The Campaign Builder's Guild

Found this while randomly browsing another board that I frequent and figured that this might be interesting for some of you guys:



Hello, /tg/. I'm here to talk about clichés. More specifically, about the trap people fall in when they try to avoid clichés when making a setting.

It often seems to me that people see tried and tested tropes as something bad, something to be avoided. They strive for "originality", which usually means "well, in my setting the orcs are blue and they ride dolphins and in a hilarious inversion of the common stereotype they are actually lawful good". It's the equivalent of drawing a bunch of commonly used traits and characteristics from a hat. It doesn't avoid cliché. All it does is make the setting more difficult to play. Why? Because you have to waste time lecturing to your players and explaining all the details that make the setting different, and when they actually sit down and play, they act cautiously out of fear of "breaking" the unfamiliar setting.

/tg/ntlemen, I submit to you that an interesting and original SETTING doesn't necessarily make an interesting and original GAME, and in many cases it actually gets in the way of interesting roleplay. If the players are comfortable with the setting they can invest more in the characters and the roleplay aspect, and that is the place where originality should be. Who cares if your setting has standard elves, dwarves and orcs as long as the game itself is original and inventive?

Having said that there's nothing wrong with diverging from well-established stereotypes in a way that keeps the essence of the race recognizable.

For instance, a setting could have dwarves that still live in mountains, still have axes, bears and potentially axebeards, and still swig ale, but are hardcore Marxist communists rather that having an industrial-monarchy.

A setting could have elves that are still lithe and nimble, still mystical and detached, and still forest dwelling creatures, but that have pathetically short lives because they never sleep.

A setting could have orcs that are powerful warriors, monstrous killers and still very evil, but that ride dolphins to war. OR are Lawful Good. OR are blue.

The problem, I'll argue, is that writers try to change everything at once, creating settings that, while not cliché, are completely unrecognizable, making them awkward and uncomfortable to deal with. The lawful-good blue dolphin riding warriors cannot reasonably be called orcs. A race of bloodthirsty green pirates could well be.

If you change one salient feature, you can imply many other changes without having to lecture your players. Orcs that ride dolphins are presumably seafaring, probably pirates and, most likely, have some means of keeping these creatures in check. Elves with short lifespans are presumably more material and hurried than their long-lived counterparts (and would have to breed prolifically). Communist dwarves are likely to be isolationist against other cultures, but more open to individuals.


Or you make a wholly new race instead of using stereotypes, and you make them well enough to be easily described in a short sentence:

"Oh them? They're a kind of spider-centaur which lives in caves, is about the size of a human, and tends to be quite aggressive."

You could go into detail later on the differences between males and females, and how the colour of their bodies affects their social status in some colonies, but that's for later after your players have gotten the gist of it.

I'm aware that spider centaur things have been done, but I had to think of an example quickly.

When you subvert a trope, you're still using it. If you want to be "original" in the sense of not using established tropes, you'd have to actually avoid them... which is kind of hard, since "You have to get X, to do this you have to fight Y" is an ancient and well-recognized trope.

Tropes are stupid vague, you can't really avoid them. If you want to be original, you'll have to do it in the details. Maybe the X you have to get, and the Y you have to fight, are things that nobody has gotten or fought before. Maybe the reason you have to get it is a reason that nobody else has used.

Personally, I like what eberron does with Orcs. The stereotype of "Orcs are big, dumb, and all barbarians."

However, when you meet some orcs, you might discover that they worship a holy, secret flame that is the equivalent of the silver flame.

cliches are timesavers and are indicative of a "comfort zone." That is, your average player isn't taking part because they want to try something new and experimental, something that will totally shatter preconceptions or some shit, they're likely playing cuz they're into twilight or star wars. cliches are, therefore, not something to avoid, but something to embrace; pick and choose.


all this taken from here: http://zip.4chan.org/tg/res/5159201.html please be aware that other threads on that board might not be safe for work

Hmmm...*Cough*Rule1*cough*

Quote from: Tillumniall this taken from here: http://zip.4chan.org/tg/res/5159201.html please be aware that other threads on that board might not be safe for work

I second that warning and add "DO NOT go to 4chan if you are underage. DO NOT go to 4chan if there are any underaged people anywhere even close to your computer. If at all possible DO NOT even go to 4chan."
Oh and that link won't work in about 12 hours or so.

This is something I realized midway through working on my setting, when I had to stop and take a step back and ask myself "why am I changing all of this?" I had changed orcs, goblins, and elves into beings not like orcs, goblins, and elves. I realized that if I was going to use classic names, that I should embrace the connotations of those names.

It is part of language really. When an English speaker hears or reads the word "car", they do not read "Sea" "Ae" "Are". They picture a car.

When we hear "elf", we see pointy ears, pretty people, and usually some amount of forestry and/or magic. When we hear "dwarf", we see a short bearded person that does some sort of digging or mining.

If you want to be so wholly original that you don't want to use the classic races, then don't use the classic races. If you have to say "In this world, my orcs are ...", you have just added extra work to your players. Instead, you could say "the grungacks are a race of aquatic humanoids who favor martial strength, nobility, and ride dolphins to battle".

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is a jerk like a duck (ducks are jerks, trust me), then don't call it a rabbit: you're just going to confuse people.

Quote from: Kapn XeviatIf it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is a jerk like a duck (ducks are jerks, trust me).........

If you think the ducks are bad you should meet a swan sometime. ;)

Silliness aside I agree with this principle.  I used to think I liked weird stuff, but now reading some of the super-weird settings like those made by Steerpike I realize what I like is just enough of a break to make you think differently.  By contrast the super-weird settings are interesting in their own way, but they're an overload.

I think mostly our particular flavors of weird just don't mesh - though I can see how some of my stuff could definitely lead to overload.

Quote from: Kapn XeviatIf you want to be so wholly original that you don't want to use the classic races, then don't use the classic races. If you have to say "In this world, my orcs are ...", you have just added extra work to your players. Instead, you could say "the grungacks are a race of aquatic humanoids who favor martial strength, nobility, and ride dolphins to battle".

I see your point, but I think there are cases where this isn't so simple. A good example would be dragons. There really is no consensus on what they are like. In various myths, beings identified as "dragons" are found ranging from plain giant snakes to chimeric hybrids, winged or wingless, having no legs or any number of legs, sometimes having more than one head, associated with different elements, and seen as either divine, mundane or infernal.

Ancient Greek dragons are different from Babylonian dragons, which are different from Chinese dragons, which again are different from English dragons. Given all that variation, is it not reasonable to say that a world builder has a good deal of leeway in determining the exact meaning of the word 'dragon' in the context of his setting?

For my Savage Age setting, I wanted to create a dragon that would use elements rather common in various myths about dragons, yet avoid matching it too closely with any one of those myths. The result may not be the first thing that comes to your mind when dragons are mentioned - but it should still be reasonably "draconic" when placed against the wider background of dragons as seen in various cultures.

I agree with Ghostman.

Then why do we all use humans?
Such an overused trope...

Much as Ghostman was saying (with a different lexicon, perhaps), we often use game-speak or setting-speak.  'Elves' are rarely ther same setting to setting, nor are 'orcs'.  However, like 'dragons' and 'humans' or 'roads', they may be different than in Tolkien or Greyhawk but the serve that purpose.

In Celtricia, most wine is made from Vneersberry or Chias berries, though Silverman, Estel, Toasberry, Umbrage, Chervendel, and Blackenedbarry are also used in different areas.  I could call this fermented berry juice something else, or refer to it as wine.  
Now, it is not the same as wine.  It is not made from grapes.  It tastes differently. There are actually different techniques in the manuafacture, though there are some convergences, as well.  
I call it wine because PCs and readers will get the right idea of what it represents immediately, even if they are looking in a cursory manner, and after they have played for a while, they can get into the intracacies and differences.

Quote from: Lord VreegIn Celtricia, most wine is made from Vneersberry or Chias berries, though Silverman, Estel, Toasberry, Umbrage, Chervendel, and Blackenedbarry are also used in different areas.  I could call this fermented berry juice something else, or refer to it as wine.  
Now, it is not the same as wine.  It is not made from grapes.  It tastes differently. There are actually different techniques in the manuafacture, though there are some convergences, as well.

In the real world people often refer to allot of kinds of beverages as "wine": sake = rice wine and there are all kinds of fruit wine.  To decide that the word "wine" should only refer to the beverage made with grapes is getting more technical than even the real world is sometimes.

Quote from: Loch BelthaddOh and that link won't work in about 12 hours or so.

The link doesn't work, and 4chan doesn't work either... I don't know 4chan very well (at all), and don't know of its customs - what is up with this "not working" thing?

Quote from: Ishmayl

Quote from: Loch BelthaddOh and that link won't work in about 12 hours or so.

The link doesn't work, and 4chan doesn't work either... I don't know 4chan very well (at all), and don't know of its customs - what is up with this "not working" thing?

consider yourself happily ignorant.

joking aside, regarding the whole not working thing: Threads aren't saved on 4chans board. only the latest 1000 threads in any giving subboard are viewable at any giving time, and older threads gets deleted when they get bumped off the top 1000 in favor of more populare or new threads. Also, a reply won't bump a thread after it have hitted the 200 reply mark, at which point it's costum to make a new thread, if the subject is populare enough and still have more to discuss, if not, then it will eventually get deleted. Especially populare thread does occasionally get saved on archive site that's independent of 4chan.
this particulare one wasn't saved on any of the archive site, so I figured I'll quikly copy paste it to here before it disappeared.

as for the costum and culture: completly anonym with no sign up or anything like that requered to post on the board, and it's lightly moderated.  I'll let you extrapolate from there. though it's highly depending on which sub-board you're on though.

This is some good advice.  If you guys resurrect that magazine you used to put out, this should certainly go into it.

M.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw

Quote from: Lord VreegIn Celtricia, most wine is made from Vneersberry or Chias berries, though Silverman, Estel, Toasberry, Umbrage, Chervendel, and Blackenedbarry are also used in different areas.  I could call this fermented berry juice something else, or refer to it as wine.  
Now, it is not the same as wine.  It is not made from grapes.  It tastes differently. There are actually different techniques in the manuafacture, though there are some convergences, as well.

In the real world people often refer to allot of kinds of beverages as "wine": sake = rice wine and there are all kinds of fruit wine.  To decide that the word "wine" should only refer to the beverage made with grapes is getting more technical than even the real world is sometimes.

I'm siding with Vreeg on this one, and not just because this man knows his wine. Near as I can tell, your statement was in agreement as well (although I can't tell if it was wittingly so).

Continuing the wine metaphor. From my understanding, the word "wine", technically, does only refer to grape wine; apple wine, peach wine, etc., are all considered "country wines". A "country wine", while not technically a "wine", is a close enough analog that there's really no harm in calling it as such.* The same goes with fermented Vneersberry juice, even if it isn't manufactured just like wine is.

Hell, for that matter, we regularly refer to an actual species of marsupial as a "bear". Why should we get away with that if we can't have non-magical elves?


As for Ghostman's comment, I mostly agree with it, but I feel emphasis on that last sentence is required. If I were to describe to you a small fuzzy mammal with buckteeth, high reproductive rate, a short tail and long ears, you wouldn't be thinking, "oh, that's a dragon". Even if I told you that that's what dragons were in my setting, you'd still be thinking of another creature. There's variation, yes, and that should certainly be allowed within any term, but there should still be a certain essence to the term. We might not necessarily know-- cognitively, anyway-- what that essence is, but we'll be able to tell when it isn't there. Dragons, for example, do not necessarily have to be winged, nor do they necessarily have to breath dangerous substances (fire, acid, etc.), nor do thy even have to have a magical nature. That said, we can still tell the difference between a mundane, wingless dragon and a bunny.



*someone with more knowledge in the way of wine can feel free to correct and/or clarify the bajeebes out of this paragraph.

Quote from: VreegMuch as Ghostman was saying (with a different lexicon, perhaps), we often use game-speak or setting-speak. 'Elves' are rarely ther same setting to setting, nor are 'orcs'. However, like 'dragons' and 'humans' or 'roads', they may be different than in Tolkien or Greyhawk but the serve that purpose.

again, a good example of this would be the elves of Eberron. They still serve the purpose of aloof, isolationist and mysterious, but instead of worshipping nature they worship death and their living dead ancestors.