Theme Wars!

[beejazz]

Well, I'm not arguing that theme does not exist, only that it exists post-creation. Themes arise from the interpretation of content. For example, when building Baron Sanguin I satated with. "You know what's cool? A lich." And then I thought "But everybody does liches, and they're all the same." Then I thought "Let's make him morbidly obese... that'll show 'em... Ooo, and a blood magus. Yes, he will sit around in a bathtub full of blood and eat fish and chips. Even though he lives in a landlocked city. I'm sure there's a reason, I'll add it later. And, of course, he's got to be kingpin of the criminal underworld. You never see a lich do that, but I don't see why not." And then I'm like, "Hey, he's gotta have a son. A retarded son. A retarded son that he wants to put on the throne... none of this infinitely patient post-death couldn't care less about worldly things bull." So, how is he connected to the magocracy? "Well... he's a sorcerer. He's one of the two sons of the Baron Lugwaif from back in the old aristocracy. Both of that baron's children were sorcs. House Nagual, the sorcerous branch of the government, is dexcended from Sanguin's brother Nagual. When power changed hands, Sanguin lost his wife (who would not come back because that would be lame) and because his retarded son, Rex, had no sorcerous powers... well, you can see why Sanguin has dreams of a coup." But Rex is like twenty. The revolution happened a WHILE ago. "Living zombie minions. The whole aging thing can be partially shunted off onto victims." And so on. Not only do "inconsistencies" not hurt, but they actually help the creative process. Furthermore, while I might have created a villain with a tragic past, I only did so as a result of "liches are totally badass."

Theme might exist, but for me, it'll always be second to content.

[Raelifin]

I'm confused to how you can think that "'inconsistencies' [do] not hurt, but they actually help the creative process." I certainly can't see any supporting statements.

As you think about the Baron, you have a core idea of him. If this idea changes before you create any actual material, that's fine. However, once you begin to change the idea mid-creation you become inconsistent. Like I said, think up a subject then draw it. Don't change the drawing half-way through. Inconsistency sucks.

Content is important. It is the actual picture, and without a picture there is no art. I'm not saying that the subject of the art is more important that the picture itself, I just think that it's important to have an idea of what you're creating and stick with that idea from start to finish. That's roughly what ethocentricity is.

[beejazz]

My point is that theme (the tragic background, the hedonistic lifestyle, and the corrupt ambition) is the result and not the precedent of content (his wife's death, the morbid obesity, and the dreams of coup respectively).

As for drawing... you'd be better off comparing to painting. Acryllics specifically. The whole appeal of charcoal and oils and clay is that you *can* go back. Hence you *can* just draw what comes to you as it comes.

As for inconsistencies aiding the creative process, see above. Every inconsistency creates a question for which an answer must be supplied. The question about mortal lifespans (an inconsistency in the chronology) leads  directly to the use of living zombies. Even the question about the fish in the landlocked city has a suitable answer, but that's a little more sinister and is being saved for my secrets thread (who'd 'ave thunk? fish and chips leads to terrible horrible things).

[Raelifin]

As for drawing... you'd be better off comparing to painting. Acryllics specifically. The whole appeal of charcoal and oils and clay is that you *can* go back. Hence you *can* just draw what comes to you as it comes.

As for inconsistencies aiding the creative process, see above. Every inconsistency creates a question for which an answer must be supplied. The question about mortal lifespans (an inconsistency in the chronology) leads  directly to the use of living zombies. Even the question about the fish in the landlocked city has a suitable answer, but that's a little more sinister and is being saved for my secrets thread (who'd 'ave thunk? fish and chips leads to terrible horrible things).
[/quote]
Yes, a good answer must be supplied or you detract from the whole thing. In each example you've provided, it seems to me that you had a solution in mind for each apparent "inconsistency" as it arose. What you say is that throwing ideas around and then justifying the ideas afterworld makes you creative. It's true that adding chaos to the art can inspire you, but if not used in severe moderation it will give the work an air of haphazard inconsistency which will be irreparable.

[Túrin]

Actually, I think charcoal is a great metaphorical medium because in writing you CAN go back. It just sucks. I mean, who wants to re-write 200 pages of material just because you've decided to take ratfolk out of your world? >_<

I don't think anyone would want that, but you can't say it doesn't happen, even if you're building ethocentric. Campaign setting creation is a long and labour-intensive process, and it tends to be endless in the sense that it's never really done. As you elaborate on the original idea, you will eventually want to change things here or there, and you will have to edit/update/rewrite material. This can not be avoided by using an ethocentric method of creation.

:2cents: Túrin

[SA]

Ethocentric vs. DivSet?

For me, there are three essential elements in creating a great setting, and they have nothing to do with themes as opposed to diversity, or whatever superfluous, ideological insanity you crazy berks have conjured up.

Awesomeness
Is my setting gonna be pure, undiluted, irradiated, liquid awesome?  I ask myself this before I've even put any ideas to paper, when I've just got the most basic idea (i.e "city inside a giant bug" - and no, that ain't a theme) squirming around like an illithid pup in my brain-box.  It's not the result of objectively looking at what I aleady have and saying "what I have is awesome," but rather, before the fact, asserting that "that-which-has-not-yet-been-conceived" is preemptively awesome, even as an unthought potentiality.  If I cannot see the awesomeness of my work as a forgone conclusion resulting from the simple intent of world creation, then my efforts have already failed.

Beauty
Is it lyrical?  Is it vivid? Is it sensual?  Does it get your jones on and dampen the sheets?  It had better, because otherwise I fucked up somewhere along the way.  When I write, it ain't just a setting, it is art; it's goddamned poetry in motion, but it sure as heck ain't that l'art pour l'art crap.  Art for its own pure sake is the province of those whose flair for creation is eclipsed by their impotence in the ascription of substance to that opus.  Make it gorgeous, but if it means nothing, it's like a porcelain effigy: beautiful, but pointless.

And is not the message an element of its beauty?

(But I digress)

Fact is, anything can possess it's own kind of lyrical beauty.  To make poetry, I need a subject.  Not a theme (though it often helps), not a berth of material, just something to craft into a sensual experience worth participating in.

Believability and Loveability
I set out to create worlds.  Big freakin' chunks'o'rock with water and islands and continents and shit, and poeples to populate those locales.  But more importantly, I create worlds with people worth getting to know.  When I think of oceans, I think "is there anyone in the ocean?" and "what are they like?" and so on.  Then I ask what they do, who opposes them, how they think, blah blah frikkity blah blah.  All the while, I'm also thinking of oceanic-inspired themes.  My cephalopods are based on the "psychic octopus" idea, and their central theme, I suppose, is "the conflict and cooperation of intellect and emotion".  The theme very much defines how they might be perceived by those who view the setting, but they are first and foremost PSYCHIC OCTOPI.  That's the clincher: it's awesome - the awesomeness that motivates me to keep thinking up crazy ideas for them - and awesomeness above all else dictates my work.  Should the initial theme fail to suffice, it'll be thrown out the window, and I'll use a new one.  Never kowtow to your ideologies; in the creation of art, they are your instruments. (And yes, I acknowledge that for most, setting design is not approached with the intention of creating art - I merely state that the DMs I am most closely affiliated with do)

When I look at the way I design settings, I'm actually rather confused by this Ethos/DivSet mumbo jumbo.  Do I think of themes when I write?  Not really.  That's only a factor when other people need to be guided in their perusal of my setting.  Do I make sure it's uber-expansive and diverse?  Hell no.  I won't badger myself into making sure my setting has "X diversity factor."  I simply ask myself this: is it beautiful, is it believable, and will it rock their motherfucking socks off?

Can you honestly tell me I'm doing anything wrong?  Is my work not teh shit (I think you shall find that it is).  I'm writing to write, but not for the sake of writing; to conceive ideas, but not for the sake of ideologies; to provide a universe in which my friends on this board and any  other realmscape can partake of my creations, but not for the simple sake of gaming.

As a DM, I'm an artist, but the purpose  and method of my art is neither explicable nor necessary in the justification of the practice.  There are a hundred million reasons why I do it, but it all boils down to this:

It's an experience I never want to do without.

It's not chicken-or-egg, or chicken-and-egg, or even some bastard half-born chicken-egg abomination that comes pecking and proselytising from the misbegotton womb of some hellforged demon-hen.  Theme arises from the natural evolution of a setting, and vice versa.  Shit, sometimes I can't even tell the difference, and for me, it never makes a difference.

[spoiler=ALSO]Careful with all those analogies, guys.  A world is neither comparable to a gallery nor a painting (or drawing, etcetera).  It's the art and it contains the art.  A world can be a setting and contain settings within itself - it's both macro- and microcosmic.  Settings can segue seemlessly together, such that the distinction between is all but void.  Maybe I'm simply not that analytical in my design process, but it seems to me that comparing world creation to any other artistic medium is rather erroneous.[/spoiler]

Just my two drachma.  Peace out, brethren.

[Túrin]

Careful with all those analogies, guys.

Quoted for truth.

[SA]

<Oops.  Not yet.>

[beejazz]

..or even some bastard half-born chicken-egg abomination that comes pecking and proselytising from the misbegotton womb of some hellforged demon-hen.

YES! TEH CHIKINEGG!!1

[SA]

You know, sometimes I worry about you...

[beejazz]

Yeah... I get that alot.

[SA]

My question, in short, is if it's DivSet when you're not trying to be diverse even though it is diverse, and if it's Ethocentric when some prominent themes/motifs arise, emergently, rather than as your main intention.

If magic in my setting is "an extention of consciousness, and a manipulation of perceptual experience", and by virtue of that motif the setting becomes otherwordly, fantastical and dreamlike, does that make my setting ethocentric based on that magical principle, seeing as it appears throughout the entirety of the setting?  In my case, I'd argue not, because that "theme" emerged as a simple result of my endeavours to rationalise magic within a quasi-scietific framework.

Dystopia is a diverse setting, to be sure, but not because I specifically wanted it to be diverse.  What I wanted was to have creatures dwelling in an oceanic environment, and I couldn't justify the presence of anthropods in the deep sea, so I used cephalopods (besides, cephalopods are cool).  Similarly, I wanted to have some kind of sentience in the far southeast, but I couldn't justify organic life in a place aptly called the "Dessicated Plain".  Hence, I used crystalline and earthen creatures.  This is consistent across the setting: I created different races, sometimes with vastly alien intellects, a) because they were awesome, and b) because they made more sense given their location.  I didn't do it for the sake of diversity or because of a theme, but because they were cool (for myself and the players), and believable.  I mean, what the smeg is a humanoid doing in the abysm of the deeps?  We're not made for that!

In a sense, I like my settings to be reminiscent of the diversity of our own world, and the way that emerges from something simpler of different.  It's not "I want a nation of sword-wielding puritans" (Like Calthaire), and then I go and do it, it's "the ulven of Baennet Zzar came to the Corlainthii mainland from Zaanuril, and following a great schism, the puritans moved south, establishing the territories of Calthaire".  You see, the theme evident in the first quote exists, and upon its inception it did serve as a focus of sorts (not as a conscious motif; simply the incessant crie of "more swords, more knights, more horsies!", which served me well enough) but the thought process by which Calthaire was inspired came first, and that was a logical course, not a theme.

In short, I assert that:

A setting is only Ethocentric when the foundations are thematically focused, rather than the theme arising emergently after the setting has begun and not taking a central role in the creation process.

A setting is only DivSet when there is a focus on diversity (for the sake of variety of play or the exploration of multiple themes - realism as a motivator doesn't qualify under our definition)

A setting is both when you strive to accommodate both because you want an emphasis on theme and diversity.

A setting is neither under circumstances including:

the beginning or central idea (eg. humans took over Heaven; robotic dragons; the stars are literally falling; hobgoblins rule the worrrld! [as they should] and so on) is not in itself a theme, and a theme does not subsequently emerge that dominates the setting (if that does happen, it is either Etho or Etho-Div).

Your original theme ends up not being a focus for your setting, or not even present at all, but the ideas it inspired (none of which are the

new focal theme) remain.[/list]

You have a million immortal monkeys at a billion typewriters for a trillion years, and generate your setting from the result.

Even shorter, I assert that the dichotomy does not apply when either ethos or diversity arise after, or are secondary to, other intentions (such as realism and Awesome factor - in my opinion, realism and Awesome are a better focus, and themes should arise from Awesome, not the other way around).




NOTE: For the record, while I contend that Dystopia is neither, Tammurand, its spiritual successor, is probably both.

[Raelifin]

Uhg, I hate this. You make me think. :P

We've already established that "finding" core themes after a work is created does not constitute ethocentricity. The object is to communicate the central idea, and thus it is the active participation that drives it's ethocentricity.

I think one of my biggest setbacks on this whole thing is the word "theme." I'd just like to point out that while I think the word theme can be used, as defined in a particular way, that it should not be used to describe a setting's ethos, there's just too much confusion there.

An ethocentric campaign is one where the setting creator has some idea of exactly what the world is. There must be a vision of the setting and the creator must try to communicate that vision. Note that the ethos (the central idea of the setting) can be subconscious. Just as a painter can paint and paint but never be happy until finally she/he finds the right image, a worldbuilder can express herself/himself and continually tweak the setting to reach the goal. In these cases, the artist knows what they want, but it's too elemental to be conceptualized.

My school of thought (Raelian), which should not be confused with true ethocentricity, is that ethos should be conceptualized for the sake of creating a more consistent and refined world.

DivSet is the absence of ethos. At the point where there is not a central idea to express, the setting becomes divset. This can arise from chaos (monkeys), too many minds (inclusive/group projects), poor design (melting pot), or intentional avoidance of ethocentricity (CYMRian School of Thought).

When I wrote my blurb for the CBGuide, I paraphrased the major conflict being discussed (at the time) in this thread. I had started with the idea that ethos was important to conceptualize when designing a setting. Cymro challenged this and opened my eyes to intentionally avoiding ethos. What a bizarre concept! What I listed as a definition of DivSet in the CBGuide was not true DivSet nature, merely the school of thought where Divsetricity is actively sought. I apologize for this confusion and I admit there are more options than what I presented in the CBGuide. You've opened my eyes to yet another school of thought on this issue! I do not think that it would be good to add another word on the same level as Ethocentric and DivSet as I see those words as good at describing the presence/absence of central vision.

What I do see is that you seem to be FOR ethocentricity, but AGAINST planning. (I nominate this sentence for the â,¬Å"most likely to be quoted and fought overâ,¬Â award) This would make another school of ethocentric thought where what I originally coined as â,¬Å"blindbuildingâ,¬Â is the goal. Please give me your feedback on my thoughts. I think this discussion is paramount to the wellfare of the worldbuilding community as a whole. Then of course, I do subscribe to Raelian philosophy. ^_^
[spoiler=Random!]'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
 - Mark Twain

I guess I just removed all doubt. >.<
At least I don't have a million monkeys on a billion typewriters.
[/spoiler]
[note]Throughout this article I talk about taxonomy in great detail. Here I will propose a different idea on the naming conventions. The main post body suggests that Ethocentric and DivSet be used to refer to the on-off nature of vision and then there are various â,¬Å"schools of thoughtâ,¬Â that determine the actual process for developing a world/setting.

Another option would be to use Ethocentic and DivSet to apply to the Raelian and Cymrian schools of thought, add another word for Angelian and then make two more words for the on-off nature of vision. Once again, thoughts would be appreciated.[/note]

[Epic Meepo]

Actual on-topic statements follow...[/ic]
Prior to semantic arguements about the meaning of the terms "ethocentric" and "divset," I was under the impression that the Theme Wars involved a simple binary argument: either a setting should be designed to intentionally convey a theme that was chosen at the outset of its creation, or not.

At least according to my impression of the crux of the argument, there need only be two sides in the debate. Either you should choose a theme before you start or you shouldn't. If you don't want to state any theme, you belong to the second camp. If you just want something awesome and an emergent theme appears later, you belong to the second camp. If you want readers to draw their own conclusions and thus choose vague wording that might fit any of several themes, you belong to the second camp.

That, at least, had been my understanding of the fundamental debate. (My opinion, of course, is that it isn't necessary to choose a theme at the outset of campaign creation. In particular, I beleive that many of the best campaign settings are those that let readers draw their own conclussions. Especially considering the fact that "awesomeness" is an entirely subjective concept.)

[SA]

Indeed, awesomeness is entirely subjective.  I just wish we could all embrace the glory of the hobgoblin...

I agree wholeheartedly with Raelifin that I am, at least by his definition, an ethocentrist and a blindbuilder (you sooo did not coin that; I've been using it for years!).

Thus, having presented your argument in a clearer manner, I find myself... not so much converted as having no reason to debate further.  You think my style is ethocentric, and if your terminology describes me as such, so be it.  I can live with definitions external to myself.  Heck, I didn't name myself in the first place (or even ask to be here - oh why God, why???).

Oh yeah.  And it seems that Ethocentric and DivSet, as terms, don't really work in opposition.  Ethocentric is an intentional design style, but while DivSet is evocative of intent, there needn't be any such intent.  One of the reasons why this debate confused me was because it seemed that you were either for one, or for the other, rather than simply for Ethos or not for Ethos.

As the term is Ethocentric, you could simply say "one either has a central ethos, or one hasn't."  Ethocentric, or not.  Much less confusing, as you only have to define one side and everything that is not that is automatically the other.

Of course, folks, all this semantic polemic means precisely squat if you've been world-building just fine thus far without any knowledge of it.  After all, all this debate did for me was say "hey, according to us, you're this, and mine is better than yours," and while it's great that we can weave cogent terminologies, putting an arbitrary name to something that would find its own definition superfluous doesn't achieve anything tangible.

Nice think tank, though.

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.

...And to think Rael thought I was going to rip his argument to shreds!  Perish the thought.  I am a gentle creature.  With teeth.