The Quick Questions About World Building Thread

Can you describe them, please? Perhaps that might suggest alternative names for them.

And if you do want to go with a name drawn from a culture of our world, you could perhaps look to other cultures: looking at our page for "Multi-Armed and Dangerous", I see for example Geryon from Greek culture.

That said, a multi-armed species needn't be named for that fact, I daresay. See for example the multi-armed cat-like species found in the video-game ShadowCaster, the name for which is "Maorin".

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Dec 11th 2022 at 2:23:36 PM

They are blue or purple-skinned, with four arms like I said. Bult for grace more than power lanky. I would like to use influence from Idea but I don't know much about Idea.

Maybe I didn't realize I had a catch-22, can't go deep into the race because I don't have a good name. Don't have a good name because I can't develop them.

Okay, interesting...

And let me ask something that I should perhaps have asked previously: have you drawn other names for species in your setting from any particular sources? (I ask in case there's a naming-pattern with which this name should be in keeping.)

Otherwise, well, they sound somewhat feline by your description... making up a name, perhaps something like "Gracifeli" or "Dexterfeli"? (The intent being to meaning something more or less like "graceful cat" or "skillful cat".)

Forgive me, but what do you mean by "Idea" in this context? Is that a work...?

That's interesting, if a pity! For myself, I don't think that I usually require a name in order to learn about a character or world-building element (although a name can of course lead one down new avenues).

Idia as in the place where you find the Taz manual, Elephants, and Vishnu.

Besides the new race, I'm sticking to the classic lineup mostly Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, Merfolk,Faries. Amazons, Lizard Folk, Dragonewt, Calacas, Clown, New one. I Might add more but these ones are the ones I'm locked on.

Making them cats is interesting, I was thinking of Orangutans.

Edited by Shyhero on Dec 11th 2022 at 9:17:20 AM

Do you mean India? (I don't know what the "Taz manual" is, but both elephants and Vishnu are associated with India.)

If so, then I don't know enough about the culture or language there to have much to offer, I fear. However, perhaps someone else here is more knowledgeable on the matter!

Ah! That's an interesting connection!

Hmm... In that case, and disregarding the connection to India, perhaps something like "Brachipongo"? Or maybe "Brachisimia"? (Meaning, more or less, "arm orangutan" or "arm ape" respecitively.)

Brachisimia that might work thanks.

Thanks for understanding and for helping.

Edited by Shyhero on Dec 11th 2022 at 1:44:06 PM

It's my pleasure; I'm glad to have helped. ^_^

An idea I keep coming back to is a setting based on Magitek or Dungeon Punk

One stumble I have with making such a setting is trying to get the magitek right.

For instance, I don't want the "magitek" to look like normal RL tech, except it runs on magic or has a crystal jutting out of it.

Also, I think once you have magitek, the line between magic and science seems to blur, but I guess that is the point of the aesthetic?

What are your thoughts on Magitek?

Edited by Count_Spatula on Dec 11th 2022 at 2:50:48 PM

I think that one potential way to avoid the result of "our tech, but with crystals" is to start with the magic in question and follow its development. As the setting's magic may differ from our technology in its aptitudes, methods, and initial set of "technologies", so the result once its reaches the level of "magitek" may differ too.

For example, let's say that you have a magic system that doesn't produce artefacts—no "swords of flame" or "boots of flight"; all spells are tied to their caster. That implies a very different (and potentially much more "labour-intensive") approach to more highly-developed spell-craft.

Or let's say that magic is always elemental in nature, and certain elements work better or worse with certain other elements. That might mean that certain combinations that might lead to some of our technologies might simply not work: If, for example, a freezer requires Ice magic and Earth magic, but those two don't play well together, then the freezer won't be developed (or will have very limited use). Conversely, if, say, Earth magic and Fire magic work well together, then perhaps food would instead be stored via ubiquitous curing-boxes.

And so on and so forth.

I've been trying to world-build an RPG Mechanics 'Verse for years and one basic thing still eludes me.

Where do I put a Ranger in a Fighter, Mage, Thief ven diagram?

I had them in Theif, but right now I'm just putting them in Other, with the Artafier, Shapeshifter, and Maybe the Bard.

Edited by Shyhero on Dec 28th 2022 at 11:57:08 AM

Are you particularly set on that specific Venn Diagram? It is, after all, not the only way of classifying player-classes, and it may be that another might suit your purposes better.

However, if you are set on it, then the classification would, I think, depend on the nature of your rangers. For two examples: if they're stealthy wood-trackers, sniping from cunningly-wrought impromptu hides, then they would likely fall under "Thief"; if they're redoubtable archers and knife-fighters, perhaps utilising natural substances to enhance their attacks, then they would likely fall under "Fighter".

(A summon-heavy Ranger might even fit under "Mage".)

Alternatively, you could model them as combinations of the three base-classes: as "Fighter-Thieves", or "Thief-Mages", for example. (Again, depending on the specifics of your Rangers.)

(This might apply to the other classes that you're filing under "Other" as well, I suspect—for example, a Bard might be classified as a "Thief-Mage".)

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Dec 28th 2022 at 8:01:38 PM

I guess I don't have to be set on that Venn diagram, but it's one I know to work with.

They are definitely not mages unless I decide to put them in the middle. AHH and I watched all of the Unextabulles and still don't understand what a Ranger is.

Sounds like I should put them in the Fighter/Theif portion. This means I need to think of another class because now I have three thief maggies and three Fighter thieves but only one mage knight.

RATS I don't have a middle anymore...unless it's Rangers.

Bard was in the middle before.

Edit: Here's what I made for this version of the venn diagram.

Edited by Shyhero on Dec 28th 2022 at 2:47:33 PM

It's kind of hard to say what the right answer is without more context.

I do wonder why you have so many classes that sound very similar. E.g. a Samurai is just a type of knight. I would also argue that a bard doesn't strike me as a neutral: they are mage-thieves, depending on the nature of their precise abilities.

Lastly, a "mage" archetype doesn't have to actually use magic. It's just that Mages tend to either bring heavy damage at the cost of being very vulnerable, or due to their magic are very versatile (but still vulnerable). Thieves similarly do not actually have to steal anything, but are usually also glass canons that come with either speed, invisibility, or the ability to dodge (IE, "special mechanics to avoid damage"). Fighters are defined by basically being the pure combat types, having both reliable offense and defense but relatively little other utility.

(A critical difference between Thief and Mage is that a Mage cannot afford to be hit, but has to deal with this in "mundane" ways like positioning or crowd control. A Thief tends to have special mechanics to avoid this, like dodging or stealth. Mages/wizards and the like that can use stealth (or in the case of D&D-likes, dodge/blur etc) are thus somewhat thief-y.

Based on this, i would thus argue that Neutral are things like Necromancers, Ninja (depending on their precise nature), Artificers, Shapeshifters, Summoners. A bit fighter (reliable offense and defense), a bit mage (either big damage, big AOE, or big utility), and a bit thief (stealth/speed/dodge or another non-defense mechanic). E.g. Summoners can summon things to fight for them (IE fighters), but can summon a bunch of things and thus are versatile (mage), and are glass cannons but avoid damage via special mechanics (the summon taunts the enemy). Artificers have similar special-mechanics-to-avoid-damage via making tools and armor, are thus versatile and reliable. Shapeshifters have the same logic. Necromancers are often a kind of summoner (but can also be drain mages, meaning reliable damage and avoiding death via restoring health).

Frankly, the samurai as they are because I wanted the samurai there. I actually have one of those in each circle it's just that the samurai sticks out because it's harder to differentiate Marshall classes. Dancers and Necromancers are the other two. Maybe if I need extra in-universe justification I'll see the beta testers complained that we had ninjas but not samurai.

I realize mages don't have to use magic per se they just had to use a weird area-of-effect thing that works at a distance. Not sure how it applies to the conversation at hand but

I know they don't technically have the steel I told them, thieves, just for sake of convenience. And because I'm already using rogue for the class. Normally I think of them as technical, or skillful classes.

Sorry, your last paragraph is kind of confusing me. I tried to break it down more into small paragraphs that I couldn't even figure out where to put them. Do you think I should put ninja in the middle?

And you talked about why I put things in the other? Consider putting things in the other.

Atrtifices, have an effect similar to spellcasting or actual spellcasting. They also use armor and machines to go on to the offensive they can also use potions and gizmos and doodads to be unpredictable and skillful there's no one way to be one of these guys so I just put them in the other category.

Shapeshifter, a shapeshifter can be an elephant or grizzly taking the damage and dealing it with their natural weapons. A shapeshifter can be a falcon counting out the area going unnoticed. A shapeshifter can decide to turn from a falcon into a blue whale midflight. And they also use magic to achieve their effects. They can be fighter technical or utility.

Ranger, Rangers just confuse me that much. I thought Maybe they aren't a combat class at all but Utility.

Edited by Shyhero on Dec 28th 2022 at 4:46:06 AM

I mean, different games will have different takes on what a Ranger is and what abilities a Ranger has. Thus there is no single "what a Ranger is".

(And the same is true for all classes, I daresay. There may be commonalities, but that's all that they are: common approaches to those classes.)

So the question is: what are Rangers in your game? What do you want them to be and do?

As to the Shapeshifter class, I could see them being a sort of "roving class": where they fit in the Venn Diagram depends on what form they currently inhabit. This might make them unusually flexible in their tactical uses.

As to a Samurai class, they could perhaps be differentiated by their abilities and stats: For example, I might give them weaker armour and armour-penetration than a Knight, but better edged damage, and access to archery. And perhaps Knights have abilities that rally their allies, while Samurai have better manoeuvrability. *waves hands vaguely* Something like that.

As to the middle of your diagram, I could see the Bard class occupying it fairly well: they could have some combat ability, but nothing great; some magical ability (through their music), but nothing wonderful; and some roguish skill and manoeuvrability, but not to the full "disappear from plain sight" degree that full rogues might gain.

(I'm not sure of what an Artificer does, so I'm not in a position to comment on that one.)

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Dec 29th 2022 at 11:34:57 AM

What are your thoughts on Steampunk?

I want to make a Steampunk setting, or a world that is some kind of Punk Punk, if not Steampunk specifically, but I am concerned about falling into some of the pitfalls of the genres.

I think the main criticism is how shallow the genre seems where everyone is wearing goggles and gears are slapped on to everything.

I do find this to a valid criticism, but to me, part of the appeal of the genre is aesthetic and the Awesome, but Impractical technology.

I do agree that Steampunk is cliched in the sense that it's probably the first thing someone thinks of when they want to deviate from the standard pseudo-Medieval fantasy settings we have all become accustomed to. Nevertheless, I still find myself liking Steampunk.

Your thoughts?

My problem with Steampunk is that it's just not that well defined. Compare it to Cyberpunk.

• You've got a central conflict of the Common Man against the Soulless Corporation
• Common themes of how Cybernetics change the Human Condition
• A "Used Future" aesthetic full of neon lights and dark and grungy streets.
• Landmark works such as Neuromancer, Snow Crash, and Cyberpunk.

Steampunk...doesn't have that. There's a sense that the stories are supposed to be set in the Victorian age but besides appearance and mannerisms there's just not the depth you'd expect for a genre. This isn't to say Steampunk is bad, rather it needs more development besides top hats, brass gadgets, and air ships.

Now I've been toying with a personal definition of "Post-Steampunk". This lets the genre exist even when steam is superceeded without becoming an awkwards holdover. Also, I get to play with setting my own rules which I will now recite without warning or prompting.

• Infinite Discoveries-poststeampunk exists at a very transitory time. Not only is there rapid technological development but also the beginnings of Archeology and Anthropology. Crazy things can pop up from every corner of the setting.
• New Wonders, New Horrors- One of the main themes of any sci-fi is society coming to grips with it's new powers. For post-steampunk, this is a central theme. With every new discovery comes new threats either as a corollary of the technology or a necessary part of the process.
• Old Guard vs New Money- The advancement of the working class causes a breakdown of the old medieval understandings. Feudalism clashes with Capitalism as ancient families try to hold onto power as power hungry businessmen try to seize control over everything. Good guy? There are no good guys here. Just not as bad guys.
• Understanding over Mystery-Instead of "magic is Magic", the magic should be something that can be studied and understood. Maybe not by the audience but by a character that studies it. This is the Age of Discovery, not the Age of Ignorance.
• Tools over Blood- The most important part of post-Steampunk that separates it from other types of fantasy is that Magic is now a Tool, not something inborn. No Chosen Ones simply because someone was born but rather what they did or what happened to them. No clinging onto ancient prophesies or bloodlines, this is about humanity outgrowing these things.

Edited by Belisaurius on Jan 15th 2023 at 10:48:41 AM

I think that—unless you're aiming for commercial success—if it's what you like, then go for it! You may gain some detractors—but then, what work doesn't?

This, it seems to me, is something that you as an author can address: even if many works in the genre are shallow, yours needn't be.

And conversely, the above-quote is fair! If you just want to have cool-looking steampunk gear, then why not? Do all works have to be "deep"?

This, it occurs to me, might actually be a strength: it means that Steampunk can handle a broader range of subjects and plots than can Cyberpunk, somewhat-bound as the latter is in its definition and conventions.

One could use Steampunk to explore the relationship between industry and the worker; to follow the trail of a technological "what if"; to construct a society very unlike ours; to just play with cool aesthetics; and I daresay other things besides!

Bit of a nebulous question, but lately I've been thinking of doing an overhaul to the backstory of one of my sci-fi settings.

So in this setting, corporations are heavily regulated - absurdly powerful Megacorps are pretty much outright illegal, as they are widely distrusted by the majority of people due to their culpability for an unpleasant event in the setting's history (well, several events, but that last one was the final straw). Private companies can exist, but they need to get approval from the government somehow if they grow beyond a certain size, and if they grow too large then their assets are forcibly seized for government use - the idea being to prevent any Megacorps ever arising again (cyberpunk-style Megacorps are often spoken of in hushed tones as the Old Evil of the setting, the thing that everyone fears coming back; so I guess this makes the setting Post-Cyberpunk in the most literal sense. :V)

What I want to double-check is - what mechanisms exist for this system to be enforced? What difficulties may arise, particularly in areas where government oversight is spotty at best?

Edited by PresidentStalkeyes on Jan 19th 2023 at 8:51:44 PM

One difficulty that occurs to me is that, away from oversight, companies may bribe local officials to turn a blind eye.

The first part is pretty simple: governments create laws and regulation with which a company has to comply. The size and power of companies can be limited by forbidding mergers, forcibly nationalizing a company, or forcibly breaking it up. But also, by law forbid what they do or are allowed to do.

How this is enforced? ultimately all power of the state is backed by violence. That is, if you don't comply with fines or jailtime or the justice system eventually they'll bash down your door and drag you to a cell.

It's why megacorps of the kind you see in fiction are extremely unrealistic: megacorps exist by the mercy of the state, not in spite of nor in place of one. E.g. the VOC and East India Company were real megacorporations, and also were deeply tied to their respective governments.

As to the risks, it's the same we have today: corporations have a lot more money than the average citizen and can lobby politicians. It can easily lead to corruption and competing interests.

So, in my world, America switched to metric some time before the various height classes of rollercoaster began being defined. In our world, these classes are defined in terms of multiples of 100 ft.; at least 200 for hyper coasters, at least 300 for giga coasters, and at least 400 for strata coasters. However, this alternate America would more than likely define coaster classes in meters rather than feet.

For various reasons, I would prefer to keep the coaster classes of my world similar to those of the real world. So, I want to have coaster height classes defined by multiples of 30 meters, which is very close to 100 feet. This would mean hyper coasters (or whatever they're called) would be defined as at least 60 meters, gigas at least 90 meters, and stratas at least 120 meters.

Thing is, these classes were invented by Cedar Fair for marketing purposes; and multiples of 30 probably won't sound as impressive as multiples of 100. On the other hand, Metric!America probably would understand that 60 meters is pretty big, given that they're used to metric, so that could make up for it some. So, how hard would I need to work to justify having coaster classes being defined by multiples of 30 meters in this metric-using America?

You already stumbled on the solution in your own post: In an America where rollercoasters are classed by increments of 30 meters instead of 100 feet, then it wouldn't lean on the actual measurement. Sure, the measurements would still be important to know for official documentation and safety inspection, but the marketers would just call them "rollercoasters," "hypercoasters," "gigacoasters," and "stratacoasters."

Sometimes with worldbuilding you don't need to reinvent the wheel unless you really really want to.

Edited by AwSamWeston on Apr 10th 2023 at 1:14:43 PM

So, my new story (the third since finishing up my first novel, whihc is not quite ready for publication) is set in roughly the modern day, but includes elves and dwarves (or dorves, as I call them) living alongside humans as equals and roughly equal in number. One piece of fridge logic I keep bumping into is that, in this setting, elves live twice as long as humans and dorves, and age half as fast (in other words, a twenty year old elf is equivalent to a ten year old human or dorf). What I keep bumping into is the question of education: how would the education system for a race that ages half as fast as other races actually work?

It's not really relevant to the story, as all the major characters are adults (mid 20s and equivalent), but it just bugs the heck out of me. If this is better off in its own thread, let me know.

So, I think it would depend by what you mean by 'age half as fast.' If they somehow take twice as long to learn stuff, then I'd be inclined to say you're most likely to have separate schooling (or separate tracks in the same school), though this would probably have ripple effects for the rest of your society (though personally, elves as slow learners and treated as such is a moderately interesting inversion of the usual brainy elf stereotype).

Alternatively, if it's just a matter of physical/emotional maturity rather than intellectual understanding, then you could flip it around and just have society adapted to the fact that, yep, you'll see what look like Elvish children running around college campuses and yes, you have to treat them a bit carefully (maybe even some restrictions on courses they can take? I can certainly think of college classes I'd have been uncomfortable with folks with the emotional maturity of 10 year olds taking).