Worldbuilding Talk Thread

[Tzi]

Sadly, I think, the lamest ideas tend to be the most logical ones. It's certainly something that would force different conflicting groups together. It could also be the world was of some significance before, either as some kind of holy site, or a resource rich world that had been secluded before to protect its appearance. Or something like that.

Anyway, I have a question of my own.

What do people think is acceptable (or not, as the case may be) about Animorphs? By that I mean, catfolk, kitsune, even werewolves to a lesser extent. I tend to have a lot of them, as somewhat 'human', but not, races. And, at this point, I see them as no less original, or likely, than elves or dwarves. I may have even started seeing elves as rabbit humans and dwarves as badger humans. Not implementing that, but the image is stuck in my head now.

I personally think they work, so long as the 'they are cat people, they act like cats!' is avoided. I've also realised they are quite common in ancient myths as well; sirens, merfolk, satyr, selkies, kitsune, centaur, werewolves... And on and on.

Well it depends on the context. I like it if in context it makes sense. For me, I'm torn about it. I have a catfolk kind of race but they are somewhat feline and manipulated to be that way by magic. They were once humans. ect ect... they have been manipulated to be what they are by other beings.

I'd like them but I'd still interject something not human in their behavior to them otherwise they seem.... well.... errr humans with funny hats.

As for a world, well I may keep its exact reasons for being so important unknown. I like the random chance, but it is also plausible that it is a world that was once somewhat important. I could run with that.

[TheStranger]

What do people think is acceptable (or not, as the case may be) about Animorphs? By that I mean, catfolk, kitsune, even werewolves to a lesser extent. I tend to have a lot of them, as somewhat 'human', but not, races. And, at this point, I see them as no less original, or likely, than elves or dwarves. I may have even started seeing elves as rabbit humans and dwarves as badger humans. Not implementing that, but the image is stuck in my head now.

I personally think they work, so long as the 'they are cat people, they act like cats!' is avoided. I've also realised they are quite common in ancient myths as well; sirens, merfolk, satyr, selkies, kitsune, centaur, werewolves... And on and on.

Acceptable if it's clearly NOT fetish fuel (and I'm not sure that's possible). If the GM seems a little too into the cat/rabbit/fox/marmoset people, I'm leaving that table so fast that I leave a cloud of cartoon dust. Ditto if other players are taking it in that direction. I mean, I respect everybody's right to do their own thing, but I don't want to be at that table because it's not my thing.

[QED - Iltazyara]

I think one of the problems with animal traited humanoids as fetish fuel is that... Well, when it comes down to it, many of them were greek in origin. And half of greek mythology isn't fetish fuel its a straight up fetish story.

I try to avoid it, certainly, but at this point there is a pointy eared elf fetish out there just as strongly, even ones for dwarves or other traditional fantasy races. It's a balancing act that is probably impossible to win, simply due to everyone having a difference sense of the balance.

One of the ways I make mine work is that some of the more interest ones, the fox-folk (inevitably pulled from Gumiho and Kitsune myths) have a rather lacking concept of human gender. They are foxes, they can shift their form into one that is humanoid; but don't really pay attention to the male/female end of it because the differences aren't the same as what they normally have. Short pieces to define their animal traits, but otherwise they are as separate from humans as humans are from humans; which is a lot when you compare differing racial groups on our own world.

Maybe the 'right' way to do animal races is to simply make a human race which focuses on a totem animal; so the Ox clan is stubborn, determined and strong, the wolf pack based with clear structure and more intelligent. But then add animal traits, work them in backwards rather than starting with them.

[TheStranger]

I disagree on the elf/dwarf fetish. I agree there are people for whom that is a thing, but that's more a result of "if it exists, it is somebody's fetish," and they don't serve the role of fetish fuel whenever they're present. Elves and dwarves were an established fantasy trope well before they were heavily fetishized. Whereas I'd say the rising prevalence of animal-traited humans is because it's fetish fuel for a growing segment of the gaming population. Yes, there are some mythological examples, but I don't get the sense that those are what's driving this trend.

[Tzi]

Acceptable if it's clearly NOT fetish fuel (and I'm not sure that's possible). If the GM seems a little too into the cat/rabbit/fox/marmoset people, I'm leaving that table so fast that I leave a cloud of cartoon dust. Ditto if other players are taking it in that direction. I mean, I respect everybody's right to do their own thing, but I don't want to be at that table because it's not my thing.

Yeah the fetish fuel thing is the main reason I usually shy away from it. It is just, I've had that player in campaigns before and it leaves me a little uncomfortable.

[Tzi]

I think one of the problems with animal traited humanoids as fetish fuel is that... Well, when it comes down to it, many of them were greek in origin. And half of greek mythology isn't fetish fuel its a straight up fetish story.

I try to avoid it, certainly, but at this point there is a pointy eared elf fetish out there just as strongly, even ones for dwarves or other traditional fantasy races. It's a balancing act that is probably impossible to win, simply due to everyone having a difference sense of the balance.

One of the ways I make mine work is that some of the more interest ones, the fox-folk (inevitably pulled from Gumiho and Kitsune myths) have a rather lacking concept of human gender. They are foxes, they can shift their form into one that is humanoid; but don't really pay attention to the male/female end of it because the differences aren't the same as what they normally have. Short pieces to define their animal traits, but otherwise they are as separate from humans as humans are from humans; which is a lot when you compare differing racial groups on our own world.

Maybe the 'right' way to do animal races is to simply make a human race which focuses on a totem animal; so the Ox clan is stubborn, determined and strong, the wolf pack based with clear structure and more intelligent. But then add animal traits, work them in backwards rather than starting with them.

The only humanoid animal race I've made was almost a joke at the expense of the fetish fuel. One race were basically catfolk but more in the almost neko cat person variety. They were humans captured and held in a terrarium zoo and magically altered and bred to have "entertaining traits," by a race of now undead creatures inhabiting a world of poison. They were made because the undead race grew bored and found them entertaining. The inspiration actually came from a day when I noticed an anime called "Cat Planet Cuties," (Its as ecchi and fanservicy as you'd imagine based on the title) and I think me and my girlfriend wondered who watches this and really like "gets into it," and the stereotype is like lifeless losers, so the wheels spun from there to create them. But they are almost a joke race I might not run with.

[QED - Iltazyara]

I suppose one reason why I've ended up not shying away from them as fetish fuel is simply that my players forced me to realise something.

Everything is fetish fuel. They went after everything; just how they acted and played, I was, once upon a time, a prude. Not anymore, although things tend to be distasteful.

Anyway, I think we've put out our points; and while I could certainly argue, that would invalidate me asking for opinions. So unless someone else decides to say something we're done with this topic for now.

I've asked about languages before, and got 'so long as it doesn't bog down play', but what about names?

Naming conventions are interesting things, as usually you can figure out where someone is from based on their name alone. And that's before you into 'Someguy Son of Somefather' or 'Someguy of Somecastle'.

Any thoughts on the importance, or uses for a setting?

[Frozen_Feet]

These days, I use Finnish (my native language) for everything in pen-and-paper games. If I'm drawing blanks, I'll fetch myself a list of most common Finnish names and surnames and match them up randomly. Or throw darts on the map to name regions.

If I need to use some other language (and I always use existing, real-world languages these days), I pop up the random name generator from Behind the Name and tune it to the correct language.

The combination of "First name, middle name, surname" is usually sufficient for most characters. Use surname when speaking formally or addressing military personnel, first name in casual use, and middle name if there are multiple persons with same first name in a group. Occasionally, nicknames will emerge, usually given by players. If they're catchy, use them.

[Tzi]

I suppose one reason why I've ended up not shying away from them as fetish fuel is simply that my players forced me to realise something.

Everything is fetish fuel. They went after everything; just how they acted and played, I was, once upon a time, a prude. Not anymore, although things tend to be distasteful.

Anyway, I think we've put out our points; and while I could certainly argue, that would invalidate me asking for opinions. So unless someone else decides to say something we're done with this topic for now.

I've asked about languages before, and got 'so long as it doesn't bog down play', but what about names?

Naming conventions are interesting things, as usually you can figure out where someone is from based on their name alone. And that's before you into 'Someguy Son of Somefather' or 'Someguy of Somecastle'.

Any thoughts on the importance, or uses for a setting?

That is actually a good point. My original reason for aversion is gone now anyway so I might run with animal humanoid races. Possibly even taking the catfolk thing as a serious idea.

I'm also considering having multiple inhabited worlds but one is at the center. Thus creating enough ecological room for some of these races. Partly inspired by Pathfinders "Distant Worlds" book.

As for languages. I pick language families and just say x race, take y languages. So like the Elves might be Romance languages. So the Sun Elves might have say Italian-esque names. The Moon Elves, French, the Jungle Elves maybe Romanian? ect you get the idea.

[Tzi]

So has anyone heard of or read Pathfinder's "Distant Worlds," source book? It is basically a brief setting guide to races and other planets in the same solar system as the "Main campaign world." I'm wondering if anyone else has done the multiple worlds thing?

I'm considering having that be an element to my setting. The main campaign world is the world of the Elvish race, or elf like race. It's neighbor or sister is the world of Humans but it has suffered some yet to be decided crisis thus some humans have sought ways to the Elves world since it is still idyllic by comparison.

Also just in general having multiple worlds for the sake of having a kind of Cosmic Fantasy adventure comes out.

[Yora]

I think it's a rather odd idea. In a universe where it is usually a lot easier to travel to other planes than through space, I don't quite see the need for it. Somehow using magic to travel to a different material plane seems a lot more appropriate.
Which doesn't have to mean that every material plane has only one inhabited planet. But once you go outside the solar system, the difference between another plane and another planet becomes indistinguishable.
The idea of hopping from one planet to another in some kind of magic vehicle just seems very odd and doesn't fit with the kinds of genres I normally run (or enjoy).

[Tzi]

I think it's a rather odd idea. In a universe where it is usually a lot easier to travel to other planes than through space, I don't quite see the need for it. Somehow using magic to travel to a different material plane seems a lot more appropriate.
Which doesn't have to mean that every material plane has only one inhabited planet. But once you go outside the solar system, the difference between another plane and another planet becomes indistinguishable.
The idea of hopping from one planet to another in some kind of magic vehicle just seems very odd and doesn't fit with the kinds of genres I normally run (or enjoy).

Ah, Well for me I've had a soft spot for the sort of cosmic adventure.

In my own design, the whole universe has one material plane and then other planes. Basically one could jump into another plane and manipulate it's bizarre physics and then jump back out to travel a vast distance. Similar to say the immaterium in Warhammer 40K or the Neather in Minecraft. As for steller craft, I'm remind of the Draenei from Warcraft, the Exodar was a dimension hoping craft.

As for vastly different, plausibly but not for my purposes. The main reason is to avoid something that bothers me to no end and it is a kind of "ecological clutter," were I have to find space for dozens of creatures all of whom happen to occupy the same ecological niche of tool making city building sapient creatures while ignoring a basic rule of ecology "No two species can occupy the same ecological niche in the same place peacefully."

My thinking was in a corner of the Cosmos the survivors of an epic magical war among the stars settled out to start anew. Not that each "race," claims its own world but that I don't have 15+ intelligent races (I say plus because inevitably a player is going to bring something to the table and be absolutely insistent on playing it.

Also a phrase comes to mind "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic." I kind of apply a kind of reverse and different take on it "Any magic practically applied and sufficiently mastered is indistinguishable from advanced technology." At some point a magic wielding civilization will find ways of replicating advanced technology with spells and magic devices. In one game I played an artificer who did just that. Building a computer for example that ran off copper punch cards and gold CD' disks. Or a movie projector, ect ect.

[QED - Iltazyara]

I originally started with the concepts of planes and separated worlds, connected via gates and the like. But more recently I've actually started going farther and farther in the other direction.

All those 'planes of existence' aren't separate anymore for me; the heavens are islands floating in the sky, the hells hanging from the underbelly of the world. The world being flat-ish, so it has an underside. Elementals are pulling from the concept of a place being attuned to an element; fire in a volcano, water in a spring, air atop a mountain, earth being the mountain, etc.

Even the two moons; of which both are homes to a deity, one literally being the body of a deity, would be reachable should one find a means of flight and bypassing whatever wards the goddesses might have.
Rather than spreading things out over so many worlds, planes, or whatever, I've decided to keep it all on one; with great places an accessible and known part of legend. For example, anyone on the coast of the Boiling Sea can see the Isles of Fire smoking, as elementals roam amongst the ruins of some ancient city.

So, yes, any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology; so I try to remove the sufficiently advanced pieces of magic.
To some degree, at least. Mysticism and great rituals have their place. I'd probably have no issues with high level spells if they required three or more level appropriate casters acting in consort.

[Yora]

I based my cosmology on ideas from quantum mechanics. The natural state of everything is the Void, which is just an extra-dimensional field without time or space, in which occasionally big bangs happen and produce universes. Since the Void is infinite in both time and space, there's a virtually unlimited number of universes in existance at any "time". Once the universes are created, the natural processes of star and planet creation and the evolution of chemical process into biological processes take over. (Assuming it's a universe with laws of physics similar to ours, theoretically they could be radically different.) And after some undred billions years, they collapse back into nothingness.
So the existance of other planets inhabited by intelligent life is almost guaranteed. It's just pretty much irrelevant in a world that has no teleportation magic. (Though going through the Spiritworld would probably work, since it doesn't follow the shape of planetary bodies. You'd still have to know where you are going, though.)

[Tzi]

Currently 3 worlds in one solar system have life. 2 are "conventional," Planets with moons, oceans ect, 1 is mostly subterranean and a big gas giants moon.
Then far off there are countless worlds, some of whom may be aware of these three worlds and seeking to interact (For good or for ill) with them.

Worlds can be visited by various means.

1) A telescope, the shortest, easiest but less detail viewing way. Just look at it.

2) Potent Divination magic, one could in theory either scry or view and explore a world for a limited duration through a divination spell.

3) Thinking with Portals, Teleportation magic to the extreme, creating a physical link between the worlds through a portal (Though the rules require a second caster on the other side to also make a portal) OR.... teleporting into the "Cosmic Chaos" and traveling other planes until you know when you pop back out you will be on that world. Done on an individual level the second way requires an exceptionally gifted spellcaster or someone with incredible intellect and intuitive knowledge of the planes.

4) Steller craft, One could build a rocket and go.

[Slayerofundead]

Wow!!!! This has been inspiring post after post.
I have learnd a lot an wonder why I didn't think of some of this things.
I have started my world by building one region. The region was part of a once mighty empire that collapsed after a Plague of reanimation. The setting is one hundred years after the fall. I would share the map but it is hand drawn as I don't have a good computer.

After reading the post here I may go back an change some of the races in the region but I'm not sure. I'm think I should Drop the tieflings from the region an just have Human,Elf,Halfling,dwarves and some half elves.

[Axiomatic]

I actually like Catpeople who acts like cats, which is to say, they're idly cruel when they aren't being lazy.

[QED - Iltazyara]

I think I have a new topic for us;

What do people here think about racial variants? Everyone knows about Drow, Moon Elves, Wood Elves and all that, but as much as a I disdain those names I feel they have a purpose. Why would someone from the depths of the world be the same as someone else from the cold north? Or even a desert in the south?

But I then think, and tend to do so excessively, on why there aren't racial variants for humans. Even today, political correctness aside, it is very easy to see a difference between the races of Europe alone; let alone going farther afield. Nords can be distinguished from Mediterraneans, Germanic and Celtic regions are similar to each other, but different from both Nords and Mediterraneans. And then add in Africans, Orientals, native Australians and Americans, the Rus and it gets more and more distinct from wherever you started.

In fact, if you compare them to what we think of as races in D&D, some of the different races on earth are more distinct than ones in a standard setting!

So why, if for any reason, do we stuff the same stat block, and concept, onto peoples across a setting without thinking? It seems to be a sign of maturity in a setting; as in Faerun, that the peoples in different lands are expected to be different. Although rarely given a reason in the rules to be different.

I've taken to doing just that, making minor adjustments to the stats of humans and others for each region.

One group gets straight human block, another gets +2 to any two skills flat, another drops the starting skill points for a +1d3 to a roll. Making them different; but the same. It may make more work in balancing, but I think it's worth the effort to customise a world.

Thoughts?

[Everyl]

I think I have a new topic for us;

What do people here think about racial variants?

(snip)

Thoughts?

I think I lean the opposite way, actually. Among humans, we have a wide range of appearances, but very, very few concrete differences that can't be attributed to cultural background. D&D represents this pretty well with the bonus feat/skill points for humans, as it makes it easy to fit them in just about anywhere. Coastal villagers take feats/skills relevant to fishing, horse-riding steppe-nomads take feats/skills relevant to riding and hunting, big city dwellers probably have feats/skills related to how they make their living within that city, etc. It strikes me as very odd that other races have their cultures built into their book stats to such an extent that merely creating a culture that is not out of a pre-published book requires custom racial stats for that culture.

Furthermore, the sub-race model assumes little or no mixing among the sub-races. If you want to make a human who was born in one country and raised in another, or who is of mixed background, you just choose appropriate feats and skills for that backstory. If you want to make an elf who was born of one sub-race but raised among another, or who has parents of two different sub-races, you basically have to make custom house-rules for every such character.

I lean toward instead stripping every race down to their biological differences, and making cultural details inherently customizable, like humans are out of the box. It requires more house-rules generation up front, but the result should be a system that can handle a much wider variety of characters without having to make up new rules every time an edge case pops up.

[Yora]

The big problem of d20 games is their much too great focus on stats. Players should always think about story, never about stats. When you're dealing with different species, it makes sense to have them have some effective differences, but when it's just cultural trends, one shouldn't bother with giving them different abilities. PCs and NPCs can be made culturally distinct by their classes, equipment, dress, and customs.

[Everyl]

The big problem of d20 games is their much too great focus on stats. Players should always think about story, never about stats. When you're dealing with different species, it makes sense to have them have some effective differences, but when it's just cultural trends, one shouldn't bother with giving them different abilities. PCs and NPCs can be made culturally distinct by their classes, equipment, dress, and customs.

I generally agree with this, and that's why it bothers me so much that, for example, the most common subrace of elves has an apparently-genetic knowledge of how to use longswords, rapiers, longbows and shortbows. If it's just a cultural tradition of training everyone with those weapons, why is it in the racial stats? Why can't there be elves of a different culture without making a separate subrace?

It's the kind of thing that really bothers me as a world-builder. As a player, I can just sit back and accept whatever setting I'm handed, but as a DM, having the non-human races be monocultures really bugs me unless the setting scale is small enough that I'm not saying "all elves are like this," but instead, "all elves you're ever reasonably going to encounter in the country where this game takes place are like this, though there are probably other cultures out there somewhere."

[QED - Iltazyara]

I generally agree with this, and that's why it bothers me so much that, for example, the most common subrace of elves has an apparently-genetic knowledge of how to use longswords, rapiers, longbows and shortbows. If it's just a cultural tradition of training everyone with those weapons, why is it in the racial stats? Why can't there be elves of a different culture without making a separate subrace?

It's the kind of thing that really bothers me as a world-builder. As a player, I can just sit back and accept whatever setting I'm handed, but as a DM, having the non-human races be monocultures really bugs me unless the setting scale is small enough that I'm not saying "all elves are like this," but instead, "all elves you're ever reasonably going to encounter in the country where this game takes place are like this, though there are probably other cultures out there somewhere."

I have to say this kind of thing is exactly why I tweak the races; just that, tweak. Some elves are aren't specialists with the bow, some dwarves aren't axe maniacs who hate goblins, some gnomes have seen a giant in their life. Why would their stat block reflect this? I'd never change anything in a dwarf like their stability, or con bonus, as that is what defines them. Nor would I make an elf with a con bonus; that would make just as little sense as a dwarf with a con negative to me.

Humans, due to the fact they have a customisable skill set, are probably the ones least in need of fudging; but showing that they are different culturally and racially... I honestly can't see another way to make them distinct to the player who doesn't read the text. One group of humans is favoured by the goddess of luck, another has some lineage of elven or fae blood in them. Are they going to have exactly the same as all the rest?

They could, but having something there adds meat to the fluff; mechanics and fluff are not divorced things, they are intertwined; fluff provides reason, mechanics define fluff. You can't go about calling a race with a constitution bonus weak to disease, no matter how much you want to, because they are stronger than everyone else against disease.

I do understand that cultural distinction doesn't need stat differences, and only in the extremes of extremes should a distinction like moon elves compared to drow be made. But what about dumping bonuses vs giants, skill bonuses to alchemy, or specialising a group of humans?

[Frozen_Feet]

In the setting I'm currently working on, there are indeed several sub-species of humans. Two of these are inspired by cro-magnons and neanderthals, respectively; three others are mixed breeds of these two. There is/was a fourth, very small sub-species, but it was absorbed by the more populous mixed breed.

To complicate this, there is a different non-human species that can propagate with one of the mixed breeds via genetic engineering.

Forest humans are short, stout, very strong for their size, primarily carnivorous, very hairy, weather cold very well, have high-pitched voices and broad noses, fair-skinned and blonde or red haired.

Praerie humans are tall, long-limbed and lithe, possessing great stamina for walking and running, omnivorous, used to warm climates, talk in lower voices and have dark skin and hair. Forest humans and praeria humans can breed with some complications.

Giants are first generation hybrids between the above two. They benefit from hybrid vigor, usually being taller than either parent species, and possessing both great strenght of forest humans and stamina of praerie humans. However, their great height makes them suspectible to spine issues, so they tend to live for a shorter time. Male giants are very rare compared to female ones. Female giants can breed with either forest or praerie humans or with male giants, but male giants can only breed with female giants.

True giants are an isolated breed born solely from matings between male and female giants. They are shorter than 1st generation giants, but retain great strenght and stamina. Their skin tone varies based on latitude where they're found, but they have some peculiar traits among them, namely, tendency for purple eyes and red hair. Albinos are far more common among true giants than any other breed of humans, but they don't tend to live for long. True giants from 3rd generation on are unable to breed with humans other than giants or true giants.

Faeries are, or were, a species of human even shorter than forest humans, and very lithe in build. They had fair or yellowish skin, dark hair and eyes, and pointed ears. They lived on but a few a islands, and were absorbed by mariners who travelled East.

Mariners are Nth generation hybrids of forest humans, praerie humans and seafolk. As praerie humans travelled wider and were more numerous, mariners tend to inherit their traits more from them, though forest human traits are still spread across the population. They come in all sizes and colors, but a smattering of seafolk blood means they are immediately distinquishable from older breeds of humans by one trait: they have slightly webbed feet and hands. Mariners are quite not as strong or sturdy as their ancestors, but their increased intake of seafood made them smarter. Despite their name, they've also spread far inland through rivers and other water routes, and have largely replaced earlier populations of forest humans. They can breed with all other humans save for true giants, and they can also have offsrping with young seafolk.

Eastern mariners deserve a special mention, as they carry a few faerie traits. Namely, they tend to have yellower skin and pointed ears, and they are also generally smaller than other mariners.

As it stands, forest humans are dying out, having mostly been replaced by or absorbed into the mariner population. In the jungles of far south, there are still many pure-bred praerie humans, but North of the equator they have been mainly absorbed into mariners. Giants are all but non-existent, while true giants are hidden away from the world and close to extinction. Faeries have been completely absorbed into mariners, but their traits are preserved as eastern mariners live in seclusion of their western cousins and are almost as numerous.

One of the biggest difference between different humans is something that rarely comes up. A mariner ingesting seafolk blood will slowly undergo transformation into a seafolk creature. Forest and praerie humans as well as giants are killed by immunological shock.

[Tzi]

My race of Tyr Elves has a somewhat unique system of having "Different types for different areas."

Google Doc's Link

I'm changing a lot but the same basic system would still work. Players choose 2 racial traits and then certain I guess "Ethnic Groups" more commonly have certain traits or they happen more commonly. This also makes "half-breed," more easily done. So say mom is a Sun Elf and Dad is a Moon Elf? Conventionally it is hard to tell. But you can with this system say, chose one trait from one parent and another from the other and BOOM.

Also you can have a lot of variation.

[sktarq]

For the issues of race-variants. While I will sometimes block out a new sub race that has new traits it comes with many expectations. That it is new true breeding species that has been separated by several generations or magical action from the main group. So a sub-race is really a closly related race that shares some traits. This is either rare (I wanted a taiga flavored elven nation on a separate continent before Frostfell came out) or ubiquitous (where most races have had significant alteration but some regions may have "base" or "alternate" versions - mostly from my post-apocalyptic phase.

The other way I deal with sub racial variants is that I have a tendency to give out a bonus block based on home regions. Depending on the game it may or may not include attribute bonuses but almost always includes skill bonuses etc. If I really want a racial culture separate from that I offer it as homeland equivalent in terms of expat type culture, ghettos, etc where it acts as a subculture where ever it is found.

[GreaserFish]

I've been trying to make a setting for some time now, in such a manner that I would be able to both publish it and write in it. One thing I've been toying with is the idea of 'Racial Traits' and 'Homeland Traits', separating things like an inborn resistance to poison and a cultural fascination with stonework. I remember that the Eberron books had such a feature, but in a much smaller way. I intend to make one's homeland a major part of their character. Is there any hope for such a feature?

[TheStranger]

I've been trying to make a setting for some time now, in such a manner that I would be able to both publish it and write in it. One thing I've been toying with is the idea of 'Racial Traits' and 'Homeland Traits', separating things like an inborn resistance to poison and a cultural fascination with stonework. I remember that the Eberron books had such a feature, but in a much smaller way. I intend to make one's homeland a major part of their character. Is there any hope for such a feature?

I think "cultural" traits have the same problems regardless of whether they're applied to all members of a race or all people from a given region. IMO, it discourages thinking beyond stereotypes. I suspect I'd get in trouble for using real-world examples, but think of the best-known traits of people from wherever you're from. Presumably, you know some people who lack some or all of those traits.

[GreaserFish]

I think "cultural" traits have the same problems regardless of whether they're applied to all members of a race or all people from a given region. IMO, it discourages thinking beyond stereotypes. I suspect I'd get in trouble for using real-world examples, but think of the best-known traits of people from wherever you're from. Presumably, you know some people who lack some or all of those traits.

Thinking about it, I'd probably want to separate it a little further with specific lots in life. Someone from the aristocracy in this region would be expected by the other aristocrats to know about such and such religious/historical/philosophical/etc topic and would need to be able to discern intent, whereas the commoners would have their choice of various trade skills and other such more 'practical' skills. It still runs the risk of stereotyping, but in a medieval setting, I think I'm willing to risk having certain cultures value certain abilities more than others, perhaps with some kind of buy-off to not have them in exchange for more points to spend elsewhere?

[Everyl]

Thinking about it, I'd probably want to separate it a little further with specific lots in life. Someone from the aristocracy in this region would be expected by the other aristocrats to know about such and such religious/historical/philosophical/etc topic and would need to be able to discern intent, whereas the commoners would have their choice of various trade skills and other such more 'practical' skills. It still runs the risk of stereotyping, but in a medieval setting, I think I'm willing to risk having certain cultures value certain abilities more than others, perhaps with some kind of buy-off to not have them in exchange for more points to spend elsewhere?

D&D Next actually has background rules along these lines built right in to standard character generation. A character's background affects their starting equipment and skill options, as well as giving them some general NPC ties in the setting. I've considered trying to modify those rules for 3.5, since that sounds easier to me than learning a whole new edition at this point.

[Yora]

With the semester over, I was about to get back into working on my setting, and it seems to me like I pretty much have it nailed down. The geography, the planes, the creatures, and their nature, a good outline of overall history, the peoples, and major organizations, even a bunch of major NPCs.
Since I fancy doing a proper writeup and making it public for free, I need to put it all down into well readable text.

But what is really a good way to do that? I'm well familiar with the 3rd Ed. D&D setting books, but I've always been wondering if that's really such a great format. It works well enough if you're already familar with the world, but I find it rather lacking as a way to learn about a world you don't know anything about.