The Quick Questions About World Building Thread

Small fantasy races might include:

• Kobolds (either D&D-style or traditional folkloric)
• The smaller sort of troll
• Dwarves
• Goblins
• Faerie-folk
• Tokoloshes

Earth-elemental races might include:

• Rock-men
• The non-fiery sort of dragon
• Perhaps oni

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Sep 15th 2023 at 3:48:50 PM

You could have your cake and eat it too by essentially having Fey Gnomes and Earth Gnomes the same way you can have Forest Elves or Frost Elves or Dark Elves etc.

So, does anyone else worry about their world being too similar to another setting?

I'm currently working on a Space Opera, but I noticed my take on it has a lot of similarities to the Traveller RPG game even though I've never played it.

Am I just overthinking it?

Edited by Count_Spatula on Sep 21st 2023 at 11:37:20 AM

That fear is far more common than you think. Sometimes, certain similarities between works might appear even if an author never read the works of other author.

There are ultimately only so many things you can combine to create a unique setting: you will always end up making something at least a bit similar to another setting.

But also, i tend to consider this: there's a billion stories set in the real world, and we don't call out those stories for having similar settings. Ultimately a setting is just the place the actual story (or game) is in. It's what you do with it that's vastly more important.

Traveller is basically all the stuff we expect for Space Opera, but as an RPG. If your stuff doesn't resemble Traveller enough, a good chunk of people will say your stuff isn't "Space Opera" enough.

If you're really really worried, try to make your work resemble two other things or three other things. That's what George Lucas and Frank Patrick Herbert did. They had a lot of inspiration, but the core was a handful of genres or media or historical cultures.

How do you make a Fantasy Counterpart Culture without falling into stereotypes of the real life group?

For example, I’m trying to write an honorific, old warrior character in a setting that I’ve come to realize is very much like a reservation. I don’t want to have this leader character fall into the pitfalls of the Noble Savage or Hollywood Natives.

I would suggest two things:

First, research the culture in question, in order to better understand them beyond stereotypes. (This may well include contacting willing members of said culture.)

And second, research the stereotypes, and make a point of excluding them from your counterpart culture. Or, conversely, make sure that they're similarly represented in other cultures.

On that last point, let me give a hypothetical example:

So, you've said that your counterpart culture reflects Native Americans. One stereotype there is the Magical Native American.

There are a few approaches that I think that one might take to dealing with this, offhand:

• You could have your culture be non-magical.
  • Maybe they're the tech-focussed culture in your setting!
• You could have your culture be magical—but making use of a different sort of magic. Perhaps they use Formulaic Magic, with a strong focus on studied knowledge and research, for example.
• You could have your culture use spiritual magic, but without Native American trappings, and with most other cultures doing the same.

I think just taking out stereotypes might leave holes. Not all stereotypes are the same. Wearing feathers is for certain tribes is accurate and non offensive. Having them speak broken English is more controversial. Although, if you want to discourage the reader from linking the culture to Amerindians, avoid feathers.

I think it will help to have a deeper understanding of culture. A lot of people see culture as clothes, art, and language, however anthropologists focus on other things. For example indirect and direct communication, high context vs. low context etc. Probably relevant to you is honour culture.

As far as noble savage, that is the romantic idea that civilization is bad and being less educated and closer to nature is good. That is closely related to the honorable warrior, but I think what you really want to avoid is the idea that one race is inferior or be too patronizing of the primitive race.

What is a stereotype?

I think a stereotype is a belief about a group of people. The original meaning comes from printing and was associated with depictions of persons from different nations. It now has connotations of being negative and untrue, however that is not always the case.

A lot of stereotypes are positive, neutral or subjective. This makes classifying them difficult. Is a belief about a group negative because it is a stereotype, or is it negative, and therefore a stereotype. It is easier just to define a stereotype as a belief, but at the same time realize that most of the time people mean negative and/or untrue ones.

That's why I say that not all stereotypes are the same. There are some that you want to avoid, and maybe others that you want to embrace.

Edited by ry4n on Mar 19th 2024 at 6:30:34 AM

I agree more with the argument that no stereotypes should be embraced, because despite their positive traits, they are still inaccurate and put entire peoples into boxes. Stereotypes are wide and varied, but more often than not, they have been use to misunderstand and look down on others, regardless if they are positive.

I think what I should focus on is trying to add dimension to the world and characters, as to avoid these issues. The problem with stereotypes is that some are unconscious, and in writing you have to snoop them out or reinterpret.

Depending on how you define stereotypes. Which is why I asked about the definition. Unfortunately I received no answer, so I ha e to guess what people mean. Some people define stereotypes as being inaccurate beliefs about a group of people. The problem with that is that is then you would have to empirically test a belief in order to know if it is accurate. There is a similar problem if one defines stereotypes as being harmful. How does one know they are harmful? If it is true or not harmful, is it then not a stereotype?

Recent research into stereotype accuracy shows that they tend to be accurate. Of course stereotypes rarely apply to every member of a group, but they have a higher chance of applying to a member of a group. For example, a stereotype about Germans is that they drink beer. Not all Germans drink beer, but more Germans drink beer than other nations.

https://aeon.co/essays/truth-lies-and-stereotypes-when-scientists-ignore-evidence

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201210/stereotype-inaccuracy

I am not suggesting that one includes stereotypes that one believes to be harmful. However, since we are especially talking about a fictional race, an author can avoid signaling the parallels to a real people group and by creating more in depth depiction based on a knowledge on how different cultures work. Basically making the culture appear less generic and more specific. A good example of this are Klingons. The Klingons were often a stand in for the Soviet Union, but some aspects of their culture were based off of the Japanese, but a lot of it is unique.

When creating a fictional culture, you can't avoid creating stereotypes, and im fact, it is all you are doing.

Edited by ry4n on Mar 23rd 2024 at 12:38:03 PM

I'd suggest avoiding the two extremes:

Instead of having some embody stereotypes, and others defying them, have each of the characters embody some stereotypes while going against others.

Dwarf stereotypes is that they like gold, mining and drinking. Maybe have one dwarf who likes mining and shiny things, but is also a teetotaler, for example.

In your example, are those stereotypes in universe? So do most dwarves mine, like gold and drink? and this one is the exception in that he doesn't drink?

Some people believe that you shouldn't write dwarves as miners who like gold because that is a racial stereotype (although everyone likes gold).

The problem with that is that dwarven culture is nothing but stereotypes. Real races change culture over time. Scandinavians are a lot different today than during the migration period and therefore the stereotypes are different.

With a fictional race, that is not the case. One can vary the stereotypes or cultural elements, but if one takes away that all. Either there is a void, or the character becomes a reflection of your own culture.

Take away the stereotypes of a dwarf: shortness, craftsmanship, gruffness etc. You get in most cases an average contemporary American.

You can create a fictional culture, but in order to do that, you have to understand what culture is and that it is about how one thinks and unwritten rules.

Edited by ry4n on Mar 27th 2024 at 10:54:08 AM

While I agree you shouldn't base any fictional race off of a real life racial/ethnic group, or depend on stereotypes, I do think it's somewhat unavoidable. People are gonna take things from you didn't intend.

You can try to build a completely original desert culture from the ground up and without any preconceived notions, but people are gonna still think of them as fantasy Arabs, because living in the desert will cause some cultures to appear similar simply because it's the best way to get by in that environment.

I'm creating a model of social organization for a fictional species of what amounts to the primate version of Nearly Normal Animal primates (compare the gorillas in Disney's Tarzan), and decided to make it a multilevel system like the ones exhibited by certain real-life primate species (namely hamadryas baboons, geladas, and snub-nosed monkeys), with additional inspiration from gorilla and chimpanzee social organization.

I've nailed down most of it, but am having trouble with the highest level unit. Below is my current draft; the species is given the placeholder name "Neoprimatus".

I've been hoping for making the highest social unit (horde^note from the primatological term for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandrill mandrill]] social groups, which tend to be very large (as in, hundreds strong)) relatively tight-knit in a manner similar to the lower-order units, but so far I haven't been able to move it beyond being a loose congregation like the real-life top-level tier of multilevel primate societies that only gather intermittently and interact almost solely for the purpose of trading members (male and/or female) between the next-tier units to maintain genetic diversity. Part of the problem is that I'm trying to make it more than just "to a band what a band is to a troop" or "a band of bands" — that is, I want to make it have an at least somewhat distinct character.

Do you guys have any suggestions for solving this?

Edited by MarqFJA on Mar 28th 2024 at 9:35:19 PM

One possibility that occurs to me is the presence of an external threat—and one that's more powerful than a single band would be likely to handle. This might prompt the formation of "nations" of a sort, in which multiple Neoprimatus bands come together for mutual defense.

If the threat is very common, or constant, then these "nations" might become permanent; if the threat is infrequent, then they might be transient things.

Another thought is for them to develop a group identity—again, something like a "nation"—relative to one or more "out-groups". Some commonality that they can identify around, and that varies either within their species (producing multiple "nations" within Neoprimatus), or across species.

What kind of threat are you suggesting? Large numbers of pack-hunting hyperpredators and/or highly aggressive rival species, for example?

Also, for some added context:

• I envision a Neoprimatus horde to be roughly analogous to a human village or town, a tribe to a neighborhood, a band to an apartment complex or residential block, and a troop to a single household.
• Neoprimatus social units range in average size as follows:
  • Troop: single digits to mid dozens
  • Band: mid dozens to low hundreds
  • Tribe: low hundreds to mid hundreds
  • Horde: high hundreds to low thousands

Edited by MarqFJA on Mar 29th 2024 at 4:45:14 PM

I don't know your setting well enough to suggest a threat, but those sound like plausible options, yes. Or even just other Neoprimatus hordes, if they're ever warlike.

[edit]
Another thought: What about large-scale projects? That is, what if Neoprimatus sometimes come up with things that they want to do or make, but that call for large numbers in order to complete?

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Mar 29th 2024 at 5:52:42 PM

... Projects? Um, there's a reason why I described them as Nearly Normal Animals and compared them to the gorillas from Disney's Tarzan. They arguably don't even qualify for a hunter-gatherer society.

Edited by MarqFJA on Mar 29th 2024 at 6:59:05 PM

Going by the trope-page, it's possible for a Nearly Normal Animal to have human-level intelligence. And since these are apes, they presumably have hands. Hence it's plausible for them to develop projects.

(I'm not sufficiently familiar with Tarzan's apes to use that as a reference, I'm afraid.)

But, fair enough if that doesn't fit!

You're thinking of Civilized Animal, which can overlap with the Largely Normal type but isn't integral to it.

Honestly, I'm wondering if I might be overthinking this a bit, and that it may be okay for a horde to emerge as a congregation of multiple tribes for the following benefits:

1. Maximize their ability to find in their top-level home range the best areas where they would have access to optimal nesting sites (and by proxy, sleeping in safety), foraging opportunities and water sources.
2. Reduce the frequency and severity of conflicts between the tribes (especially over sharing the aforementioned resources) through establishing a relatively stable dominance hierarchy between the member units.
3. Increased diversity of options for socialization (especially for juveniles) and mating.
4. Greater safety in greater numbers if the home range is inhabited by or frequently intruded upon by sufficiently numerous and/or powerful threats that individual tribes have at best significantly suboptimal chances at long-term survival.

In fact, now that I think about it, having a horde's subordinate units only gather together at certain times in the day (or every few days) would actually be useful for maintaining a good degree of autonomy and cohesion for the lower-order units. This can even be extended to the lower-order units, seeing an increasing degree of cohesion and intra-unit interaction the lower down the ladder you go, with the troops being the units with practically total cohesion under ideal conditions.

Does this sufficiently avert the "same, just bigger" issue that I was worrying about?

No, I'm thinking of Nearly Normal Animal.

From the trope page, specifically from the first of the three listed types:

As to the main of the post:

I'm straying a bit here from my body of knowledge, but I would be inclined to fear that this would also incur increased competition for those sites and opportunities.

That is, if such things are sufficiently sparse that numbers are called for in finding them, then they seem like they might be sufficiently sparse that bands might be loath to share.

Now, this might work if such things are plentifully large—but very widely distributed. Think oases in a desert (if not necessarily a literal desert, to be clear).

In this case I could see multiple bands moving in and occupying together.

This could work—although then I wonder why we don't seem to see this with other social animals.

This makes sense—but would animals of less-than-human intelligence want for social opportunities so vast, and would there be that much advantage to having that many potential mates? Again, most animals seem to be fine without.

(I've given my thoughts on this previously, and so won't reiterate; I include it here simply so that it doesn't seem that it's being ignored.)

Yeah, this seems like it might produce some interesting dynamics.

I think so, yes.

Fair enough, though IMO that describes the higher end of that grade's examples. Also, that part of the line potholes to Intellectual Animal, which confusingly states that examples can range from Nearly Normal Animal, to Civilized Animal, to outright Funny Animal.

But more importantly, "human-level intelligence" is a rather nebulous term, due to how many aspects there are to "intelligence", from problem-solving ability, to sophistication of communication mode (i.e. language), and including degree of self-awareness. Having a high score in any one facet of intelligence doesn't guarantee having similarly high scores in the other ones; just look at people with savant syndrome.

Indeed, that's a fair point, though thankfully it's not the case. The setting is a world that's dominated by tropical rainforests with generally plentiful food and water.

Yeah, this is kind of what I had in mind.

How many of those social animals can be said to have intelligence roughly close to the level of an average adult human?

Good thing I'm not aiming for strict adherence to real-life biology.

Also, to make a complicated explanation simple, this species is pretty human-level in intelligence, but with what amounts to unbreakable guardrails that are hardwired into their psychology and prevent them from caring about or conceiving of anything that takes them above being "really smart wild animal" and into the realm of complex toolmaking and civilization-building. Even calling their level of social development as a "hunter-gatherer society" is a stretch IMO, though admittedly they're somewhere between that and the social development of chimpanzees (one of humanity's closest two primate relatives), at least in terms of the former's egalitarianism vs. the latter's aggressively enforced linear dominance hierarchy ^note A dominance hierarchy exists and is about as instinctually driven and enforced with threats of or actual violence as in most primates exhibiting such behavior, but with high cognitive ability comes a similarly greater ability to think of the bigger picture and balance that hierarchy with the greater good of the group. Well, assuming that the group's alpha is competent; like in humans, perfection is impossible, and alphas run the gamut from Reasonable Authority Figure to Bad Boss..

That's why I cited the example of Disney's Tarzan from the outset. The gorillas from that setting are clearly sapient and display human-level sophistication in at least the areas of language ^note despite being wild gorillas with no prior linguistic interaction with humans or anything remotely similar, Translation Convetion consistently renders their speech as fluent English even when Tarzan is absent from the scene while the gorillas are talking to the Porters, who had maybe a few months at best to be taught it by Tarzan; this implies that their Animal Talk really is about as complex in grammar and vocabulary as said human language, and conveniently resembles Indo-European grammar enough to make picking up the language in such a short time plausible and social skills, with at least one individual managing to learn how to type on a typewriter at high speed like an experienced human can (though she had no idea what the thing does, she just liked the noises it made), but they have no desire whatsoever to live like humans do, and are perfectly satisified living their lives like the wild animals they literally are.

That is to say, juxtaposition of more or less "human-level" intelligence with largely animalistic behavior and outlook on life does have precedent in fiction, even if it's not that popular in my experience.

Edited by MarqFJA on Mar 30th 2024 at 11:02:57 AM