This is an issue I have come across from time to time. On occasion, you'll want to refer to something or someone in your setting who existed in our own world. You might need to reference the works of a philosopher to explain how your planes work. Or maybe it's easier to describe your new swords as being in the style of Turkey. Or maybe your religion is closely modelled on Buddhism.
But if you want to allude or build upon something from the real world in a separate fantasy world, how do you go about doing that? Do you reinvent the person, book, technology from the ground up? Do you approach it from a different direction? Do you allude to it out-of-character? Or do you simply skip it? Can a person in your word use the word Cartesian even if Descartes never existed?
To have a reasonable excuse to use the word Voltaic, I had to create a scientist with the surname of Voltari for example, and now I'm afraid I can't avoid referring to Braille to describe how the alphabet of my blind race works to give some examples. But how do you handle it?
You mean when your trying to communicate something to the players? Or for your own sake of mind?
If you are talking informally to your players, you can (in most cases) just say what you are referring to outright.
But if you write down setting information, as we do, it is more or less customary to write it as if you were some omniscient character in the setting describing his own world. So sometimes you want to include the teachings of some guy, but feel like it might be a bit pastiche to just outright copy/paste him into your setting, and sometimes you might want to use a word that has no meaning if some real world person never was there to give it meaning. Have you guys never come across something like this? I realize it is a bit hard to describe, so just interpret it liberally and answer what you think I mean and I'll attempt to clarify.
Personally, that's what I use the [note] tag for. I describe it as best I can in the main text, and stick a note next to it which better refines the concept in more real-world terms. For example, my humans are commercial, imperialistic, and rather haughty at times. That's what I put in the main text. In the sidebar, I say that they look a lot like the English of the 18th and 19th century.
As a rule I try to avoid all references to real-world proper nouns. I like your approach, Stargate.
I've never had a reason to use a real world reference in describing my setting to my players. The internet though doesn't allow for that level of interactivity though so I'm not above using it if necessary.
As a rule of thumb, you should avoid real-world references when describing things to your players (if you're in the middle of a game, otherwise, there's no problem, like you said).
However, if you are talking about describing your campaign, Stargate's approach seems quite fit.
When it comes to terms like Faustian or maverick (which is in fact the surname of a Texas horse-breeder), which don't necessarily imply a specific person but rather more vague of a concept, I'm inclined to let it slide. But for a word like, say, Shakespearean, I'd say definately not.
Stick it in a side bar, like Stargate said, or figure out a way to describe it better (such as expanding the section to convey what you need to accurately with out relying on short hand).
I'm thirding (or fourthing?) the notion that sidebars are the way to go. This is something I've been dealing with in my setting. Some of my cultures are being modeled after real world cultures; my northern humans are similar to Egyptians, my southern humans are similar to the Norse, my central humans are an amalgam of Roman/Persian elements. I find it is much more emersive to read a description and not refer to real world stuff.
But if you absolutely need to, I think it is probably best if you sort of reinvent the element within your setting. You could say "a great philosopher once said ..." and then adjust the quote so it isn't exactly plagiarizing; who's to say that "I think, therefor I am" is a concept limited to Earth?
I think that a certain amount of leeway can easily be given with things that aren't too specific. Scribble's example of the word Faustian, for instance. I think that as it can generally be assumed that the text has been somehow translated from the original Common/Elven/Ragamoll/whatever into English then we can also believe that certain words or concepts may best be translated as things with cultural references that are attached to the words.
I would agree, however, that more specific references (culture X is similar to vikings, for example) should be avoided in the main body of the text, although, as has been said, sidebars might work.
I think a lot of where you draw the line may depend on the feel you're after, too. After all, the problem I think we have with such real-world elements is that they hinder suspension of disbelief or immersion in the world. Now, I think it's all down to the tone of the setting as to what exactly is the kind of real-world element that can be included without breaking immersion and what can't.
For example, can people eat potatoes in your world, or are they too "real-world" for you? Likewise, can they use swords? I think the answer for most things, in many settings, is going to be yes, but the exceptions, the things that really break the setting, will vary depending on what's appropriate for the setting.
As an example, even in Steerpike's Cadaverous Earth, a very heavily fantastical setting, there are many such "minor" real-world elements - gunpowder firearms, silk clothes, wine, the written word, and much more - but they are all appropriate for the setting, and so don't hurt it.
So, to try to come back to the point, I think that with any such real-world reference you simply are going to have to fall back on your own knowledge of the mood you're aiming for, and decide whether or not it's appropriate....
Expanding on Kindling's comment (or part of it), it depends on what you are trying to accomplish.
The level of depth and complaexity partially determines the amounts of real world 'bleed through' that you employ. A certain amount is necessary, but drawing those lines is important. I'd never mention what religions or faiths have real-counterparts, nor reference political figures, artists, writers, etc, even in general terms. But somethimes it is useful to do so in a note to convey a feeling.
I will also say that this 'bleed-through' line gets pushed back the longer you run a campaign setting and the more you fill in. Ores, stones, metals, woods, victuals, livestock, etc have slowly been added to Celtricia to replace their real world equivs. the Marples (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/Tenimarple-and-Fidikmarple) are types of stone used for building, for example. Vneersberry (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/Vneersberry) is a shrub that produces grape-like berries, some wood, some poisons, etc.
You also start working on art and famous artists, famous writers, etc. Area styles and forms will replace real-world equivs the longer you work at it.
well there are obviously two points in this spectrum - one the one side you have over-emphasizing things in the real world, and then everything becomes boring and uncreative and trite. One the other side, you have a world that's so unrelated to the real world it's coldly detached and hard to enjoy.
I think a good way to refer to real-world cultures without saying "They are like the Romans" is to describe X group the same way someone would describe the Romans, all without using the word "Romans" - for instance, saying culture X is an militant empire of engineers, known for their seemingly contradictory love for both law and debauchery.
that's just a quick example, and obviously very Roman. I would argue that the majority of people have subliminal ideas of what certain things are like, and automatically start shaping things in our minds according to these - Geeks and pillars, Egyptians and pyramids, Vikings and axes.
So if you indeed want to make a Buddhist-like religion, including things like meditation, a setting-specific Nirvana, holy teachers, monasteries and monks would help. You could even go as far as to include things like snowy-mountain temples, big golden statues, chanting, mantras, prayers wheels, and orange robes if you wanted to not-so elusively elude to real-world Buddhism.
I would also second Steerpike in not using proper nouns.
Quote from: LeetzGeeks and pillars
Geeks love them there pillars. Sorry, had to point out the typo before you caught it, saved for posterity and all that.
Speaking of pillars and Greeks, my Tritons are supposed to come off as vaguely Greek. They're largely democratic, they have wide open buildings with pillars and no roofs, and they wear robes. But I'll never use the word "Greek" or any conjugation therein in actual writeup information (though I have in writeups given to my two artists).
I'm thirding the "no proper noun" rule. Probably should keep an eye on verbed proper nouns too (Faustian is okay, though, since it refers to more than just Faust; Shakespearean isn't, as was previously said). "Sword" is fine, though, unless you want your swords to look like axes and that's just going to confuse people (see "if it walks like a duck ..." later).
I'm watching my use of animal, plant, vegetable, and fruit names, but that's because my world is Earth in the far future and some things aren't around anymore, while other things changed. My guiding principal is "if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it's a duck": Werewolves are called werewolves, even though there aren't any regular wolves (they, along with most of the modern large land carnivores, died out, except for the werewolves and humanoid wolves that were created through genetic engineering by modern man).
A very good point was brought up: in fantasy literature, odds are the book world is being "translated" into English, or whatever language you're writing (unless you're doing some AU Earth stuff). Unless you're going to go to the trouble of writing your own languages, lots of things are going to be fine.
Now, my knowledge of grammar isn't exactly grounded in the english language, so when you say proper nouns you mean names of person, places, things like that? Or would you not use the word "electricity" for example?
Yeah, a proper noun is the name of a person or a specific place. A sword's a noun, but Excalibur is a proper noun. Human's a noun, but Julius Caesar is a proper noun.
Hmm, yeah, so no referencing Platon directly for example. But what about me naming a guy Ozmael Voltari to have a reason to call electricity-related things Voltaic? Should I just give the guy a less reality-based name and pretend that Voltaic had some other origin, or is the renaming a better way to go? (the real Volt-guy was Alessandro Volta, so there is a significant difference)
I like it. It sounds like "Voltair" to me.
I think it depends to be honest. In a fantasy game, naming your big all powerful beings after earth mythology could be considered stretching it.
However if your fantasy game is founded in reality I don't see a problem with referencing real world things. For example Steerpike's Tempter makes regular references to Christian and Catholic derived superstitions and beliefs. But it's primary point is based within those ideas and so it couldn't really exist without them.
Even moreso if your setting is an extension of earth (future history/alternate history) there's nothing wrong with using real world things. So what if your fleet's flagship is named the Poseidon, your game is an extension of real world history and thus no suspension of disbelief is lost.
Hmm. So it's more or less customary to use an omniscient narrator from within the setting; fair enough, but on the other hand who exactly is the narrator speaking to? Is the audience a prospective character or GM, or is the reader assumed to have already adopted a fictional persona, but one who is ignorant of the setting in question? Sometimes I find the idea of speaking as the setting's creator directly to the reader very appealing. That's ultimately what you're doing either way, no matter how many layers of prose you wrap it in.
Ursula Le Guin's The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas comes to mind as a short story that is pretty much pure setting description related directly to the reader, and that is essential to the story's power. The same can be true of a setting, as roleplaying isn't necessarily about escapism, and immersion doesn't require disconnecting from the real. Depending on the setting's themes, tying it back to reality - for the purpose of comparison, clarification or whatever - can heighten the player's interest; it needn't be a distraction.
With that in mind I don't see anything inherently wrong in mentioning someone like Plato directly in your setting. Say for example you're creating a setting based on Platonic realism, where reality is governed by ambiguously intelligent universals who shape the world in their image (I think Neal Stephenson's Anathem deals with a religion based on this). Now you could be totally in-setting in your description of these forces and their influence on reality or you could tell the reader what Plato said and weave that into what's true in the setting. Totally different vibe but just as valid.
I guess I'm not actually disagreeing with anyone here. Generally speaking, be very careful with those earthling proper nouns. But sometimes a hard-hitting anachronism (anaplanism?) could be exactly what you need.
I'll just get right to the meat of the issue, as I see it:
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowCan a person in your word use the word Cartesian even if
Descartes never existed?
That depends on how much of Descartes you'd have to take away before you could say he "never existed". Certainly, you can't take away every last bit of resemblance from everybody in the world; Descartes was, after all, a humanoid, and it's hard to remove all of those from most settings. But is it still Descartes if the only difference is that he never made that comment about thinking and am'ing?
Checking out some of Phillip Pullman's quantum worldbuilding, I think it's not too unreasonable to use the word "cartesian" within your world, even if Descartes didn't exist. It's no more unreasonable than the word "derigibles", anyway.
An alternate question, which could lead to an interesting experiment, is what sort of world could be designed with minimal (if any?) real-world references? What if it can't have towers, for them being too civilized, or even too human? I'm not sure real-world references could be entirely excluded.
Ultimately, the balance between an encyclopedia and an ilegible rambled world depends on what you're going for with your setting. Just make sure there's internal consistency.
Edit-- Due to tiredness, I'm throwing in a bonus. This comment, made by Rael in my Fiendspawn thread, seems very relevant. It reminds me much of the writer's aphorism "show, don't tell":
Quote from: Rael"I have a setting that is analogous to renaissance Europe but with a heavy inclusion of undead, Xenomorphs from the Alien series, and a tone like the Hellsing movie." Saying that will do nothing but make my reader gag and leave. After all, it's like I'm butchering animals and waving around the parts while yelling "Lookit me! I'm a cook!" To get a better reaction, I take the essence of what I am inspired by and try to duplicate it. I might like the political and technological climate of Europe, so I try to work that in. Xenomorphs are a part of the setting because they are monsters and I like the way they move. So I create raptor-like beasts that lurk in the woods and attack at night. I wrap this up and I find that I'm more interested in the concepts of Monsters and Men, thus becoming focal points for the setting. If I'm able to portray this with a Hellsing-ish feel, I've done my job, and perhaps my readers will see a sandwich instead of a liver.
Hmm, about that "can we make something without referencing anything?" I remember some of the writings of the philosopher Hume where he proposed that every creative thought was made up by parts of previous observations. If you knew what gold what and you knew what a mountain was you could put that together to make a gold mountain. But coming up with something, according to his theory, was always just a matter of putting together old things in a new way.
A wise man once said there is nothing new under the sun...
Then we must go beyond! :P
I think that while creating a setting in written form, such as how you would post one here, it is very important to have something like the sidebars mentioned above. Describing things from withing the setting is great when you can but it isn't always possible to do well.
My setting (http://thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?78477.last) is supposedly written by a traveller from our world who visited it, so 'he' can use comparisons to real-world things freely.