Theme Wars!

[CYMRO]

This is the great theme war between Raefilin and me, moved here so as not to hijack claypigeon's thread.



[spoiler=Raefilin]
Uhk, another vanilla setting. @_@ I suppose I should get straight to the actual criticisms rather than complain about "young'uns"... ^_^

I guess this is your first homebrew? My first homebrew was effectively core with my own geography and I suppose there isn't anything wrong with that. If you're happy, cool, but I'm going to go ahead and rant on how to distinguish your setting and cast off ye oppressive coils of yon plagaristic forefathers.

First of all, I'll talk about theme. Theme is the driving force behind a campaign and it is what separates Eberron from Greyhawk or Call of Cthulhu from d20 Modern. The basic principle behind theme is that your world is a work of art and thus conveys a message. This theme (or themes) should be the present everywhere in the world. Some example themes are
- Power Corrupts
- Old vs. New
- Good Always Triumphs
- Technology is Evil
Once you have a theme, you should be able to condense your setting into a 25, 50 and 100 word summary. These summaries will help you understand how the world should play out in terms of tone and content.

Tone is often confused with theme. If theme is the deeper message behind a painting, tone is the form of art used to convey that message. A sculpture about humankind's darkest fears might be very different from a watercolor of the same thing. Tone is usually fairly easy to pick out and you don't even need to put it into words.

Content is the substance of the setting. Built around theme and seen through the lens of tone, content is everything that actually "exists" in your world.

I'm out of time for now, but you should be able to get something useful from that. ^_^[/spoiler]

[spoiler=CYMRO]
To provide a counterpoint to Raef the AntiElf, I applaud your approach so far.
Work out geography, history, society, races and classes FIRST.
You are building a world here, there is plenty of room in most worlds to allow for several concurrent "themes" or "tones".
As you work out the details, themes and plot devices will fall into their appropriate places.
To say one theme should envelope your entire world is to limit your world. [/spoiler]

[spoiler=Raefilin]
A counterpoint?! Blasphemous! And backed with reasoning! Hath the world come to an end?
I think I'll just counterpoint the counterpoint!
To build a setting and then let the themes fall in is like hammering wood together and hoping it makes a boat. Realistically, when you "blindbuild" you are actually taking themes into account either through subconscious decisions or by taking elements from other pieces of art, and thereby taking the themes. The problem with this is that you'll eventually find inconsistencies in the style of the world that will degrade it as a whole.

True. A world should have as many themes as are needed to convey the deeper message that any piece of artwork strives to convey. However, like campaign elements, if you add too many themes the work seems scatterbrained and loses it's ethos.

Wow, I dear say I have opinions! Give me feedback so I might have more!

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=CYMRO]
"Blindbuild" is too simplistic a term. Rather, "naturalbuild." It hardly results in inconsistencies. It results in a world of flavors, a world that is dynamic and alive, even if lacks literary or artistic neatness. Similar to the real world.
It does not degrade Altvogge to have every region or nation traveling along a different thematic stream. If a character is in Drimia, he might find the theme from your list to be "Good always Triumphs". That certainly is not the case within the undead realm of Gianpa. "Innovation is evil" would be the theme in a campaign in Lyryana.


The deeper message, or ethos, of a world, from my point of view, is, "Funny old thing, Life."
A Campaign world should not be a piece of artwork, it should be a gallery full of works of art. [/spoiler]

Let the duel continue!!!
(whenever you get back)

[Epic Meepo]

Dag nammit. I saw the other thread and posted this there before I saw this one.

[spoiler=:twocents:]

To build a setting and then let the themes fall in is like hammering wood together and hoping it makes a boat.

Realistically, when you "blindbuild" you are actually taking themes into account either through subconscious decisions or by taking elements from other pieces of art, and thereby taking the themes.[/blockquote]
 :twocents: False on both accounts. Firstly, it is impossible to subconsciously create or utilize a theme. A theme is a construct of conscious thought; if no one consciously recognizes that a theme exists, then the theme does not exist. A painting cannot have a theme of "redemption" if no one who looks at it has ever consciously decided that "redemption" is its theme.

Secondly, borrowing material drawn from a larger work of art does not necessarily perpetuate the theme of that larger work of art. A work of art as a whole creates and conveys its theme; the theme isn't something that is spread evenly througout. Only the tone of a work of art will be evident in most parts of the work without having to view the work as a whole.

The problem with this is that you'll eventually find inconsistencies in the style of the world that will degrade it as a whole.

:twocents: I fail to see how inconsistencies would degrade a world. Consistency in a static creation such as a painting or a novel is a good thing, but in an ever-evolving medium, consistency is just evidence of oversimplification. If you can clearly delineate every element of an entire world as belonging to one of a limited number of styles or themes (except where necessary for game mechanical purposes), then you have created a world that is very unrealistic.[/spoiler]

[CYMRO]

No one is coming to defend Raef's position...

This could spell doom for themes and ethoi!

[the_taken]

No one is coming to defend Raef's position...

This could spell doom for themes and ethoi!

To me, ethopodes sounds better.

Anyhoo! The leaving of the campaign alone for half a year is actualy a bad idead. A very bad idea. The state of your life that you left behind will never return. Kinda like how my father wrote some music sketches a few decades ago and now he can't get back into the right frame of mind to arrange them in a proper format. He can write new stuff, but the old stuff is trapped in limbo.

I do agree with CYMRO.

A Campaign world should not be a piece of artwork, it should be a gallery full of works of art.

When I tried making a campaign settiing for Mirafar, one theme for a redion was "Paladins are a stupid concept". Overzealous sword swinging drunkards were at war with the city of Mirafar because it openly accepted vampires as an integral part of it's society. Nevermind that Mirafar was the most succesful economic center in that world. I had other plans for the world; other themes and concepts.

[Epic Meepo]

Anyhoo! The leaving of the campaign alone for half a year is actualy a bad idead. A very bad idea. The state of your life that you left behind will never return. Kinda like how my father wrote some music sketches a few decades ago and now he can't get back into the right frame of mind to arrange them in a proper format. He can write new stuff, but the old stuff is trapped in limbo.

Exactly the point I was getting at! The objective you have when building a boat doesn't change over time, but the objective you have when building a campaign just might. That's why using on overarching theme as the basic building block of a campaign setting can be dangerous if your in it for the long haul. You want to be able to have something fundamental (like a vague history or a basic geographical overview) that you can attach to a different theme, should your outlook change during the course of the creation process.

[Raelifin]

"Blindbuild" is too simplistic a term. Rather, "naturalbuild." It hardly results in inconsistencies. It results in a world of flavors, a world that is dynamic and alive, even if lacks literary or artistic neatness. Similar to the real world.
It does not degrade Altvogge to have every region or nation traveling along a different thematic stream. If a character is in Drimia, he might find the theme from your list to be "Good always Triumphs". That certainly is not the case within the undead realm of Gianpa. "Innovation is evil" would be the theme in a campaign in Lyryana.


The deeper message, or ethos, of a world, from my point of view, is, "Funny old thing, Life."
A Campaign world should not be a piece of artwork, it should be a gallery full of works of art.

To build a setting and then let the themes fall in is like hammering wood together and hoping it makes a boat.[/quote]The leaving of the campaign alone for half a year is actualy a bad idead. A very bad idea. The state of your life that you left behind will never return. Kinda like how my father wrote some music sketches a few decades ago and now he can't get back into the right frame of mind to arrange them in a proper format. He can write new stuff, but the old stuff is trapped in limbo.
[/quote]Realistically, when you "blindbuild" you are actually taking themes into account either through subconscious decisions or by taking elements from other pieces of art, and thereby taking the themes.
[/quote]The problem with this is that you'll eventually find inconsistencies in the style of the world that will degrade it as a whole.
[/quote] :twocents: I fail to see how inconsistencies would degrade a world. Consistency in a static creation such as a painting or a novel is a good thing, but in an ever-evolving medium, consistency is just evidence of oversimplification. If you can clearly delineate every element of an entire world as belonging to one of a limited number of styles or themes (except where necessary for game mechanical purposes), then you have created a world that is very unrealistic.[/quote]

Well, I think I'll leave this point for later. After nearly two hours of reading this thread, I think I'll take a break and see what my other points produce.

[CYMRO]

So in this, you are right, a world is a gallery, but the focus needs to be on the artwork for thatâ,¬,,¢s where vision lies. To fulfil a vision, one must have a goal even if it is unreachable.

Why?  I create a world, a gallery if you will.  My players pick the thematic thread that interests them.  I do not force them to focus on a piece of art, or a particular theme.  They choose want interests them.  
It should be the players' goal, not the DM's that drives things.  I drop considerable plothooks along the way for my party.  Most are never pursued.  

However, it is my opinion that a world in itself is not art, merely a cold framework on which to drape other artwork.

Here, again, we differ.  The world should not be a cold framework, but a dynamic place that the party interacts with.  Those loose plothooks, for example, have a way in my world of being resolved, for good or ill, that keep everything spinning.  Consequences of action and inaction mean that no matter what the players choose to pursue, the world is moving with them, in its kaliedoscope of lives, themes, and conflicts.  

Now if we can see that the world (geography, ecology, politics, etc.) is best tied to a setting (theme, tone, vision, etc.) we can also see why it is best to keep a world bound to a single setting.

Can't say that I agree.  Your example is  little over the top.  Let us examine a bit of real world "setting" conflict.  Let us say we are running a Viking Campaign, very sterotypical of the Hollywood genre.  The party after awhile finds itself in Imperial China.  Completely different setting within the same world, but the theme, tone and vision of the Forbidden City will be completely at odds with Oslo, but both can exist dynamically in the same world without any great disruption.  Yes, the party will go through culture shock, but that is half of the fun for the DM.  

Iâ,¬,,¢m not saying you should limit your entire world to a single idea, Iâ,¬,,¢m saying a single vision (idea, direction, etc.) should define your world.

Again, why?  Diversity of ideas and directions is much more fun.  Say, for example, my party wants a horror campaign.  I start the party in Gianpa, perfect for such a theme.  After a while, the party wants a new direction.  Maybe they have watched The Last Samurai one too many times, so a change of theme is in order. Waelun is already a dynamic part of the world, and the party can get to this thematically different area with little difficulty.  Alas, after awhile, the novelty wears off.  They are really looking for a military campaign.  Drimia calls to them.
The hardships of the battlefield get tiring after awhile, they really want some court intrigue. Off to Haelita.  And so on...
I try, as far as possible, with  Altvogge to cover every possible theme my players might want.  The world is not defined by a single vision, that would be too narrow, and not suit my players.  It is a fact that roleplayers are affected in their tastes by a multitude of influences.  By not binding yourself to a single theme, the party can sample whatever styles and themes that are currently interesting them.

The point still remains, you cannot reliably make a decent setting by letting a thematically dead world define itâ,¬,,¢s own theme.

A world without one theme does not have to be "dead", it can be brilliantly alive with a myriad of themes and directions.  As themeless and vibrant as the real world, which is resplendent in themes, just none consistently overarching.

[Lmns Crn]

Holmgang, here I come!

:twocents: I fail to see how inconsistencies would degrade a world. Consistency in a static creation such as a painting or a novel is a good thing, but in an ever-evolving medium, consistency is just evidence of oversimplification. If you can clearly delineate every element of an entire world as belonging to one of a limited number of styles or themes (except where necessary for game mechanical purposes), then you have created a world that is very unrealistic.

All[/i] our fictional worlds are, to varying degrees, oversimplified counterfeits of the real world.

4.) Detail may beget realism, but simplicity begets ease of use. As the level of detail of a fictional world rises, it tends to become more realistic, but it also tends to become more intimidating, forbidding, and difficult to use. Therefore, for most purposes, a truly realistic world (that is, one of infinite detail) is not only impossible to achieve, but undesirable. Each participant in a fictional world (writers, readers, DMs, players... all of them) must find the particular balance between detail and simplicity that satisfies their preference.

And trends vary. We see throughout history when we study any of the creative arts that tastes fluctuate, pendulum-style, between Apollonian and Dionysian extremes. World-building, likewise, has proponents of both styles-- as this thread clearly demonstrates. I contend that the discussion is too polarized for its own good; that purely theme-based writing and purely realistic writing are both overhyped as goals.

[Lmns Crn]

And since the discussion seems to have wandered into talk of "patchwork" settings, which contain multiple contrasting cultures with their own theme/tone sets.

I'd suggest the following: by including such global variety with local themes, isn't a writer also including global themes, voluntarily or not? A world with the kinds of diverse cultures as CYMRO describes stands out to me as having global themes because of its variation. Perhaps "Humanoid life is infinitely varied," or even "Contrasting cultures create discord when they come into contact."

[Epic Meepo]

Holmgang! Holmgang! Holmgang!

However, it is my opinion that a world in itself is not art, merely a cold framework on which to drape other artwork. So in this, you are right, a world is a gallery, but the focus needs to be on the artwork for thatâ,¬,,¢s where vision lies.

This goal represents the theme or ethos of the art and thus is the unifying element in the creation of any artwork.[/blockquote]
Based upon my above comment, I am going to disagree, because depending upon your goal, you may not be creating a work of art at all. If my goal is to create a medium in which others can create their own works of art, then my goal has nothing to do with any theme that may or may not be used when someone puts my medium to use. A canvas and a pallet don't together have any theme at all.

The world of Eberron and the world of Grayhawk are two different settings and worlds... Stripped bare of their themes, tones and thematic elements, the worlds both seem drab, but they still remain different. Each is built in a way that emphasizes and supports the settings they house. Placing the setting of Eberron (the theme, tone and thematic elements) onto the world of Grayhawk would be possible, but ultimately fall short of itâ,¬,,¢s true potential.

Many of the experiences that I have had with gaming run contrary to this. Several of my gaming groups are of the opinion that Eberron and Grayhawk, are, in fact, not very different at all. This stems from the fact that my gaming groups tend to adapts any setting to their own styles of play, regardless of the designers' and illustrators' prefered style of play.

Because Eberron and Grayhawk are both "if its D&D, you'll find it here" settings, my gaming groups content that they are, in fact, nearly identical campaign settings. A campaign setting is a framework for a campaign with a theme, and both of these frameworks use nearly identical pieces.

By contrast, my gaming groups would contend that Dragonlance is a distinctly different setting because Dragonlance is built upon a different subset of rules, as dictated by its cosmology and politics. No matter what theme the developers deign to attach to the cosmology and politics of Dragonlance, it is the actual choice of such elements that matters, not the motivation for that choice. Such a motiviation can be easily reimagined by any given gaming group.

The thing that comes to mind is a setting which incorporates both the Jetsons and Alien fiction, two works of art with drastically different themes... Each looking through different lenses, you can fit Xenomorphs onto the floating cities with hovercars, but like I showed earlier, the setting should match the world for best results.

That Jetsons/Alien setting appears as the cafe scene in the movie Spaceballs. By picking his own theme for this combination of themeless elements, Mel Brooks creates a very amusing and very memorable scene.

I think the biggest problem with you argument is that you assume that having a vision in mind for a setting means that the world is confined by a static idea. In no way is this the case. Just as people change, the themes and tone of a setting will change as the creator(s) vision changes.

Having a vision is not the same as having a theme. "I want a world with lots of pixies" and "I want a world in which pixies are an important recurring element" are two different statements. A certain amount of intent is needed for something that recurrs to become a theme instead of just a preoccupation or a coincidence. What's more, that intent will often change depending upon which gaming group is currently making use of a campaign setting.

The point still remains, you cannot reliably make a decent setting by letting a thematically dead world define itâ,¬,,¢s own theme. The only way that can ever occur is by building the world with a vision in mind and just not knowing it until you find that your setting has emerged.

You cannot make a decent setting (in the literary sense) without a theme, but you can make a decent setting (in the "backdrop for an as-of-yet unconcieved campaign) sense without a theme. That is why, in my arguments, I make a distinction between a setting used in a novel and a setting used for a game in which there is no specifically attached storyline.

I define a theme as a more solidified form of the goal of a vision. If someone has a brainstorm where they see pixies playing in the woods and that person decides to make a setting based on that vision, the setting will have themes even if the creator wasnâ,¬,,¢t consciously taking them into account.

If my goal is "I don't want to impose any given theme", then that goal cannot possibly be a theme. That is why I prefer to use a definition for the word theme that is closer to "a recurring element" along with some sort of requirement that the recurring element be more than mere astheitc preference or coincidence.

[CYMRO]

And since the discussion seems to have wandered into talk of "patchwork" settings, which contain multiple contrasting cultures with their own theme/tone sets.

I'd suggest the following: by including such global variety with local themes, isn't a writer also including global themes, voluntarily or not? A world with the kinds of diverse cultures as CYMRO describes stands out to me as having global themes because of its variation. Perhaps "Humanoid life is infinitely varied," or even "Contrasting cultures create discord when they come into contact."

The deeper message, or ethos, of a world, from my point of view, is, "Funny old thing, Life."

[the_taken]

The deeper message, or ethos, of a world, from my point of view, is, "Funny old thing, Life."

The liches and vampire lords of Mirafar feel very much negelcted and insulted by your necrecist ethos.

[CYMRO]

The deeper message, or ethos, of a world, from my point of view, is, "Funny old thing, Life."

The liches and vampire lords of Mirafar feel very much negelcted and insulted by your necrecist ethos.

That'll larn 'um to be undayud!

[Epic Meepo]

The only truly realistic world is the real one. Our aggregate real-world experiences become the yardstick by which we measure the "realism" of a fictional world.

Detail begets realism. The more detailed and nuanced a setting becomes, the more potential for verisimilitude it accumulates (and not coincidentally, the more resemblence it bears to the real world, which for our purposes, we may describe as infinitely detailed.)[/blockquote]
I'm not convinced that level of detail should be equated with realism. Level of detail can help to facilitate realism, but detail in and of itself is not realism. Realism arrises when we are able to accept that something fictional is logical, given that we accept its fiction premises as true. Thus, a theme must be mitigated by sufficient context to create some sort of logic that frames it.

Also, the real world is only infinitely detailed if the observer is omniscient.

I contend that the discussion is too polarized for its own good; that purely theme-based writing and purely realistic writing are both overhyped as goals.

Regarding my particular line of argument, this assertion is a straw man. I am not claiming that world building should be devoid of theme to accomodate realism. I am simply refuting the claims that it is self-defeating to build a world without first choosing a theme and that a world without a theme is necessarily lifeless.

[Raelifin]

Alright, I think I've gained something useful from this thread. From my perspective I have found at least two major ways to approach the process of creating a fantasy world. This post will attempt to detail the rough process, merits and failings of each. There are some points I could argue against, but this is my best shot at "we're both right and here's why:"

Ethocentric

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.

Process:

*Inspiration. It all begins with an inspirational vision in the eyes of the creator. Whether conscious or not, this vision has a goal or final product. This product is often unreachable.

*Ethos. The destination in mind defines a direction, which, in turn, defines the core ideas for the artwork to be. These ideas (or idea) are the core of the artwork and will become central themes in the product. This step is often done mentally or subconsciously.

*Tone. Now that the core theme(s) for the art is in place, the style in which the work is presented must be decided upon. In more traditional art, this might be the medium used, such as poetry, sculpture or watercolor. In an  Ethocentric world, it is the tone in which the setting is presented.

*Core elements. The focus of the artwork is built with the core theme heavily in mind. In a novel, core elements would be characters and major events. With an Ethocentric world, these might be the major areas or defining laws of nature.

*Major Background. Only now is the actual substance of the artwork filled in. The supporting elements that help build upon the main theme without distracting from the focus of the work.

*Detail. Once the hub of the art is finished, return and add detail that fills in blank space. This detail need not heavily support the ethos, but it must not counteract it heavily.

*Horizon. Now that the art is more or less finished stylistically, it is important to return to the edges of the work and round it out so that the work feels complete. This backdrop shouldnâ,¬,,¢t convey anything in itself, but should instead channel attention and provide a sturdy foundation for the core statement. In an Ethocentric world, this means building the actual lands that support the setting as well as mapping out the frontier (be it space, the ocean or far off lands) so that the focus is supported and doesnâ,¬,,¢t feel alone.

This process often requires revision as the creatorâ,¬,,¢s vision changes or a piece is left out.

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 itâ,¬,,¢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.

Divset (Diverse Setting)

A Divset world is one built to be a plausible environment or a backdrop to other fictional works. Divset worlds are intended to provide options and possibility, without forcing it on others.

Process:

*Creating a plausible background that can accomodate any number of themes is less like creating art and more like setting up an art studio. You have to decide what tools (campaign elements) you want to be available to the artists (players) without indicating how those tools are supposed to be used.

For example: when choosing what game mechanics to apply to your setting, use those rules that you believe would be easiest and/or the most fun to use. Show preference to game systems that are versatile instead of those that best represent particular genres, and err on the side of including character options instead of restricting them for flavor purposes.

The approach is less obvious - but still valid - when designing elements that are rule-independent. In this case, you consider what environments and populations you think GMs would best be able to use in any of various adventures. Be vague about the relationships between various elements; imply plots that might take place without actually initiating those plots.

For example, don't say, "the hordes of Nation A have joined the legions of Nation B on the battlefield." Instead say that "violence has errupted between Nation A and Nation B" or "Nation A currently occupies parts of Nation B." Notice that neither of the second options requires countries or NPCs to take specific actions or use specific tactics. Depending upon the genre your players prefer, Nation A might have obliterated part of Nation B with dangerus spells of mass destruction, invaded Nation B with a disciplined military force, or secretly unleashed a shadowy plague of nightmare creatures upon the countryside in order to subdue parts of Nation B.

As another example, compare "a dark realm where helpless peasants huddle in fear and despair as horrid undead prowl the night" to "a dark realm where undead prowl the night." The second description, while not as evocative of a specific feel (in this case horror), is much more versatile. With that description, rooted more in plain fact than in gripping imagery, you could run a horror campaign where peasants huddle in fear, you could run a military campaign where the forces of the king valaintly hold off hordes of marauding undead, or you could run a superhero campaign where a league of heroes contends with a host of recurring undead foes.

Essentially, choose game mechanics and design an environment strictly to facilitate the largest spectrum of adventures of types that you like to play. Then develop factual descriptions of people and places that could function in tandem with any of several themes. Be vague. Imply things that might exist, but do not make them prerequisites for the proper use of your setting. Create conflicts, but do not state if or how they will play out. Have different factions that accept different descriptions of reality, creating a menu of possible truths for a DM to choose from.

Worlds created in this manner are distinguished not by unique themes, but by unique and inventive combinations of elements that a DM can use to achieve a particular purpose. When done correctly, these worlds are not evocative in the way that art is evocative, but elegant in the way a scientific theory is elegant.

Merits: [/b]
Divset worlds make excellent resources for Game Masters who want to create their own art without making their own world. They also provide a haven for players who like to define their own themes and ideas. By dissociating from themes and tones, Divset worlds are also much more malleable and easy to change.

Failings:
Because they are not intended as art themselves, Divset worlds often seem boring or generic when viewed objectively. Divset worlds also provide less potential depth with any one theme as they strive to accommodate a variety.


Well, what do you think? Am I nuts? Are there other major methods for constructing worlds? Can you present failings and merits that Iâ,¬,,¢ve not taken into account?