Friday Forum Philosophy - Week 6

[Matt Larkin (author)]

Week 6 (September 11th, 2009)
Theme
[note]Sorry we missed a week and now I'm a day late. Life can be rough.[/note]

Here's a big topic. Some settings have no theme. Some have too many. Some designers think theme is everything, some find it stifling. Where do you fall?

[ooc]Reference:
Theme Wars summary--back then I was still Phoenix Knight, wow.

Wikipedia: theme, and art theme[/ooc]

How does Theme Wars look three years later? Any new thoughts on the issue? Anyone want to dig up the old thread?

How does a theme in literature differ from a theme in a setting?

Which of course brings us back to the great is setting design art debate.

Cry Havoc!

[LD]

Thank you for the link, I was wondering where your neologisms of "ethocentric" and "DivSet" originated.

As reflected in my works, I prefer "Ethocentric: A world or setting that is intended as art in its own right. The concept here is that art always has a unifying vision and this vision becomes the "central ethos." Everything in the setting is designed to work toward that ethos and thus has unifying theme. Ethocentric worlds are thought by most to have more focus, depth and potential." (From: CBG Wiki: Theme Wars http://www.thecbg.org/wiki/index.php?title=Theme_Wars)

But I can understand how, when running games and trying to appeal to a variety of players, DivSet can be quite useful.
-
And yes, setting design is an art as much as writing a book is an art.

[Kindling]

I never really got that involved in Theme Wars at the time, but now, with the benefit of hindsight, I'd like to advocate the "healthy balance"

I think that while some overarching themes, or perhaps even something as simple as a "feel" or a recurring visual aesthetic throughout the setting is absolutely necessary for cohesion and to create any sense of the setting as a unified object, likewise at least some of the elements of a DivSet should also make an appearance - not in the kitchen sink sense, but in that a good degree of variety is necessary to make a CAMPAIGN setting rather than an ADVENTURE setting... with out the variety, repetition is risked if the game continues past the first plot arc.

Just my two low-denomination monetary units :)

EDIT: Also, sometimes things just have to be included because they're SO COOL, overarching themes be damned!

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I don't really like themes.  A big overarching element makes the pieces inside the setting seem insignificant and pointless.

Also I abysmally suck at interpretation, so I'm biased against expression other than direct speaking.

[sparkletwist]

This topic is actually pretty relevant to me right now because I just made a bunch of changes to my Crystalstar setting. I would have originally called it something of a "DivSet," with all the stuff I put in there. There were crystals and the whole "Sci-Fantasy" motif which were kind of constant, but there were a few distinct cultures and ways of thinking in play. Recently, though, I significantly rethought the divine pantheon, with a lot of influence from Hindu philosophy and some of the more tightly ordered pantheons of other RPGs. As a result, now there are some constant "themes" running through the setting. I think I generally like the more cohesive feel, though it does now make it a little harder to add new things because I have to think through the broader connotations of everything. (I've had to change a few names)

[Superfluous Crow]

I like how that summary has a very scientific tone to it. ^^
And I'm afraid my own setting might be BlindSet... Well, as long as it is not SinkSet I'm happy. Might have to do something about it though. (btw, why is BlindSet a sub-category of Ethocentric??)
Anyway, I think we should try to see theme as a connector between individual setting elements. Books, movies, etc. have the story to keep it all together; a mini-ethos about the characters and their struggle. Settings don't have that. So without either a theme or a tight structure/internal history the individual elements "float away" and you end up with Theme Park Disorder (see Gray's Setting Anatomy) where your characters are no longer travelling between locations in the same world, but rather different worlds in the same setting. You know it from computer games; there is the desert world, the city world, the sea world etc... By linking the things together with a common element you prevent this from happening.
When we consider campaign settings, settings essentially designed for roleplaying, DivSet becomes an important element. If we constrain ourselves to a single theme, we can essentially only tell a single story (give or take a few). A campaign destroyed by environmental destruction by human hand will almost invariably revolve around that theme. DivSet enables you to tell many stories with many micro-themes. (Kindling said something akin to this)
The ideal would be a multi-ethos setting i think; it has the breadth of DivSet and the consistency of EthSet. Of course, these would be complicated to make. The process could perhaps be something akin to first making a template DivSet setting and then layering ethos' on top.

As a final note, I agree with Kindling's CoolSet comment. In fact, couldn't we rename BlindSet that? :D

[Ghostman]

So without either a theme or a tight structure/internal history the individual elements "float away" and you end up with Theme Park Disorder (see Gray's Setting Anatomy) where your characters are no longer travelling between locations in the same world, but rather different worlds in the same setting. You know it from computer games; there is the desert world, the city world, the sea world etc... By linking the things together with a common element you prevent this from happening.

Do you think this applies to the real world (particularly in pre-modern times of history)? Are we living in a Theme Park Disorder?

[Superfluous Crow]

Just like science can only ever be an approximate model of the physical laws, a setting can't be more than a model of our world. Where settings have to settle for a finite number of cultures and countries, the world has no distinct borders like that; where cultures clash you don't find a border, but rather a melting pot. So it is too fluid to suffer from the disorder.
But i see your point. Before globalisation, the Orient, Europe, Africa and the Americas were entirely different entities. This would seem to be a case of Theme Park Disorder. But i think you have to visualize it as different worlds essentially; so separate that you can't consider the world a unified setting.

[Ghostman]

But i see your point. Before globalisation, the Orient, Europe, Africa and the Americas were entirely different entities. This would seem to be a case of Theme Park Disorder. But i think you have to visualize it as different worlds essentially; so separate that you can't consider the world a unified setting.

So, if we accept that our world in given time periods might be better modelled as a number of settings (instead of a single unified setting), wouldn't this create a need for a higher structure that contains all of these settings? This is a very relevant question for anyone attempting to create a conworld comparable to earth in size and diversity. And all the more relevant for conworlds where the scope and complexity are even greater.

[Drizztrocks]

I don't have anything against themes, but think that the setting should first be designed and then the theme. Afterall, if in real life the theme is to stop terrorism or feed the poor countries or something, are world is not designed around that theme, but existed before it.

  What I enjoy having is a shattered, broken world trying to unify and recover from a tragedy or great war. That way I can have many themes and goals for the world, but if the players want, they can do whatever they want, and have nothing to do with said themes.

[Nomadic]

You know I'm not sure what Mare Eternus is exactly. It most certainly has divset elements as I am a fan of that. However it also hosts several overarching themes that I feel link the parts together and make it a single "world". I'm not certain, though it would be wonderful to get to the end of it and realize that I had created the elusive multi-ethos setting that CC talked about.

[Superfluous Crow]

@Ghostman: I'm getting myself in way over my head here. But if that isn't the point of a philosophy thread I don't know what it is ^^
Anyway, in that case I think the world takes a step back from being a setting (i.e. something by itself) and instead becomes a mere physical frame that hosts actual settings. It becomes the medium that conveys and carries cultures, but is not a culture by itself. When we talk about ethos it is important to realize that themes more often than not revolve around the situation of civilization and what the sentient species have gotten themselves into rather than what the world is by itself (dying worlds being the major exception). Lets face it, even though we call ourselves worldmakers what we really make are cultures and artefacts (as in things made by human/monstrous hand). The earth and stone and sea is but a backdrop (albeit an interesting can aid, if not carry, a setting greatly).  

[Kaptn'Lath]

Con-world building:
Theme/Purpose vs. Diversity/Spontaneity

The Universe (Real Life) or any setting fundamentally based on RL is chaotic. The whole universe is a bunch of random white noise. Some parts repeat themselves, some act in a predictable manor, but all in all our observation of the universe (as a whole) is that its a cacophony of every thing. Man cannot understand it all so we Focus. We Focus on ideas/concepts. ideas and concepts are just "Themes" thus themes/ethos or any other "unifying concept" is not
"tying things together" but rather cutting out a piece of the greater whole so that we can focus on that (to the exclusion of something else). However if you don't have a focus then all that can be seen is White Noise. Man cant grasp white noise without getting over-stimulated/distracted.

So really this all comes down to finding the line that runs between not enough (Generic) detail and too much (Surreal) detail. The line is based on the audience and thus measuring or judging the setting is moot outside of its audience.

"not enough" - the world is so simple and generic that a DM doesn't have enough material/ideas to create verisimilitude
for the players.

"too much" - the world has so many ideas that the experience does not "get through" to the players/audience as they are constantly focusing on something new.

[LordVreeg]

I first have to get to an issue I have always had with this conversation.

Yes we are worldmakers, culturemakers, racemakers and monstermakers.  But all of this is a subset of what we are actually making.  Not the campaign, but the story/plot.  
Divset and Conset are really divisions on the type of story we want to tell.  The fact that we use settings as the platform/vehicle for this story is secondary.  Lath touches on this actuality when he uses the term 'audience'.

I am at work right now, so I cannot be as thorough as I would like to be.  But another development in the gaming world that touches on this is the idea of the Sandbox campaign setting, where the players are free to go do what they want to, and the game develops from the player direction.

Again, from the story standpoint, how much of this is the GM's game and how much s the players?  If the point of the story is the actions of the players within the setting, then anything that gets in the way of this is going to hurt the story.  If the story is more about the fact that the magic of the world is going away and the players are to find where it is going and restore it, then this is a more structured plot, and more theme oriented (or Conset).

How open ended is the story?  How many stories are you trying to tell?  
That was one of my problems in Celtricia...I don't have a unifying theme, but I have many overarching plotlines that have created storeis with the players that have gone on for over a decade.

[Superfluous Crow]

Lath, i think you might be on to something there. Good points all around. I must say it's still synonymous with "tying things together" in many ways because you don't use themes to focus on a limited part of the world as much as you use the theme to focus on all parts of a limited world.
Also, while our world had absolute randomness as its starting point, the elements have merged and flowed together to create a greater whole (of sorts). An onion perhaps. Only, sometimes it's the cultural and the geographic layers that are connected, sometimes it's the musical and religious, and so on; the entirety of the cultural layer is not connected to itself in all nodes, but it is connected to all parts of itself by way of other layers.
@Vreeg: while your thoughts on open plot vs. structured plot are valid, I'm not sure I agree the main part of a setting is the story. If it was the story, we would all be writing fantasy books. ALthough, yes, my comment that we were culturemakers is just as bad; i apologize for that. It was merely meant to put emphasis on my point.
But then again, I can see how plot hooks (and more) might substitute nicely for themes as connectors/focusers in certain settings.