Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 7959218" data-attributes="member: 59082">There are two basic approaches, I think, with regards to this, with accompanying assumptions and schools of thinking. One is world-building and the other setting design. While the two aren't mutually exclusive, they do have rather different goals and practices involve. The latter is about designing a setting solely for the purpose of gaming (or writing) in, while the former is building a world as its own thing - for the pure pleasure of it - that may or may not be used in an actual game session or story. Most people incorporate elements of both, although I have found that there is a tendency among 'setting design purists' to scoff at world-builders, because of the tendency to get lost in minutiae. This is exemplified in a well-known essay by author M John Harrison, who described world-building as "dull...technically unnecessary...[and]...the great clomping foot of nerdism." Harrison, despite the (rather funny) vitriol, had an important point: that most world-building is unnecessary to the actual story (or game) and can be both endlessing distracting from the real work of writing (or campaign design), but also can have a negative influence on the story (or game) if it leads to over-indulgence in exposition.But if you want to build a world for its own sake and use it for gaming (or writing), then the minutiae is a part of the process. Just make sure you're clear about your goal, which can shift. You might find yourself starting with the sole purpose of campaign design, but then love the process of world-building that it becomes a hobby in and of itself. If that is the case, enjoy--but you might need to bifurcate your process a bit. Sprinkle in elements of the world-building into your game to provide context and depth, but don't deluge your players.Either way, I like [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] 's suggestion of starting with a map. It gives you an entrance point and, better yet, a visual one. And don't think too hard about it at first--just draw and see what happens. Let the world build itself.I could go on and on about this subject, but will try to draw this to a close with two specific recommendations for each paradigm.For world-building, I think it is useful to play with the idea that you aren't building the world, but discovering it and recording what you are discovering. Imagine that you have a magical wormhole into an actually existing world and you get to send an astral eye around to explore. What do you see? How does the world tell its own story? This perspective is useful because it lends itself to a kind of internal consistency and vitality that sometimes gets lost in a more 'constructional' approach. Make sure you have a notebook or whatever ideas come to you. Write them down. Let the world evolve organically. For campaign setting design, start small and build outward. Look at other starting locations (e.g. Phandalin) and then create your own starting location. For D&D, I'd recommend a village or small town with wilderness around - the old classic. Make sure you have a forest or two, mountains, hills, marshes, maybe some moors, and then place various locations of interest: ruins, megaliths, an abandoned town, etc. Think about people that live in the area--both NPCs in the town, but also the different tribes and humanoids and where they live. In other words, create a lot of detail, but for a very small area. Imagine the world beyond the region, but only sketch it out in broad-strokes: is there a nearby kingdom or large city? Where's the ocean? Etc.As I said, these two approaches aren't mutually exclusive and, in my view, go best together. Your campaign setting will have more depth if you do the background world-building, and your world-building will have an anchor of focus if you do the setting design. Most of all: enjoy!</blockquote>

Verification