How do you come up with a setting?

[Cheomesh]

A "theme" for an entire world is probably not a good thing, unless it's something like a world in decay, an ice age, or a global war.  Think more locally.  My own setting takes place in a very small part of a larger continent (Think what Maine is to the American super continent).  The local theme is "Anglo Saxons".  I started with what I knew about them, furthered my knowledge in research, and applied it to a fantasy world, using magical things to supplement the old superstitions.

A "theme" can be anything, from a specific thing involving interpersonal relationships, to much broader things like culture.

M.

[Lmns Crn]

Good question. I certainly didn't do it deliberately.

Here's a better answer, since I don't want my only contribution to this thread to be flippancy.

I started out with some basics: I drew a map and wrote some strange words all over it by way of place names. I thought about some different kinds of races and wrote them down. I thought about some different kinds of bland and boring gods for a vaguely greco-roman polytheistic pantheon, and I wrote them down, too. I was taking an astronomy class at the time, so I wrote down some notes on the shape of the world* and its surroundings.

Most of this was rubbish, of course, so bit by bit I threw it out and rewrote it all*.

Didn't realize at the time that I needed to rewrite or add anything, naturally. I had a map and some funky place names and some new gods, so I thought I was done. I started running D&D games in the Jade Stage-- and was pretty horrified at the results. The players didn't care about it, not one iota! (Which was entirely my fault, of course.) They happily dealt with evil cultists and their quasi-fascist organization, gleefully beat a member of a pacifist, charitable order of healers to a bloody pulp for information, and so forth. Not because their characters were amoral knaves, but because nobody except me realized that was what was going on. I had put in all this work, writing up the world, and the ungrateful bastards were playing it wrong.

So, it was about this point that somebody clued me in: they didn't care because I hadn't given them anything to care about. There was no world, yet; just a potpourri of goofy names. So I set about adding and rewriting, providing a world to go with those names.

Themes? Sort of, perhaps. They're more useful after the fact of writing, as a way of communication to readers and players what a world is "about" (if I can abuse the terminology in such a way.) I wrote in history for players to inherit, authorities for them to serve or to rebel against, injustices for them to oppose or to perpetuate, mysteries to explore, schemes to be schemed or to be unraveled, wars to be fought or to be prevented.... Themes are boring. Give me action! Give me choices! There's the interesting bits!

My writing process today is much the same as it has been for the last few years. I keep turning over ideas in my head, things I've already written, deciding whether they make sense or whether they're interesting enough. I add on to them and change them around, and I remove them entirely if I determine that they're entirely rubbish. Occasionally I will come up with a brand new thing and add it to my little notebooks, and subject it to this same brutal process along with all the rest of the bits and pieces of my little world.

Most of this process couldn't properly be called "writing," because we already have this wonderful word called "editing" which suits it much better. I think of it like trimming a bonsai tree-- molding and growing existing material into a more pleasing shape.

[spoiler=*shape of the world]One of my astronomy assignments was to devise an explanation that would account for an Earth-dweller's view of the stars (changing as they do through the year), the changing tides, the seasons, and so forth. We had already discussed in class the ways in which these phenomena are really brought about, so I decided to go in a totally different direction and postulate a flat earth, with ad hoc adjustments to support the various features I was supposed to explain.

I think the professor liked it. And anyway, I know that some of you readers seem to be pleased by it.[/spoiler][spoiler=*rewrote it all]Well, I rewrote almost all of it.

Most of the place names have been replaced at some point or another, I'm pretty sure. The map has been readjusted several times. Religion has very little resemblance to my original, childish notes on the subject (though many of the Cardan gods still have names that date back to that first draft, I'd like to think they have more personality now.) The only thing I really kept in full were the notes from astronomy class on the shape of the world and its properties, and those don't exactly see much use.

Goes to show, uh. Something, I guess.[/spoiler]

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Well, y'know one of the possible problems is that I may not come up with terribly complex settings.  I go "California superheroes......in space" and then add a few bits that need explaining and I'm done.  Or at least until someone asks me a question and forces me to explain more.

I don't produce campaign settings, I make RPG travel brochures. :D

[SDragon]

Another thing to consider: players will never care about the setting as much as you do. In particular, they'll never remember anyone's names. So don't make them work any harder than they have to.

I agree with good old Shamus young here.

[ic]Nobody wants to play a campaign with Emperor Fred or High Chancellor Gary, and so the usual approach is to give everyone high fantasy names like King Geon'ai, Sir Lua'an-Eradin, or Lady Alaain Mera-Dovrel. You know, strange and fantasy-ish. Of course, this means the names will all be unpronouncable, difficult to spell, and easily confused. For fun, have your players describe the plot of your campaign after it's over. I promise it will sound something like this:

"The dragon guy with that black sword was oppressing the people that lived on those hills. Then that one king with the really long beard got that one chick with the crazy hair, and she went to that one lake. Then she got corrupted by that curse thing that made her attack that group of guys we found dead. You know, the ones that had that +1 sword and the bag of holding? Once we broke her curse she told us about the dragon guy and gave us that thing. And the map. Then we found the dragon dude and kicked his ass."

It's like living in a word without proper nouns. I've always wanted to make a campaign like this:

"The Dark Lord Walter, wielder of the Black Sword of choppery, was opressing the peoples of Pittsburgh. Then King George Washington enlisted the help of the Warrior Princess Rapunzel. Sadly, in the Land of Yellowstone she fell under a spell and slew the Steelers, Knights of Pittsburgh. At last the heroes freed the princess, traveled through the kingdom of Barstow, and confronted Walter in the land of Spokane."

Sure, it sounds stupid, but you have to admit: your players will be able to remember, pronounce, and even spell all of the important people and places. [/ic]

Why not use names that, while not strange, sound like they would fit a typical fantasy world? Names like Micheal, Edward, Nathaniel, or Edgar? Women could have names like Michelle, Elizabeth, Mary Anne, or something like that. In particularly cosmopolitan areas, it wouldn't matter as much what race you were. In areas where the race that these names conjure (most likely human) is the most prevalent, it wouldn't matter much, either. Think of some famous hollywood action stars that came from China; does anybody bicker about how Chinese the name "Bruce" is?

[Kindling]

Alternatively use fantastical names that are just easy to remember, pronounce and spell in their own right. There are plenty of examples of this (Bilbo, Conan, Elric, et cetera)

Or you could use English words in evocative combinations (Hawkmoon, Steerpike, and their ilk)

I think using "real" names, while not something that should be avoided on principle, can shatter immersion just as easily as unpronounceable nomenclature - not to mention that they're often just not as compelling as fantasy alternatives, at least not in context. Honestly, would you rather Conan or Colin? Elric or Eric? Gandalf or Gareth? Hawkmoon or Harold? Frodo or Freddie?

[Elemental_Elf]

I like the mixed approach, go for English/Western names and use those evocative compound words as last names. James Firepike, Charles Bearclaw, Garrett Sunwatcher... It makes everything simple yet remains evocative enough to keep immersion.

[Bill Volk]

I think there's a reason to sometimes use a Freddie. It's so much easier, and it really doesn't push the credibility of most settings. In fact, sometimes it makes things more believable. An example from my experience is names with apostrophes. My players hate, hate, HATE stereotypical fantasy names with apostrophes in them, but of course they never complain about apostrophes in real-world names like O'Brien or something.

It's basically impossible to remove all traces of the real world from a setting. Even if you did, the result would be impossible to identify with. And names made by smashing two generic words together, like Hawkmoon, make a setting sound too much like World of Warcraft. They're easy and tempting, but I try to avoid them.

Oh, and something I forgot to mention! Players have the maturity of six-year-olds when it comes to dealing with funny-sounding names. They'll even take names like Viktor and make them silly. So think twice before introducing a serious character named Enos.

[Kindling]

My aim wasn't to avoid all traces of the real world with my views on names, just that... well, fantasy is about escapism, to a greater or lesser degree, and fantasy roleplaying doubly so. This escapist aesthetic is ruined when we're confronted with something overly familiar - just as our experience is ruined when presented with something so unfamiliar we, as people from the real world, cannot relate to it.

And as for the video-gamey-ness of Hawkmoon type kennings, yes, I agree they have become something of a cliche, but they still have their place, and can still be used effectively with a little imagination (i.e. don't call your villain Blackshade, your knight's sword Lionblade and your pyromancer Flamehand)

[Jürgen Hubert]

An example is people talk about "themes", but I don't really get that: I try to think of a theme, and it just sounds like pretenscious BS.  And if I stuck to it I'd probably end running out of ideas because I'd get too many that'd break the theme.  How do you avoid this?

Don't see a theme as a constraint. Instead, see it as a lens through which to see the setting.

For example, the main theme of Urbis can be summed up:

"Advances in magic within a generic fantasy world lead to a magical industrial revolution, the breakdown of the old feudal order, and the spread of vast and powerful city-states."

That doesn't mean that you have to limit yourself to describing those city-states - instead, you try to think how their presence affects other setting elements commonly found in other fantasy (or SF, or superhero, or whatever type of setting you are trying to build).

For example, quite a few settings include some "Elven Island Paradise in the West" where humans are forbidden to tread. Call it Aman, Evermeet, or Tir nan Og - the stories are fairly similar. But how would such place fare in a world with vast and powerful human city-states?

Here is one possible answer. The main theme of the setting is not directly represented here - and yet it affects this locale and allows you to give a new and interesting twist on a tired old trope. And this is how you should all "core themes" of a setting.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Well part of what I wonder is if analyzing an idea enough that you can articulate a theme like that robs it of some of its interest.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

Well part of what I wonder is if analyzing an idea enough that you can articulate a theme like that robs it of some of its interest.

In general, I don't think so, I think it highlights it. But every person's experience with art is unique and subjective, so it might have that effect on some people. I believe that more people will be drawn in than driven away by a clear summary of themes. It's the teaser that tells me whether I want to bother reading further (as the reader). As the author, it tells you if things are slipping away from you in too many directions (which is of course a bigger issue in ethocentric settings).

There seem to be two questions in OP:

1) How do you come up with things.
2) How do you stay focused on them.

#1 is harder, because the process is different every time. I rarely sit down and say, "I want to think up something new." But when I get ideas, I start to think how to combine them. A lot of my work is tightly based off of one or more mythologies or religions from the real world. Beyond that, the idea that sparks a setting can often be a simple concept.

#2 Not usually a problem. If I feel compelled to switch projects, I do until I get it out of my system. Then I come back to the best project, and occasionally mine the others for ideas. If I never come back to an idea or recycle it, it probably wasn't my best idea anyway. But if I have a new idea not related to a current project, I often find it'll nag me until I least get it down and out of my head.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

"Advances in magic within a generic fantasy world lead to a magical industrial revolution, the breakdown of the old feudal order, and the spread of vast and powerful city-states."

So a theme doesn't have to be a statement of literary elements (yeah, I don't know what to call it) but can be just saying what you want to do?  :huh:  That's not something that ever occurred to me when I read the word "theme".

[Jürgen Hubert]

"Advances in magic within a generic fantasy world lead to a magical industrial revolution, the breakdown of the old feudal order, and the spread of vast and powerful city-states."

So a theme doesn't have to be a statement of literary elements (yeah, I don't know what to call it) but can be just saying what you want to do?  :huh:  That's not something that ever occurred to me when I read the word "theme".

Well, the change from a feudal, primitive past to a "modern" world order is something that impacts pretty much all parts of the setting. But perhaps it helps if you replace the word "theme" with "core idea".

Obviously, some themes are less suitable than others for an RPG setting. Themes that lead to chaos and change (geographical, social, and so forth) are better than those that lead to harmony - after all, adventurers thrive in chaotic times, and there are no RPGs without conflicts.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

A theme is often expressed as something vs. something else.

For example example, in Eschaton the main theme is fate vs. free will.

For another story I'm working on, it's Progress vs. Tradition.

Others might be love vs. duty, or that kind of thing.

In a way, it's often like the inner struggle a character may face. When you've got two conflicting desires, and both are valuable, then you have legitimate conflict. As opposed a situation when only one quality is laudable--then it is clear which side should win so you don't have as profound a conflict or theme. (Which is not to say black and white morality cannot sometimes be fun to play, only it usually makes a less interesting story.)

I don't know if this kind of thinking helps any.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I don't know if this kind of thinking helps any.

Well my problem is that "vs" thinking is often times very confusing to me.  If I see a conflict where there is no clear "right" I don't see a reason to get worked up about it, it should be resolved through calm debate or people just doing their own thing, nothing to create any real "conflict" over.

It's not that I don't realize this happens, it's just that I can't understand it in the way necessary to reproduce it.  At least not in a way that makes it more than an obviously stupid conflict.