Taveruun Overview Thread

[Morfedel]

Just a thought, but are we getting a bit TOO detailed? I mean, do we really need to get into all this detail on language? Since none of us speak these languages, and its highly unlikely readers of this will either, a simple gloss-over should be more than adequate, I'd think.

[Mike Holmes]

James, I agree, actually on the subject of language. Messing around with it leads to lots of philosophical debates. The easiest way to be consistent with it is just to use English. But Gary want's to see if we can't inject a little color. And for consistency sake, if we do decide to use something other than English, it's a good idea to have a small vocab for common words.

Gary, the result of your analysis is to say that there should be two largely distinct dialects. I can go with that if that's what we chose to do. But I think that it's going to have little effect on naming places. That is, basically, I think we should come up with a vocab of just a few words and go with that, and assume that these common terms do not change dramatically from dialect to dialect.

Here's what I think we need:
The
Of/from
Woods/forest
Mountain
Moor/Swamp/Wetland
Port/Harbor/Haven
River
Lake

These are the sorts of words you see in place names all over, as part of the name.

For now, people should feel free to use English for these things. Also, if you want to make up another word for one of these things, that's OK, as it can be explained as a synonym, or a dialectical difference.

Would that be too much trouble for people to deal with? I can go with either this or just English, makes no difference to me personally.

BTW, if we do go with a language, I think that we ought not present it as biased towards Mainlund by making those European languages "English". I'd prefer that they have languages all their own. Thus if a placename had an old Imperial title to it, it ought to have a Latin-ish feel or something.

But do you see Jame's point, Gary? It's a slippery slope going with that much detail.

Mike

[Gary_Bingham]

James, I agree, actually on the subject of language. Messing around with it leads to lots of philosophical debates. The easiest way to be consistent with it is just to use English. But Gary want's to see if we can't inject a little color. And for consistency sake, if we do decide to use something other than English, it's a good idea to have a small vocab for common words.

I wanted to use language to highlight the turbulent history of Taveruun. This is a place were mighty empires meet, clash and exchange culture. I want to give the GM a toolset for expessing different cultures and ethnic groupings within Taveruun.

Now the parallels to the Balkans and to the middle-east for Taveruun are highly useful for setting a scene for the country and for the supplement, but we cannot realisally represent the diversity of cultures and ethnic groups across this region with Weyrth counterparts, I don't believe that Mike or myself are suggesting that we should. But let's not shy away from the culture issue. A little subtle shading is exactly what I am suggesting.

An example of this my use of the Dar-Es-Kallyrii to Kallary transition in the history post. No more detail than that. Though I feel that it's use adds another demension to the location, a suggestion of history without even having to describe it.

The purpose here is not to teach people how to speak the language but to give a distinct character to the region we are lovingly creating. Let me take a look at it and see what I can come up with ;)

I think that it is important to simplify this coverage of language. And I feel that short lexicon for each language, a list of male and female names, surnames and a few examples of usage will surfice to allow GM's to quickly come up with character names and places which sound authentic and add to the richness of the background.

Gary, the result of your analysis is to say that there should be two largely distinct dialects. I can go with that if that's what we chose to do. But I think that it's going to have little effect on naming places. That is, basically, I think we should come up with a vocab of just a few words and go with that, and assume that these common terms do not change dramatically from dialect to dialect.

Here's what I think we need:
The
Of/from
Woods/forest
Mountain
Moor/Swamp/Wetland
Port/Harbor/Haven
River
Lake

These are the sorts of words you see in place names all over, as part of the name.

Thanks Mike this was exactly the level of detail I was aiming for

BTW, if we do go with a language, I think that we ought not present it as biased towards Mainlund by making those European languages "English". I'd prefer that they have languages all their own. Thus if a placename had an old Imperial title to it, it ought to have a Latin-ish feel or something.

Agreed and I stand corrected on the Latin-isque issue. I agree also that each Mainlund culture is going to have it's own language but for all your and James's reasons above we should take a broad brushstoke approach.

But do you see Jame's point, Gary? It's a slippery slope going with that much detail.

Point taken. Look, let me work on it in the background. I will submit it at some point in the future and we can keep or kill it then.

Let's move on to more substantial issues. OK? I am looking forward to seeing some material on the SE county ;) James?

Gary

[Morfedel]

Funny you should say that. I just today made some final decisions on the country.

I had been considering everything you guys said on some of my initial comments, and went back and reviewed the book in greater detail again, and I finally came down with a game plan. Its all in the noggin, I just need to sit down and write it; since I'm at work now, and my wife and I have our chess club meeting tonight, it will have to wait until after work tomorrow before I can transcribe it.

I think you guys are going to like it. I certainly hope so at least!


As for languages... I see your points, but from my observations, barring Tolkien and a few other sources, getting too detailed on a language just for flavor can be a dealbreaker. I'm reminded of a game I loved system-wise, called Skyrealms of Jorune, that had an entire glossary of terms that were used, and it was a real turn-off to players.

Just use a dash of language is my suggestion; just enough salt and pepper to give a bit of flavor, without drowning out the taste of the core material, and I think it is fine. Go too deep, and you will risk the same potential alienation of people who just want a good bit of material to add to their campaign.

[Mike Holmes]

I think you guys are going to like it. I certainly hope so at least!

Quit teasing! Post it! Actually I won't be back from Origins until Monday, so....

I'm reminded of a game I loved system-wise, called Skyrealms of Jorune, that had an entire glossary of terms that were used, and it was a real turn-off to players.

What? Couldn't keep your Sholari straight from your Thriddles? ;-)

Just use a dash of language is my suggestion

Seems that's what we're all thinking. We'll see what Gary comes up with. :-)

Mike

[Morfedel]

Mike! You know SoJ?!?!?!

I had no problems with the glossary, but I still thouht after awhile it got silly. Illidges instead of Inns?

Man, I loved that game though. I don't have a copy anymore, but I keep hoping to find one.

[Mike Holmes]

Mike! You know SoJ?!?!?!

Uh, if I'm known for one thing it's that I've played almost everything. I won an game at GenCon one year playing a Thriddle. I bring Jorune up all the time as an example of a completely non-derivative world (if you discount it's basic premise being very Pern-like). That is, there are no species that can be found anywhere else. Completely original.

And the problem with that, I'd agree with you, is a complete lack of touchpoints. TROS is interesting in that it's very "Hyborian", and uses pulpish tropes of ancient countries to set up it's nations. The question, in a larger sense, is how much do we want to play parallel, and metaphorical, and how much do we want to get into creating our own world with all it's hard to grok newness.

I think we'll have to end up somewhere in the middle. But there's a little wiggle room, I think.

Man, I loved that game though. I don't have a copy anymore, but I keep hoping to find one.

I think they come up on eBay quite a bit. At least certain of the, what, four? editions come up.

Mike

[Morfedel]

The last edition was, sadly, just a hair's breath from being garbage. They revised the rules, in order to try and make it more attractive, not realizing it wasn't the rules that was making it hard to sell.

And then, they went further, and put it out badly BADLY edited. The level of mistakes in there was a hair's breath from being unforgivable, and it made it incredibly hard to find relative information, and make heads or tails of certain things in some sections; even having played earlier editions, I had trouble making out what they were trying to say in some sections. If I recall correctly, the section on Dyshas was the worst.

So, I'd be looking for the second to last edition. Uhm, 2nd or 3rd, I do not recall, but when I see it, I'll know it. And then I'll get it. :)

[Mike Holmes]

Gary, did you ever get around to finishing that timeline in total? Could you post it at some point as a list of dates for ease of reference?

Mike

[Nick the Nevermet]

I'm sorry I'm not posting as much; I'm having some writer's block for the Northwest, and I'm having difficulty thinking of specific categories we need to dicuss for the country as a whole.

[Gary_Bingham]

Gary, did you ever get around to finishing that timeline in total? Could you post it at some point as a list of dates for ease of reference?

Mike I did put something together at the time I was working on the History of the Crusades post. I thought that Nick was putting together a timeline and subsequently did not post my timeline for fear of stepping on his toes. What I will do is post what I have for you all to comment on however 1) I am not altogether happy with it because it has a very Mainlund slant to it and I would like it to have equal portions of Follower of the Prophet material 2) It is at home so I will post it tonight.

Gary

[Nick the Nevermet]

Whoops.  That was a train-wreck of a miscommunication.  Sorry for my involvement.  Like Mike, I was under the impression you were going to post something, but I can put something together if you'd like.

And yes, the entire core book is squarely centered on Mainlund.  Generally speaking, I don't think this is a bad thing, but it does lead to some accidents which are less than great.

For example, it is perfectly natural for any supplemental info on Taveruun to paint Otmarluk as the bad guy, and Taveruun is the good guy.  Part of this is because one is the agressor, but not completely.  I don't think this was as much a problem with the core book as a choice, but I agree it does leave some wholes that may be worthwhile to fill in.

[Jake Norwood]

It's also fine to make Otamarluk the bad guy for Taveruun, so long as when we discuss Otamarluk they're the good guy.

Jake

[Mike Holmes]

What I think is best in terms of these sorts of things is to present three viewpoints. First an objective view so that the GM gets an idea of the "realities" of the situation such as they lead to potentially good play. Then I like to present each side's biased opinions so that the reader gets an idea of what the typical man on the ground thinks.

This is why I posted the thing about the Marluk traveler. So we could see their side of the conflict.

Mike

[Jake Norwood]

Ah, good, I agree. The "there is no good guy or bad guy, just conflicting interests" is a very important part of TROS play.

Jake