I didn't find one edition
resources
http://futurewarstories.blogspot.ca/
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/
http://military-sf.com/
http://fantasynamegenerators.com/
http://donjon.bin.sh/
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/index.html
http://kennethjorgensen.com/worldbuilding/resources
>WARNING: REDDIT LINK. VENT YOUR AUTISTIC RAGE NOW
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books/europe#wiki_middle_ages
So anon, what are you doin' currently?
Juggling between working on a fantasy and a sci-fi setting, not really committing to either right now.
How do I do a grimdark setting that's not cringey and not a blatant 40k ripoff?
Trying to build a credible world map. At the moment I only have basic tectonics and major mountain chains outlined as well as some deserts and a few big rivers. Haven't yet gotten around to making levels/altitudes. The world is meant to be the same size as Earth with a single moon. Have also just marked out the basic territories of the major factions on the eastern continent.
Reading basics on climate, currents and such to flesh the map out further so I can make necessary alterations to the factions. May add an underwater civ later. When I'm satisfied I'll try recreating to look like a real map later.
>>45311023
Don't blatantly throw Tolkien fantasy into space?
Biggest thing that helps set a grimdark setting is make everything old and worn out.
>>45311333
>40k
>Tolkien in space
>>45311460
>Orcs, goblins, elves, and originally dwarves, in space.
>>45311758
It's more a pastiche of everything that was big in 80's fantasy/sci-fi, with a heavy coat of grimdark paint.
>goblins
wat
>>45311853
Gretchin.
>>45311460
>literally space elves
>literally space orcs
>literally space halflings
>(previously space dwarves)
>space human empires
>space evil dark lords
Warhammer is like 60% Tolkienian fantasy, 40% historically derived fantasy (Holy Roman Empire etc.). 40k is Warhammer in space. It's in the Tolkien lineage, among other things.
>>45312019
Most modern fantasy is either directly or indirectly influenced by Tolkien somehow. 40k is about as "Tolkien in space" as Game of Thrones is "Tolkien with more rape".
>>45309748
>So anon, what are you doin' currently?
Trying to actually settle on an idea to work on. I'm not having much luck though. I want to do so many different things and I'd rather not mash all my ideas into a kitchen-sink type of deal.
>>45312120
I know that problem.
>>45312114
In some ways yes, but there are other fantasy lineages to draw from, like the Howardian lineage, direct Arthurian and Spenserian fantasy, Fairy tale/folklore Grimm-style fantasy, Vancian fantasy, etc.
This >>45311853 poster said it better though, 40k is more of a Boschian collage of things skimmed off the top of nerd pop culture in the 80s, of which Tolkien was a large part. It's not exclusively Tolkien, but Tolkien is a significant influence, so it's fine to describe it as such if you are being brief as >>45311333 was.
>>45309748
Trying to autism my lore.
>>45312285
If I were to describe 40keks that briefly I'd just say "Dune on steroids"
So I have european and asian humans(yeah I know unoriginal blaaah), arabic and east indian elves(got to have dat chocolate y'know).
But know I need a culture for giants. I was thinking maybe one from one of the pacific islands, like the Māori.
Any suggestions?
>>45312363
I'd say Dune + Tolkien on steroids personally, but yeah, as if you just put Dune on steroids you wouldn't necessarily get the fantasy vibe that 40k has. But that's fair.
What could be the equivalent of the horrors of rape in a world where sexual reproduction or gender do not exist? Life is can be created and molded by anyone through all materials and resources found in nature, with varying results based on mostly artistic ability.
Real rape. Not magical realm rape.
>>45312443
Someone forcing their own style and views over someone else's creation.
>>45312443
Anything can be equivalent to real rape if you go deep enough into feminism
>>45312443
Rape is just about sexual desire + domination + violence. If in your world sexual reproduction and sexual desire don't exist, and reproduction is an individual, non-sexual act, rape just becomes dominance + violence, and reproduction becomes it's own thing.
>>45312390
Norse and Celtic are the default. If you're looking for special snowflake giants, Maori works fine.
>>45312569
I really wanted to go with celtic or norse, but I already have a region in NotEurope that is basically the british isles and the nordic countries smashed together.
I was hoping for something else, but I may just revert to that option.
>>45312648
Maori are already known for being big and strong, and you could do lots of interesting stuff for the tattoos.
You could always do some kind of steppe nomad culture as well.
>>45312569
>The seas are plagued with Maori pirate giants that fling sharks at their targets
>>45312390
Would you consider using the Zulu under Shaka?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulu_Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaka
I feel they would make a good foundation for a giant culture.
>not much metal armor due to their size and cost of mining and processing metal
>metal weapons are mostly spears
>metal armor is for the rich and powerful
>big ass assegai or iklwa, shields and clubs
>not having mounts and having to run to get anywhere fast
>>45309748
Working on a TL 13 Traveller setting that is more or less Eurasia circa 1345 put into space.
Pic related is the map, lines means an"iron curtain" of fortified systems.
>>45309748
>https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books/europe#wiki_middle_ages
My problem with the link is not that it's Reddit, but that it's askhistorians.
Just working on elves. It's nothing original but I like to put my own visual spin on things. High Elves and Dark Elves are two sides of a fiary cold war, each like the Seelie and Unseelie Courts. Like all things Fey, shit is colourful. Like all things elvish it's feminine and shows skin. High Elves have light and soft colours. Think sheer fabrics, lace, frills, glinting rounded silvery metal, and shapes of nature under a softlight. Dark Elves have dark and hard colours. Think shadowy fabrics, chains, leather, crystals and jewellery, sharp black adamantine, and wicked shapes under a blacklight. Blacklights I think are crucial to the imagery of the dark elves.
>>45317028
That sounds... really, really generic.
I really wish somebody could come up with an idea of Dark Elves that is not chains, letters, crystals and rave-like lighting.
Elder Scrolls may be the only setting that did dark elves well.
Why is applying earth geological logic necessary for maps? A world created by a bunch of gods in a single day won't follow earth's pattern.
>>45317905
It isn't.
Underwater constructions and cities - would they be able to remain standing or would the weathering and plant growth fuck them up instantly?
>>45317905
Because some faggots are total autists who obsess over pointless minutae under the mistaken belief that "realism" is somehow a worthy and achievable goal in a game where everything is made up.
>>45317918
Depends on how and what you're making them of, no? Technology and magic will both be pretty major factors.
>>45317929
Don't be a faggot. Some people just plain enjoy it, plus some people don't play in a game where everything's made up.
I fucking hate the retards who think that you need to make geography first to then create the nations and cultures, though. Not the people that do that -- I don't get it, but good for you -- just the people who think you *have* to do it that way.
>>45317905
>Why is applying earth geological logic necessary for maps?
It's not. But it can be tremendeously useful. First of all, not all fictional worlds are created by direct divine acts - in fact for some reason, majority of fantasy world building around here is based on attempts to make a very orderly, science-like structured fantasy worlds, where people frequently go out of their way to consider things like evolutionary perspective on their fantasy species. While I personally don't think that is a good way of going around things, it seems that people like doing it: and for them, finding some kind or more rigid logic in how their world is formed (such as emulating earths geological conditions) seems like a natural way to go.
But there is a second reason which is even more important:
IT'S AN INCREDIBLY USEFUL TOOL TO CREATE VERISIMILITUDE AND GENERAL SENSE OF LOGIC AND CONSISTENCY TO YOUR SETTINGS.
It really is not so much about being "realistic" as it is about being recognizable, and looking belivable. If you follow the geological necessities in your map building, the odds are the map is going to look better for most people. Because verisimilitude is the most common, most integral and basic way for us to judge even speculative fiction. Just like we appreciate psychological characters even in a world where it's metaphysics dictate that people can be avatars of "absolute, universal cosmic good".
It gives something recognizable and something relatable to your audience. There are cases when you deliberately might want to avoid doing that, but they are much less common than you'd think: only few people can pull of something like Planscape did.
So, TLDR: even when your world was not formed by geological processes, adhering to their basic logic is likely to make your map look better and less jarring to most people, and it will give your world a sense of grounding that is very valuable to most people.
>>45317929
You are an idiot. Please fuck off.
>>45312390
>>45312569
Try a fusion of Norse and glorious Nipponese.
>>45312390
>arabic and east indian
>chocolate
You're not eating chocolate 'till you've gone full Benin. White chocolate isn't *real* chocolate, you know.
Going from that, there's an ethnicity of *real* giants from western Africa, and they are awesome as hell. Dinka, motherfucker.
Or you could go full political. The Tutsi are also very tall. You want to get into ethnic intrigue and genocidal wars? Go Tutsi.
>>45316811
I just like that it has a list of books, I never go there.
>>45317735
I disagree that Elder Scrolls are the only one's that did it well. Esoteric doesn't mean good. The best i've seen by far is the very first conceptions for them in Vault of the Drow.
This is also for my players who are fairly new to the concepts of D&D, so I want solid concepts for them to latch onto. Something like the Elder Scrolls dark elves and the fruits of Kirkbride's mind are things i'll ease them into.
Since my Elves are two sides of the same coin, they need to reflect one another. If you take the colours of a High Elf and invert them, you get the colours of a Dark Elf. They both live in a fairyland, but High Elves are light and soft, Dark elves are dark and hard. Soft light illuminates the High Elven lands. Blacklights illuminate the Dark Elves lands. Both are still naturalists and aristocratic as if aristocracy is natural to them, manipulating and changing nature in their magical way to be more pleasing to them. High Elves have dancing balls, Dark Elves have raves. They both still have tea parties and orgies. High Elves smoke herbs from long pipes or hookahs. Dark Elves eat hallucinogenic mushrooms and use blades cut with drugs. High Elves have servants, Dark Elves have slaves. Both are masked to hide their ugliness. Both Elves abduct human children and leave elven young in their place. These elves grow up to be Wood Elves.
All this is underlying the weird Wonderland of the fairyland, each being an opposing army like on a chessboard. Their two courts shape the political and cultural landscape of the fairyland that bleeds subtly into the prime world.
>>45320916
>Esoteric doesn't mean good.
I'm not at all talking about them being esoteric, I'm talking about them feeling an actual culture with the whole "dark" aspect of them being a layer of prejudice over complex and interesting and varied culture, not just a collection of generic tropes and bad fantasy art.
>Since my Elves are two sides of the same coin, they need to reflect one another.
Which could be done in much more interesting way. You have day to night, you have Sun to the Moon, you have warmth to the cold, you have golden domes build out of living trees and you have beautiful underground lakes sparking with thousands of reflections. You have music to the silence - loud cheer to silent contemplation. You don't need crystals and leather and chains and oh-so-edgy qualities, which don't get less edgy by stating that both are ugly on the inside.
If you really want to push the fairytale esque and Woderland tone, you definitely should avoid things that feel like taken out of the Hot Topic. I can assure you nothing feel less like fairytale mixed with Wonderland weirdness than modern dark elf stereotypes that feel like new age crossed with goth culture. You can play a little more with the concepts, you look into natural oppositions in actual folklore, where oppositions are actually meaningful.
>>45321114
Going to have to continue to disagree with you. I'm not looking for a varied culture. It's a fairytale culture. A Wonderland culture. It's not complex, it's archetypal. High Elves and Dark Elves have mirrored cultures, incredibly similar with one light and one dark. Also I'm sticking quite a bit with the Seelie and Unseelie courts for each.
Codes of the Seelie Court/High Elves are:
Death Before Dishonor
Love Conquers All
Beauty is Life
Never Forget a Debt
Codes of the Unseelie Court/Dark Elves are:
Change is Good
Magic is Free
Honor is a Lie
Passion Before Duty
Dark Elves don't suggest cold, gentleness, or silence. Their darkness is hot and loud. If I want a cold darkness i'll go with undead. I do like the sun and moon idea though, perhaps the twilight realm becomes eternal night in Dark Elven lands, and eternal day in High Elven lands.
As for the arguments of new age and goth culture not being very Wonderland, i'll also have to disagree. Wonderland can be many things. It can be Lewis Carroll Wonderland, Disney Wonderland, psychadelic sexual Wonderland and American McGee's Wonderland. All of them are just as Wonderland as the last, I have a particular bias to American McGee myself which is incredibly goth.
As for more opposites. High Elves are like Dogs, and have Blink Dog pets and hunting hounds. Dark Elves are like Cats and have Displacer Beast pets lounging about the dark recessess of their palaces.
>>45309748
I'm working on a Late Bronze/Early Iron Age setting.
Nothing too detailed, just enough for a short campaign.
>>45321536
>It's not complex, it's archetypal.
And that is exactly my issue: why you are describing is NOT archetypal. Archetypes are meaningful concepts, complex observations about the world and about human psychology - so fucking primal, so fundamental to our experience that we tend to mistake them for clichés at time.
But archetypes all have their foundations in actual mythological mindset. The Great Mother, the Hero and the Trickster, Sun and Stars, Death and Rebirth are archytypal concepts. Raves, leathers and chains are a cliché introduced thirty thirty years ago by people whose imagination went to "we need something dark, and our pool experience consists of pop culture only, so... let's slap S&M aesthetics on already destiled and meaningless husk of a concept of a fairy and call it a day".
And, not everything that has the Wonderland in name is actually a Wonderland. Tim Burton's Wonderland is a braindead husk cynically feeding on carcass of once beautiful idea. Wonderland - as the god damn name tells you, is about invoking sense of wonder. I can assure you that is not what your S&M elves will do.
Look you can do what ever you please with your world. It's just that it's not going to be very interesting for anybody, and waving the word "Wonderland" is disingenuous at best and pretty insulting to the ingenious work of Lewis Carroll at worst.
Oh yeah, and cats vs. dogs are not an archetypal oppositions either.
>>45311023
>grimdark
>not cringy
pick one.
>>45321882
>your opinion
>of any value
Pick one.
>>45317905
because if you don't, it's will look aesthetically unappealing on a very basic level.
>>45322038
1. No it won't. You only need to apply real-world geography to a very limited extent e.g. with mountain ranges and rivers.
2. Aesthetics are not a concern, nor should they be. Think of it as in-universe realism; if it looks unreal, it looks unreal.
>>45321705
You have it right on what archetypes are by Jungian standards, but you're wrong that's all archetypes are and that it's not archetypal. Dark is dangerous, dark is sexy, dark is oppressive. These are primal things, and Dark Elves are all these things. These elements are also found in S&M and goth culture because it's archetypal as well. These elements also emerge when you mix them with the archetypes of elves, sexy and enchanting. Don't even try argue they're not.
I have crystals and chains because for Dark Elves with their connection to the earth and metal. I'm looking for sharp imagery. Points, blades, spikes, crystals, in opposition to the soft and round High Elves. If you can devise a way to express this image i'm all ears.
As for what is and isn't Wonderland, i'm firm in my belief that iterations of ideas are just as valid as the original idea itself. It's how most creative endeavours are done, reworking elements over and over again. No creative development would be made if we all tried to keep to the original idea. Interpretation is also part of creativity.
Also, arguing against cats vs dogs? One of the common examples of similar opposites? Really?
How's this?
Best kind of sci fi weaponry?
In my setting it's thermo-reactive plasma bullets fired out of railguns.
What do you guys do?
>>45322145
1. What's the scale
2. What's the reasoning behind using rand-gens?
>>45322155
Magic guns.
Science fantasy all the way, fag.
>>45321705
Honestly, your entire post is just one long string of
>here are your opinions and interpretations of art and genre: they're all objectively bad because it doesn't interest me personally
>now behold my own idea of how all those things should be, which are super deep and meaningful and the only proper way to go about things
Frankly, your understanding of genres and tropes isn't even a fraction of how good you seem to think it is. The guy you're arguing with may have a deficiency in creativity and fairly shit tastes, but at least he gets the absolute simplest things right.
It's a good thing you come across as far too much of a self-absorbed prick to ever have a chance of passing on your genes because the future generation deserves better than being held back by the numerous intellectual disorders you seem to be afflicted with.
Still, you should kill yourself, just to be safe.
>>45322107
>Dark is dangerous, dark is sexy, dark is oppressive.
These are the literal opposites of the meaning of the word archetype. Those are superficial concepts, that change with every shift of the cultural wind. Archetype means - by it's damn etymology, a primitive, or extremely old model. "Sexy" is not a primal concept. Associating polished leather with specific sexual practices is just one of the many examples of a perfectly arbitrary, superficial level of culture that is the OPPOSITION to archetype.
This is second word that you are abusing just horribly. And I don't really get why. You are not giving your concept any more credibility by this.
>Points, blades, spikes, crystals,
Yeah we get that - pointy thing = edge = edgy = dark is not a difficult association to make (though that does not make that association archetypal either) - I'm merely telling you that that shit has been a stale of the most boring an unimaginative fantasy for three decades now.
>i'm firm in my belief that iterations of ideas are just as valid as the original idea itself.
Wow. That's as fucking arrogant to a point of mental illness.
>It's how most creative endeavours are done, reworking elements over and over again.
I don't have an issue with iteration: I have an issue with utilizing braindead concepts and comparing yourself to Lewis fucking Carroll for that.
>Also, arguing against cats vs dogs?
Yeah, really. You actually think this is some kind of profound opposition and not completely superficial arbitrarity that only comes in play when people started making bullshit arguments about their hobbies. You really think cats. vs. dogs was a fucking thing back when dogs were for protection and cats for catching mouses?
Or do you mistake the commonly recognized but not really all that common HOSTILITY between cats and dogs for an "opposition". Because dogs chasing cats (and car and postmen) does not make them "oppositions" to cats and dogs and postmen.
>>45322092
But looking unreal can be aesthetically pleasing. Shit, do it right and it will usually look better than even the best-applied simulation of real-world geology. It doesn't have to follow IRL logic if it has its own discernible internal logic it follows well.
Aesthetics are always a concern when you want anyone to give a shit about the thing you made.
>>45322308
>>Frankly, your understanding of genres and tropes isn't even a fraction of how good you seem to think it is.
Well, for starters I actually do understand the meaning of words like "archetype" which immediately makes my understanding far above yours. Second of all, you have been raping basic terminology while similtaneously boasting your idea (which is identical to ALL BAD FANTASY EVERY TACKLING DARK ELVES EVER, WITHOUT A SINGLE CREATIVE THOUGHT) and claiming it equal to works of fucking Lewis Carroll for fuck sake. Don't be fucking surprised if people voice their opinions if you share them in public.
And next time, the trusty "OH your understanding of X is not nearly as good as YOU THINK IT IS" is not nearly as powerful or convincing argument as YOU THINK IT IS.
Finally, if you can't deal with criticism towards your ideas without literally insisting that others should kill themselves for voicing them, maybe you should rethink what you are doing here.
Again: You can do what ever you fucking want with your world. But if you voice it in a thread dedicated to debating ideas and their merrits, then can't handle criticisms, then you are setting up yourself for a big shock. And when you start throwing around words like "archetype" without having the FAINTEST CLUE what you mean by it while insulting actually good and thoughtful authors: well, you are a fucking moron and there is nothing and nobody that can help you.
>>45322409
>Aesthetics are always a concern when you want anyone to give a shit about the thing you made.
No, you fucking tard.
Aesthetics of your map are utterly irrelevant unless your world is built to look good as a map.
Only autists give a shit about how good their world looks as a map when they're using it for a fucking tabletop roleplaying game. When the players *are players*. You don't see the map of a vidya game when you're playing first-person.
I agree on the unreal != ugly front, though.
I've been drawing squiggles for 15 minutes. How's this?
>>45322481
>Only autists give a shit about how good their world looks as a map when they're using it for a fucking tabletop roleplaying game.
Translation: you should not care and have ambitions to make things nice or well executed because I said the magical world "autistic".
Dude, as probably the only person around here with actual experience with autists, the last thing they care about is how good their art looks.
Ignoring that this is a worldbuilding thread and many people worldbuild for other purposes than just tabletop campaigns, a map is part of how you present your world to your players. How it looks tells them something about how the world works. If it consists of disjointed islands with nothing but starry sky between them, you know you are going to be in for a over the top adventure, if the land is shaped like a giant living body you know the GM has been playing too much Xenoblades and if it's just a completely random collection of random biomes thrown together on a napkin, you know that your GM does not GIVE A FUCK.
>I agree on the unreal != ugly front, though.
While you are not entirely wrong, the whole thing is a little more complicated than that.
>>45322335
>Sexy is not a primal concept.
Are you fucking serious? Sexiness is one of the most primal things. It what makes us want to fuck the shit out of one another like animals. It's desire and lust.
Leather isn't necessary to the concept sure, but it's a material that is dark and oppressive.
I never compared myself to Lewis Carroll, don't know where you got that idea. As for thinking iterations of ideas aren't valid, that the true sign of creative bankruptcy. Thinking like that leads to stagnation. Again, interpretation is crucial to creativity. It should connect with the original works, and by that connection enrich both works for the better. My first exposure to Alice in Wonderland was the Disney animated film. It fired my imagination and made me want to read the original work. Comparing and contrasting I understood these works better, and when American McGee's Alice was released I jumped right on it and again my imagination was fired up by this dark interpretation of elements I was familiar with. If it weren't for interpretations, I would have never likely discovered Carroll's great works. Interpretations aren't bastardizations, they're celebrations.
As for Cats vs Dogs, it's a contemporary case of opposites, archetype vs archetype. You know what a dog is with the behaviours and ideas associated with them. Dogs are friends. You know what a cat is and the behaviours and ideas associated with them. Cats are dicks. By comparing them you put them in opposition of one another, while tecnically not actually opposites. Again, an easy idea for my players to grasp, while also being that bizarre sort of comparison that fits well in a fairytale/Wonderland world.
>>45322447
Wrong anon.
>>45322335
>getting this autistic over the common saying "like cats and dogs"
>getting this much anal pain over something most people already know but ignore for the sake of convenience
>>45322447
>no reading comprehension
I never posted any of my ideas ITT. you're talking about a different guy. which is stated in my post, you sad case of assburgers. do you even listen to what people actually say when you give them a reply, or are you this much of a drooling numbnut outside the internet as well? I'm honestly kind of curious. you don't exactly strike me as the socially functional type.
>raging over semantics this hard
ALL CAPS is for 3rd graders who can't get their point across with, y'know, the actual content of their sentences. here, I'll give you an example:
>Lewis Carroll is an overrated hack whose ideas of subtlety are far past outdated.
See, now you know how much distaste I have for people who idolize him because of nothing more than his reputation, and I didn't even have to sperg out to say it. I'm sure your version would sound something like
>OH MY FUCKING GOD you really need to STOP SUCKING HIS DICK from beyond the grave, you MAGGOT-BRAINED FUCKTARD.
But that's just my personal interpretation of the appalling mess of irritation and nitpicking that seems to construe the vast majority of your personality.
>>45322481
Uh-huh. I'm sure it's the exact same thing for your DM to present you with a bland sketch made with the absolute minimum amount of effort and him to have added various little details and embellishments to make the map fun to look at and make you actually want to explore the world it presents.
I'm sure all those people who prefer the latter over the former are all autists, and the ones who can't experience that added sense of wonder and appreciation towards the maker between the two are the mentally healthy ones.
>>45322656
>Translation: you should not care and have ambitions to make things nice or well executed because I said the magical world "autistic".
No.
Under no circumstances is that in any way comparable.
Sorry for triggering you with the word "autist" though.
>Dude, as probably the only person around here with actual experience with autists, the last thing they care about is how good their art looks.
Are you fucking dumb? Do you not realise that many people on here are in fact really, in real life, diagnosed with autism? At the least, probably all of us have autistic friends.
And do you not understand that autism does not equal actual, real autism?
>Ignoring that this is a worldbuilding thread and many people worldbuild for other purposes than just tabletop campaigns
Sure, but on /tg/?
>a map is part of how you present your world to your players
No. Not unless you really suck as a GM.
Narrative and the way the world interacts and reacts with your players is how you present the world to your players. They don't even ever need to see a fucking map.
>hem something about how the world works. If it consists of disjointed islands with nothing but starry sky between them, you know you are going to be in for a over the top adventure, if the land is shaped like a giant living body you know the GM has been playing too much Xenoblades
Explain, retard.
Because I don't see the connection at all.
>While you are not entirely wrong, the whole thing is a little more complicated than that.
That doesn't make any fucking sense.
Either it does equal ugly, or it does not.
Not equalling ugly doesn't mean it cannot be ugly, but equalling ugly does mean it cannot be pleasing.
There is no in-between.
>>45322844
See above, autist.
>>45322673
>Are you fucking serious?
Yes, I am completely serious: again, how do you not understand meanings of the words that you use. What fucking universe you are living in. You think people in the past thought about sexuality in the same frivolous, carefree, implication or commitment devoid way we do today?
LUST is a primal concept. "Sexy" is a 20th century invention when western society divorced sexuality from all it's complex historical associations and reduced essentially to marketing tool. Helena of Troy wasn't "sexy". She was beautiful and drove nations to destruction: that is a far more complicated and archetypal notion than being "sexy".
And this is exactly the kind of absolute crass understanding of the terms you are using and why I have such a difficulty to treat you with any actual respect.
>but it's a material that is dark and oppressive.
Yeah, because of the cheap S&M association in the second half of 20th century. You know what it was associated before that? Discipline, order and neatness, among other.
Again: and example of how the associations you are using to build your fiction are everything BUT archetypal.
>I never compared myself to Lewis Carroll, don't know where you got that idea.
You are actually right and I've misread that, and for that I'm an actually really sorry.
I think my other points still stand though.
>As for thinking iterations of ideas aren't valid, that the true sign of creative bankruptcy.
I've actually never stated that - in fact I stated the exact opposite. There is nothing wrong with iteration itself. Iteration on good ideas is the real vehicle of improvement. But the "good ideas" is kinda key here.
>As for Cats vs Dogs, it's a contemporary case of opposites, archetype vs archetype.
If it's just contemporary, it's not an archetype. Archetypes persist through out time: that is literally what makes them into archetypes.
Why does every worldbuilding thread devolve into "no my elves are different!"
Are traditional roleplaying games so creatively bankrupt that they have to consistently rehash the same tired shit over and over again?
I mean holy fuck, you could have a setting spun out of the common medieval illustration of knights fighting giant snails and someone would ask "ok so what would the elves be like in it?"
>>45322887
>Under no circumstances is that in any way comparable.
I'm not actually even comparing anything: what the fuck are you talking about?
>Sorry for triggering you with the word "autist" though.
Another magical word in your repertoar of mantras that will magically make you win arguments: "triggering". Say that and you immediately win!
>Do you not realise that many people on here are in fact really, in real life, diagnosed with autism?
There is a difference between internet autism and autism and medical condition. I can assure you that people who wear the label to excuse their annoying personalities are far removed from people who have actual autism. Diagnosis by psychologists, by the way, don't count for much, as autism has literally became the new substitution for ADHD in the past few years.
>And do you not understand that autism does not equal actual, real autism?
Wait what?!
Are you having a stroke or something? Should we call for help?
>Narrative and the way the world interacts and reacts with your players is how you present the world to your players.
Maps being a part of that... I'm pretty sure maps are supposed to communicate something about the world. If you disagree on that, we may have a disagreement over what a "map" actually even is.
>Because I don't see the connection at all.
You don't understand how flying islands indicate that you are not about to see a gritty grimy political thriller?
>That doesn't make any fucking sense.
Again - stroke? How does that not make sense? How do you not understand "something is more complicated than what you claimed"? What is there not to fucking understand? It means you are making an overly simplified assumption, you fucking retard.
First attempt at map making i just shit out from paint for my early iron age campaign
squiggling it out isn't so bad
feedback and suggestions appreciated
>>45322887
>Sure, but on /tg/?
Yes, on /tg/. People here build worlds for writing, drawing, questfagging and even just for its own sake because it's frankly a fun thing to do.
>Narrative and the way the world interacts and reacts with your players is how you present the world to your players.
>>hurr the way I GM (which isn't even suited for every system out there) is the only way to do it
>>durr your GM going the extra mile to make a map has no effect on the quality of the game
>>even though I also think everyone here is making maps for that sole purpose of running campaigns in it, which isn't contradictory or retarded
Seriously, why the fuck would all these people be making all these maps if they didn't think custom-made maps were neat? How can you possibly imply looking at the way the creator of the campaign visualizes his creation has no effect on the presentation of said campaign? Do you not have any common sense? Or literally just any sense? It sure sounds like you don't.
>Because I don't see the connection at all.
...You don't see any connection between how a setting looks and what the setting might be inspired by, or how much effort appears to have gone into it?
I think they have a word for people like you.
>autist
Oh yeah, that's it. Thanks for reminding me.
>>45323030
It's a way of maintaining a semblance of creativity without, well, being creative. It may sound weird, but given how obsessively and deeply rooted the genre clichés are among fantasy fanbase, thinking up something that does NOT involve elves is actually harder than thinking up something consisting of variants on existing clichés. Think of features of your world as a set of slots: you need a certain minimum numbers of slots to claim your world is sufficiently feature-rich. Elves take up one of those slots, nice and easy, meaning that you don't have to think of something else to put in your world instead.
This is why I always said that for purely exercise reasons, people should be encouraged to not make a human only fantasy worlds before they are allowed to go back to the same old high fantasy stuff.
I don't think elves are a bad concept: hell, I have a massive obsession of fey of all kinds and forms, but I really wished people would realize there should be more to world-building than just putting a slight spin of a list of features resembling a god damn checklist.
>>45322185
1. It's topography. Square mileage is approximately between 14-15 million miles.
2. Because I can't draw for shit.
>>45323030
Okay, how about this:
I take each classical fantasy race, try to separate them into the various qualities they are usually associated with, and play mix-and-match. So you have the "thin and full of otherworldly grace" bit from an elf, the "ugly, hunched over and somewhat monstrous-looking" bit from goblins, and "skilled with rune magic" bit from dwarves.
Does this seem like a valid way to go about creating your races, or am I just full of shit?
>>45323130
The problem, I think, comes from the fact that when people try to deviate from this formula, they go about it from the entirely wrong angle, focusing on the things they want to aviod and the things they don't think has been done before, instead of actually thinking up a creative idea for various races, drawing inspiration from numerous and wildly differing sources and not really bothering much about the various resemblances it might have to this or that stereotype if the end result came out the way you wanted it do.
>>45322929
Right then, if not archetypal then what is it? It's not cliche as the lewd elf hasn't become trite or lost it's meaning. Elves are sexy, desirable, they're associated with sex and sexual threat.
Thing is i'm not making a world for people of the past. I'm making a world with people in the present, and people that are fairly new to the whole game. I need to express these in easily understood ideas and comparisons. Contemporary ideas even, a lexicon of ideas.
>>45311144
looks good any factions going to be in the other continent ? some may have crossed using an ice bridge in an ice age
hope the research goes well i want to see this when it is finished
>>45312390
Maori could work well for giants. Maybe Zulus aswell.
Also, if you want to make your dwarves original-ish aswell, you could make them Byzantine-like, maybe some Slavic culture thrown in. Or, you could pick up Tolkien's original idea and make the Dwarves into Jews.
>>45323030
I'm using D&D 5e and it's a game for beginners. That's why I have the staple races. It's a common idea in pop culture, so it's easier for the modern mind to acclimate.
>>45323059
>I'm not actually even comparing anything: what the fuck are you talking about?
Your translation.
It's not what I meant. It's shit.
Sorry for triggering you with the word "trigger". I'm not saying I immediately win. I'm saying you're distracted by unimportant garnish when the steak of the post is what you should focus on. Getting hung up on autist, or faggot, or triggered is fucking dumb because what I'm saying is what is important. Not how I'm saying it.
>There is a difference between internet autism and autism and medical condition
Yeah, that would by why I said "diagnosed", you terminal faggot.
>Diagnosis by psychologists, by the way, don't count for much
Yes, I know all this. I know this because I have multiple legit, 100% autistic friends. And, by the way, diagnosis *does* mean something fucktard, as it fucking does for ADHD. They are real conditions, and they absolutely do have effects on people's lives. Obviously it varies by person; the big problem with autism is that it's so diffuse.
>Wait what?!
You yourself said it. Internet autism does not equal actual, real autism. Internet autism means generally getting hung up on stupid shit, caring a lot for inordinate (useless) detail, and generally being a grognard.
It's also not necessarily an insult.
>Maps being a part of that
No.
An in-world map, sure. Out of world (i.e. a direct representation, 100% accurate, from your mind rather than a character's)? No. It's just how the world looks topographically.
>You don't understand how flying islands indicate that you are not about to see a gritty grimy political thriller?
No. In fact, that applies to my exact setting.
Although the flying islands are mechanical.
But that's not what I meant. I meant I don't see how
>Again - stroke?
Let me explain this more simply for you.
Either unrealness equals ugly, or it does not. I am saying that either it always is ugly no matter what, or it is not always ugly no matter what.Explain the other complexities.
>>45322929
S&M is still associated with discipline, order and neatness by people who actually know shit about proper S&M culture. The fad part of it is its casual sexualization by garbage people who don't really take any of its non-Hollywood aspects into consideration, just like you.
>You think people in the past thought about sexuality in the same frivolous, carefree, implication or commitment devoid way we do today?
Literally open any fucking history book, you ignorant gobshite.
>still arguing about cats and dogs because it isn't worded in a way you like
Shiggy diggy. Two things that are compelled to oppose each other because of the very core nature of their being is a theme that has repeated itself across numerous cultures for pretty much all of written history. You're welcome for me taking the time to spell out the obvious for your apparently context-blind brain.
>>45323318
>No.
>An in-world map, sure. Out of world (i.e. a direct representation, 100% accurate, from your mind rather than a character's)? No. It's just how the world looks topographically.
What if the direct representation is the in game map like if you where playing a modern political game or a pulp world adventure?
Is there a situation that you would consider a 100% accurate representation to work in a game
>>45323238
>focusing on the things they want to aviod
Well, to be entirely frank considering how incredibly deeply are the stereotypes entrenched in the genre, I think starting by focusing all the things you want to avoid in your fiction may be necessary for some people... but I entirely get the sentiment. To look at your worldbuilding as on a minefield and designing it by desperately looking for paths around the mines of clichés and tropes is a sure way to make a terrible fiction.
I think the real problems are horizons that people have: I genuinely thing that the problem many people seem to have is that they seem to have never been confronted with things producing genuine awe and fascination - either because they have became cynical and inattentive, because they just weren't been brought up actively search for such things.
The other thing is just a problem of simple meanings. Most fantasy is predicated by mythical mindset, but myths speak in meaningful symbols, while people - for one reason or another, seem to be overly satisfied with reducing them to aestetical tropes.
>>45323255
>Right then, if not archetypal then what is it?
Nothing, really. It's a trope, a cliché.
>It's not cliche as the lewd elf hasn't become trite or lost it's meaning.
Uhhh, dude? Lewd elves beeen a running joke of the genre aside, they were never that much of a thing. Not in Tolkien, and not in any of the fiction on which he predicated them. Titania and Oberon aren't "lewd" and to call Tinuviel "sexy" would probably make poor old Tolkien rotate straight out of his grave. The old Dökkálfar and Ljósálfar, or more modern Huldufólk or Aos Si aren't exactly characterized as sexy and desirable.
Sexuality has been part of SOME elvish imagery, but in a far more complex fashion than you think.
>I'm making a world with people in the present, and people that are fairly new to the whole game.
By indulging clichés that were boring even thirty years ago when they first emerged...
>>45323591
We're just going to have to disagree on what an elf is and the supposed cliches they're involved in. Seems to me you just don't like elves.
>>45323513
>What if the direct representation is the in game map like if you where playing a modern political game or a pulp world adventure?
No. By "present the world to the players" I mean the actual world -- that is, the contents of that map. The people in those countries, the animals, the war machines; the *world*.
The map is just...the world as it is. At a higher level than any map you could find in the real world. Because any real-world map is created by us; it is a representation, not the actual thing. But an OOC map of the world created by the GM is actually the world. It *is* the pipe.
>>45323318
Dude, you are such a fucking retard I don't have any will to even continue arguing with you. Consider yourself a winner. Congratulations.
>>45323471
>Literally open any fucking history book, you ignorant gobshite.
Dear kid, I get that the hippe ideal that "sexual restrictions are a 19th century invention, before that everyone was free spirited invidual and that totally justifies our cynical and selfish attitude towards sexuality" got really popular some thirty years ago, but no. It's you who needs to study a bit on the subject matter. Sexuality has ALWAYS been associated with an extremely complex and restrictive system of customs, associations, and symbolic meanings. In every culture, ever. The fact that not all of those restrictions were identical to the late christianic puritanism does not mean that people viewed it the same way we do today.
>>45323625
>Seems to me you just don't like elves.
No, I actually do love them. I don't like the stupid, shallow tripe that B'grade fantasy substitutes the with, but I actually have a fascination with Elves. In all their thousand variations.
I just don't think Japanese porn and "lewd threads" are a very good place to look for ideals how elves can look and work.
>>45323692
>Dude, you are such a fucking retard I don't have any will to even continue arguing with you. Consider yourself a winner. Congratulations.
If you don't have any response...don't respond.
>>45323591
Trope are not cliches.
Also, ideas that have remained popular over three decades with no apparent decline in their cultural prominence can't really be dismissed as tired cliches unless you have an appallingly poor understanding of trends in society. You're just projecting your personal distaste for a trope and presenting it in a way that attempts (and fails) to make you seem you're so damn cultured and insightful, you're beyond such simple things.
Sometimes, things can be about very simple aspects of life and still be really good fiction. Not everything created ever has to try and change the way you look at things. This includes fantasy.
>>45323189
Personally, if thats the method you'd want to use to create a race, I'd divide it further into "good at ___" "bad at _____" "lives in X environment" and so on until you can naturally apply traits based on the building blocks you've made as granular as you desire.
e.g "this race lives in the worlds vast redsand desert so is naturally adapted towards the extreme heat of the day and the freezing of the night. What might this adaptation be? Based on existing creatures they might have larger hands and feet to move over sand with ease and bury themselves in the ground where the sand is cooler. They might have large, thin membranous parts to lose heat as quick as possible like desert foxes or some kind of fat reserve like camels. Where might these features be?
Already you're getting a picture of what this race might look like. From that you could deviate into their behavior and how that core behavior might effect their culture. If they are a race that bury themselves might they have turned this to vast termite like underground cites? Do they try not to move much in the peak of the day when it it hottest? if so might they have turned this into an extreme-seista kind of culture where its taboo to do things at particular times of the day.With traveling at night their star mapping would be need to be advanced to navigate accurately and as a side-result they might have quite accurate time measurement.
So, so far you might have a race with paddle-like extremities and a large fat reserve stored in their forehead that lives primarily underground and travel above ground during the colder hours. They have a culture that, based on times of day dictate their actions that are strictly upheld by their society. And thats the starting points to go on fromOr I could be talking out my ass but thats just how i'd do it
>>45323692
Yes, everyone who doesn't see sex as something people overthink about is a goddamn hippie. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that despite whatever some members in a given culture might try to restrict vulgar behavior, studies concerning the "underbelly" of the society have always revealed people being perverted, lustful sleazebags, before, during and after the 19th century and on a global scale.
But sure, you just continue to go on believing that a culture consists entirely of the values put forth by those who overly romanticize the simple act of fucking. It's not like ancient porn, smut, sexual letters and graffiti are a thing.
>>45323750
>Trope are not cliches.
All clichés are tropes, but not all tropes are clichés. This one is both.
>Also, ideas that have remained popular over three decades with no apparent decline in their cultural prominence
You mean in literally the lowest, most pandering and shallow pop-culture torrent? Yeah: fantasy fans are often sexually repressed and socially isolated, and appealing to their sexual drive is a safe way to make sales. And before you start getting defensive: I don't think that's an evil thing.
But I won't fucking praise anyone to do it either. It's cheap. And while there is room for cheap and pandering stuff, I like to think that keeping SOME ambitions and at least the pretense that aiming for something a little more than that is a good thing.
>Sometimes, things can be about very simple aspects of life and still be really good fiction.
Yes. But using a pandering cliché is not a way to achieve that. A story of a prince saving a princess from a dragon is a simple story about the most simple and basic aspect of life, but it can be a great fiction.
A great fiction is fiction that either tells us something clever - or something very truthful. Simple stories generally fall into the later category.
Making 100th iteration on a concept that was exhausted and lost any meaning the day after it was first presented not going to fall into that category. It's honestly not even that simple, considering the rather extensive justifications you provided for your world.
For the last time: I don't mind what you do. If you really want those elves in - there is nothing I can do to stop you, hell, I don't even want to. But as this is a place of discussion, and discussion is a root of improvement (I assume that is something we can both agree, as that is why we are both voicing ourselves in public), and this is what I can tell you. It's generic, and cliché, and completely unimaginative and really not very interesting.
If you are OK with that - I'm OK with it too.
>>45323801
I tend to assemble races from rough building blocks, i.e. fairly vague concepts, and then sculpt it down into fine grain as you put it by adding in the details and elaborating in the subtleties of said aspects. That way I avoid too much overlap or repetition and can be sure I've put all the things I want to into the setting.
For instance, the not!elves I mentioned before live in silverwoods, i.e. trees with literally silver in them. So they have elongated limbs and their nails grow similar to claws, as their primitive ancestors climbed trees and shit. Then it occurs to me that I already associated silver with the Moon, so I come up with some religions and arcane practices for them. And so on.
Your method vs. my method is kinda like me pre-sketching a drawing and adding details over it vs. your method of just drawing as you go by, letting ideas flow directly onto the paper which tends to produce less predictable results, sometimes better and sometimes worse than expected. I don't think either method is superior to the other desu.
Working on a item/region generator that can eventually be used to spawn flora/fauna/enemy/hierarchy/political leaning/state of economy/etc.
It ideally will be used in 5e or anything really if you have 2 d10's and a d6. It's largely unfinished, I'd say about 5%, but will be done eventually.
The goal is to give a DM a varying level of power when it comes to generating a new village/kingdom/continent/world in whatever variety he chooses.
If players ask for specifics, this also allows for that.
(What kind of forest is this?
'temperate, mainly pine and spruce. The occasional apple tree and overgrown lime bush catches your eye.' )
I'm looking for feedback on it.
[Yes, it uses dwarf fortress info. I'm doing this because I'm running a game based on it and I want it to be as detail as that game is within reason.]
>>45323869
>Yes, everyone who doesn't see sex as something people overthink about is a goddamn hippie.
First of all, "overthinking" is not that bag-it-all catchphrase to ignore your opponents arguments. Second of all you seem to STILL think this is about puritanism vs. not puritanism, or that it's about denying human sexuality. Which is laughably stupid and shallow way of looking at things and makes me really fucking wonder where you got the fucking balls to tell others to educate themselves.
Sexuality was, in every culture, in every period, in every social class, constrained by a system of symbolic meanings, concepts, and cultural customs. And the best proof of that IS the existence of the concept of obscenity existing across ALL CULTURES as well. There could not be such a thing as obscenity unless there was already a system of regulatory and explanatory models surrounding it in the first place.
And that is what I want you to fucking understand. Sexuality is meaningful and always has been - pretty much the exception of our modern society. Retards like you think the existence of obscene graffiti validates cynicism towards sexuality in main stream modern culture, while in reality, it was the absolute opposite: A PROOF that the mainstream culture had a very delicate perception of sexuality.
The argument was, if you remember, that "sexy" is not primal or archetypal notion. Because "sexy" means something else than sexuality, or lust.
>>45323666
cool thanks for the explanation
hadn't thought about it that way
it would make for a good magical item ic to have a non interpretive map that updates each time it is rolled up
>>45323976
I wasn't specifically referring to the sexualization of fantastic races. I personally don't enjoy thatoutside of porn. But that's just me.
>A story of a prince saving a princess from a dragon
If a person has a personal distaste for that scenario, he will call it a cliche. If not, he will call it a trope. Whether or not it is a good story as judged by the larger populace and the passage of time has nothing to do with how that one guy (read: you) chooses to label it.
The part we seem to agree on is that it mostly depends on the execution, ultimately. Even retardedly plot-hole-ridden stories can be saved from being universally panned if the narration frames it just the right way, using appropriate visuals, themes, narrative tools, humor or whatever the fuck else.
>>45324142
Yeah, that's actually a really cool idea.
Sounds like something Pratchett'd have...only you could edit the map, and that'd change the real world.
>>45324167
>If a person has a personal distaste for that scenario, he will call it a cliche.
That person is an idiot. Because that story is one of the oldest archetypes in human history: whoever mistakes archetypes for clichés is a moron who does not understand how stories work. Plain and simple. If the story screws up it's presentation - an archetypical story is not going to make it good - it's entirely possible for a story about a knight going to save a princess to be bad: but not because of the premise.
People who would dismiss such story on the basis of it being an archetypal story however are morons, who fell victim to the delusion of importance of originality. Stories of knights fighting dragons won't stop being worth telling as long as humans remain humans.
>The part we seem to agree on is that it mostly depends on the execution, ultimately.
I'm afraid we don't. While I agree bad execution can ruin a good idea, I don't think good execution can save a fundamentally bad one. I think a story can get away with plot-holes and retarded premise if the story is not about the plot to begin with. Plenty of stories are not about plot at all - the actual chain of events that happen aren't at all what is supposed to send the message across.
But in those cases, there still was a good message to send across: it just wasn't in the plot.
But if there isn't anything worth telling to begin with, I don't believe any amount of good execution is going to save it.
>>45324037
Yeah its certainly not a "this is better than another" case but the difference between personal methods akin to artistic methodology. Personally I like unpredictability with designs that can later be ironed out as opposed to long term foundation planning
>>45323189
>Does this seem like a valid way to go about creating your races, or am I just full of shit?
To me that seems like it falls into the same pitfall. You are not trying to create something either original - or at least organic and meaningful. It's just taking the same finite pool of tropes and adding a bit of random chance to it.
In the end it still seems to lead to the same reductivist pitfall: each race is a list of prefab qualities.
I've said it before and I've say it again: if you want to do the kind of methodical world building (the kind where you want your settings to feel consistent and organtic), the best thing to do is to forget about races ENTIRELY and think about cultures. Isolated cultures, but cultures as conglomerates of several different levels.
Because that actually forces you to think about how those entities think, live, spend time, view their own surroundings and behave in the incredibly complex and varied conditions social life forces on one.
Behavior is what should ultimately really matter to you. And behavior is predicated on mindset, and mindset is formed by culture in it's entire complexity, and culture reflects histories and necessities and unavoidable need to deal with plurality.
>>45324102
I'm not talking about puritanism at all. I'm talking about viewing sex and beauty as this complex thing to write pages and pages about vs. viewing it as something we just do because it's a built-in desire to encourage survival, and it's also fun, and there isn't too much more to it beyond that. I will admit that I didn't word it as well as I could have, but I will also
>Sexuality was, in every culture, in every period, in every social class, constrained by a system of symbolic meanings, concepts, and cultural customs
But that's wrong, you nincompoop. Polynesian couples casually fucked in front of their kids and didn't mind them "playing doctor" regardless of age. The Na tribe didn't even adopt marriage or the concept of fatherhood, exchanging semen like handshakes. And there's the Romans, who did assign taboos and etiquette to specific sexual practices, but were completely okay with people just fucking each other casually in the middle of the street during busy hours.
What I'm saying is that throughout history, there has always been people who
>thought about sex in the same frivolous, carefree, implication or commitment devoid way we do today
Not only on personal levels, but if you actually bother to do some research, also on entirely cultural levels. So perhaps consider actually knowing what you're talking about before you start talking about it in a desperate attempt to prove how much smarter and enlightened you are than everyone else.
The whole "Helen of Troy is so purdy it started a war" is a thing attached to the siege of Troy by the self-delusional, over-romanticizing airheads like yourself. There is no evidence that the people at large actually gobbled that shit up. Only surviving literary works by people with their own (often retarded) views treat it as a significant thing. Did the commoners? I doubt it.
PS: "sexy" literally just means "sexually appealing." You're getting hung up on semantics again, you actual autist. Also, that wasn't me.
>>45324765
You are a retard. Dear god you are a retard.
>I'm talking about viewing sex and beauty as this complex thing to write pages and pages about vs. viewing it as something we just do because it's a built-in desire to encourage survival, and it's also fun, and there isn't too much more to it beyond that.
In other words, you are talking about things you don't understand even in the slightest. I can fucking assure you: regulating sexuality is actually JUST as important to our survival as fucking itself is. You have NO fucking clue what we are talking about: apparently you can't even conceptualize that there are complex aspects of society that don't exist in written text.
>But that's wrong, you nincompoop.
I'm a fucking anthropologist by trade you fucking retard. I can bet I've read more on sexual customs among primitive societies than you have read on ANY subject in your sorry life, and you've just AGAIN proved that you can't fucking comprehend, for a second, that specific Western taboos on sexuality are not the only existing taboos on sexuality. The fact that some societies don't deem sex harmful to children does not fucking mean they don't have OTHER restrictions and other complex symbolic associations to sexuality you god damn, clueless piece of fucking shit.
>The Na tribe didn't even adopt marriage or the concept of fatherhood
A) Musuo are the ONLY existing example of such society, completely isolated abnormality, and B) they STILL do have very complex rules about when and with whom is sexual intercourse allowed.
>but were completely okay with people just fucking each other casually in the middle of the street during busy hours.
How the FUCK can you even say this and than claim this:
>I'm not talking about puritanism at all.
Are you actually mental? Retarded? Brain damaged? Do you even fucking realize you literally contradict yourself in a single god-fucking damn vomit of a post?
What the fuck is wrong with you pieces of shit?
>>45324765
>The whole "Helen of Troy is so purdy it started a war" is a thing attached to the siege of Troy by the self-delusional, over-romanticizing airheads like yourself.
Did you just call Iliad and Odyssey, one of the most important and ancient piece of folklore and mythology a "work of a self-delusional, over romanticized airhead?"
>There is no evidence that the people at large actually gobbled that shit up.
Is this real world? Dude - there is stupid and then there is completely deranged. You. Are. SCARY STUPID.
>>45322609
Pointy
>>45324932
>anthropologist by trade
Sad.
Still in progress of figuring out how I should portray magic in the setting.
My current guess is;
hermetic, involving lot of alchemy, tools, and whatnot - safe in light applications, but becomes pretty mind-wrecking at higher levels.
Divine magic in turn is straight-out divine intervention, delegated by a higher being ( of actual divinity ).
While it can be learned, talent is as important. You do need some studies in order to draw it out, since the ways can be very obscure.
All are rather low-power, and the applications in combat are limited - but possible by skilled caster. The most potent casters were the high-thaumaturges of Zere, and they could actually hold on their own just with solely by spellcasting - but they are no more, at least as they were.
>>45323030
One of the first things I decided on in my setting was no elves, dwarves or halflings. Never use those words and don't make expies. Humans only.
Non-human intelligent races do appear in myths and legends but they aren't "real" per se even as characters interact with them; they are just lesser spirits trapped in the waking dreams of humans. Monsters, on the other hand, are very real but by definition unnatural.
Just finished a map for a friend's campaign. The setting is science-fantasy which sorta explains why there's skyscrapers as well as old-timey cottages on the map.
>>45326590
What's the scale? My cryptology is rusty.
>>45326621
I don't actually know, the markings on it are 10 through 40 in Greek numerals (with an invented 0 because they didn't have one) the units are A.D.U. standing for 'Arbitrary Distance Units'
My GM friend hasn't made his mind up yet about quite how big this place will be, so I gave him some wiggle room, same with the place names - they don't actually really mean anything.
>>45326661
It's probably a really small-scale map, then.
The north-eastern city and the southernmost town are the only ones that have any right to be large, since they're on major waterways.
>>45326773
I also figured the town to the immediate west of the big NE city would be sizeable because it's located on an important crossroads and so probably gets a lot of trade traffic. By the same logic the town in the hilly area would be smaller because of its relative isolation.
This is the map intended to be given to the players and so is not complete anyway. There are also a lot of smaller villages and hamlets dotted around, as well as streams and such (it's not as if there's only one river in the whole country), this map just shows the noteworthy stuff.
>>45326825
>it's not as if there's only one river in the whole country
two rivers*, can't even remember what's on my own goddamn map.
>>45326825
>>45326858
This is an island, right?
If so, the large river stretching into a hilly region doesn't make much sense. It would probably curve north near that NE city.
>>45326894
No it's inland, it's just the area outside the border is not shown.
page 9 bump
How do you stay motivated working on a world?
I can never really get past the opening stages of worldbuilding before I'm disappointed in it all and discard it.
>>45329177
I went macro to micro.
Started with the basic rules for how the universe works, the cosmology, the creation myth, how characters work in the setting.
Only had a vague idea for what kind of civilizations would exist before I started on the world itself.
>>45329177
Go small, place a single point, and then expand, see what's around, then expand and expand.
>>45309748
I'm trying to write a hard sci-fi setting for the first time in forever after running nothing but high fantasy for longer than I care to admit.
>>45324765
>Polynesian couples casually fucked in front of their kids and didn't mind them playing doctor
Hi, new anon here, I've got no stake in this argument besides my racism, but I keep seeing this kind of argument over and over again. People seem to think that because some really backwards tribes of nogs and squints did something weird before they were civilized by Europeans means that the exception proves the rule, it doesn't. Look at any culture aside from those kinds and you'll see more advanced and civilized practices. White power, good night.
>>45323976
Dark Elf anon here. I am fine with making something not entirely original. I'm not looking for intricately detailed cultures that an anthropologist would approve of. I'm looking to make a weird pulpy fantasy world that's not afraid of anachronisms and tropes, especially if it brings a greater understanding of the themes and imagery bring conveyed
>>45323265
Definitely making other factions for the other continent. I'm mainly saving it for other non-humanoid races/species. I'm not sure what to put in yet.
Thanks for reminding me of ice ages. I forgot about them. Some of the Garoun ancestors may have headed east across an ice bridge and I could use the same bridge to have dragons come in over.
>>45326220
these are some cool as hell wizards anon, i love the slug guy
>>45322155
Particle beams. All the flash and thunder of gunpowder weapons fire, with added heavy metal residue and radiation.
So there's a thread on Reddit. It's exactly as Reddit as you'd think. But it's interesting, not as the question itself, but for its possible answers. Especially here.
If you think it's useless shit, say so. And why, hopefully. That is an interesting answer.
>Do you consider sexism to be a topic in your world? (i.e. did you address it or even think of it)
>Are you aware of your personal bias towards the sex and gender of people in your world and how do you deal with it? (do you strenghen your position, do you subvert your own position, do you personally agree/disagree with your world's inhabitants on the matter).
>If you subvert/maintain sexism, what are prime examples and why did you do it?
>Do you think that you can write outside the biases you have learned in the real world (where we have a strong tendency to favor males over females in most aspects)? (e.g. that history has more stories recorded of males than females giving the impression that most of the time men did things and women did nothing?)
>Have you been criticized for your respective stances and if so what did these critics do to your approach to the topic?"
>>45337401
Jesus. That is sad. People are really fucking obsessed with this shit, aren't they?
The answers for me would be:
>Do you consider sexism to be a topic in your world?
The world is not modeled on modern western Marxism-saturated world-views but rather emulates a traditional historical mindsets, so yes: "sexism" - that is awareness and reflection of sexual dichotomy is very much a thing in it.
>Are you aware of your personal bias towards the sex and gender of people in your world and how do you deal with it?
It's not my personal bias, it's a perspective that used to be common among all societies in the past.
>If you subvert/maintain sexism, what are prime examples and why did you do it?
Men and women are generally simply expected to act differently and assume different social roles within the world. The specifics differ from individual culture to individual culture: in some women are not allowed to even walk outside without a male company, in others it's not unusual for women to learn to ride or use a weapon, though in the end, primary role of a women is the keeper of the household and motherhood among every single one of them.
>Do you think that you can write outside the biases you have learned in the real world
What fucking biases? I don't learn fucking biases, I learned how gender systems actually WORK. The use of the word "bias" does not make any fucking sense here...
>Have you been criticized for your respective stances and if so what did these critics do to your approach to the topic?"
I haven't showed my world to idiots, so no.
>>45337401
Sexism doesn't exist. People are people and what they get is what they deserve. In the case of SJW whinypants, that would be being sad and angry about everything while I get to have fun.nice bait tho, saved for future use
>>45337401
There is nothing wrong with Reddit.
>>45337513
>There is nothing wrong with Reddit.
Well, actually, the set of questions the guy posted suggest there might be.
>>45337496
>modern western Marxism-saturated world-views
I fucking wish the west was saturated with Marxist views...but I know what you mean.
I think by bias they mean your own implementation of gender -- that is, e.g. automatically making all your leaders male despite the possibility of them being female (and historically accurate, in your case).
Unrelated to the original questions; have you played with gender beyond relating to sex? --For example, I've got guys who determine gender by inheritance. Or on a less obvious alternative, the Romans with their penetration-penetrated dichotomy. Have you done anything like that?
>What fucking biases
Same thing above.
>I haven't showed my world to idiots, so no
Yeah, I didn't get that one either. Sex/gender does not normally come up in the realm of worldbuilding, in my experience.
>>45337508
Not actually bait. As in, the guy who made it was essentially asking the question in a *less* baitish way because it was meant to be a less inflammatory version of a sexism-style question that *was* bait.
>>45337513
There's plenty wrong with Reddit, in my opinion. Names and karma and sorting et al.
>>45337549
Because the whole sex/gender spiel should not matter when worldbuilding, and your focus on it makes you appear obsessed with trivial things.
>>45337608
Sorry, which bit are you responding to?
>>45337549
>I fucking wish the west was saturated with Marxist views...but I know what you mean.
That is not even a funny thing to say. We have quite enough of Marxist philosophy in our western world-views, the posts in question being a perfect example: and it's easily the worst thing to happen to western cultures.
I understand what they mean by "bias", but the fact that they insist on using that question in particular just shows a fundamental issue with their perspective. They actually mistake MODELS for biases, as if every model had to be fundamentally biased.
>have you played with gender beyond relating to sex?
Not really. Concepts of third genders exist within my society on the more primitive levels - they are, much like they were in some real-world societies - related to shamanic roles. There are some rather decadent societies where indulgence in all kinds of sexual perversions, so specific sexual workers exist with their own entire small cultures around them, but I've never made it a major topic. The world as it is is rather dark and exhausting to merely survive in, and there isn't that much time to worry about such things.
>I've got guys who determine gender by inheritance.
I have LITERALLY no idea how that is supposed to work. Could you expand on that?
>ancient necromancers build huge dungeon network underground
>get themselves and their entire people wiped out by demons and a dragon they raised from the dead
>new kingdom arises
>gets rekt by dragons
>have to hide in the underground necro dungeons
>queen makes a deal with the devil for a weapon against dragons
>make a blood sacrifice of her children (its okay, nobody has to know)
>dragons get rekt by her and her knights
>catch a blind and lame dragon that can't even do shit and keep him as a pet
>they get cocky and start drinking his blood because they think it'll give them super powers
>it's the necro dragon, so instead of awesome powers they get undead
>knights get scared and lock the queen in the deepest of the dungeons
>close off the harbors and destroy all vessels to keep the sickness from spreading
>make another deal with the devil to fix this mess
>kingdom falls into ruin because of civil war and demons killing every human (thus fixing the problem)
>undead knights roam the countryside
>demons lurk underground
>yfw when you and your party (exiles from a realm across the sea sent away as punishment for supporting the wrong lord in a political scuffle) arrive in this wasteland 100 years later and have to make it your new home
>>45337669
I'll take "Using Marxism as a buzzword for things I don't like" for 500 please
>>45320073
>>45316811
What is wrong with Askhistorians?
>>45337549
>I fucking wish the west was saturated with Marxist views...but I know what you mean.
Yeah, you're not exactly subtle about your SJW agenda. But then again you lot also believe words on paper literally kill fags, so what was I expecting
>>45337737
Dude, you have to be really, REALLY ignorant of what has been happening in political and social philosophy over the last hundred years to not be aware how insanely profound impact Marxism has and had: how absolutely critical it is to forming most of our modern world-views. It also stood at the foot of three out of four biggest societal collapses of modern history.
>>45337756
Too much leftist bs, not enough actual historians.
>>45337767
Dude youre arguing with a Marxist, they don't undertsand things like reason or history. all they care bout is ideology
>>45337669
>That is not even a funny thing to say.
Anon, trying to effect the superstructure (i.e. views on gender and sex) assuming you'll change the base (according to Marxism, material conditions) is the exact opposite of Marxism. But like I said, I get what you mean; you mean modern progressive liberalism, which revolves around the superstructure (i.e. identity, hence identity politics).
>I understand what they mean by "bias"
I'm not sure they are referring to the model. I think they may be talking about your world as a whole -- like I said; how you might, as a supposedly innately sexist (i.e. biased) human, forget that women can take on certain roles even within the context of your deliberately in-universe sexist fictional world.
>Not really. Concepts of third genders exist...related to shamanic roles. There are some rather decadent societies where indulgence in all kinds of sexual perversions, so specific sexual workers exist with their own entire small cultures around them
That sounds interesting, anon. Do you mind going into a bit more detail on both these points?
>>45337669
No serious 21st century historian (or anthropologist, sociologist, etc.) uses 'decadence' anymore
>>45337669
>>45337810
>I have LITERALLY no idea how that is supposed to work. Could you expand on that?
These people are metropolitan. They live in city-states, they are born into aristocracy, they live off the backs of slave labour. And they are very political. There is no formalised way of ruling each city; each tends to be ruled by a system of de facto magnates deciding amongst themselves what should be done. Sheer power must be displayed, as laws cannot be relied upon (every human has the same rights). Inheritance is one of the most powerful ways to consolidate wealth. So they care a lot about inheritance than anyone else.
When two people are married together, it is decided in advance who will be the dominant inheritor (the "male") and who will be the subordinate one (the "female"). The child of the marriage will be of the dominant one's house. Opposite-sex marriages are preferred, as they create children -- but same-sex marriages are very useful in some situations, like when one or both parties don't want anyone to inherit. But adoption *is* possible...and that would be a horrible spanner in someone's plans, wouldn't it?
>>45337759
>>45337790
>pic related
>>45337767
Marxism has had a large impact, but nowadays it is pretty fringe. Most people are liberal (the people you mistake for Marxists) or conservative. And *everyone's* a capitalist.
>It also stood at the foot of three out of four biggest societal collapses of modern history.
This is a very simplistic view of history. It is more accurate to say that revolutionaries gonna revolutionary, and Marxism is simply one radical idea that can be latched onto. Fascism, nationalism, even previously liberalism/capitalism are all also used.
>>45337810
>hurr durr marxists arent actualy marxists because I say so
>>45337842
Why is "female = subordinate" the default you're going with? Just wanna know your reasoning
>>45337831
Mang, stop trying to bait, we're having an actual conversation here.
>>45337843
>hurr durr people who disagree with what Marx said are Marxist
>>45337851
Because the subordinate is expected to fulfil many of the roles (e.g. domestic care of the estate and its economy) that female people have historically undertaken. The dominant, conversely, focuses on politicking with others, and going to war (bearing in mind that in this society humans play a mostly commanding role in war, rather than a military one).
>>45337875
Sorry; rather than a physical one*. Obviously commanding is military.
>>45337861
That wasn't bait, I've spent the last 3 years keeping up with contemporary historiography (and not for fun either), and there's a reference to 'decadence is a concept we don't use anymore except to reference things older historians did wrong' almost everywhere.
>>45337875
If women in that world are traditionally subordinate, why would a system like yours ever be implemented? Women would just stay subordinate and not get to be 'socially male', if the qualities associated with the 'socially female' are derived from the 'bodily female'. And why would men (not individually, but on a large and noteworthy scale) ever give up the role that's associated with them for one of lesser standing?
>>45337945
>If women in that world are traditionally subordinate
That's not what I meant; I meant the subordinate fulfils roles *we* would consider female, hence the name. Also hence the quotes, 'cause it's not the same thing.
I already told you why those changes would take place, however; it is deeply encouraged, materially and politically. It is not that (in my opinion) men &c. have power because they give it to themselves; it is that they can have in some societies more power because that is what is most encouraged by their conditions.
>>45337984
Okay, I thought you were arguing in-universe.
>>45337810
>Anon, trying to effect the superstructure (i.e. views on gender and sex) assuming you'll change the base (according to Marxism, material conditions) is the exact opposite of Marxism.
But that is not what they are doing. The whole thing is a little more complex than that: both in Marxistic view and in reality. But the truth is, modern "progressive liberalism", as well as all theories of conflict, critical studies, gender studies, post-colonial studies, world-system studies - most of sociology in fact is profoundly Marxist. You talk about a more superficial level - the specific ways to achieve the specific ideal state of society, but that is really just a superficial thing: it's the fundamental (mis)understanding of how society itself works that is directly derived from Marx's delusions. And that is what really matters.
>like I said; how you might, as a supposedly innately sexist (i.e. biased) human, forget that women can take on certain roles even within the context of your deliberately in-universe sexist fictional world.
Maybe this is because I'm an anthropologist by trade but this won't happen to me. I've invested enough time studying the importance and structures related to gender that such notion is seems very unlikely to me.
>That sounds interesting, anon.
I have an urgent matter coming up very soon, so I don't know how much time I have to give a summary of how it works in my world, but I can for now refer to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koekchuch
Assuming the role of a shaman in SOME societies is associated with them losing their previous identity downright to their gender status (it seems to be related to the transformation ritual and the symbolic death and re-birth involved. I have societies that embrace similar logic, though just a few of them.
>>45338001
So what you're saying is you read Hegel and thought that was Marx. Okay. I shouldn't expect anthrobabbies to be able to read real people books.
>>45336400
Shamelessly advertising my thread in here, since I assume you're all interested in things like these too.
Anyways, how's my map? Country borders are still very wip.
>>45338001
So what IS your hot take on Historical Materialism then? Why is it, as you say, 'delusional'? No buzzwords please. Just imagine you need to write an actual paper on it.
>>45338001
>But that is not what they are doing. The whole thing is a little more complex than that: both in Marxistic view and in reality. But the truth is, modern "progressive liberalism", as well as all theories of conflict, critical studies, gender studies, post-colonial studies, world-system studies - most of sociology in fact is profoundly Marxist. You talk about a more superficial level - the specific ways to achieve the specific ideal state of society, but that is really just a superficial thing: it's the fundamental (mis)understanding of how society itself works that is directly derived from Marx's delusions. And that is what really matters.
The whole superstructure vs. base thing is integral to Marxism and socialism as a whole. It is literally one of the most base and important matters within the whole theory. It's what the means-of-production bit relies upon. You cannot say that those who violate it are Marxist, or in any way related to it. And being concerned with depictions of sex or gender within cultural works is the definition of trying to change the superstructure.
You also cannot just call something Marxist and expect that to be the end of the debate. You have not actually yet outlined *why* anything is Marxist except for in the vaguest terms ("they're both deluded and both have the same ideal of utopia" -- itself pointless, because pretty much everyone's view of utopia is the same), although I have said why it is not.
Liberals are far more like conservatives than they are like Marxists. Both liberals and conservatives are capitalist; both liberals and conservatives seek to change the superstructure instead of the substructure.
>>45322145
>Minor Thorvein
>Greater Thorvein
Doesn't really sound right to me, definitely the Minor part.
Things you could try:
>Thorvein Inferior and Thorvein Superior
>Magna Thorvein and regular Thorvein
>East Thorvein and West Thorvein
>Upper Thorvein and Lower Thorvein
>>45337842
>When two people are married together, it is decided in advance who will be the dominant inheritor (the "male") and who will be the subordinate one (the "female").
That is a linearity issue, not a gender issue. The child is not assigned different gender than his biological sex is, it's that the dominant linearity line is shuffled. I have a very similar society, albeit very primitive one, in which rules of descendancy are determined by "bidding war" between the two clans.
>Most people are liberal (the people you mistake for Marxists) or conservative. And *everyone's* a capitalist.
Marxist philosophy goes way further than just economical theory.
>This is a very simplistic view of history.
No, it's really not. All revolutions driven by Marxist agenda resulted in in massacress and totalitarian regimes that don't have an actual analogy anywhere else. Not even fascism had resulted into so through collapses of basic human social structures.
Less death can be laid at the feet of black plague than that can be attributed by to Marxist revolutionaries.
>I shouldn't expect anthrobabbies to be able to read real people books.
My second field is philosophy. And 70% of Marx's work is a commentary or expansion on Hegel. He believed himself (and this is a quote) to be the ultimate Hegelian, the one that finished what Hegel started. Though in reality, his work is just a dramatic reduction of already fundamentally pathological Hegelian philosohy to even worse piece of shit.
>So what IS your hot take on Historical Materialism then?
That is so laughably uninformed and stupid that it should have never been even considered relevant. I don't know even where to start: to reduce human history to economical factors and nebulous, completely fictional metaphysical concepts of power is about as refined understanding of the systems that drive human behavior as stating that all niggers are dumb and criminal.
>>45338169
That's an awfully long winded way of saying 'my education was bad, I'm an idiot, and I blew 30K on it', but if you throw some footnotes in it, you might be able to convince whatever third rate professor put that bs in your head.History/Philosopy here btw in case you're gonna try calling me a filthy unwashed peasant or whatever the hip new anthroboo insult is these days.
>>45337401
>Do you consider sexism to be a topic in your world? (i.e. did you address it or even think of it)
Maybe. It's an entire planet with multiple cultures, factions and religions.
>Are you aware of your personal bias towards the sex and gender of people in your world and how do you deal with it?
Yes; by doing what I want anyway based on my own preferences. Slavery is a bigger issue at the current time frame than sexuality.
(do you strenghen your position, do you subvert your own position, do you personally agree/disagree with your world's inhabitants on the matter).
I'm not educated enough in this topic to know if I'm actually subverting or strengthening anything nor do I have the temperament or inclination to do so.
>If you subvert/maintain sexism, what are prime examples and why did you do it?
I'm making an entire planet. General rule is the strong survive.
>Do you think that you can write outside the biases you have learned in the real world (where we have a strong tendency to favor males over females in most aspects)? (e.g. that history has more stories recorded of males than females giving the impression that most of the time men did things and women did nothing?)
General rule is the strong survive.
>Have you been criticized for your respective stances and if so what did these critics do to your approach to the topic?"
I don't think anybody would like to critique a 13k word rough outline of one faction.
>>45338169
I'm curious, if you blame Soviet terror on Marx, do you also blame the irrepairable damage European colonizers did to Africa and the Middle East on John Calvin? I mean if we're honest, all great massacres and genocides were spearheaded and carried out by Christian capitalists, whose foundations lie in Calvin's doctrines, so why ignore that?
>>45338169
>No, it's really not. All revolutions driven by Marxist agenda resulted in in massacress and totalitarian regimes that don't have an actual analogy anywhere else. Not even fascism had resulted into so through collapses of basic human social structures.
Nope.
Let me put it this way; Mao killed a lot of people, right?
That was because of Communism (or Maoism), right?
Wrong.
China has had horrible rulers being genocidal, and wars where millions upon millions of people died, since China was China. It's nothing to do with the ideology; everything to do with particular conditions.
In other words, communism motivated nothing; people were going to revolt, because they were dissatisfied. And they were going to be violent, because people are violent. Communism merely provided a good outlet for this.
To think that violence is controlled by ideology is laughably naive.
>>45338268
Mang, don't go full the other way.
>>45337875
>>45337984
Quick question though: what exactly determines one role to be subordinate to other? Because this is the whole fascinating issue. It's predicated on the assumption of power-conflict from the beginning: you assume males "dominated" women and forced them into "subordinate" position:
This is inherently predicated on the assumption that human society is entirely, in all it's aspects organized as a dominance hierarchy, in which individual units exist locked in fight for their place on the roles... and clearly, women "lost" that fight and now are "subordinate" to males.
>>45338226
Sure thing kid, your posting style and arguments amounting to "fuck you, your wrong" totally give your stance so much credibility.
So far so good, trying tomake a small roleplaying groupand now I just need a conflict or a setting for my thing.
I thought about maybe a new/powerful resource found in a land where a war has deprived people of basic living materia but I'm not too sure.
>>45339153
>I thought about maybe a new/powerful resource found in a land where a war has deprived people of basic living materia but I'm not too sure.
How does that work? War usually does not deprive people of natural resources. You might get things temporarily confiscated (this frequently happened with metals, and of course - crops) but that just comes with basically collateral damage...
>>45339297
I thought that scorched earth operation prevented natural materials and such. The whole thing is still under the hood for now so I can tweak things if they don't sound right or believable.
>>45309748
Trying to make some runes for a Wild West/Fantasy setting I'm working on
>>45339423
Scorched earth destroys infrastructure, not so much natural riches. Though you are right that without infrastructure, natural riches are very difficult to exploit.
Just for our benefit: tell us a little more. What rough technological level are we talking about? Degree of supernatural aspects? Those things matter a lot.
>>45339552
Ahh thank you for that clarification then.
Well. I'm super embarrassed about it and it's my first time actually doing something like this so pls don't bully too hard.It's set in the Fire Emblem Universe on a continent that I've created with a friend. The technology is still at a medieval level however, as far as supernatural aspects go. There are animal shapeshifters that are known as Taguel in the game along with people who can turn into dragons who are known as Manakete. Magic is present as well but it's mostly utilized for fighting rather than using it to boil tea, though some people are turning it towards scientific research.
I can give you a quick rundown of the regions and such if you'd like.
This is also my first map I've made so it's nothing too impressive.
New DM here. Working on my first original setting.
>world was doing pretty OK
>suddenly badness
>monsters suddenly fucking shit up all over
>magic or something went catastrophically, I don't know
fast forward 20-30 years
>civilization has somewhat stabilized
>monsters have mostly been driven out towards a certain direction, IE, there's now a frontier with safety behind and danger ahead
>still constant threat on the frontier, life is difficult, most of society remains worse off than before
So that's the overall setting idea I'm working with. Specifically, right now I'm designing a small town for the adventure to start in.
>one of the furthest towns towards the frontier
>only new settlement this far out
>located upstream a strategically vital river that carries traders throughout the land
>spans the river with two major bridges, and also spans a portion of the chasm (for the purpose of defending the dam)
>30 years ago the river was diverted into a giant chasm when it appeared during the badness
>now a dam has been built to reroute the river away from the chasm and back towards its original course through the kingdom
>started as a military garrison, a town has grown around it but soldiers still make up ~40% of the population
>primary function of the town is to protect the dam, ensure no baddies use the river to sail downstream, and allow the military a "spearhead" from which to base excursions into the wilderness
>town is encircled by walls to protect it from the marauding orcs that dominate the region
Thoughts? I'm struggling with WHY a few hundred civilians would have moved to this area.
I also like the idea of the city having an emergency switch to open gates in the dam, allowing the river to flow back into the chasm and drying it up downstream, but I can't think of any reason whatsoever why that would be a desireable option ever.
>>45339713
>Thoughts? I'm struggling with WHY a few hundred civilians would have moved to this area.
Make a rare metal or commodity that can only be found in the area.
They can also be the garrisons families that went with them.
>>45339668
I'm sadly not familiar with Fire Emblem universe, but it seems like basic logic seems to apply - I was asking because in some worlds, the whole "war deprived land of resources" could be explained by some forms of magic - a spell that makes fields infertile, or maybe turns ore in deposits into something impossible to use...
But from the little I know about Fire Emblem, stuff like that isn't usual to the world. So, do you have any idea for how the core conflict could work? You've mentioned conflict over resources: do you mean common natural resources (food, metals, wood, coal, clay...) or do are you thinking of some kind of magical or supernatural resources, ("mana crystals, some kind of magic substance etc...)?
I can't say much about the map at this point, because I'm in a train and there seems to be some issues with the connection - it's sadly not loading up for me.
>>45339807
No worries no worries. I like the idea about spells making fields infertile and ore deposits useless. I don't think it's happened in game but since this is stuff we're making up I can put that in. You've given me something to bounce off of my friend.
No so much over resources, more of a landgrabbing technique. One nation across the ocean had tried to start an uprising and were violently defeated. I think that using the idea of a spell that could really fuck up their land breeds a good thing that we can work with. Mana Crystals could work as well, especially since the beast-races need certain stones to turn into beasts.
Thank you anon!
>>45337722
>undead knights roam the countryside
>demons lurk underground
>yfw when you and your party (exiles from a realm across the sea sent away as punishment for supporting the wrong lord in a political scuffle) arrive in this wasteland 100 years later and have to make it your new home
But I don't want to do that.
>knights get scared and lock the queen in the deepest of the dungeons
>close off the harbors and destroy all vessels to keep the sickness from spreading
>make another deal with the devil to fix this mess
>kingdom falls into ruin because of civil war, [aforementioned zombie plague] and demons killing everyone
THIS is the kingdom I want to adventure in. Not 100 years later, I want to be in the thick of it while it's actively going down.
>>45312390
I like how Mabinogi does it.
>European Humans and American Indian Humans
>Arabic Elves
>Eskimo Giants
>>45339874
>You've given me something to bounce off of my friend.
There is an ancient pc turn-based strategy called Master of Magic that had some really clever ideas on use of large-scale global magic warfare. Including shit like this - corruption on land, summoning entire volcano's from ground next to cities, spells that cause clouds to bloat out the Sun from sky, turning ore into junk (and in reverse - you could turn copper into mithril). We once ran an entire campaign set in the world: it's mostly incredibly generic, but it's like destination of all possible mythological and high-fantasy tropes into single surprisingly cohesive whole. Plus it has a really interesting two planet dynamic to it.
You could look into it if you are interested: I'm pretty sure a dos-box-including bundle can be pirated or bought from GoG.
I might advice against classical mana-crystals or mana-ore, since they are rather overdone. In conjunction with the shapeshifter requiring stones, I think it might be more interesting to play around with innate "metaphysical" properties of common gems or half-gems instead.
You know how some of those terrible esoteric new-age shops sell various largely common gems with instruction about their magical properties? Well, you could use something like that. Turquoise being necessary for transformation into feline-like creatures, while opal is associated with healing effects... that could theoretically make for an interesting magic system that avoids the cliché of mana crystals or ore.
As for magical resource... again in Master of Magic, it uses an idea that there are certain sacred places, "Nodes" (a sacred pond, a volcano, a magical oak etc...) that can be controlled if you can summon and enslave it's guardian spirit, or replace it with your own.
It's less of a deplorable resource, and more of a point of interest though.
>>45337549
>There's plenty wrong with Reddit, in my opinion. Names and karma and sorting et al.
Eh, names are a "whatever" case, but karma works well enough for filtering out shitposting. Not sure what you mean by "sorting" there. I just like that it has a semi-functional archive that's properly searchable. If /tg/ has one that works, I haven't found it yet, and I've looked through quite a few.
>>45338027
Not sure if you're planning to fill the white space, and I'm not quite sure what's going on with the bright red there. Something about the Munrakhi northern archipelago bothers me, too. Other than that, looks fine; if the borders are a WIP, then they could do with a little changing. And I'd change the Voymir color to something with slightly more contrast.
>>45340015
you don't get to do that my friendnot until you sign your own deal with the devil to travel back in time to right those wrongs
I'm glad the Marxist babbies left when based anon btfoed them t.b.h., they were shitting up a perfectly good thread with their whining.
>>45341820
That's lame. Don't put the most interesting part in the backstory.
Rate my elevator pitch, I guess. Haven't done much work on the setting but I'd like to know if the idea's quality at all.
>In the later half of the 21st century, as climate change worsened and cast doubt on Earth's survival, humanity launched the "Century Initiative"- a project to build and launch a generation ship towards Alpha Centauri. Built with a prototype "warp drive" and with provisions for 60,000 colonists, the Century would be humanity's ark into the cosmos. Right on schedule, the Century launched in 2100.
>It never arrived in Alpha Centauri.
>The warp drive, untested as it was, failed. The drive burned out mid-voyage, leaving the Century stranded between systems. The ship soldiers on through the cosmos to this day, only stopping to gather what resources it can from uninhabitable rogue planets and asteroids.
>The year is now 2271. The Century is overcrowded, housing nearly double its intended population. Descendants of the ship's command staff and other elites rule over the populace from their labs and control centers, while the general colonists live, work, and die in "hives" of makeshift housing.
>An Elite has defected, following his "conscience". With him, he's brought tools. Medicine. Weapons.
>The Century is on the brink of civil war.
tl;dr Snowpiercer in space with less plot-induced stupidity.
>>45343021
>stopping to gather what resources it can from uninhabitable rogue planets and asteroids.
>with failed warp drive
How is it crossing such vast distances, exactly?
Overall, weh. It's pretty standard sci-fi. Neither excites nor offends me.
>>45343178
Crossing the slow way. Probably "unrealistic asteroid density" as a shitty justification.
It's just an idea that popped into my head, I've been wanting to do something that isn't fantasy for a while and an SS13 server I play occasionally runs events based off Snowpiercer. It'll probably never go anywhere, but it popped into my head.
>>45343209
Here's an explanation that also makes the thing a bit more interesting.
Rather than a failed warp drive, maybe it's intermittent? Spotty, off and on. Every once in a while, with great ado, the ship is able to get moving to a new site, determined in advance.
But maybe the frequency of the ability to make these jumps is dropping. People fear (but are scared to admit) the thing is dying for good. Resources have started to grow more scarce, as daily jumps became weekly and then monthly. Soon, it won't be able to jump often enough to keep itself supplied.
>>45343263
I like it. Makes better sense than what I had. Admittedly, I'm no writer; I'm just trying to figure out a setting for my group that isn't "generic d&d fantasy setting" so we can finally break from the fantasy hardon some of them have, and they haven't bitten for any preexisting modern/recent-history/future settings.
Let me see... im currently developing 2 post-apoc settings; One in a half-terraformed mars turned tax heaven before earth and mars met a great war, then turned cyberpunk post-apoc (for my insane brawling system), another still early for a future game about a supernatural post-apoc.. Is it bad that i already have another post-apoc setting? Geez.
im also playing with a system/setting about dark ages gone supernatural that is about god vs the devil. Alternative earth, christian heavy, heavy, heavy (i mean, its really bad to roll 666).
And theres also my years long ever developing low but sometimes high magic fantasy thats somewhere between grimdark, dark fables,with some classical stuff mixed in. Lots of ocultism inspired high fantasy, if that makes any sense.
None i develop as i should; I just jump in and off then in my spare time. I can't do one thing ever.
hey folks, I'm stuck with the DM job but I'm really shitty at worldbuilding. Anyone have good ideas for a high-magic world with steadily advancing technology?
Trains and guns are just starting to be a thing but I imagine bows and crossbows aren't completely gone yet. I'm thinking about incorporating some themes of technology vs. magic throughout as part of the plot, but I really don't have much beyond that
>>45345330
Play Arcanum of Magic and Obscura (pc game, troika, some of the original Fallout 1 & 2 team). Amazing magic vs tech steampunkish/medieval world building. May give you some ideas.
>>45345383
thanks, I'll look into it
>trying to design a town
>can't fucking draw for god damn shit
suffering
how many artistic people do I have to assassinate to assimilate their skill
>>45345771
you have to do it using a stylus, only then will the powers transfer properly
I'm trying to flesh out what's honestly probably a bad idea that's based entirely off a bet I made with a friend
>Thousand(-ish) years ago, massive empire went power hungry
>Their mage elite went from cool dudes to tyrants
>Decided the only way truly stay powerful was undeath
>900-ish years ago, ruler of mage elite convinces all other mages to join into hivemind to consolidate power
>850-ish ago, slave mage pulls all the power she can, sinks the home continent of the undead empire
>Southern slaves(ones with the girl) make their own kingdoms in frozen forest
>Northern slaves(mostly criminals) make home in deserty mountains
>Southern slaves revere shaman-types
>Northern slaves revere crime lords
>Sunken undead are still there, just waiting to fuck shit up
>Magic is currently shit, mostly parlor tricks, except divination is OP as fuck
>Two kinds of undead, intelligent and unintelligent
>Unintelligent are killed on sight
>Intelligent are treated like blacks during segregation
>Don't remember their lives, just try to live anew
>Mostly turn to crime because no one hires a deadman
All because my bet was about a zombie prostitute.
There's (kinda) more detail, if y'all want.
>>45343021
Why leave the solar system in the first place? Why leave Earth?
Could a quarantined city continue to function if food/water was shipped in for relief supplies?
I'm namely looking at Chicago, IL; if we had to build a wall around present-day Chicago to prevent an outbreak of ____ (assume a viral outbreak, I guess, if you need something specific), and it was closed off for 5-10 years, would the city be at all functional? Obviously, industries can't send much of anything out, so the manufacturing we have won't be leaving the wall. Corporations might be able to keep up distance communication with the people inside. I'm not sure what else to address offhand, honestly.
Need opinions
>cyberpunk setting
>quasi military (involves the military but it's not a war)
>Super natural enemies
>God made a number of quasi-angels on Earth
>Imbuing mortals with Divine Spirit
>Four of these were designated destroyers
>Whenever humans got out of hand in the wrong way, bam
>They're the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
>War is Cain
>Pestilence is ????
>Death is ????
>Famine is the Whore of Babylon
They don't need to be biblical, just reasonably real. I was trying to figure out how to fit Wodin in as one of them, but couldn't make it work.
>>45349331
West-Berlin could be supplied by air in 1948. Around that time there were about 2 million residents. Chicago had 2,695,598 in 2010.
I'd say it is possible.
>>45349331
As long as the city is supplied with water, food and electricity it should be possible. Your only problem is if the people will cooperate.
>>45324075
My thanks, anon. I'm gonna have to play with this for a bit.
I'm working on a setting that's structurally a ripoff of Magic: the Gathering (a multiverse/planescape where specific individuals can travel between planes), but I'm having trouble thinking of what to do for the default 'generic fantasy' plane. I have six 'colors' (one more than Magic's five), and they work similarly as well.
The generic fantasy plane is a bit of a ripoff of Dark Souls with some other stuff thrown in as well. Right now I have:
Light/White: Knights? Not sure.
Water/Blue: Schools of magic, ripoffs of Dark Souls' magic schools like Vinnheim Dragon School, Melfian Academy, etc. Pic related is an example and I have some ideas of what to do with them.
Red/Fire: Orcs? Giants? Not sure.
Wood/Green: Wild, barbaric elves who live in forests with huge titantrees and specialize in techniques for climbing. Most of their weapons double as climbing instruments. Also in pic related.
Metal/Grey: Industrial dwarves with primitive handgonnes and the like.
Shadow/Black: Swamp necromancers and pyromancers, fairly self explanatory.
What should I do for the Light faction beyond just 'knights'? Aesthetically I am going for late medieval, close helmets, armets, full plate harness, etc.
And what can I do for the Fire faction beyond 'orc raiders'? I want to go for a bit of a weird vibe so weird ideas are welcome.
>>45311023
don't borrow elements from 40k?
>>45353568
>Red/Fire:
Teleporting Undead Orc Fire Skeletons?
>Light/White:
Knights and Clerics... riding Nazgul?
>>45353568
Nothing wrong with making White = Humans with chivalry and shit
Red = Dragons and half-dragon spawn like Viashino
Hey how's this for an idea; a gun that, when fired, removes a tube of space from reality. If you fired it at someone's eye, a small cylinder of their head would no longer exist. But I don't mean that a hole would be left, because it's not what's in the space that's deleted -- it's the actual space itself. The face of the shot person would be blemishless, but it would look as if their face was only half-made and never formed an eye-socket. The universe would collapse about their eye.
>>45355419
>Nothing wrong with making White = Humans with chivalry and shit
I know, that's pretty much what I'm doing. I'm just looking for a particular angle or wrinkle that I can elaborate on in more depth. Like how are they organized? Why are they always crusading? Who do they worship? I'm thinking something about crusader orders, but I just need a hook that I can expand on in more detail.
>>45355419
Half-dragons and viashino is a great idea, but I'm actually saving that for the second or third plane/realm/universe which is mostly inhabited by sapient animal races. The red will be thorny dragons, iguanas, and viashino type people.
Here's a couple sketches of the look I'm thinking of for the humans. Hoods, tabards, cloaks + late medieval close helms for the main knight guys. One thing I like about M:tG's aesthetic is the magepunk vibe, so I'm trying to think of how I can make it a little weirder.
>>45355653
White: Baphomet. They're a fallen order of once Godly knights who have turned from the path of spiritual purity, and now worship the material idols of Mammon. Whether you play them as good or bad, they were once created to serve the immaterial and pure thoughts of [whatever] but splintered between those that believed that to understand [whatever] one must be purely immaterial and thoughtful, and those that championed the cause that experience is integral to understanding the [whatever]. They won, and slowly descended into pure materialism. Worshipping idols and feasting to the glory of sensation, they are mystical and esoteric paladins of their dominion.
Red: hollow daemons. They are motivated only to destroy, but it is this destruction they hold holy -- not the destroyed. They are the sworn enemies of Black just as much as they are of White; because black represents the destroyed, decade, stagnant and fully entropic. They must destroy, but they must have creation to be able to do so. Like a child with a tower of blocks, they must first build the tower before they perform the sacred act of tearing it down -- or allow someone else to build it. In appearance, they are red humans with bestial or inorganic features (for example, a goat's head or eyes made of molten lead). They have no backs, and try to keep their face to those they meet at all times. They only have a face, because they only care about that which is in front of them; that which they have left behind does not concern them. In fact, they entirely forget about it. This means that they leave the ruins of society behind them when they have finished their destruction, leaving them to rebuild themselves in time for their inevitable return.
>>45349589
so, after some thought, Death = Longinus
I'm going to revoke Famine though, I want her to be more of a real person than some anthropomorphism of Rome
don't you die on me
>>45358676
you could try to help me instead of uselessly bumping >>45356009
I don't have time to help at the moment unfortunately
When you guys are drawing maps, do you do it on paint ? If so, just with your mouse or do you use like a drawing tablet ?
Basically is there a better way to draw maps that are easily customizable afterward ?
>>45359466
Pencil and paper is the best way, unless you're a legit drawfag.
>>45359466
Drawing with a mouse is worse than death
I draw with a pen/pencil and paper because I own nothing else, but I also can't draw for shit so it just comes out as dough scratches
>>45359488
I am not god at drawing. But I like to redo things, that's why I am looking for a software, to not have to fully redo the maps everytime. But thanks, I think I will stick with pen and paper.
>>45359517
Pencil if you want to rub stuff out. You can always photocopy your maps if you want to draw multiple types.
An alternative on PC, if you only have a mouse, is hexographer. It looks good enough and it's easy as hell to do with the mouse.
>>45359549
I have a graphic tablet, so I don't have to use a mouse. let's say I have the quality of a pen, but I replace the paper by a software. What software ?
>>45359578
Sorry, I subconsciously mixed your post with >>45359515.
GIMP/Photoshop seems to be the "it'll take a while to learn but provides the best results" option, while paint is the "easy but shit" option.
But this is all second-hand; I use pencil and paper. So it might all be bullshit. Still, Gimp is free.
>>45359653
Thanks mate, I was indeed thinking about using Gimp or Inkscape.
I'm designing a campaign world for a NobleDark game with a focus on exploration. Brief version:
>Golden Age of magic, dozens of sentient races covering two continents
>Cataclysm devastates 90% of the world, only a single remote nation is left standing (think Spain, Portugal, Morocco, and France combined geographically)
>Tens of thousands of refugees flood the area, overpopulating the nation, which tries to put them in internment camps.
>Internment camps get bloody, refugees start to revolt and take over, new nations are carved out of the old
>Monsters previously beaten back in the Golden Age start to come back and begin encroaching on the edges of civilization
>Several expeditions sent to reclaim lost territory go very badly, the few that succeed are phyrric victories at best
>Nations start in-fighting to take each other's land since resources are dwindling
>Centuries of gradual losses cut the territory in half (think just Spain and Portugal now)
>Land is being over-farmed, population is rising too much, famine is becoming a problem
>Many mines and forests are running out of resources
The XP system I'm using basically makes it so that players only level up by doing heroic things that improve the state of the world. Without their efforts civilization will die out, so in addition to fighting monsters they've got to scout for resources, create and defend outposts and towns, get nobles and guilds on their side to invest in expansion, and deal with the villainous organizations that oppose these efforts.
Any comments or suggestions on the setting would be quite helpful.
>>45359777
Anyone? Wow, I feel like I killed the thread or something.
>>45362117
Thred was ded alredy.
>>45359777
use miasma that makes the land literally uninhabitable. The body can metabolize it if given fresh air every once in a while, but it will slowly weaken you over the course of a few weeks.
All the great nations /should/ have been able to construct filter barriers around their cities, but only a few did and suspicions of sabotage run high.
To make matters worse, the miasma seems to strengthen monsters while weakening the sapients. Legends say that if your body is strong enough you can technically survive the miasma, but you will lose your way and find yourself wandering the mists for eternity.
>>45363077
The setting's meant to encourage exploration into the wilderness in order to get natural resources, create settlements, and push the boundaries of civilization. The miasma seems like something that would make such endeavours impossible.
I was looking to instead include things more like natural hazards, sandstorms and blizzards and man-eating plants, stuff that's beatable with preparation. I'll consider some kind of toxic air as an alternative in one of the locations I'm working on. Thanks for the advice.
>>45363398
>rebuild the filter barriers
who up
>>45366831me. XCOM is proving to be good inspiration after all.
>>45366831
horseman of the apocalypse guy is back
Anyone become disenfranchised with their setting(s) the more they work on them?
>>45317735
Dark Elves in my setting are indistinguishable from other Elves. They are simply called as such because they tend to live in mountain halls and deep forests, rarely going out in the light of the sun as they much more prefer the moon and stars.
Quick question:
How the hell do you raise your hand over your head if you're wearing plate armour?
Can you?
Let's assume you're wearing just the shoulder plate, can you raise your hand like you have a question?
>>45372354
No, I tend to think of a new idea and get really invested in it, forgetting and benching the old one
>>45373437
Yes. Plate armor is joined to provide full range of motion. There are some videos out there of guys dong fucking cartwheels in plate.
So I'm working on a DOOM/Hellgate: London themed near-future setting, where the earth is invaded by demons. The set-up is that humans discover an alternate power source that leads to technological advancement and a golden age, until the overuse of the resource causes a rip in reality, which leads to a demonic invasion.
Some parts I'm having a problem with is how long after the initial invasion should the setting be set at. I'm looking for something that gives the idea of the long-haul war; not close enough that the war is new, but its still in the sense a war, instead of a new way of life. I was thinking something like 20~ years.
The other part is the pro-humanity side is split into 2 major factions, the Knights Templar and the Cabalists. The Templars use more traditional tactics and weaponry to fight, only relying on stable version of tech using the new energy source, while the Cabalist are more radical and believe in "fight fire with fire". I'm looking for more ideological differences to show the differences between the two. Other than Cabalists use weirder weapons, one other point I have is that Cabalists will use cyborg troops created from "volunteer" undesirables, like prisoners and such.
>>45373531
Totally not what I had expected
Absolutely enlightening
Thanks anon
>>45373645
Yeah. It's kinda weird to me that you get rumors like 'oh sure no one could really move in full plate/it was so heavy they had to be lifted onto their horse with a crane' when, y' know, it was made for combat, and a guy that can't move in combat is kinda fucked.
>>45373556
5 to 10 years sound about right.
>>45373749
>>45373645
>>45373531
>>45373437
Here's that video I was looking for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc
>>45373437
That looks like a really shit-tier piece of armour.
>>45373437
If you look around, you'll notice most pauldrons have three or four hinged plates, so raising your arm would cause these plates to fold into each other, allowing you to move your arm pretty much wherever. That pic looks like a modern reproduction of fairly low quality, so I'm not sure if it accurately represents how period plate armor would have actually been constructed (the details of how pieces connect really matter when it comes to preserving range of motion).
There are some elements of plate armor that would reduce range of motion (particularly heavy helmets like great bascinets and the like), but in general, good plate armour allows for a very high range of motion.
Here's another pic with some better reproduction armor. The two guys on the left don't have pauldrons, going for a set of spaulders instead. You can see the guy on the right has a much larger pauldron that goes over the entire upper arm. I'm not really an expert, but I'd imagine big pauldrons like that would reduce range of motion slightly, but with armor, that's always the trade off - mobility for protection. You can also see the great bascinet on the left makes it difficult to full turn the head due to the gorget/throat plate.
>>45349589bump
>>45309748
Had an idea to throw into a low fantasy setting. Would like feedback.
>Blood Bronze
>nominally arsenic bronze, but it's stronger than steel, harder than diamonds, and lighter than aluminum once forged.
>No special materials needed, just copper and arsenic like 'normal' arsenic bronze.
>The trick is, you need to carve a set of vile runes into the blacksmith before he tries to forge it...
>...and he has to die, during the forging process, from the arsenic fumes thrown up by the forging process.
>If neither happens, you just get a shitty bronze weapon.
>>45378299
go the Game of Thrones route and say it has to be quenched in living blood to seal in the magic.
>>45378376
Please elaborate?
>>45379187
there's nothing more to say really. The Sword of Light in ASoIF is a magic sword that in order to quench it, the Lord of the Light impaled his wife with it, using her blood.
It's a legend set up such that someone can accidentally make their sword magic by using someone elses blood and a lot of fire
>>45312390
>real world culture+fantasy race
>>45338355
>Capitalism exterminated the native americans
>not mercantilism
learn history plox
>>45380826
You are aware that 1. a tonne of native american fighting and general exploitation took place when capitalism was in use and 2. that this was in the 1700s, right?
>>45381014
You're aware that war accounted for like, 5% of their deaths, right? It was small pox that did them in, which came from
wait for it...mercantalism
>>45381039
>and general exploitation
Also no.
>>45381014
the image says 1490-1800
mercantilism was in vogue for most of that time
>>45381060
That is true.
I assumed we were mostly talking about north Americans, 'cause that's who were killed most (the Spanish being largely apathetic towards other races, in that they just conquered them). In which case we're also definitely not talking about anything pre-Stuart, and also probably talking end of 17th century onwards.
