When it comes to skin color in setting, you often don't see a lot of variance. Mostly, the main peoples of the setting are white and those far far away are black or dark-skinned.
The reason for this is probably simply that most setting makers are caucasian, but it still seems a bit lacking. Personally, I'd like to add some color to my setting, but the question is where?
Traditionally, black skin develops in tropical regions, but supposedly black-skinned migrants can keep the color if they live off fish and other food sources rich in vitamin D (or that is what wikipedia tells me...), and since it directly depends on UV radiation it might also develop/stay in mountaineous regions.
Also, there is that inevitable question of culture. Many revert to the black-skinned being tribal. I actually don't think this has much to do with racism, but rather is a result of both tribalism and black skin being associated with the distant and the exotic. So is this the way to do it? Why aren't there more powerful black-skinned empires?
So what are your thougts on this? How have you implemented skin color in your own setting? When does the inclusion of skin color in a certain culture or climate region conflict with suspension of disbelief?
and for good order, a disclaimer: if this in any way seems racially insensitive (I sincerely hope it's difficult to interpret it that way), then I apologize.
Interesting topic CC. I don't think anthropologists consider themselves racist when they discuss the distribution of racial qualities across the world.
I really can't say I ever really thought about it. I think of Robert E. Howard and his work on Conan's world. He used names for people and places that naturally conjured an aesthetic, granted it was a drastically different time for society in the 20's and 30's, but he was definately on to something when he used names like Vanahem and Asgard to bring to mind fair skinned peoples, with a distinct barbarian/nordic quality.
Likewise, mysterious names like Vendhya, and Khitai bring to mind distant lands (when using the west as a point of reference).
Not to mention blatant use of Zembabwei in some of his southern (predominantly black) kingdoms. Probably a poor example, given the racial tension of the times. Actually I think the reason nobody ever brings it up is precisely for that reason.
Then again one would hope that creators such as ourselves would have the maturity to pursue racial diversity in a setting, breaking the norms (i.e. your tribal example) and stereotypes.
In my own work I have rarely described the skin tones of humans. I think this leaves it somewhat open to interpretation. As to how I imagine their pigmentation myself, I will say I rarely imagine them as being black or east-asian people, but similarly they are rarely exactly caucasian as such. I suppose I tend to think of the human inhabitants of my settings as being essentially members of a kind of "fantasy" human race which is, perhaps obviously, neither European, African, or Asian but may share some qualities with peoples originating in all three.
The exception would be when my cultures are to a greater or lesser degree based on real-world analogues, such as in my current Iron Heroes game, where I will imagine the people to be of roughly the same racial type as their real-world analogues - so the Severians, for example, are roughly Mediterranean in appearance, while the barbarian peoples of the further north look more Germanic/Scandinavian/slightly Slavic.
Interesting post! I tried to mitigate this in my setting by tying skin color to different things besides UV radiation and worldly location, such as magic, or perhaps moons. It's a little "out there," but it generally made me exempt from my players claims that I never mentioned there being any dark skinned people in my setting, to which I responded "But I never described any of them as light skinned either!" In that sense, I can relate with Kindling in that I rarely describe the skin colors of the people around my players... but I can attribute that more to my own laziness rather than actually intending for it to remain universally "open to interpretation."
I think it would be refreshing to see a setting that actually brought this to the front burner and worked with it, especially if it was ever inverted: perhaps light skinned people were, for whatever reason, the more stereotypical tribal types, and dark skinned people were chalked up to being more "modernized" and whatnot. For me, having the dark skinned people remain as the typical "foreigner" was always easy, since I could easily mention the skin color and my players would leap to that conclusion without further analysis (all the more reason to really flip their lids with an introversion on the trope!). I don't think that makes me or anyone else racist or anything, we're probably just a little too comfortable within the stereotype or unintentionally naive to it.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowAlso, there is that inevitable question of culture. Many revert to the black-skinned being tribal. I actually don't think this has much to do with racism, but rather is a result of both tribalism and black skin being associated with the distant and the exotic. So is this the way to do it? Why aren't there more powerful black-skinned empires?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Egyptian_races.jpg[/img]
One kingdom aside from the Egyptians in North Africa was the Kush, made up of the aforementioned Nubians, located just south of Egypt on the Nile. We don't actually know much about them, and most of what we do know is through Egyptian. But this is clear, they were in a constant back-and-forth with the early Egyptian kings, being conquered for a time, gaining independence, and later conquering Egypt, with territory running from modern-day Ethiopia to modern-day Jordan, and left behind a distinct style of pyramid.
Now on to the other parts of Africa, which few people know about. As a quick note, the Sahara Desert at the end of the last Ice Age was actually a fertile valley. In West Africa, you might recognize the name of a city: Timbuktu. It was a city in the Mali Empire, and rivaled Alexandria as a seat of knowledge and learning. The Mali Empire would later become the Songhai Empire. Eventually, after ruling a large portion of West Africa, it fractured due to civil wars in to numerous small kingdoms, which were later swallowed up by the European rush to colonize Africa.
East and South Africa were never heavily civilized into kingdoms or empires, but did have many city-states. East Africa was renowned as a trading location, especially between the Persian Gulf and India (and further areas East). South Africa was marked with the expansion of the Bantu people, who brought agriculture from Central Africa, and their descendants founded the Kingdom of Zimbabwe in the Iron Age, and the much later Zulu Kingdom, which is well-known for its struggle against the British Empire's attempt to colonize Southern Africa (and to push the existing Dutch settlers out).
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowSo what are your thougts on this? How have you implemented skin color in your own setting? When does the inclusion of skin color in a certain culture or climate region conflict with suspension of disbelief?
Basically, I have it line up to climate. I like using stuff from anthropology and biology when I make a setting. I do not, however, line it up with culture; the only relation there is our perceptions from the real world, many of which are less than optimal.
I generally assume a middling skin tone - not white, but also not very dark - unless there's a good reason to say otherwise.
Great post, limetom. That is all :)
In a lot of fantasy and sci-fi settings, various sentient species (elves, dwarves, aliens, whatever) can make a handy stand-in for race, in that they allow us to examine themes of xenophobia, prejudice, etc. while keeping contentious real-world issues comfortably at arms' length.
This is important, because it's clear that even in fiction, race issues are volatile when handled incautiously-- consider the recent Resident Evil (I think?) videogame, about putting down a voodoo zombie uprising in Haiti (I think?), and how many people read that in terms of "heroic white protagonist guns down scores of shambling black enemies".
Anybody remember Kingdoms of Kalamar (http://www.kenzerco.com/index.php?cPath=25_28)? (Anybody? Is it just me?) This was a standard D&D setting, human-centric, detail-focused. It had a handful of different human subraces which were obviously direct analogues to real-world human ethnicities-- the Mediterranean dudes, the African dudes, etc. I don't remember whether there was a stat difference involved in picking one over another (but ugh, I think there was), but it made me more than a little uncomfortable!
But how would you react to, e.g., black-skinned people in mountaineous or arctic regions?
I have a slightly related question here (hope I don't derail this). What are people's thoughts on alternative skin pigmentation (reds, greens, blues, etc)?
For humans or for other races?
I've always been more interested in nonhuman races, so just applying colors to "humans" would seem trivial and unoriginal to me (even slightly annoying; what's up with the Pathfinder gnomes?!). (orcs are in this case considered unhuman to me).
On other races it doesn't bother me.
Quote from: SarisaI really can't say I ever really thought about it. I think of Robert E. Howard and his work on Conan's world.
[...]
Not to mention blatant use of Zembabwei in some of his southern (predominantly black) kingdoms.
Nothing blatant about it. Howard himself defined Conan's world as being
our world in a past, forgotten era some 10,000+ years ago. Memories of words and names from that age were supposed to have carried over to languages of later times.
Anyway, if you want to find racism in REH's setting, forget about the names and look at the plots and characterization in the stories. *cough*TheValeofLostWomen*cough*
Quote from: The_Weave05I think it would be refreshing to see a setting that actually brought this to the front burner and worked with it, especially if it was ever inverted: perhaps light skinned people were, for whatever reason, the more stereotypical tribal types, and dark skinned people were chalked up to being more "modernized" and whatnot.
In the Earthsea books by Ursula K. Le Guin most of the civilized peoples are dark or somewhat dark-skinned, while the white-skinned blond-haired Kargs are nasty barbarians.
Quote from: Cataclysmic Crowhow would you react to, e.g., black-skinned people in mountaineous or arctic regions?
I'd ask for some explanation (could be supernatural such as "the god(s) created them and put them there", or something natural such as "they migrated there fairly recently"), seeing as it clearly contrasts with how human evolution reacted to sunlight conditions on Earth. Less so in the case of mountaineous regions, though - I really don't see how living up on the mountains would influence skin tone much. I'd expect tropical mountain-dwellers to be as dark-skinned as tropical lowlanders.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowFor humans or for other races?
I've always been more interested in nonhuman races, so just applying colors to "humans" would seem trivial and unoriginal to me (even slightly annoying; what's up with the Pathfinder gnomes?!). (orcs are in this case considered unhuman to me).
On other races it doesn't bother me.
Other races, reason I ask is I do it blatantly in Mare Eternus. The only race that has human skin tone is the Nicu. All the others are pigmented differently (Maeri = blue, Gerrag = green, Aerlin = white, Tilei = brown/tan/green).
I'd say at that point it may become questionable whether those people truly are humans, or something else that you've decided to label as humans.
I guess it could work. I know I would have no problem with a fantasy setting where a peculiar "race" of humans had some minor, yet obviously unnatural features, such as four-fingered hands, or webbed feet, while being considered by other humans as no more weird nor distinctive than those with a different color of skin from their own.
It really depends on the underlying philosophy of the setting; on how humanity (and the distinction of species from one another in general) is defined/approached. The more "scientific" the world-view is, the more difficult it is to deviate from real world norms without jeopardizing the feel of the setting.
Quote from: GhostmanI'd say at that point it may become questionable whether those people truly are humans, or something else that you've decided to label as humans.
I guess it could work. I know I would have no problem with a fantasy setting where a peculiar "race" of humans had some minor, yet obviously unnatural features, such as four-fingered hands, or webbed feet, while being considered by other humans as no more weird nor distinctive than those with a different color of skin from their own.
It really depends on the underlying philosophy of the setting; on how humanity (and the distinction of species from one another in general) is defined/approached. The more "scientific" the world-view is, the more difficult it is to deviate from real world norms without jeopardizing the feel of the setting.
Was this a response to my post? Because Mare Eternus doesn't have humans.
Going by what we know of anthropology and science and what have you would be the best way to go about it IMO.
Normally, I tend to just gloss over it. That being said, most people in my settings tend to look somewhat mediterranean (no idea why).
For Eldritch Earth the only "normal" humans can change their complexions and other physical characteristics more or less at will through magic. The creatures that (perhaps ironically) actually resemble what we think of as humans most closely have swirling white stars on inky black skins (nebuloids) - flesh the colour of a vacuum.
I also tend to gloss over it... The same way I gloss over gender issues. It's just not worth the (potential) hassle.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonIn a lot of fantasy and sci-fi settings, various sentient species (elves, dwarves, aliens, whatever) can make a handy stand-in for race, in that they allow us to examine themes of xenophobia, prejudice, etc. while keeping contentious real-world issues comfortably at arms' length.
This is important, because it's clear that even in fiction, race issues are volatile when handled incautiously-- consider the recent Resident Evil (I think?) videogame, about putting down a voodoo zombie uprising in Haiti (I think?), and how many people read that in terms of "heroic white protagonist guns down scores of shambling black enemies".
Anybody remember Kingdoms of Kalamar (http://www.kenzerco.com/index.php?cPath=25_28)? (Anybody? Is it just me?) This was a standard D&D setting, human-centric, detail-focused. It had a handful of different human subraces which were obviously direct analogues to real-world human ethnicities-- the Mediterranean dudes, the African dudes, etc. I don't remember whether there was a stat difference involved in picking one over another (but ugh, I think there was), but it made me more than a little uncomfortable!
I remember Kalamar all right. One of the rulebooks had artwork of a bunch of tribal warriors standing together that gave me that feeling. I can recall reading an issue of Dragon (#293 I think it was; bought the issue but it's been lost for a long time) that had an advertisement or two, complete with praise for it's realism and attention to detail. Didn't actually seem like a very good campaign setting for any reason, when contrasted with Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms.
In Vibrant, I've been considering this issue of skin complexion for a very long time - my two trains of thought were either to allow humans to have a general "merge" of color, explained away by more and more frequent marriage between humans of the various current races over the 1200 or so years leading up to Vibrant's current year. In the end, I decided to stick with the general diversity of complexions and try to include much more equal ratios between them - which I think I've done well - simply because the other option didn't seem to make as much sense when compared to alien species that retained these distinctions. This is also the case too with Haveneast and any other fantasy settings I've worked on, although I do try to group colors more and follow the anthropological/biological reasoning for them.
As a side note, a lot of the characters I've played in the past, including those in video games including appearance customization, have been "black," "Mediterranean," or "Asian." In fact, the only ones I can recall that haven't been nonwhite were a human fighter/blackguard I played in a friend's D&D3e campaign when I was 15 or 16, and my Commander Shepard in Mass Effect/ME2. Not sure why.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowBut how would you react to, e.g., black-skinned people in mountaineous or arctic regions?
must[/i] have been.
Altitude generally doesn't affect skin color (e.g. South American natives in the Andes look about the same as other natives in the Amazon basin). What it does affect is height and general body shape.
For arctic regions, they would be recent migrants. "Recent" in genetic terms; it could take 50 000 to 100 000 years for skin color changes to take place.
I think the safest thing to do is go by climate, as lime mentions. If most are defaulting to temperate climate, that might be the reason for the predominance of light skin.
In my own setting, I have four cultures/ethnicities of humans, and a number of races which are human-like enough that their skin color can come into question. Of the humans, the northerners are dark skinned (tropical climate), the centrealers are olive skinned (sub-tropical/temperate), and the southerners are light skinned (temperate/near arctic). Dwarves are light (subterrainean) and dark (surface). Elves are colored more for their biomes, ranging from light to dark browns. Halflings are tan or red skinned (Halflings are a dangerous issue, since they have tails and are quite monkeylike, I'm consciously avoiding issues here). The other races are so unlike humans that it doesn't really matter.
My intention is that every human shade of skin color exists in the races that have human-like skin. This way if that is something that is important for a player, they can play a race of whatever color they want.
My stories currently focus on the central region, so characters are more olive in skin tone.
And as someone said, the speculative fiction genre as a whole is very useful for dealing with real world issues like racism. Somehow it is easier for people to swallow it when it's hidden under the guise of humans vs. elves, rather than whites vs. blacks.
Olive-skinned/mediterranean actually seems to be a popular choice, appearing in a couple of settings. Maybe because it is sort of "in between"). I believe several people in e.g. the Wheel of Time are described as such. (a setting which actually diverges from having blacks as tribals, rather focussing on the exotic/mysterious aspects, apparently being a partial exception to what I talked about before).
But what about eskimos/inuits for example? While not black, they are fairly dark-skinned.
I think I'll avoid having any of my northern people being black, then, and instead going with one of the ancient empires being essentially black, and a few of their Houses have survived in the North through the years through marriages with other Houses.
In the above example, what could the empire stand for without it being "insensitive"? Are there any limits?
And I remember the Resident Evil 5 trailer... I had a nagging feeling when I saw it, that some people would interpret it in a very bad way.
Honestly, this isn't something I've thought about too much. If I want a character to convey a certain feel, I'll go for stereotypes. The lone, mysterious, foreign assassin is going to have darker skin and dress strangely. The evil, greedy, aristocrat is going to be very white and wear (probably brightly colored) extravagant clothing.
I think, more than anything else, it is really just that most white people do tend to associate the darker skin colors with more exotic places and ways of life.
Though I don't think I've mentioned it, I have always just assumed that the ordinary people in my primary setting (Natu, that is) are nonwhite. They're not "black people" but I always pictured them as having more of a middle eastern look because that's what just comes to mind for me. Honestly, the inspirations for the setting are as much African, European, and even Japanese as they are middle eastern but I just think that look works well for it. I also like that any foreigners encountered would be more like the ordinary white-skinned knights or merchants that would be all over the place in a normal fantasy game.
Just a little random note to add in but I just realized that I always play Redguards in Oblivion.
I wish I wasn't so busy as I am now. This site has the most interesting posts.
In Celtricia, I think originally I was very affected by the hyborian and tolkien ideals, in that of the original 3 clans of humans, Clan Wastri (slightly smaller, they are closest to southern asians in our world) went south and east, where Clan Khalil (My VERY black folk) went south to what would become the Ommish and Ambrellian areas.
However, they, like other races, were brought into the being this way by the Planars that are to blame, as opposed to any evolutionary changes.
All Gnomics are slightly olive complected, so Hybern Klaxiks tend toward that. Kann and Black Klaxiks are very dark, similarly to Khalil humans. (Yes, Black dwarves are...)
Owmo~, the first born, have a few interesting complexions and colorations, though more 'artsy'...
The last custom setting I actually ran games in was based around a Mediterranean-like inland sea (not actually inland, but you get my drift), and most of the people living around it had correspondingly Mediterranean features. There was a major regional power more evocative of the Egyptian and Persian empire whose people had somewhat darker skin, and a more distant kingdom of people I imagined to have African features that occasionally sent trading fleets to the Mediterranean-like region.
As some others have mentioned, for me the use of skin color in humans is done mostly as a response to climate. In my settings, humans (and demihumans) that live in warmer climates tend to be darker skinned, and to some degree I expect that in other settings (though I don't think it would bother me terribly if it wasn't followed - populations, after all, can move). It's only an issue for me if everyone is basically the same - a "world of white people" bothers me. I'm aware most authors aren't making a conscious choice at all, but I've been taught to evaluate literature critically and to notice implicit assumptions of race, religion, culture, and so on (thanks professors) and I'm unable to set that aside even when I know it's just fantasy.
So I just realized something about Mare Eternus... it doesn't have a sun. Thus there is no scientific reason for hotter areas to create darker skin shades as hotter areas aren't hot due to more sunlight. So then that begs the question, what purpose if any is there to having varying degrees of darkness in skin shades for the locals?
Quote from: NomadicSo I just realized something about Mare Eternus... it doesn't have a sun. Thus there is no scientific reason for hotter areas to create darker skin shades as hotter areas aren't hot due to more sunlight. So then that begs the question, what purpose if any is there to having varying degrees of darkness in skin shades for the locals?
Camouflage seems like the most obvious answer. If one population of a race lives in a kelp forest, they might have developed a greener complexion over time. Depth might conceivably make a difference too, but as I recall there's really no "depth" in ME so that's not relevant here.
Less obvious answers might be diet (like Flamingos, who are pink because of the plankton they ingest) or sexual selection (we like our males with red stripes; over there, they like them with purple stripes). And since this is fantasy, magical fiddling and inter-species breeding might also play a role.
In the context of this discussion, I'm curious as to what people's thoughts are on published settings such as Nyambe: African Adventures or Legend of the Five Rings, which are intentionally - but perhaps somewhat ham-fistedly (or so it seems to me from what little I know of them) - rejecting the Eurocentrism of conventional fantasy settings.
Quote from: KindlingIn the context of this discussion, I'm curious as to what people's thoughts are on published settings such as Nyambe: African Adventures or Legend of the Five Rings, which are intentionally - but perhaps somewhat ham-fistedly (or so it seems to me from what little I know of them) - rejecting the Eurocentrism of conventional fantasy settings.
Settings drawing their inspiration from different sources, is like different flavours of ice cream. Would you consider going for strawberry or cherry as "intentional rejecting of chocolate" just because chocolate happened to be dominating the market?
Fair enough, perhaps I chose my words poorly, but still, I'd like to know what people think.
[blockquote=Kindling]In the context of this discussion, I'm curious as to what people's thoughts are on published settings such as Nyambe: African Adventures or Legend of the Five Rings, which are intentionally - but perhaps somewhat ham-fistedly (or so it seems to me from what little I know of them) - rejecting the Eurocentrism of conventional fantasy settings. [/blockquote]If the setting were created simply to be different from Eurocentric fantasy, I find that a little silly, like the setting has a chip on its shoulder. However, I'm definitely all for variation in fantasy and for breaking out of moulds that are getting a little cliched. If the setting chosen was chosen because it would make a good setting, that's good enough for me. As the creator says on the Nyambe site:
[blockquote=Christopher Dolunt]"My motivation for creating Nyambe was simple. Africa was a major part of the Earth that has little or no representation in fantasy literature, let alone RPGs. When it does appear, it usually follows the pulp fiction model: steaming jungles, bloodthirsty cannibals, and dark gods long forgotten by the civilized races. Of course, historical Africa was nothing like that, so my goal for Nyambe was to create a fantasy version of Africa based on the actual history and mythology of Africa, rather than previous fantasy depictions. So, I went about taking snippets of history or myth, and twisting them, adding fantasy elements or changing specifics to make them fit into an OGL world."[/blockquote]
Now, whether or not Nyambe is a good setting or not, I don't know. It's possible it comes off as a little too insistent on the African theme, in a way that Eurocentric fantasy might not feel it has to. But for all I know it could be quite brilliant. Being set in Africa doesn't count for or against it, in my opinion...
[blockquote=Steerpike][blockquote=Kindling]In the context of this discussion, I'm curious as to what people's thoughts are on published settings such as Nyambe: African Adventures or Legend of the Five Rings, which are intentionally - but perhaps somewhat ham-fistedly (or so it seems to me from what little I know of them) - rejecting the Eurocentrism of conventional fantasy settings. [/blockquote]
If the setting were created simply to be different from Eurocentric fantasy, I find that a little silly, like the setting has a chip on its shoulder. However, I'm definitely all for variation in fantasy and for breaking out of moulds that are getting a little cliched. If the setting chosen was chosen because it would make a good setting, that's good enough for me. [/blockquote]
Carthage and Persia get the Shaft in the traditional western civ ideal, it's true. There is some valaue to taking another look at the cultures that were maionly portrayed as the enemies of Greece and Rome, as powerful foils.
I remember placing the idea of a roughly Byzantine feel to one of my areas, and an Ottoman feel to another, I think this happenned after a rather escellent history course back in College.
Also, to be more direct in my answer to Kindling's query, there is a grey area between a more fair, complete look at history and the following revisions and the same revisionism with underlying motive...they can sound very similar at first. History is a continual conversation between the past and the present. The same motivations are the issue with the question.
As I said above, I think I chose my words wrongly in my original post asking for opinions on Nyambe and L5R - I didn't mean to put the focus so much on the idea that they might be "rejecting" eurocentrism per se, but just wondered how people viewed such settings that were just as afrocentric or japanocentric as Greyhawk (or whatever) is euroentric... as I said I don't know a huge load about either Nyambe or L5R but they seem from the little I've read to be to be just moving standard D&D around geographically (not that there's anything implicitly wrong with that)
I agree with Steerpike. If it's just "hey, most settings are based on Europe, let's base ours on Africa/Asia just to be different and not base ours on Europe," that's fine, but there has to be something interesting in the setting, and it has to feel like it's based on Africa. I'd hope and expect that the traditional races, monsters, cultures, and such were replaced with something more suited to African or Asian traditions. If they do that, it may have a lot less of a "just moving D&D around" feel, because then it's essentially doing what the originators of Eurocentric fantasy did, only in an African/Asian context. What would not work nearly as well would be to simply try to shoehorn the traditional D&D races, monsters, and whatnot into the new context. Unfortunately, I fear many D&D players would be disappointed if the setting had no equivalent of dwarves, for example. Of course, I've never looked inside Nyambe or L5R, so I have no idea which approach they took. I do remember the old "Oriental Aventures" book, which did pretty much just try to shoehorn traditional D&D into Asian myth (or the other way around, if you prefer) and it wasn't so great...
Quote from: sparkletwistIf it's just "hey, most settings are based on Europe, let's base ours on Africa/Asia just to be different and not base ours on Europe," that's fine, but there has to be something interesting in the setting, and it has to feel like it's based on Africa.
different[/i], but it shouldn't seem like it's different
on purpose.
This is a weird position to put an author in. Why isn't wanting to be different enough motivation? I put things in my settings all the time "just to be different." Now, the fact that something is original or different doesn't make it good, but I freely admit to seeking new and original ideas just for the sake of being original. Isn't that what creativity is?
Quote from: SteerpikeIf the setting were created simply to be different from Eurocentric fantasy, I find that a little silly, like the setting has a chip on its shoulder. However, I'm definitely all for variation in fantasy and for breaking out of moulds that are getting a little cliched. If the setting chosen was chosen because it would make a good setting, that's good enough for me.
...
Now, whether or not Nyambe is a good setting or not, I don't know. It's possible it comes off as a little too insistent on the African theme, in a way that Eurocentric fantasy might not feel it has to. But for all I know it could be quite brilliant. Being set in Africa doesn't count for or against it, in my opinion...
There is a similar tension here. You're all for breaking molds, but perceive someone who actively attempts to break molds a having "a chip on their shoulder." It's almost as if the author is expected to break molds by accident: The author, in search of great setting material, just happens to stumble upon some African mythology and decides it would make a great addition. But if the author thinks "I would like to base this particular culture/setting on African mythology" and then goes and does his research, it's somehow not as good.
When people on this site talk about finding inspiration, they often state that a certain culture is based on a "Persian" or "Byzantine" (etc.) motif, or maybe some mix of several real-world traditions and mythologies. We do this because it conveys ideas and feelings, but we also do it to explore the interesting points of new cultures that we may not have worked with or played in before. Is this silly? Again, what's wrong with being different for the sake of being different?
I guess the way I see it is that being original and breaking moulds is always good, but doesn't always guarantee the work itself is going to be good simply because it avoids cliches, in the same way that a Eurocentric setting isn't automatically bad because it employs some of them. What I was trying to get at (probably very ineloquently) is that I can imagine certain settings resting too heavily on their different-ness rather than on qualities a more "traditional" setting might focus on (detailed, versimilar societies or history for example, or interesting narrative threads).
I suppose in essence my point is that I'm always all for variation and breaking down the idea of a default setting/mythology, just not at the expense of quality in other arenas. Having read a bit more of Nyambe, it doesn't seem to sacrifice anything, so it avoids the pitfall I described. Nothing wrong with being different for the sake of being different, so long as "different" isn't all that the setting is constituted by. Does that make sense?
Quote from: sparkletwistIf it's just "hey, most settings are based on Europe, let's base ours on Africa/Asia just to be different and not base ours on Europe," that's fine, but there has to be something interesting in the setting, and it has to feel like it's based on Africa.
different[/i], but it shouldn't seem like it's different
on purpose.
This is a weird position to put an author in. Why isn't wanting to be different enough motivation? I put things in my settings all the time "just to be different." Now, the fact that something is original or different doesn't make it good, but I freely admit to seeking new and original ideas just for the sake of being original. Isn't that what creativity is?[/quote]feel[/i] different. If it just plays like normal D&D with mostly black people instead of mostly white people, that's not an African setting, that's normal D&D where the characters look different. That's why I mentioned "Oriental Adventures"-- it was less of an Asian setting, and more of regular D&D, only with Asians. I should also clarify, I'm not saying that Nyambe does that, because I don't know anything about Nyambe.
Quote from: http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?79617.0this recent thread[/url], for instance), and it often leads to good material.
What I think is unfortunate is that the more obscure the source (that is, "obscure" in relation to medieval Europe and "standard" fantasy), the greater the burden that seems to be placed on fantasy authors to prove that they aren't just "being original for the sake of being original," which usually comes with the insinuation that the author isn't focused on quality because he's too busy being different or politically correct (I am, by the way, not saying that anyone here made this insinuation, it's just that I have seen it go hand in hand with the "being original for the sake of originality" allegation many times). It's a double standard, and one that has the potential to discourage people from exploring new sources and producing good work.
Quote from: sparkletwistSimply saying "Hey, my setting is based on Africa instead of Europe! Look how different that is!" isn't enough, it has to actually feel different. If it just plays like normal D&D with mostly black people instead of mostly white people, that's not an African setting, that's normal D&D where the characters look different. That's why I mentioned "Oriental Adventures"-- it was less of an Asian setting, and more of regular D&D, only with Asians.
I think I agree with that - though I haven't played either OA or Nyambe. All I would say is that it's good to be open minded about these things. It's easy to say "this is so unoriginal, it's just like medieval Europe" and be unaware that things you consider to be characteristically European - like, say, the feudal relationship between a monarch and an armed, landed nobility - actually appear in multiple other cultures around the world. The way we decide if something "feels different" often hinges on these preconceptions we have about what is "European" and what is "foreign," which sometimes leads us to expect an 'authenticity' that isn't really authentic.
Quote from: sparkletwistSimply saying "Hey, my setting is based on Africa instead of Europe! Look how different that is!" isn't enough, it has to actually feel different. If it just plays like normal D&D with mostly black people instead of mostly white people, that's not an African setting, that's normal D&D where the characters look different. That's why I mentioned "Oriental Adventures"-- it was less of an Asian setting, and more of regular D&D, only with Asians.
The 3.5 oriental Adventures WAS a good attempt at bring the Western-centric design of D&D into an Asian setting with out designing a completely new system. Personally I think the book's biggest failing was that it embraced too much of Asia and didn't focus enough on what people really wanted - an amalgam of Feudal Japan and pre-Qing-Dynasty China. It's failure to really capture that feel is what leads many down the path of 'its just D&D with a asian people.' Personally, I think the book is solid enough to be a great jumping off point for anyone who wants to construct an 'Oriental' setting and if player's complain about it feeling too much like an Asian gloss on a 'Western' setting, then they only have their DM to blame.
Again, what this (and many) threads boil down to is the treatment of culture, and the attempt to simulate hundreds or thousands of years of interwoven interaction and the resultant effects of same in game, rule, and setting-speak.
Also, due to the way cultures treat caste and social class, as well as family and wealth, many rulesets and games will be over whelmed and the attempt to do something different for the setting becomes more obviously two dimensional. Polycarp's note about something feeling different ties into this, in that a ruleset and setting made with depth, that ties the crunch to the fluff of the different cultural situation will be the only way this will succeed in feeling right, and for people looking for (subconsiously or consiously) certain touchpoints that are missing, the game might still feel wrong.