The Campaign Builder's Guild

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 are types of stone used for building, for example.  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?