Starstream Think Tank

[ShadowHounder]

Yes. Let's just play out the same tired Villian archetype of "Me Orc. Me Green. Human Bad. Kill Humans! Rarggh!"

Truly this is compelling storytelling. Using the LotR Orcs as an example, Shadow of Mordor actually made you care about them by making them interesting and giving them an actual character that's not "Me Orc. Me Smash."

There are smart orc, Funny Orcs, Honorable Orcs, Downtrodden Orcs, Orcs who play music, Orcs who have strange a bee fascination.

Sure, if you want to run forgettable Orc fight number 5492, then I can't stop you, or, you can make them actually memorable and interesting. If Villians aren't memorable or interesting, then they aren't good Villians. Orcs almost never slot into that spot, they are all the forgettable meatshield jobbers that only exist in the world to wear you down slightly before the actual fight.

No. They don't have to be well defined, memorable, and interesting, but they should, or you're doing them anywhere near the justice that they deserve as a race.

Not every villain needs to be relatable... and no writer has the time to make every grunt relatable. Sometimes big mean orcs gotta be big mean orcs...

 

[Black0ut]

I would rip your face off Tiefling.

How dare you perpetuate the stereotype that orcs are violent! Wait... it's apart of your racial...? How dare you not be a good ally. Haven't you heard that you perpetuating stereotypes is very problematic and leads to violence against Orc youth in low income orc areas? What? The orcs are fighting amongst themselves for no reason? Must be the Tieflings!

You know... we Dwarves just think you all need anger management... except the greenskins. We might smash them. But Elves... not the half-breeds mind, but the pretentious Elves. We definitely kick their asses. But only the pretentious ones that call us out on being prideful Dwarves who may or may not like having too much gold.

 

[ShadowHounder]

Antagonists are supposed to be the driving force of your Protagonists Growth, even the minions should help facilitate that in some way, otherwise, why ever have them, they are filler. And I don't know about you but I hate filler content, enemies that exist just to die and then more Enemies show up who exist to die. I'm not saying your nameless Orc needs to have a completely written sad backstory, but at least give him a motivation for fighting more complex than "I just started blasting"

Which is why you have to make the main threat compelling... the army simply acts as a basis for their power. The orcs in LotR didn't need to be impressionable because Sauron existed and that was more then compelling enough to people to care (and that wizard guy that I can never remember the name of helped with Gandolf's story arc)

 

[Frostlich1228 (Alt)]

Which is why you have to make the main threat compelling... the army simply acts as a basis for their power. The orcs in LotR didn't need to be impressionable because Sauron existed and that was more then compelling enough to people to care (and that wizard guy that I can never remember the name of helped with Gandolf's story arc)

Okay. But if you replace the Orcs with let's say... Lizard People. Do you really lose anything? No. You don't. The fact that they're Orcs and they're there add nothing to the story.

Like I said, I am not suggesting you develop every individual Orc, but the secret to good world building is asking yourself 'Why?'

Why is this village here and not over here, because the river they are on gives them more food, why do focus on fish and not wild game or some other food, where does the river come from? Why is it filled with do many fish? The more of these questions you answer or hint at, the more fleshed out your world becomes.

Why're the Orcs Attacking the Humans, Because Sauron told them to. Why are the Orcs listening to Sauron? Well, it's definitely not because he treats them well, it's presumably because he promised them power of some kind. But we don't really ever see an Orc with this Power, like, we don't see Orc Ring Wraiths or anything like that for example. Once again Shadow of Mordor sort of touches on this with some of the Orcs, but that's because that game is focused on making the Orcs a believable part of the world with their own culture and attitudes towards the world that we actually get to see. We see their rituals, their day to day, their hierarchy, the different clans and how they each behave.

However, we never see anything like that in the Main Series of LotR.

There should be a reason you are picking Orcs Instead of Goliaths, or Trolls, or Goblins, or Kobolds, or Bugbears, or Hobgoblins, or Giants. You shouldn't just make them all the exact same interchangeable creature just with slightly different abilities. The best universes are ones that expand on each and every monster, because news flash, no one is evil because they are evil, it's not realistic, no one ever thinks they're the bad guys. So that begs the question, why do Orcs think these actions are acceptable? Is it part of their culture? Are they trying desperately to survive? Have they been pushed out of their native lands and are now forced to try and take whatever they can get? Make it so your Orcs have a reason to actually be Orcs.

Have them act like actual thinking, reasoning beings that aren't driven by a mindless murder boner. Your players will thank you.

 

[ShadowHounder]

Okay. But if you replace the Orcs with let's say... Lizard People. Do you really lose anything? No. You don't. The fact that they're Orcs and they're there add nothing to the story.

Like I said, I am not suggesting you develop every individual Orc, but the secret to good world building is asking yourself 'Why?'

Why is this village here and not over here, because the river they are on gives them more food, why do focus on fish and not wild game or some other food, where does the river come from? Why is it filled with do many fish? The more of these questions you answer or hint at, the more fleshed out your world becomes.

Why're the Orcs Attacking the Humans, Because Sauron told them to. Why are the Orcs listening to Sauron? Well, it's definitely not because he treats them well, it's presumably because he promised them power of some kind. But we don't really ever see an Orc with this Power, like, we don't see Orc Ring Wraiths or anything like that for example. Once again Shadow of Mordor sort of touches on this with some of the Orcs, but that's because that game is focused on making the Orcs a believable part of the world with their own culture and attitudes towards the world that we actually get to see. We see their rituals, their day to day, their hierarchy, the different clans and how they each behave.

However, we never see anything like that in the Main Series of LotR.

There should be a reason you are picking Orcs Instead of Goliaths, or Trolls, or Goblins, or Kobolds, or Bugbears, or Hobgoblins, or Giants. You shouldn't just make them all the exact same interchangeable creature just with slightly different abilities. The best universes are ones that expand on each and every monster, because news flash, no one is evil because they are evil, it's not realistic, no one ever thinks they're the bad guys. So that begs the question, why do Orcs think these actions are acceptable? Is it part of their culture? Are they trying desperately to survive? Have they been pushed out of their native lands and are now forced to try and take whatever they can get? Make it so your Orcs have a reason to actually be Orcs.

Have them act like actual thinking, reasoning beings that aren't driven by a mindless murder boner. Your players will thank you.

correction, The orcs were slaves to Sauron... none of them were working for him willingly.

Though it is never stated, it is heavily implied as such

 

[Dahlexpert]

Can I just say how happy I am that my one comment turned into a all day thing, Nice work Dhal.

 

[ShadowHounder]

Can I just say how happy I am that my one comment turned into a all day thing, Nice work Dhal.

*headpats* good job buddy

 

[Black0ut]

Okay. But if you replace the Orcs with let's say... Lizard People. Do you really lose anything? No. You don't. The fact that they're Orcs and they're there add nothing to the story.

Like I said, I am not suggesting you develop every individual Orc, but the secret to good world building is asking yourself 'Why?'

Why is this village here and not over here, because the river they are on gives them more food, why do focus on fish and not wild game or some other food, where does the river come from? Why is it filled with do many fish? The more of these questions you answer or hint at, the more fleshed out your world becomes.

Why're the Orcs Attacking the Humans, Because Sauron told them to. Why are the Orcs listening to Sauron? Well, it's definitely not because he treats them well, it's presumably because he promised them power of some kind. But we don't really ever see an Orc with this Power, like, we don't see Orc Ring Wraiths or anything like that for example. Once again Shadow of Mordor sort of touches on this with some of the Orcs, but that's because that game is focused on making the Orcs a believable part of the world with their own culture and attitudes towards the world that we actually get to see. We see their rituals, their day to day, their hierarchy, the different clans and how they each behave.

However, we never see anything like that in the Main Series of LotR.

There should be a reason you are picking Orcs Instead of Goliaths, or Trolls, or Goblins, or Kobolds, or Bugbears, or Hobgoblins, or Giants. You shouldn't just make them all the exact same interchangeable creature just with slightly different abilities. The best universes are ones that expand on each and every monster, because news flash, no one is evil because they are evil, it's not realistic, no one ever thinks they're the bad guys. So that begs the question, why do Orcs think these actions are acceptable? Is it part of their culture? Are they trying desperately to survive? Have they been pushed out of their native lands and are now forced to try and take whatever they can get? Make it so your Orcs have a reason to actually be Orcs.

I do agree, but the villain is supposed to be an antithesis of a the heroes, everything they're not, or representing some opposing facet of them. However, Another good thing about world-building is not to over-explain everything. Your world loses its grandeur when that happens. It becomes a bland thing. Sometimes a stream that has fish doesn't need an explanation past, there's fish. Then the common mooks you face are not supposed to be very memorable, they're stepping stones for characters to get past.

As for Orcs, They are evil Elves, twisted by Sauron. Why do they still follow him, because he designed them, when warping them, to thirst for war and murder; He gave them their will to see a different perspective of what the Elves worshipped, and The Gods rejected their creations that had been twisted by Sauron so vehemently that Orcs inherently follow Sauron out of spite and it gave them further reason to hate other races who still received the Gods' attention and love. This is actually explained in LotR in the three books, by good old Gandalf (First Age Lore is crazy).

While I do agree if you're going to make an entire race an antagonist you should look through their history before doing so. However, setting up only small pockets of say Orc tribes that attack people doesn't require that. If you are encountering individuals, anything can happen.


At the end of the day, this is all fantasy. All of it is made up and the only thing that matters is if the person who is viewing it enjoys it.

 

[Black0ut]

*Slinks back into shadows to observe everyone*

 

[ShadowHounder]

why do I feel like you guys put more time, passion and thought into all of your writing then I do? Everyone can answer in multi paragraph responses while I barely manage to squeak out a few sentences when it matters...

 

[Frostlich1228 (Alt)]

why do I feel like you guys put more time, passion and thought into all of your writing then I do? Everyone can answer in multi paragraph responses while I barely manage to squeak out a few sentences when it matters...

*Hug*

You're a perfectly good writer friend. While I may disagree with you on writing philosophy, Black is right, it really doesn't matter as long as people enjoy it, and I enjoy it.

I mean If turning your brain off Wasn't enjoyable, then Doom wouldn't be nearly as popular.

 

[DarkGemini24601]

Ultimately, I ask: do I need to know the sandworm's home life for fighting it to be compelling?

In the case of the monster, what makes them unique is how you fight them. A creature spawned from the primordial chaos of the world like a Sha (one of the actually cool things about Pandaria) is going to have an erratic fighting style, errant limbs sprouted from its back and flailing madly (vary this with weapon loadout, status effects, etc as wished). A predator of the sky like a Royal Griffin in the Witcher 3 uses its aerial vantage to swoop and attack while evading retaliation unless you can bring it to earth. An undead being fights relentlessly, shrugging off most damage as meaningless flesh wounds with no sense of self preservation - making it a terrifying opponent as opposed to a sapient who values their life.

I'm just scratching the surface of how an encounter with something nonhuman is meaningful without them having anything to relate to. In fact, it's that unrelatable psychology that makes them interesting. They're different, alien-like. And for more humanoid variants, imagine ancients or eldritch beings with 'blue and orange' morality that we can't quite understand - and that inability to understand makes any encounter with them dangerous for both parties. Again, that has nothing to do with real-world culture; Mind Flayers don't represent any ethnic group.

The sort of varied orcs you're talking about are fine, but it's a different priority. If I want a species that's human-like (though not entirely to justify their existence), I'll naturally keep their psychology comprehensible enough that they feel humanoid. It's the difference between ancient elves with eldritch mindsets and say, elves who have some psychic abilities but are otherwise pretty similar to humans in physiology. You can have orcs be human-like, or you can not. Both are valid. What I'm trying to say is that you're perfectly welcome to want humanized monstrous species, but in a lot of cases I'd probably just replace such characters with humans if their species is not going to matter other than unusual skin tone and pointy teeth.

Either can be good, but there's no reason that the Wizards of the Coast should have to change orcs to fit your vision. The thing I"m having trouble with is that you seem to find the idea of inhuman, violent monstrous races to not only be uninteresting (which I agree they can be if done improperly), but also somehow a moral issue. That I don't agree with.

Short version: there's a difference between enemies and characters, and unless you want to completely disconnect your players from the morality of their characters' actions, it's makes more sense to give them monsters to slay rather than having them kill human beings like it's nothing. Different GM tastes are perfectly fine, but claiming that including monstrous species in your game is somehow amoral IRL would be silly.

 

[ShadowHounder]

*Hug*

You're a perfectly good writer friend. While I may disagree with you on writing philosophy, Black is right, it really doesn't matter as long as people enjoy it, and I enjoy it.

I mean If turning your brain off Wasn't enjoyable, then Doom wouldn't be nearly as popular.

I know that I am a good writer, I just feel like I don't invest as much into writing as I should... and I still don't have a proper understanding of how I write/my writing style

 

[Dahlexpert]

Ultimately, I ask: do I need to know the sandworm's home life for fighting it to be compelling?

In the case of the monster, what makes them unique is how you fight them. A creature spawned from the primordial chaos of the world like a Sha (one of the actually cool things about Pandaria) is going to have an erratic fighting style, errant limbs sprouted from its back and flailing madly (vary this with weapon loadout, status effects, etc as wished). A predator of the sky like a Royal Griffin in the Witcher 3 uses its aerial vantage to swoop and attack while evading retaliation unless you can bring it to earth. An undead being fights relentlessly, shrugging off most damage as meaningless flesh wounds with no sense of self preservation - making it a terrifying opponent as opposed to a sapient who values their life.

I'm just scratching the surface of how an encounter with something nonhuman is meaningful without them having anything to relate to. In fact, it's that unrelatable psychology that makes them interesting. They're different, alien-like. And for more humanoid variants, imagine ancients or eldritch beings with 'blue and orange' morality that we can't quite understand - and that inability to understand makes any encounter with them dangerous for both parties. Again, that has nothing to do with real-world culture; Mind Flayers don't represent any ethnic group.

The sort of varied orcs you're talking about are fine, but it's a different priority. If I want a species that's human-like (though not entirely to justify their existence), I'll naturally keep their psychology comprehensible enough that they feel humanoid. It's the difference between ancient elves with eldritch mindsets and say, elves who have some psychic abilities but are otherwise pretty similar to humans in physiology. You can have orcs be human-like, or you can not. Both are valid. What I'm trying to say is that you're perfectly welcome to want humanized monstrous species, but in a lot of cases I'd probably just replace such characters with humans if their species is not going to matter other than unusual skin tone and pointy teeth.

Either can be good, but there's no reason that the Wizards of the Coast should have to change orcs to fit your vision. The thing I"m having trouble with is that you seem to find the idea of inhuman, violent monstrous races to not only be uninteresting (which I agree they can be if done improperly), but also somehow a moral issue. That I don't agree with.

Short version: there's a difference between enemies and characters, and unless you want to completely disconnect your players from the morality of their characters' actions, it's makes more sense to give them monsters to slay rather than having them kill human beings like it's nothing. Different GM tastes are perfectly fine, but claiming that including monstrous species in your game is somehow amoral IRL would be silly.

I missed having you around Dark.

 

[DarkGemini24601]

I missed having you around Dark.

Hey man, if people keep getting my noggin joggin about storytelling philosophy, I'll be much more chatty.

 

[Black0ut]

I know that I am a good writer, I just feel like I don't invest as much into writing as I should... and I still don't have a proper understanding of how I write/my writing style

To be fair, I don't fully know my writing style. I have had to ask Zombs, Frosty, Insane and Dahl to go back because I didn't write a section like I should've (Thank you forall of your patience). Writing is a process and each writer writes differently. I cannot write with amazing attention to detail like Tax can, or come close to Zombie's world building, or hell Marine's characters being sassy as hell while being likeable (Teach me your ways! I needz themz).

You don't need to understand your writing style and while writing more helps, I think you do well anyways.

(Now I shall list all of the things I am envious of: Zombie's world building (You made me love every one of your worlds without exception), Tax's in detail writing (I am still really jealous) , Sassy Marine (TEACH ME THE SASS), Dhal's improvisational skills (I am still sorry about some of the crap you've had to improvise with), Frost's terrifyingly written villains (...*Hides*), Gem's conversational skills with other characters (I still don't know how the hell you made a conversation with magic. F*cking magic!), Shadow's deep thinking on storyboarding (Even if we occasionally butt heads because we both forget to explain what's happening.) and many more qualities... But then again, you all make great company to write with so... guess I can't complain...)

 

[Black0ut]

Hey man, if people keep getting my noggin joggin about storytelling philosophy, I'll be much more chatty.

Oh?! Is that a challenger I see to debate my writing philosophy with?

 

[DarkGemini24601]

Gem's conversational skills with other characters (I still don't know how the hell you made a conversation with magic. F*cking magic!),

Remind me, there are no bells ringing in my head. What was the conversation with magic? The only thing I can think of is Sela and one of your characters chatting while I incorporated flexes of her magic into the pacing, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean.

 

[Taxor_the_First]

*Hug*

You're a perfectly good writer friend. While I may disagree with you on writing philosophy, Black is right, it really doesn't matter as long as people enjoy it, and I enjoy it.

I mean If turning your brain off Wasn't enjoyable, then Doom wouldn't be nearly as popular.

Someone hasn't played above Ultra-Violence.

I joke, but there is actually a lot of stuff to go through in the lore tabs in both games, like the fact that Earth is entirely reliant on Argent and so removing it would plunge the world into a dark age, or the subsequent revelation that Argent is created from the melted down souls of the damned. Or that only 15% of the people that entered a survey to determine if Vega was an AI could correctly do so, and non realised that the mathematics professor he was compared against was also Vega. Also Hayden. Pretty much everything to do with Hayden.

"It's a gift."

To be fair, I don't fully know my writing style. I have had to ask Zombs, Frosty, Insane and Dahl to go back because I didn't write a section like I should've (Thank you forall of your patience). Writing is a process and each writer writes differently. I cannot write with amazing attention to detail like Tax can, or come close to Zombie's world building, or hell Marine's characters being sassy as hell while being likeable (Teach me your ways! I needz themz).

You don't need to understand your writing style and while writing more helps, I think you do well anyways.

(Now I shall list all of the things I am envious of: Zombie's world building (You made me love every one of your worlds without exception), Tax's in detail writing (I am still really jealous) , Sassy Marine (TEACH ME THE SASS), Dhal's improvisational skills (I am still sorry about some of the crap you've had to improvise with), Frost's terrifyingly written villains (...*Hides*), Gem's conversational skills with other characters (I still don't know how the hell you made a conversation with magic. F*cking magic!), Shadow's deep thinking on storyboarding (Even if we occasionally butt heads because we both forget to explain what's happening.) and many more qualities... But then again, you all make great company to write with so... guess I can't complain...)

H-hold up, my what? I've always considered detail one of my weaknesses! I mean yeah sure I can do some strong detail sometimes, but I always get the sense I'm skipping over stuff.

 

[ShadowHounder]

To be fair, I don't fully know my writing style. I have had to ask Zombs, Frosty, Insane and Dahl to go back because I didn't write a section like I should've (Thank you forall of your patience). Writing is a process and each writer writes differently. I cannot write with amazing attention to detail like Tax can, or come close to Zombie's world building, or hell Marine's characters being sassy as hell while being likeable (Teach me your ways! I needz themz).

You don't need to understand your writing style and while writing more helps, I think you do well anyways.

(Now I shall list all of the things I am envious of: Zombie's world building (You made me love every one of your worlds without exception), Tax's in detail writing (I am still really jealous) , Sassy Marine (TEACH ME THE SASS), Dhal's improvisational skills (I am still sorry about some of the crap you've had to improvise with), Frost's terrifyingly written villains (...*Hides*), Gem's conversational skills with other characters (I still don't know how the hell you made a conversation with magic. F*cking magic!), Shadow's deep thinking on storyboarding (Even if we occasionally butt heads because we both forget to explain what's happening.) and many more qualities... But then again, you all make great company to write with so... guess I can't complain...)

deep thinking on storyboarding... when I usually don't plan that far ahead... nani?