Hello! And looking to talk about my so far nameless setting

[Alkaru Anwamane]

Firstly a brief hello - just new to the site.

I've designed settings for games fine before, but my latest D&D game I kind of got talked into running before the setting was actually fully designed.  It's not been a problem from the players point of view as I had enough info for the plots I was running, but I was beginning to run into difficulties - luckily the game is a on a break over the Uni summer holidays so I'll get some time to add in a lot more stuff and polish what I do have.

I can be more a little guilty of over-designing settings - writing up so much backstory that just never ever comes up.  But I really miss it when its not there - but then of course some PC asks an awkward question and I don't already have it written up( and I'm not so good at making stuff up on the spot).

My current player group are also not very pro-active - more waiting for plot to appear - and don't like to take the initiative.  That makes things so much harder! (and yet they think they are doing me a favour and making things easy).

I've got a more info than I'm going to mention here - but this is just some of the core stuff (the bits the PCs have already found out about mainly because that's the stuff I can't really change).  When I was writing up my original notes gave each species a positive and negative stereotype - both just easy ways for an outsider to view their culture from their outside, depending on whether they like the species or not.

Human culture - a variety of separate monarchies.  I tend to emphasize the grubby side of medieval cities - with the refuse in the streets etc.  A strong tendancy towards nationalism, which extends into their Pantheons - although some Pantheons are worshipped outside their home culture(or at least some Gods of them are).  Some cultures also see certain Deities are part of a different Pantheon than other cultures do.  Priests of all races serve a Pantheon as a whole rather than just one God.  There is a lot of inter-species tension between Humans and Elves (more info in the Elves section)

Positive Stereotype - Dynamic explorers
Negative stereotype â,¬' Expansionist upstarts

Dwarves â,¬' One government for their whole species â,¬' essentially communist.  Dwarves always willing to share with other dwarves â,¬' but trade with other peoples.  Religion seen as essentially private â,¬' mainly ancestor worship.

Positive stereotype â,¬' Stable and organized
Negative stereotype â,¬' Hidebound and greedy

Elves â,¬' Nomadic over a very large range.  Have recently come into conflict with humans as groups of elves went back to forests they had roamed only a century ago and found a human city in its place (this is recent by elven standards â,¬' for humans it was several generations ago that some cities were destroyed -   but relations are still tense.  Initially several human nations did ally to wage war on the elves â,¬' but elven mounted archery, and of course magic, proved to be a deciding factor in these conflicts.

Positive stereotype â,¬' Wise and powerful
Negative stereotype â,¬' Incomprehensible and arrogant

Gnomes â,¬' Merchants â,¬' tend to be spread throughout other communities â,¬' but still maintaining much long range communication through their love of magic.   Probably the most devout of all the main species they tend to give respect and reverence to any deities they encounter the worship of.

Positive stereotype â,¬'Friendly and devout
Negative stereotype â,¬' Bizarre religious views (they view all who worship a deity according to that deities tenets as morally correct â,¬' regardless of the nature of that deity)  This is not a widely known practice though.

Hobbits(I know what Halflings really are and so does everyone else so why hide the name) â,¬' Often travelling with elves, but sometimes on their own â,¬' they were previously welcome in many communities but recent centuries have seen that welcome somewhat strained because of the tension between elves and humans.  The primary unit of culture is the family â,¬' and lack a concept of racial unity.  In terms of religion they tend towards nature orientated deities in whatever land they find themselves.

Positive stereotype â,¬' Friendly and humble
Negative stereotype â,¬' Tarnished by their friendship with the elves.

Planetouched â,¬' Hereditary options are Good, Evil, Fire, Air, Earth and Water.  Members of all species can have these not just humans.  They are not common enough to have their own societies, but they are not unknown.  They often gravitate towards appropriate temples, but not always.  Societies tend to react to them mostly as they would to Planar beings of that type and as members of their species.  I haven't really done much with these in the setting since they don't really have their own culture. I'm not too fond of Aasimaar and Tiefling - the alignment system is mostly ignored in my game, but they work well enough as Light and Shadow.

Orcs â,¬' None living.  Ghosts and other undead of them are frequently seen however.  I had this in mind as a major part of the setting backstory right from the start - and the PCs have already met a couple of Orcish ghosts.  I've been bluffing the whole time though - because I never had time to actually fill out what was going on with them.

Half-elves & Half-orcs â,¬' Have never really existed in this setting â,¬' interbreeding is impossible without powerful magic.

Gobinoid races â,¬' Generally make an existence through banditry in areas dominated by the above nations â,¬' they have a poor reputation for blood sacrifice.  But what the PCs don't know is - Goblinoids are much more civilized in other areas - these are just the criminal dregs of their society.  In many ways it's me taking the mickey out of 'adventurers'.

Dragons â,¬' No not a PC option :) , but their role in the setting is important.  The land is vast and there are a lot of dragons when the setting as a whole is considered â,¬' although they claim large enough areas of territory of course that they are not to be found too close to each other. Some dragons rule as Kings, and some are worshipped as Gods.  Halinth the Benevolent, Kushnah the Deceiver, Fruulo and Mamorth are major Dragon Gods. Senanth, Tuellieth, Modath and Chaciath are all lesser Dragon gods.  I've always liked Dragons - and so many D20 Dragon based books have come out lately - and I bought them all.  The organization the PCs are all part of is led by a Dragon so I needed the info available on what Draconic culture was like.

Dragonborn, Illumian, Killoren and Raptorans were other PC options I allowed(but I've not really done anything that interesting with them).  One PC is Illumian - and I'm using the cultural information from Races of Destiny on them, basically just plugged into my setting.  I should probably do more to specify which human culture they originally came from though - given it only happened within the last 50 years.

When I was designing my setting I wanted the species to be clearly distinct from each other and not just humans, humans with pointy ears, humans with big beards etc, so that's why the cultures are quite so different.  One thing the PCs did pick up on was that I've got a lot of books with extra magic stuff in them and only some cultures have access to each bit.  I've given Elves and Dwarves in particular an edge, as older well developed societies.

I don't want to do a complete info dump of all my setting info here - so I'll call a halt here, but the next part of the plot is in a coastal jungle area - with a big magical curse thing.  I already have the details on the big curse - but I'd like some help designing societies for the culture - that are not Aztec/Maya ripoffs.  Probably mainly Human - although I was thinking of using Yuan-ti at some point too.

Well - any comments/questions?

Alkaru Anwamane.

[Alkaru Anwamane]

Blast - just noticed I'd posted this in the wrong area sorry - still getting the hang of forums *blush*

[Túrin]

Hi Alkaru and welcome to the CBG. I hope you'll find, as I have, that this is a friendly community where your ideas are always looked at in a positive but critical way. If you feel so inclined, you are welcome to further introduce yourself in the Rogues' Gallery. (On a sidenote, the kind of project you are running here is fine either on the Homebrews subforum or Campaign Elements and Design, so don't worry about that.)

Now, let's take a look at what you have.

First off, you may or may not already have done this, but it's always a good idea to talk to players about their attitudes and your own. If you want them to be more pro-active, just say so.

I like the racial stereotypes. Given that you can never be completely neutral/objective, I always appreciate when it's clear what direction a subjective statement is coming from. Even though brief, your stereotypes give a nice indication of the nature of each of the races (which seems to mostly mirror the standard D&D-images, if I'm not mistaken).

Now, since it seems you currently have some time on your hands, I'd say go ahead and fill in those details. Don't worry about writing too much, on this site there's always someone crazy enough to read it all, and give some useful critique to boot. ;) Or, alternatively, if you need help with something in particular, you could ask some specific questions.

From what I read, however, I get the impression that you've already got lots of good idead in your head, so be sure to write those down and report back to us.

Cheers!
Túrin

[Alkaru Anwamane]

Well - good to know I didn't entirely muck up my first thread ;)

The issue with the players isn't really part of the setting but just briefly  - the players don't want to more pro-active.  They are quite happy to sit and wait for plot to happen to them - and seem to view any attempt by players to take active steps towards some goal that is not the GMs plot as that player ruining the GMs plot and making things difficulty.  We've discussed this a lot - but I've kind of given up on trying to change their mind - it's more of a problem when I'm playing in one of their games - which I am currently - I'm not used to not being able to persue personal character goals.  Hopefully this will resolve itself in time.

As for the portrayal of each species - you can't go too far away from the standards or your not really using that particular species but just their name but I hope I put enough of a twist to make them distinct.  Maybe I just didn't mention enough details to make things clear.

Humans - I don't like the idea that humans are this generic average generalists and get along with everyone and that they will inevitably become or already are the dominant power in the setting.  They are still pretty average in terms of innate power (no stat modifiers), but I made them a little less generalist by giving them a favoured class (Rogue) - I felt they were a little over powered anyway - that extra starting feat is just a little too good - and favoured class any on top of that is just too much.  They certainly don't get along with everyone - real life humans have trouble getting along with other humans from 10 miles down the road cos they do things differently - I don't really see humans coping that well all these different sentient species.  And they are definitely not the dominant power in the setting - having just recently taking a serious beating from the elves - and they aren't particularly likely to improve that situation any time soon - since elves have the advantage of extra magical knowledge that humans have not yet acquired - and much longer lifespans in which to have gained that power.  Maybe the differences aren't so obvious in writing - but in actual play the players seemed to pick up that human society was different to standard D&D settings they had played before.

Elves - well people do a lot of different things with elves - but one thing that is very different is that my elves are in no way a declining race.  In the long term the human birth rate will overtake them - but that assumes humans will get the chance to continue to grow like that - this is by no means certain.  And population isn't the only factor - any elf can learn magic, but not any human can.

Dwarves - I'm not a big dwarf fan - and no-one is playing one in the game - but I did my best to make them distinct.  Once I find a sourcebook with the right sort of stuff they will also gain some appropriate ancient knowledge which gives them edge in dealings with other races.  Any suggestions on making their culture more unique and for appropriate lore would be appreciated.

Gnomes - the standard ones are more trickster than mine.  I changed their favoured class to cleric.  But those are probably the most obviously different in any case.  The merchant thing is still a bit too stereotyped I must admit though.

Hobbits - when the sourcebooks first came out with nomadic gypsy halflings I was very wtf - I certainly wouldn't use them normally like that - the desire for many square meals a day does not mix well with constant travelling - but I wanted another nomadic species for this setting - and they are generally seen as friendly with Elves - so I decided to go with it.  I'm still kind of swithering if I could get away with switching the Gnomes to being the other nomadic species.

I'm still trying to work out cultures for individual human cultures that are not just the Greeks - but with Chinese art styles or something.  There's nothing wrong with using real cultures as a basis - or part of a basis - but I like to camoflage it a lot.

Alkaru

[Bill Volk]

Hi, and welcome!

From what you've said, the main thing you need in your setting is clear adventure hooks and other ways for the PCs to get involved in the setting. So, as you design the communities that live on this tropical coast, it stands to reason that you should come up with their problems first. A happy, stable community probably won't have any good adventure hooks. Are they suffering from famine? War? Lawlessness? Unfriendly jungle creatures? Side effects of the same curse that the PCs are trying to stop? These questions seem more important to you than the question of what race they are or what their architecture looks like.

[Alkaru Anwamane]

Sorry Bill - I didn't mention too much about the plot in case one of the players found this site ;) But the cultures in the coastal area are all heavily affected by the curse - there isn't any lack of conflict because they will have plenty to do.  To give a vague outline of the curse - it grants magical powers but at a heavy cost, but there are materials that can partially mitigate the effects of the curse.  The PCs are coming to the area to fix the curse because they are a primarily magic using group - and magic in the world recently switched off for a week - they weren't too happy ICly - particularly since they were in a magical flying Avariel city at the time ;)  The cultures have mostly adapated to the curse and a fair few don't actually want it gone - but there will be enough hints to the PCs from evidence of what they find that the curse is more dangerous than it seems.  Obviously the curse itself will be a major impact on the cultures - but if know the baseline cultures I can work out how it altered them.

[Túrin]

On the topic of races, their naming, and how close they should be to their stereotypes, Raelifin recently wrote an excellent post laying down some of the basics from his viewpoint (his viewpoint being that a new name is always a good idea, even when you use the D&D-stereotype unchanged). See the whole discussion in this thread.

Hello, I am the official anti-elf member, so I feel it my duty to insert my opinions. Please feel free to disregard.

[spoiler <<Insert Ideas Here>>] [note]This is a near copy-paste from a PM, so it might be off in places.[/note]
To understand my position on elves, you need to first understand my philosophies on world building. To me, world building is a possible artistic medium. Art is defined not by any specific channel, but rather a means of communicating ideas through metaphor or symbolism.

Words are a form of symbols that help convey ideas. With most art, the ideas presented by the symbols of words are woven together to form greater symbols which in turn have conceptual ideas behind them.

I'll back off from the wacko philosophy and give an example. In the lord of the rings, we have the ring of power. "The ring" is called such because it is a piece of finger jewelry and we understand (generally) what a "ring" is. However, the ring, along with other story elements forms the concept of technology through symbolism, which in turn is used to create the greater idea of technology corrupts.

Back to elves. What is an "elf"? Is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_elf an elf? Is this: http://www.kelloggs.com/keebler/images/faq-elf.jpg ? Whatabout this: http://www.fenice.info/i/spock.jpg ?

At this point, the word "elf" has been used in so many instances that there is no set meaning for it.

At this point I'll say that I don't dislike elves, despite what the boards might say. ;) But this should make you wonder "What group of 'elves' is he referring to?" In reality I'm talking about Tolkienesque elves and in my mind, not many others come close to being nearly as awesome. This is why it irks me when I see the word "elf" being used by most other people. I think "That's not an elf! That's a human with pointy ears." Of course, there's no true meaning for the word elf, and everyone is well within their rights to go and show what they think an elf is. That doesn't change the fact that by adding more definitions to the word it becomes increasingly more vague.

Now, why shouldn't you use elves in a world? The answer is that because of the confusion around the definition of the word elf, it is quite useless in writing. Remember that the purpose of words is to convey ideas. What idea, then, does the word "elf" create? In reality this will differ a LOT between people. And so where the ring of power is fairly easy to understand with just the words "the ring," calling something an "elf" will often require you to proceed to define the word in order for it to have set meaning.

Now, if you're defining the word, why not just use a new word in the first place? This prevents the initial confusion of "what is an elf" and it creates a unique flavor for your world that reduces plagiarism. I think the best example of this is the vulcans from Star Trek. Never once did Gene Roddenberry refer to them as elves, and yet they could clearly have been called such. I think by naming them vulcans, he avoided a lot of confusion and also created a more organic race.

So this is my suggestion to you. Unless you have a world which can provide a clear idea of what an elf is before it comes up or that could benefit from the use of a race of "elves," don't use the word. Call them "Tolk'ja" or "Zeinai" instead.

[spoiler <<Insert FAQ Here>>]Q: Aren't the Tolkienesque elves just humans with pointy ears? What makes them different?
A:  :dots:

Q: I was also assuming that anyone familiar with D&D that heard the word elf would automatically think tall, slender, possibly aloof, and pointy ears, which is roughly how they are presented in D&D.

A: Okay, so yes, you can use the word elf to describe a slim character with pointy ears (D&D elves are not tall, and many elves are not aloof) as these are near-universal characteristics of elves. However, keep in mind that you'll need to clarify nearly every other characteristic to paint a complete image. If you are building a world for D&D, you're probably best using the name "elf." However, I'm going to come out and say that I feel creating a setting for D&D is a bit like writing a fan-fiction novel. You can interpret that however you like. :)

Q: If I change the name of the elves but keep some of their D&D flavor, it brings up the question why bother to change the name at all, except to get around any preformed ideas about the race? And if I rename elves then should I change the name of all the other races for the same reason?

A: I personally, hate working from a preconceived base of ideas. That is, I don't like expecting the reader to know stuff. Thus, if I made dwarves a part off my setting, I'd describe their traits anyway. If you do this, it helps to come up with your own name for three reasons:
1) If someone sees "dwarf" they might skip over important details thinking that they know it all.
2) It creates a unique feel for the world to call dwarves "ÃÅ"ndüin" even if they're just dwarves.
3) It gives a lot more room to make things unique. If you want all dwarves to have glowing eyes, for instance, it becomes much easier to understand if they aren't "dwarves."
("Silly Player, dwarves don't have glowing eyes, ündüin do.")

And lastly, there's nothing wrong with having a name like "elf" or "dwarf" be the word humans use to refer to such a race. This keeps that sense of "this is an elf" while giving the points listed above.
[/spoiler]

[spoiler <<Insert ConSet Racial Philosophy Here>>][note Disclaimer]ConSet is not for everyone. Consult your doctor before use. If you have any questions about ConSet, call 1-800-555-ETHO or just post in this thread.[/note] Creating Unique and Vibrant Races

When creating any race, you must first consider "What does this race mean to the setting?" and "What impact will this race have on the setting?" Any race will change your world, even if it's the most obscure and hidden race out there. To illustrate, picture a world that is similar to Victorian age Spain and heavy with political intrigues. The world is entirely human, except you include a note that somewhere out there are beast-men who can shapeshift and roam the wilds of some obscure country. The world just jumped up one notch of the fantasy slider, even if the race never comes into play.

Remember that because each race changes a world, no race should ever be added on whim. Always make sure that adding this race will change the world the way you want.

Each race in a world is something I like to call a campaign element. Each element is a symbol and together they weave a greater picture that is the setting. Each race has a place and purpose.

Each race is composed of the following:
* A physical bias
* A mental bias
* One or more cultures

Each culture is composed of:
* A mental trend
* One or more languages
* And of course, many specific details

Each language has one name for a race.

To best illustrate this, I'll build a fantastic race on the spot.
Physical Bias: This race is powerful in body, and large. They can see in the dark and are thus nocturnal. They have claws and... wings like a crow (why not?) They are hairy and have black skin, hair and feathers. Their faces are feral and brutish, a bit like orcs. In all they stand 8 feet tall.

(A bias is the general shape for the race. There can be deviations, but most individuals fall very near the bias.)

Mental Bias: This race is a race of the night, they are quick thinkers, able to act with exploding speed in combat. They have keen senses, and are always on the alert. Most have no tolerance of those who they perceive as threats, and they will naturally go on the offensive when they see such individuals. Being pack oriented, they see family as the pack and they understand the values of friendship.

Culture: Because of their feral temperament, this race has been limited to the vast pine woods of Sunblight and only has one culture.

Mental trend: The tribes of Sunblight are nocturnal and rely on natural weapons in day-to-day affairs and so they have never learned tool use. They are almost like cave-men, working together to bring down game and whatever threats they encounter as a tribe. The pelts of deer and elk are used as clothing, so the tribes have learned knots. Women and children stay away from open battle, but actively participate in hunting.

(A trend is something even weaker than a bias. It is how an individual in the culture can generally be expected to act and what they can generally be expected to know.)

This race has it's own feral language which, while simple, is all that is needed for coordinating hunts. In this language, the race is called the ÃÅ"kas. By the human frontier towns bordering on the Sunblight woods, the beasts are called Dark-ones.

So there we go, I just outlined a race of bear-raven-wolf-caveman savages who are likely to make excellent antagonists if the wild game in Sunblight ever becomes too scarce and the tribes venture elsewhere for food. It's important to note that while I did make a race, I have not presented it yet. All of the above data is in the form of notes to myself. If I were to publish this race (that is, create an accurate written depiction to communicate), I would need to produce a more concise version of the race and culture.

Now, what if I wanted to create a race to fit a niche or to represent a preconceived idea? Like if I wanted to make elves. The trick is to realize that an â,¬Å"elfâ,¬Â is a collection of ideas. Figure out which ideas you want, and separate them from the vast concept of â,¬Å"elf.â,¬Â For example, in my world of Phaedoras I wanted to have elves. But when I say â,¬Å"elvesâ,¬Â what I really wanted was a race that had all the traits I thought were cool about elves. In this case, I think wisdom, peace and gentle understanding of the earth were the desired traits, so I threw out everything else. The result was a race of pacifistic beings who had angelic wisdom and grace but absolutely not ability in combat and were thus being slaughtered by more short-sighted, brutal races. These themes of the failing grace, and of perfect beauty and harmony rang very true to my elvish sensibilities, and yet as I gave them a different name they stopped being elves altogether and became something similar, yet unique.[/spoiler][/spoiler]

[Xeviat]

Welcome to the boards. I'm not sure what I can say that the others haven't already said; one thing this board is definately good for is thinking your ideas out loud, and getting feedback on those specific ideas.

What I will offer a suggestion on is the conflict you seem to be having with the play style of your group. Your group seems to have what I'm going to call a "video game mentality" (I don't mean this as an insult, I'm a gamer through and through).

The video game mentality (lets call it VGM from now on) opperates under the notion that the DM has an idea of what he or she wants to do. Their enjoyment in the game comes from overcoming the challenges thrown at them, be they combative or intillectual. They aren't in the game so much for characterization (though many enjoy it), they are in it mostly to play the game.

It is difficult for a VGM player to lead the story. Video games have trained VGM players to be skilled at figuring things out, but most do not train the free roaming mentality.

Since you seem to enjoy a more organic gaming style, my recommendation for you is to set up the setting, like you're doing, and place several plot hooks around. Bring some to the PCs, because not everything in the world should be initiated by them, but leave others for them to explore.

The best way to foster an organic play style in VGM players is to provide noticable rewards for exploration. Don't punish free thinking, or else it won't be done anymore.

Last, you might want to talk to them about what they want to get out of the game. If they are interested in playing mercenary or treasure hunting games, and all they want to do is overcome challenges and get loot, you're going to want to decide if that's the kind of game you can run. There's much to be said about expanding your horizons, but you're just as much of a player as them.

I'm all for organic worlds, but it takes a rare kind of player to fully utilize them. I've only found one in my group of 20+ gamers.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

I like that Xeviat.  It's a well-said explanation of a common phenomenon I've found.

[Alkaru Anwamane]

Thanks for the comments about my players.  My honest answer is I am running the game so I can play in the games they run.  None of us really like GMing but we are all giving it a go. Still, you raise some good points and VGM - it's just very hard for me to adapt to that style of play - although I play a lot of CRPG I always get really frustrated by the lack of options of forced linear nature of the plots (it's why I like stuff like Morrowind so much - although I don't particularly like Oblivion for other reasons) and when I've played tabletop in the past I've never played in that kind of linear game before - it's just such a big change and I'm finding it hard to adjust - hindered partly I must admit by the fact I don't want to adjust (my bad).


Anyway - I don't want to just moan about my players behind their back - so back to setting discussion please ;)  (Although the insights are very much appreciated).

[Bill Volk]

Very good. I would only suggest that you be sure that you're sending clear enough signals to your players. If some NPCs actually like being under this curse thay they're out to break, they might feel that they're getting mixed messages from you (rather than from the NPCs.) They might even decide that the curse isn't worth breaking! This may sound unlikely, but one must never underestimate the ability of a few unwitting players to totally derail a campaign.

[Alkaru Anwamane]

They have personal interest because they are all very pro-magic - plus they belong to an organization which exists to preserve and defend magic - and all the evidence points to this curse being a major danger - and I don't really care if they investigate the curse and somehow come to the conclusion the curse is not dangerous - it's not a railroad plot - it only exists to give them something interesting to poke at which fits into the things their org is interested in.