D&D 5E How do You Detail your Settings?

[generic]

As stated in the title, I'm interested in how you, the DMs of ENWorld, organize and build your settings.

Do you build from top-down, down-up, large-scope, small-scope, small-scope, large-scope, or something else?

Do you create deities, kingdoms, oceans, and nations, or do you start with a village in unknown wilderness?

I've always gone for a top-down approach. Honestly, this: https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LLf_UIEr6n0GMeSWpKn (my "Player's Companion") might be a tad too long...

Do you bother detailing things that won't come into play?

*Note that "The Elf Queen" is supposed to be "Elk Queen" (in my "Player's Companion") I won't fix it now, because it would mess up the link, but I am always looking for typos.

 

[iserith]

I create almost nothing for my settings except a general idea of the "feel" of the place. Then I set up a starter town and an adventure location and maybe some vaguely sketched-out environs in case those details are needed for framing the adventure. As the players establish details about their characters, which are appropriate to the "feel," we add that to the setting canon. During play new details are added as we go with the rule being that new details cannot contradict that which was already established. Over the course of the campaign, a rich, detailed campaign world is fleshed out.

This greatly reduces the prep work for the DM and sets things up where the players are more bought into the setting since they had a hand in creating it.

 

[generic]

I create almost nothing for my settings except a general idea of the "feel" of the place. Then I set up a starter town and an adventure location and maybe some vaguely sketched-out environs in case those details are needed for framing the adventure. As the players establish details about their characters, which are appropriate to the "feel," we add that to the setting canon. During play new details are added as we go with the rule being that new details cannot contradict that which was already established. Over the course of the campaign, a rich, detailed campaign world is fleshed out.

This greatly reduces the prep work for the DM and sets things up where the players are more bought into the setting since they had a hand in creating it.

Interesting. So, if I were a player in your game, and I made an Wood Elf who haunts the "Mushroom Forests" and worships "the gods of fungus", would those be added to your setting?

Also, do you re-use settings that have become detailed through play?

 

[aco175]

I used to be a bottom up creator and we had a shared world for a long time where each DM could add to the area of the last DM, or detail the region next to the old area. It worked and was fun, but most places tended to look and act the same.

Today, or 5e days, I just take the pre-made world and add to that. When the boxed set came out it was basically a bottom up world. You had a town and several problems around it and eventually you got to go the other towns around and larger problems that caused you to interact with places further out from the starter base. It could have been placed in any world, but landed in FR and I went with it. We tended to play with half the FR gods from the old days and the setting is typical to how we play and what we expect from the fantasy world. If it came out in Greyhawk, my group may be playing in that world as a shell.

The next campaign expanded on the boxed set in that some of the PCs from the first campaign went to Leilon and some parts I detailed for the 5e world from what it was in 2e. The new campaign led me to detail it more and spill down into neighboring areas and add more elements to the region. I only create what I need to stay a few weeks ahead of the PCs.

I find using the created world to be easy and allows me to spend time focusing on the PCs and the world shaking events that are in the background need to only influence the PCs if I want or need them to. Part of me misses making my own world and all the areas of worldbuilding that people find fun. It is mostly a self-fulfilling deal since the players do not care as much about your world as you and most likely would be fine in any world. Mostly it is a time factor in having the time to spend on design, but it is also a quality factor where pre-published worlds detail the larger things better than I could.

 

[iserith]

Interesting. So, if I were a player in your game, and I made an Wood Elf who haunts the "Mushroom Forests" and worships "the gods of fungus", would those be added to your setting?

Yep, provided those things are appropriate to the agreed-upon theme and campaign concept.

Also, do you re-use settings that have become detailed through play?

Very rarely.

 

[pogre]

Bottom up with general world ideas - usually a village or small town with surrounding environment. If I am starting an urban campaign I spend almost all of my time detailing the movers and shakers and give general ideas about the sections of the city.

The world grows with the PCs. I have had enough TPKs at 5th or below not to kill myself trying to prepare tons of world details. If I could stick with one campaign world it would probably help a lot.

 

[TwoSix]

Interesting. So, if I were a player in your game, and I made an Wood Elf who haunts the "Mushroom Forests" and worships "the gods of fungus", would those be added to your setting?

Also, do you re-use settings that have become detailed through play?

Not [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], but as someone who's general approach is very close to what was described in the earlier post, absolutely.

One sign you've leveled up as a DM is when you realize that detailed alternate cosmologies are fun to think up and brainstorm, but really do nothing for your actual game unless your players invest a ton of buy-in into learning your concepts. New cosmologies only really work when they're remixes of known and familiar ideas.

The only other time I really see new cosmologies work is when discovering the workings of an unfamiliar gameworld is a focus of play, which tends to work better for games starting in a smaller location. Like all the PCs are from the same isolated village, for example.

 

[Celebrim]

A bit toward the middle.

I've learned that I will never be able to create the whole top or the whole bottom, but that you still need enough of both to hold the sandwich together.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Though I might have ideas about other locations, I’m generally a “build only what you need” sort when it comes to world design. Wherever the campaign starts, that’s where I’m going to focus. I know the major conflicts and basic history, but try to keep things open. That way, I won’t have to quash my player’s ideas because they don’t fit and can readily incorporate them into my world.

As for deities, despite the cleric being one of my favorite classes, I’m much more likely just to grab an existing pantheon or make a monotheistic world than to put the effort into building from scratch.

Also, I've kinda stopped making big maps for my worlds. I don't really need to know where everything is, just what it's near.

 

[iserith]

Not @iserith, but as someone who's general approach is very close to what was described in the earlier post, absolutely.

One sign you've leveled up as a DM is when you realize that detailed alternate cosmologies are fun to think up and brainstorm, but really do nothing for your actual game unless your players invest a ton of buy-in into learning your concepts. New cosmologies only really work when they're remixes of known and familiar ideas.

The only other time I really see new cosmologies work is when discovering the workings of an unfamiliar gameworld is a focus of play, which tends to work better for games starting in a smaller location. Like all the PCs are from the same isolated village, for example.

Right. My last two D&D 5e campaigns were Planescape and Eberron (the latter still being played) and breaks my general rule with published settings which is that I don't usually run a pre-established setting unless everyone at the table is very familiar with them. The Planescape campaign worked because none of the players knew anything about the setting, so I was able to play the Clueless Primes angle well. With Eberron, I'm finding I have to take exposition dumps on the players regularly to properly contextualize what is happening and I. Hate. That.

So next campaign, I'm going to stop breaking my rules and go back to what I think works best, as described below, which is essentially "make it up as you go."