Pulp fiction uses strong strokes and colors, to use a painting analogy, to set the stage. The genre leans on larger than life elements, partly to make it more exciting, but also partly because it makes it clear what’s going on. Unless it’s a mystery story, there isn’t much ambiguity about who the players are or their roles in the story… and even then there will be clear who and what many of the story entities are.
From what I’ve seen, pulp fiction is not particularly subtle. It errs on the side of clarity, if such a thing is an error.
With that in mind, one aspect that stands out to me is the sense of ‘exotic and other’. This includes locales and people. Why have a story set on ‘a mountain top’, when it can be deep in the Scottish Highlands or in the Himalayas? Why have a ‘thug’ when you can involve the actual Thuggee?
The stereotypes are stronger than I like, and heavily slanted. Afghans are fierce fighters, the Chinese are wily and shifty and not to be trusted, and the English and Americans — the protagonists — are varying degrees of noble. The savage Africans are mostly predictable only in their ferocity. Except for the wise witchdoctor, of course, who is clever enough to see how to use the protagonists.
That said, there is still merit to using broad strokes to define people of different cultures. The trick lies in making each a mix of merit and demerit. Give each culture a mix of traits that are positive and negative, and even traits that are each a mix.
This feels to me somewhat like Fate aspects, really. I’ll have to keep that in mind: how can a trait be good or bad depending on context?
*ahem* I digress.
I think in mapping out my nations, I’ll want to have each culture have strong, distinguishable traits that make it easy to differentiate between cultures. It should be possible to tell from appearance or behavior where someone is from, and predict likely reactions to certain stimuli.
These don’t need to be absolute. There will be those who don’t fit the mold exactly, which gives room for there to still be surprises. But as with alignments, the traits often seen in people from each culture should give some clue to what to expect.
It is not necessary for each nation to have a unique culture, nor for a nation to have a homogeneous culture, nor for a culture to be unique to a single nation. I expect culture overlap to happen, mostly in geographically close nations.
To use the Belgariad and Mallorean series by David and Leigh Eddings, the Alorn kingdoms were originally ‘Aloria’, which later (like, 3,000 years ago) split into the nations of Cherek, Algaria, Drasnia, and Riva for reasons. Each evolved from there: they share an Alorn history, but each became distinct. You can find Tolnedrans and Drasnians almost anywhere (‘traders’… and spies), and Murgos can be counted in that list also. Sendaria is a melting pot of cultures, but even after generations in Sendaria many still show characteristics of their ancestors’ homelands.
Okay, that’s how it’ll be. Each culture will be described using traits that are a mix of positive and negative, giving some guidance as to what to expect of them. Nations can thus be defined by the mix of cultures present and with their own traits. There may be close congruence between ‘nation’ and ‘culture’, but this is likely not the norm.