Comparing elements of reality to fiction

[Xeviat]

Yeah, a proper noun is the name of a person or a specific place. A sword's a noun, but Excalibur is a proper noun. Human's a noun, but Julius Caesar is a proper noun.

[Superfluous Crow]

Hmm, yeah, so no referencing Platon directly for example. But what about me naming a guy Ozmael Voltari to have a reason to call electricity-related things Voltaic? Should I just give the guy a less reality-based name and pretend that Voltaic had some other origin, or is the renaming a better way to go? (the real Volt-guy was Alessandro Volta, so there is a significant difference)

[Xeviat]

I like it. It sounds like "Voltair" to me.

[Nomadic]

I think it depends to be honest. In a fantasy game, naming your big all powerful beings after earth mythology could be considered stretching it.

However if your fantasy game is founded in reality I don't see a problem with referencing real world things. For example Steerpike's Tempter makes regular references to Christian and Catholic derived superstitions and beliefs. But it's primary point is based within those ideas and so it couldn't really exist without them.

Even moreso if your setting is an extension of earth (future history/alternate history) there's nothing wrong with using real world things. So what if your fleet's flagship is named the Poseidon, your game is an extension of real world history and thus no suspension of disbelief is lost.

[SA]

Hmm. So it's more or less customary to use an omniscient narrator from within the setting; fair enough, but on the other hand who exactly is the narrator speaking to? Is the audience a prospective character or GM, or is the reader assumed to have already adopted a fictional persona, but one who is ignorant of the setting in question? Sometimes I find the idea of speaking as the setting's creator directly to the reader very appealing. That's ultimately what you're doing either way, no matter how many layers of prose you wrap it in.

Ursula Le Guin's The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas comes to mind as a short story that is pretty much pure setting description related directly to the reader, and that is essential to the story's power. The same can be true of a setting, as roleplaying isn't necessarily about escapism, and immersion doesn't require disconnecting from the real. Depending on the setting's themes, tying it back to reality - for the purpose of comparison, clarification or whatever - can heighten the player's interest; it needn't be a distraction.

With that in mind I don't see anything inherently wrong in mentioning someone like Plato directly in your setting. Say for example you're creating a setting based on Platonic realism, where reality is governed by ambiguously intelligent universals who shape the world in their image (I think Neal Stephenson's Anathem deals with a religion based on this). Now you could be totally in-setting in your description of these forces and their influence on reality or you could tell the reader what Plato said and weave that into what's true in the setting. Totally different vibe but just as valid.

I guess I'm not actually disagreeing with anyone here. Generally speaking, be very careful with those earthling proper nouns. But sometimes a hard-hitting anachronism (anaplanism?) could be exactly what you need.

[SDragon]

I'll just get right to the meat of the issue, as I see it:

Can a person in your word use the word Cartesian even if

Descartes never existed?

That depends on how much of Descartes you'd have to take away before you could say he "never existed". Certainly, you can't take away every last bit of resemblance from everybody in the world; Descartes was, after all, a humanoid, and it's hard to remove all of those from most settings. But is it still Descartes if the only difference is that he never made that comment about thinking and am'ing?

Checking out some of Phillip Pullman's quantum worldbuilding, I think it's not too unreasonable to use the word "cartesian" within your world, even if Descartes didn't exist. It's no more unreasonable than the word "derigibles", anyway.

An alternate question, which could lead to an interesting experiment, is what sort of world could be designed with minimal (if any?) real-world references? What if it can't have towers, for them being too civilized, or even too human? I'm not sure real-world references could be entirely excluded.

Ultimately, the balance between an encyclopedia and an ilegible rambled world depends on what you're going for with your setting. Just make sure there's internal consistency.

Edit-- Due to tiredness, I'm throwing in a bonus. This comment, made by Rael in my Fiendspawn thread, seems very relevant. It reminds me much of the writer's aphorism "show, don't tell":

"I have a setting that is analogous to renaissance Europe but with a heavy inclusion of undead, Xenomorphs from the Alien series, and a tone like the Hellsing movie." Saying that will do nothing but make my reader gag and leave. After all, it's like I'm butchering animals and waving around the parts while yelling "Lookit me! I'm a cook!" To get a better reaction, I take the essence of what I am inspired by and try to duplicate it. I might like the political and technological climate of Europe, so I try to work that in. Xenomorphs are a part of the setting because they are monsters and I like the way they move. So I create raptor-like beasts that lurk in the woods and attack at night. I wrap this up and I find that I'm more interested in the concepts of Monsters and Men, thus becoming focal points for the setting. If I'm able to portray this with a Hellsing-ish feel, I've done my job, and perhaps my readers will see a sandwich instead of a liver.

[Superfluous Crow]

Hmm, about that "can we make something without referencing anything?" I remember some of the writings of the philosopher Hume where he proposed that every creative thought was made up by parts of previous observations. If you knew what gold what and you knew what a mountain was you could put that together to make a gold mountain. But coming up with something, according to his theory, was always just a matter of putting together old things in a new way.

[Nomadic]

A wise man once said there is nothing new under the sun...

[Superfluous Crow]

Then we must go beyond! :P

[Ninja D!]

I think that while creating a setting in written form, such as how you would post one here, it is very important to have something like the sidebars mentioned above. Describing things from withing the setting is great when you can but it isn't always possible to do well.

[Age of Fable]

My setting is supposedly written by a traveller from our world who visited it, so 'he' can use comparisons to real-world things freely.