not to mention that it contravenes both of Hamlet's competing moral codes) or ignore it (which is itself a choice). So yes, of course you have to make a choice - even the choice to do nothing. But that choice isn't a clear one, its a debatable one, its a necessarily morally gray one. This, in my mind, makes it an interesting or compelling sort of choice (and a lot of readers and audience members over the centuries agree). Nonetheless it's a clear case of a "vs." argument - Christian Pacifism vs. Masculinist Chivalry.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Phoenix('¦'¦'¦the classic literary bromide is the more conflict, the better for your story).
Well now I know why I don't bother with the bookstore's fiction section any more. :?:
pheonix is right, though. a story without conflict is boring, because if the characters all have or easily get what they want, what's the point of reading about them? sure there are exemptions to that, interesting travelogues for example, but those are not suitable for a plot, or you'll end up with hours of GM description punctuated by "we go east now." "we'll stay here a bit", etc.
to take a classic literary example that did it wrong: Effi Briest, a mind numbingly long book of a girl that marries some old dude, has an affair with a soldier, the old dude kills souljaboy and divorces her. the only interesting part is the one leading up to the duel, which itself is told in two sentences: "they walk up to each other an shoot. the major dies." this is about half as long as it takes the author to describe a teapot.
the reason why conflict is even more important in rpgs is because conflicts are a hero's raison d'être. it's what sets them apart from the background npcs.
if you want to get more feedback, try to start your posts with a short explanation of what you want to achieve with the idea, then we can give you feedback on how well you did. ;)
i realise that with your abundance of aliens, using human names is not possible, but that would be easiest. the WFRP character set has hundreds of names in it, neatly ordered by culture and in randomised tables. it's worth its weight in gold for naming npcs on the fly.
general advice on naming would be: keep it short, keep it simple. i see that in your last posts you gave your races some well to remember names, so imo you're on the right track. :)
@Scholar: My point about conflicts and books wasn't that I need no conflict but that too many books load themselves down with conflict to a point at which it's impossible for me to digest. What Phoenix said just makes it clear why books continue this trend.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw@Scholar: My point about conflicts and books wasn't that I need no conflict but that too many books load themselves down with conflict to a point at which it's impossible for me to digest. What Phoenix said just makes it clear why books continue this trend.
then we'll have to agree to disagree. i like lots of conflicts in literature (though not just in the sense of armed conflict). :)
Quote from: Scholarthen we'll have to agree to disagree. i like lots of conflicts in literature (though not just in the sense of armed conflict). :)
I'm not sure there's even anything to disagree about: I don't want
all books to have less conflict, I just want enough books for me. I think there's enough room on the book shelves for both our tastes.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawThat's no different: neither has an answer that is "right" i.e. agreed upon by all or objectively right. Both sides should realize this and not get worked up about it any more than spirited debate, otherwise they would be wasting something valuable on an issue that they both know will not be resolved peacefully.
This hardly ever happens in Real Life, however. In most real-world conflicts, both sides have some legitimate grievances against the other.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawIf there are individuals who want to resolve the issue without peace then we have developed a situation with a clear "wrong" because imposing one's views upon another is always wrong.
What if people with such views exist on both sides - along with people who want to resolve the situation peacefully?
Once the violence starts, the "hawks" of neither side will step down easily...
WWI is a good example of this. While Germany and Austria technically started the war,
all sides were eager for it - and all sides believed that the conflict would be over quickly. And there are numerous other tragedies in history like it.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawSo here's how I work it out:
An issue with no clear answer: Either ignore it or peacefully debate it.
If someone has moved beyond peaceful debate: Stop whoever it is. If you cannot stop them and the conflict does not affect you then leave it alone to be resolved by the participants (or until everyone is dead).
All great conflicts see numerous innocent bystanders suffer. Can the player characters really be so callous and ignore their suffering?
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawIf no one has a clear answer why is anyone fighting about it?
Because each side is convinced that
its answer is the correct one.
The backstory of Exalted is fairly instructive, as the setting
teems with factions that believe that they (and they alone) are right - and they all have some arguments in their favor.
Back at the Dawn of Time, the Primordials created the Gods to maintain the existence of the world while they pursued lives of leisure within it. The Gods resented their subordinate position, and imbued humans with some of their power to kill or imprison the Primordials. The mightiest among the Exalted, the Solar Exalted, were given the world to rule, while the Gods retreated to the Heavens (for the most part).
Unfortunately, over the millenia most Solars became mad from their power. This caused another group of Exalted - the Sidereals - to attempt to look into the far future, and they discovered that there was a real chance that the Solars would eventually destroy the world in their madness. They could attempt to reform the Solars, but this would be risky. So they took the "safer" route and conspired with the weakest (but most numerous) type of Exalted - the Dragon-Blooded - to kill all the Solars and drive the mates of the Solars (the Lunar Exalted) into exile to the fringes of the world. The world was much diminished in the fighting, but it continued to exist. The Dragon-Blooded ruled the world, while the Sidereals retreated to the Shadows and the Lunars licked their wounds.
Now, 1,500 years later, the souls of the Solars are suddenly reborn and are beginning to reclaim their power. At the same time, other factions have begun to appear that either try to destroy or conquer the world for themselves. But each type of Exalted has different ideas about what should be done.
Solars: "Yes, our previous incarnations went too far - but we have learned from our mistakes. And only we are able to restore the world to its former splendor - or defeat the many threats to it which are now gathering at the fringes of the world. With our leadership, the world will prosper again and rise from this Age of Sorrows!"
Lunars: "The Solars made the whole world dependent on themselves - with the result that it all came crashing down once they were defeated. We are trying to create new societies, where ordinary mortals can find their own strength and defend themselves from threats, instead of becoming well-fed slaves to mad god-kings!"
Dragon-Blooded: "It was us who defeated the Solars in their madness, and one of us who saved the world in its greatest need! We have shown that we can rule and protect the world, and we must prevail against the returning Solars to guard the future of the world!"
Sidereals: "The Solars never heeded our warnings when their actions posed danger to the world. Will their new incarnations do any better? Unlikely. Only we have the vision and foresight to guide the world through its perilous future, for only we can perceive the strands of fate!"
All of these have good points. So, who among is right?
That's something the player characters have to decide among themselves...
Exalted is a good example of a setting where the conflict isn't frustrating. Players can be just about anyone in the setting, and they are encouraged to get into character and take a side without feeling any guilt about it. You might start a new campaign where the players mercilessly kill their own characters from a previous campaign. That can be fun! To a degree, it's okay to be an asshole and to take on the prejudices of your character. And PCs in Exalted are generally quite powerful. They have a good chance of getting their way in the end, whatever that way might happen to be, and changing the world to suit them.
The biggest perception gap seems to be between thinking you're right and actually being right. I don't understand why anyone ever thinks they're right, that sort of confidence is illogical to me: if you can make even one mistake you are always capable of making a mistake in anything you do. Logic tells me that you should always posit to yourself that what you are doing has a very real chance of being wrong. You should always have doubt.
This is why I see all such conflicts of confidence as stupid: to me no one is ever right enough to justify the actions I see sides taking.
I'm sorry if I'm frustrating to deal with over this issue.
So, SCMP, you're saying that you never think your right? You always remember you have a serious chance of being wrong?
Also, since when have people *ever* acted logically? Never is when :p
Quote from: LlumSo, SCMP, you're saying that you never think your right?
I make mistakes trying.
Quote from: LlumYou always remember you have a serious chance of being wrong?
I try to. I at least try to avoid becoming a fanatic.
Quote from: LlumAlso, since when have people *ever* acted logically? Never is when :p
They act logically, otherwise they wouldn't be predictable. They just don't vet their own logic for why. And I can't figure out how that works.
Quote from: Jürgen HubertIn most real-world conflicts, both sides have some legitimate grievances against the other.
But why is that worth fighting over?
Quote from: Jürgen HubertWhat if people with such views exist on both sides - along with people who want to resolve the situation peacefully?
In that case the peaceful people should work against the non-peaceful people or they'll never get anything done.
Quote from: Jürgen HubertAll great conflicts see numerous innocent bystanders suffer. Can the player characters really be so callous and ignore their suffering?
If there are innocent bystanders suffering then neither of the sides causing the mess is right and both should be stopped.
Quote from: Jürgen HubertBecause each side is convinced that its answer is the correct one.
Why is that worth fighting over?
In terms of violent/oppressive conflict what I'm seeing is that there's the angle of simply stopping all violence and/or oppression, and the angle of choosing a side to join. Any other type of conflict doesn't result in the sort of environment worth a game. Correct?
What's still confusing is the second angle and motivation: What prompts people to decide violence/oppression over a more peaceful method? Is it always that each side think's it "right" and you can just slap any label you want on each one?
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawThe biggest perception gap seems to be between thinking you're right and actually being right. I don't understand why anyone ever thinks they're right, that sort of confidence is illogical to me: if you can make even one mistake you are always capable of making a mistake in anything you do. Logic tells me that you should always posit to yourself that what you are doing has a very real chance of being wrong. You should always have doubt.
OK, let's say you
have doubts that your course of action is the right one. However, you think that doing
nothing will actually be worse than doing it your way.
Let's get back to the Exalted example I mentioned before. Something
must be done to stop the numerous threats to the world - god-like ghosts trying to kill every living being, chtonic faeries trying to dissolve the world in pure chaos, the former Primordial overlords trying to come back and enslave everyone.
But is it really so wise to trust one of the other factions of Exalted? Sure, some of the Solars might seem reasonable - but so did the heroes of the Primordial War, once, and look how
that turned out. If you allow them to grow in power, they will dominate the world as they used to just because of their innate abilities - everyone will end up worshiping them.
If you are a Dragon-Blooded, do you dare trust them and reach out of them? Even if they do have the power to help save the world, are you willing to risk getting enslaved by them? Conversely, do you risk wasting your resources on hunting them down when there are so many other foes to fight?
Where is the "right" answer here? The only thing you can do is make a choice and try your best, and the choice must be made
now.
[blockquote=Silvercat Moonpaw]This is why I see all such conflicts of confidence as stupid: to me no one is ever right enough to justify the actions I see sides taking.
I'm sorry if I'm frustrating to deal with over this issue.
[/blockquote]I actually completely agree with this, and I really wish participants in stupid conflicts would yield to logic. Unfortunately the lust for certainty and the all-encompassing and arrogant terror at being wrong that grips so much of the population (particularly ideologues and religious extremists/fundamentalists) tends to preclude this for most of the population. Which, to me, makes for fascinating literary and game material. I think your frustration with certain aspects of conflict may be linked to your dislike of "darkness" in games: you don't like ignorance, depravity, or cruelty in your games anymore than you like them in real life. Perhaps I'm twisted, but I'm the opposite: I hate those things in real life, but find them really intriguing in a fictional context. I'm not trying to change your way of thinking, just trying to understand it - you have a very unique sort of imagination.
Quote from: Steerpike[blockquote=Silvercat Moonpaw]This is why I see all such conflicts of confidence as stupid: to me no one is ever right enough to justify the actions I see sides taking.
I'm sorry if I'm frustrating to deal with over this issue.
[/blockquote]I actually completely agree with this, and I really wish participants in stupid conflicts would yield to logic. Unfortunately the lust for certainty and the all-encompassing and arrogant terror at being wrong that grips so much of the population (particularly ideologues and religious extremists/fundamentalists) tends to preclude this for most of the population.
Too many people seem to be missing some special perspective somewhere.
Quote from: SteerpikeI think your frustration with certain aspects of conflict may be linked to your dislike of "darkness" in games: you don't like ignorance, depravity, or cruelty in your games anymore than you like them in real life.'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦I'm not trying to change your way of thinking, just trying to understand it - you have a very unique sort of imagination.
They really just don't seem to translate for me like they do for other people. Possibly I'm so in touch with my own dark side that it's just overkill to take anything else in.
Quote from: Jürgen HubertOK, let's say you have doubts that your course of action is the right one. However, you think that doing nothing will actually be worse than doing it your way.
Ah, now I think I'm getting it:
The key seems to come at the point of understanding how an emotion gets people off there butts:
Negative emotions that motivate other people such as fear and hatred internalize in me and cause paralysis.
Positive emotions that motivate other people instead relax me and cause me to want to do
less.
However the statement of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" because it provokes in me annoyance, which
does motivate me. I guess if I want to understand conflict I have to think back to this feeling.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawAh, now I think I'm getting it:
The key seems to come at the point of understanding how an emotion gets people off there butts:
Negative emotions that motivate other people such as fear and hatred internalize in me and cause paralysis.
Positive emotions that motivate other people instead relax me and cause me to want to do less.
However the statement of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" because it provokes in me annoyance, which does motivate me. I guess if I want to understand conflict I have to think back to this feeling.
That's part of it, but not all.
Sometimes, it is a matter of different priorities. Let's say a fantasy kingdom is besieged on two different fronts - perhaps on one side there is an undead plague, and on the other there is a large Empire that wants to assimilate it.
The military units and the nobles on either side of the kingdom are arguing that
their side is facing the greater threat, and that they should get more of the kingdom's resources - quite understandable, since their livelihood and very survival depends on it. What is clear is that the kingdom cannot deal with either threat as long as it splits its resources. Some nobles try to be reasonable about this and desperately find a solution that will somehow help both factions. However, others have seen too many friends, allies, and family member die to their enemies that they feel that
any method is appropriate to gain an advantage over their foes, and are willing to sabotage the other faction to get their way. Yes, they shouldn't be doing that - but if you had (for example) seen your children being devoured alive by zombies, wouldn't you also get a bit unreasonable about the whole situation? And there are some people who are in the process of developing a "wonder weapon" (a mighty spell or magical artifact) capable of dealing with the threat once and for all - if only they get some additional resources. Can they be trusted to deliver? And if it actually works, does it have any unforeseen side effects? And what if the Empire has any spies in its midst that can copy the plans? And then there is some faction in the Empire that contacts your group and claims that it wants to establish peace - but right now, they don't have enough power for a coup. Perhaps the heroes would be willing to help?...
The real world is a vast sea of differing priorities and murky agendas. There should be no reason why campaign settings should be any different. It is entirely possible to have a large number of understandable, perhaps even sympathetic motivations - but mutually conflicting priorities. After all, the resources for pursuing various goals are limited, or else our world would be an utopia already. And politics is all about setting priorities, as Obama conceded during one of his debates with McCain during the campaign...
The point about motivation is still more important: I work just fine understanding that both sides would get unreasonable, but before I didn't get why. In your example the key is still an emotion: fear.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawWhat's still confusing is the second angle and motivation: What prompts people to decide violence/oppression over a more peaceful method?
honestly? convenience.
example:
sure, those native people are peaceful and happy. but they sit on that really rich vein of ore that i need to arm the defenders of my home. so i explain to them, that they should kindly move to the other side of the mountain. but those quaint little guys think that *this* side is holy. of course i know, being enlightened and all, that this is a load of BS. they are heathens and the other side of the mountain is therefore no more or less holy than this one. but they won't see reason and throw rocks at my prospectors. since it would take ages to convince them and i really need to start the strip-mining, i do what a good person of my faith does in an hour of need: send over some kill-teams to wipe the pests off my new mine.
one cornerstone of all violent conflicts is the old truism "might makes right." you don't need to explain when you are bigger than the other guy.
the other one is belief. you don't just think you're right. you know, you feel it, you believe it with all your heart. and this narrows the world down to a series of binary choices, neat and ordered: with you, or against you.
i really envy your idealism, SCMP, if you really rationally think before you act, because most people don't. or they are calculating enough to still go the fast route to achieve their goals, that's how most of our world works. i include myself into the latter part, because even in a peaceful environment like a university, not everyone can be the best. so we all manipulate, scheme, cheat, lie and bully, because at the end of the day, you don't get grades for being nice.
Quote from: ScholarQuote from: SilvercatMoonpawWhat's still confusing is the second angle and motivation: What prompts people to decide violence/oppression over a more peaceful method?
honestly? convenience.
example:
sure, those native people are peaceful and happy. but they sit on that really rich vein of ore that i need to arm the defenders of my home. so i explain to them, that they should kindly move to the other side of the mountain. but those quaint little guys think that *this* side is holy. of course i know, being enlightened and all, that this is a load of BS. they are heathens and the other side of the mountain is therefore no more or less holy than this one. but they won't see reason and throw rocks at my prospectors. since it would take ages to convince them and i really need to start the strip-mining, i do what a good person of my faith does in an hour of need: send over some kill-teams to wipe the pests off my new mine.
Or more charitably: They don't actually see mountain as holy. Furthermore, they are being oppressed by an Evil Overlord (TM) who prefers to sell this ore for very high prices to finance his Reign of Terror (TM). Surely this guy needs to be removed, right? And surely the locals will be grateful enough for their Liberation to sell the ore at lower prices, right? Everybody wins!
And how
that can work out can be seen with the recent mess in Iraq... Sure, Saddam Hussein
was an evil, ruthless dictator - but the invaders didn't quite think the consequences of their invasion through because they were too caught up in their own rhetoric. Something similar could very well happen elsewhere...
There is no single way I come up with a setting. It can be inspired by something I've read, a philosophical quandary that's been troubling me, a single evocative image, or even an unusual word that's recently stumbled into my lexicon.
In order for me to feel invested in the creation of a setting, it has to go places I haven't seen explored before. In fact, I really enjoy challenging myself through their themes, and raising interesting, even uncomfortable questions. I genuinely don't think there is any limit to what constitutes a "good" setting, as long as you and your audience/players (depending on the medium) are in the right frame of mind.