Settings and Biology - How do You Do It?

Xathan · May 17, 2011, 12:53:55 PM

I've recently become interested in a genre known as Speculative Biology - basically, speculation on how life would have evolved in other situations, either extra-terrestrial or if conditions on Earth were/become different. It's one of those things that impacts the world you make - while monster manuals are fine, they often hurt my immersion more than they help because the "natural" creatures seem so...haphazard.

So I guess what I'm asking is how do you handle biology/creatures in your setting? Evolution, Magical Influences, Deific Creation, something else, or some combination thereof - and how does it impact things in your world? ("It" referring to both where creatures originated from and how they developed afterwards)

Also, as a secondary question - how much do such details alter how you feel about a setting? Dull and tedious or increase overall immersion or somewhere between or some reaction I didn't think of?

LoA · May 17, 2011, 01:22:14 PM

Woo-hoo! Speculative biology! Glad you brought it up. Have you seen Spec world? it's a pretty interesting college project about how what would happen if the asteriod didn't hit the earth millions of years ago. You should also check out Dougal Dixon books. Man after man though is bizarre...

Xathan · May 17, 2011, 01:26:46 PM

I haven't been able to find a copy of Man After Man OR his book about if dinosaurs hadn't gone extinct - which does seem to be a common speculative biology theme. I did manage to get my hands on a copy of After Man and am loving it - Dixon is the master of Speculative Biology. Since you like it, I'm guessing you've seen The Future Is Wild?

Steerpike · May 17, 2011, 01:29:21 PM

Due to the specifics of my main setting, the origin of various freakish/non-human beings is usually left deliberately vague, but I imagine most of the beings that people the setting were originally either warped experiments or victims of eldritch radiation/weapons that have since evolved naturally over time. Definitely no deific creation, though; most of the gods may or may not exist, and those god-like beings that definitely do exist are destructive rather than creative forces. I don't worry about the plausibility of the science at all.

Details are good. There's no such thing as too many. While a big setting overview can establish the broad strokes, it's the details that bring me into a setting more than anything else.

Xathan · May 17, 2011, 01:33:32 PM

Just giving a brief look at the Cadaverous Earth (I'm assuming that's what your main setting is) I see why it's kept without worrying about science - also, I'm going to be reading more on that, because the creatures you describe are freakishly awesome.

And that's good to hear - I'm working on a history right now and debating how much evolutionary history I should put in.

Ninja D! · May 17, 2011, 01:51:02 PM

I don't get to in depth with this but I do try to think about why things are the way they are. In the very least, that helps keep the right kinds of creatures in the right places.

LordVreeg · May 17, 2011, 01:55:57 PM

The history and biology is all there, but it is not known to the most of the people of Celtricia. But the clues are there, for most. Hell, they can almost all interbreed. I think TMG plays what most would call a deep dwarf/valley elf crossbreed.

Lmns Crn · May 17, 2011, 02:00:29 PM

Sometimes I ignore this sort of thing and write whatever.

Sometimes I do moderate/heavy amounts of reading beforehand, and then never acknowledge it. This way, it's up to the reader to connect the dots (or not).

For example, I have a group of creatures I want to describe in terms of elephant metaphors, but I don't want to come out and call the "elephant people", because that's exactly the wrong idea. So I did some reading about the physiology of elephant feet and hides and hair, and those details show up in the writing. But I never actually use the word "elephant" or otherwise drive at that point directly. Reader A might recognize enough to say "oh, their feet work like elephant feet; that's interesting", and Reader B might totally not notice or care, and either way works.

I do not worry much about evolution or similar. I let there be a "dawn of recorded history" when cultures start writing things down, and I don't look beyond that into the past. Instead, each culture gets its own mythology/religion/folklore, and they can all duke it out, inconsistencies and all, without any sort of "this is True and that is False" coming down from the author.

sparkletwist · May 17, 2011, 02:18:57 PM

I'm not one to ask because I mostly ignore this. I really don't care about these details at all. So, I don't have much productive to add to the discussion, unfortunately, except to contribute the viewpoint that, yes, there are people out there who just don't care and pretty much completely ignore this aspect. :)

LoA · May 17, 2011, 02:22:38 PM

Quote from: Xathan WorldsmithI haven't been able to find a copy of Man After Man OR his book about if dinosaurs hadn't gone extinct - which does seem to be a common speculative biology theme. I did manage to get my hands on a copy of After Man and am loving it - Dixon is the master of Speculative Biology. Since you like it, I'm guessing you've seen The Future Is Wild?

Heck yeah! i've seen future is wild, and even bought the book for it. Very interesting read. Alien planet was also pretty good at this sort of thing.

Polycarp · May 18, 2011, 04:54:38 PM

QuoteI do not worry much about evolution or similar. I let there be a "dawn of recorded history" when cultures start writing things down, and I don't look beyond that into the past. Instead, each culture gets its own mythology/religion/folklore, and they can all duke it out, inconsistencies and all, without any sort of "this is True and that is False" coming down from the author.

My sentiments exactly. My opinion is that if the people living in the world have no way of knowing, then it's usually not important for the author to know it either. Of course, if your world contains such powerful magic that individuals can go back in time, force the gods to answer questions, or otherwise place themselves in a position to know the answers to these things, then that's a slightly different situation. Even then, however, an authorial declaration of fact might not be necessary. Any time the author makes a statement of fact like this, it undermines the multiple myths and theories of the in-world characters and cultures, dividing them into objective categories of "correct" and "incorrect." That's something I usually prefer to avoid.

Ghostman · May 18, 2011, 05:39:19 PM

The flora and fauna of SA contains some deliberate anachronisms, although I try to keep it somewhat toned down. "Prehistoric" beasts such as terror-birds do range the wildernesses of the worlds, but tend to be rare and exotic rather than commonplace. Essentially they share a common role with many of the more fantastic monsters in the setting. Certainly the people living there would have no reason to regard a gryphon differently from a sabre-toothed tiger.

Hibou · May 19, 2011, 09:54:48 AM

I find it increasingly difficult as time goes on to enjoy any creatures not created with at least some thought put into their biological origins. Part of it is probably due to my immersion in math/physics/bio at school. A lot of thought goes into the design of my species in Fractal Galaxy (which is why so few of them are posted, and those that are aren't detailed that well yet).

It seems to me that there's an aspect of fantasy and sci-fi gaming and settings that implies the creators or the players don't feel humans are fantastic enough, and alternatives need to be created for contrast. The idea of a setting where humans are the sole race or one of very few doesn't bother me, but it seems more and more that humankind simply isn't enough for a setting in the eyes of the designer. This is an issue I have with Star Wars and some other settings - alien species are great if they're actually alien, and sure, it's cool if there's a species or two out there who just happens to be very similar to humanity, but if you're going to create a species that is in every way similar to humans except for being naturally better at one or two specific skills and looking a little more exotic, a human subculture will probably work just fine instead.

When I design new creatures, a lot of time goes into the physiology - in Fractal Galaxy, there are a few humanoid races, but most of the intelligent ones are of varying forms. Alternative biochemistry is still a convenient way to explain peculiar traits without actually having to explain. In addition, I spend a lot of time thinking about how a non-humanoid species reacts to an environment, and what unusual conditions (if any) a different type of physical and mental layout would require to flourish and eventually become a space-faring race.

It ends up being that with a lot of the intelligent species in Fractal Galaxy that communication between them is so difficult that some try to interact with others as little as possible. The some factions of humans and humanoids have made semi-permanent alliances across the void of space, but others stand alone and in general the hostility between species scales gradually alongside any increasing difficulties in communication.

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

Settings and Biology - How do You Do It?

Xathan

LoA

Xathan

Steerpike

Xathan

Ninja D!

LordVreeg

Lmns Crn

sparkletwist

LoA

Polycarp

Ghostman

Hibou