Theme Wars!

[Raelifin]

Okay, good ideas here. I think I'll run past some finalizing terminology for the sake of having a closed argument.

Ethocentric. A setting that has central vision.

Not Ethocentric. A setting without central vision.

BlindSet (Blindbuilt setting). An ethocentric setting that does not attempt to conceptualize it's ethos.

ConSet (Conceptualized setting). An ethocentric setting where the ethos is conceptualized and drives design.

DivSet (Diverse Setting). A setting that actively avoids ethos.

I'm sure at some point someone will bring up other modes of setting creation (such as the melting pot), so when the time comes, make sure to follow the B(lind), C(on), D(iv), E(thos) convention. ;)

Now what would be nice, is an analysis of ethos-driven setting building that will actually help some of the more confused or lost folks on this board clearly explicate their personal thematic vision.  Particularly, how to weave themes into the setting effectively through symbolism, allegory, tropes, archetypes, conceits and so on.  That, I think, would prove a very productive endeavour for everyone who's contributed to this thread, as you're some of the brightest people I know, anywhere.

Seriously.  I'd enjoy that.

Wouldn't that be ConSet philosophy? I thought you were for the idea of not ̢,"clearly explicating their personal thematic vision.̢," but rather focus on the awesome & realism factors. :P

I'm all for it and it sounds great. ^_^ Any thought on where to begin?

[SA]

I personally don't like to explicate my personal thematic vision in current projects, but I know for a fact that such a strategy works - having used it to great effect myself in the past - and farbeit from me to deny others the opportunity to use such a process if it works.  I'm not some kind of stiff ideologue; besides, as a lover of literature and philosophy (and the creator of a setting that throws the word "conceptual" around like it was confetti), I love talking about themes, even if I don't focus on them.

Any thought on where to begin?

Honestly?  Yeeeaaaah- No...

[Túrin]

So we've got a threefold division here, right? Ethocentric settings (which can be subdivided in ConSet/Raelian and BlindSet/Angelian settings) stand against Diverse Settings (DivSet/CYMRian), with the option of having neither deliberate ethos nor deliberate diversity completing the trichotomy.

[I'm hesitant to say this because it might open up the semantics debate again, but at this point it seems to make sense to me to fold Ethocentric and DivSet into one side. More specifically, DivSet seems to me to be a specific form of Ethocentric, where the central vision is that the setting should be as diverse as possible. This would reduce things to a dichotomy again, where Ethocentric (subdivided in Raelian, Angelian and CYMRian) stands against non-Ethocentric.]

My personal stance is ambivalent. I don't think either Ethocentric or non-Ethocentric is always preferable over the other, but, when I go with Ethocentrism (as I did for my only serious project, Orden's Mysteries), I have a preference for ConSet/Raelian method, to encourage consistency and focus.

Now what would be nice, is an analysis of ethos-driven setting building that will actually help some of the more confused or lost folks on this board clearly explicate their personal thematic vision. Particularly, how to weave themes into the setting effectively through symbolism, allegory, tropes, archetypes, conceits and so on. That, I think, would prove a very productive endeavour for everyone who's contributed to this thread, as you're some of the brightest people I know, anywhere.

Being a proponent of Top-Down building (which I believe is closely related to ConSet building: I can not imagine a ConSet setting being built Bottom-Up), I'd say the first step would be in trying to put your vision to paper. Even if you don't want to actually write down the central vision of your setting (you may not know it or you may not want to write it down for some reason) I say you should at first try to establish the primary ideas that are motivating you to start this project. This can range from a very cool NPC idea you had to an abstract reasoning about what makes a good campaign setting. From there, you can establish a road-map (I want to build this first, then that, then that, etc.) which has the advantage of (subjective) completeness but might be found restraining (or even make it feel like work *shudders*) by some people. The other option is to just expand on things in whatever direction strikes your fancy.

A lot more can be said about these things, and I don't think I even got close to answering SA's question. This is just food for thought: flame it if you will, that will get the creative juices flowing.

Túrin

[Raelifin]

So we've got a threefold division here, right? Ethocentric settings (which can be subdivided in ConSet/Raelian and BlindSet/Angelian settings) stand against Diverse Settings (DivSet/CYMRian), with the option of having neither deliberate ethos nor deliberate diversity completing the trichotomy.

[I'm hesitant to say this because it might open up the semantics debate again, but at this point it seems to make sense to me to fold Ethocentric and DivSet into one side. More specifically, DivSet seems to me to be a specific form of Ethocentric, where the central vision is that the setting should be as diverse as possible. This would reduce things to a dichotomy again, where Ethocentric (subdivided in Raelian, Angelian and CYMRian) stands against non-Ethocentric.]

Ah good! More semantics! :P
The way I laid it out in my last post was thusly:

------- Ethocentric ---------- Non-Ethocentric ----------------
----------|----|----------------------|------------------------
------ConSet--BlindSet-------------DivSet----------------------

Whether DivSet is actually Ethocentric is a big discussion waiting to happen. I think it'll mainly boil down to whether the intentional avoidance of central ideas counts as a central idea. >.> I'll leave that debate to the DivSetters.

[ooc]One question on the side for anyone reading the thread: Which sound better: the ___Set (ConSet) names or the ____ian (Raelian) names?[/ooc]

[Túrin]

The way I laid it out in my last post was thusly:

------- Ethocentric ---------- Non-Ethocentric ----------------
----------|----|----------------------|------------------------
------ConSet--BlindSet-------------DivSet----------------------

Good. That's what I meant.

Whether DivSet is actually Ethocentric is a big discussion waiting to happen. I think it'll mainly boil down to whether the intentional avoidance of central ideas counts as a central idea. >.> I'll leave that debate to the DivSetters.

I vote for the ___Set-names, because they are more easily associated with their meaning. In particular, I'd hate to have to drop the word DivSet from our vocabulary, sice it's become fully-integrated (ahum). ;)[/ooc]

Túrin

[Raelifin]

[ooc]I agree, but I thought I'd ask around because you were using the others.[/ooc]
[ooc]Whatever happened to Orden's Mysteries? I really enjoyed reading what little you had on your uploaded "site."[/ooc]

[Xeviat]

I'm coming in late here, and I will go back and read everything after this post. I was asked to post my questions and concerns here, because the act of working through them might help this discussion.

So far, I enjoy it emensely when a world has an easily seen theme. Because of this enjoyment, I've grown disheartened that my own setting seems to lack unity in theme in my eyes. For the most part, I've been focused on getting the mechanical aspects of my world to match up with the descriptions I've given them in fiction, but I don't think the mechanics can suport the world on their own.

Here is the introduction for my setting: http://www.thecbg.org/settings/29/3worlds.html

What could help is for others to tell me what they think the theme of the world is. If I've managed to express a desirable theme in my introduction, then I'm doing better than I thought; if not, more discussion will be required.

Now, off to read the thread.

[Túrin]

[ooc]Orden's Mysteries is still there, though I don't really expand upon it anymore. Lack of time and inspiration is a killer combination. I am playing a campaign in it at the moment, though. Funny how you call what I have "little" (as would I) while many have deemed it to be of intimidating size.[/ooc]

[Raelifin]

[ooc]A lot of settings seem larger than they are.
One night on vacation I got wireless internet and read through most of the Orden's Mysteries and Altvogge (I think) website material.[/ooc]

Anyway, we were talking about how to help the community and I was talking to Xev here about ConSet philosophy. He had a problem and I thought it might be a good place to start brainstorming on the practical applications that salacious suggested.

[beejazz]

I command thee, thread, to RISE!

Guys, I just looked up the stuff on ethocentricity on the wiki and am forced to ask "wtf?"

The philosophy championed by Raelifin became called Ethocentric, meaning "with ethos being at the heart of all things." In this instance the word "ethos" being used to describe a central idea, vision or theme for the setting. In the thread, Raelifin described Ethocentric as thus:

    An Ethocentric World is one built around a single idea, the vision of the creator. In an Ethocentric world, each element makes up a great tapestry that is tied together by that central idea.

    Merits: Ethocentricality means that the product will be art. I has a message and can stand by itself as communication of an idea that cannot be put into mere words.

    Failings: Ethocentric worlds are incredibly focused on the creator and are thus selfish and unyielding. This tends to make a less versatile world for interaction as it will constantly press it's ideas and message into all who touch it. It also means that if you wish to convey a different message than intended, you must work against the grain of the setting.

Later on, Raelifin wrote another summary of Ethocentric philosophy for the Campaign Builder's Guide:

    Ethocentric: A world or setting that is intended as art in its own right. The concept here is that art always has a unifying vision and this vision becomes the "central ethos." Everything in the setting is designed to work toward that ethos and thus has unifying theme. Ethocentric worlds are thought by most to have more focus, depth and potential.

has a message and can stand by itself as a communication of an idea that cannot be put into words?

Really? Art has to communicate? Certainly, after drawing between a half hour and... I guess eight hours on any given day for twenty years, I must have created NO ART. Because none of it was intended for a communicative purpose! And apparently, neither have any poets, playwrights, or authors, because they used words to do it! And apparently all the analysis and essays written about plays, poems, and books must have been total bunkum and point missing, because the real point can't be put into words.

-_________- whaleface is not pleased.

Also, we can define ethocentric things as having an intentional focus, but must it also be intended as "art?"

I'm sorry to nitpick, but pretense like this just kills me. Especially as an artist.

EDIT: And here it is again in the FAQ!

The concept here is that art always has a unifying vision and this vision becomes the 'central ethos.'