Designing worlds for fun and... well, fun

[SpiralBound]

I always start with a core concept or premise. Something that will distinguish this world from any previous ones I've made or played in. Then, I start creating. Whether I start with a map, a list of races, the world history, the gods, or whatever really depends on the initial concept.

If the idea or theme of this world centers around, say two groups of races from two different continents meeting (and clashing) for the first time, then I'd probably start with a map. If the core premise revolves around a world that was shaped by some distant event then I'd start with the history. If who the gods are or what they've done is prominent or overly influencial in the structure of the world then the gods get created first. and so on.

Basically, I start with an idea, see what it is about that idea that really defines the world, and then start with the aspect of worldbuilding that best allows me to create or express that defining or overreaching quality of the core idea. Once that is done, then the other bits all build upon that initial framework. Eventually, I'll make all the different parts, but the order in which I do them, and even which ones are more important than the others always varies from world to world.

 

[dougmander]

I like to work backwards from the experience I want the players to have and the general atmosphere I want to create -- heroic, pulp, dark, or gritty. Often I think in terms of a movie genre or a style of illustration. For Northern Crown I had in mind the feel of N.C. Wyeth and Howard Pyle illustrations; HPL's Solomon Kane as drawn by Gary Gianni; and the film Last of the Mohicans. I try to keep that feeling alive as I design the particulars of the game world, making sure all the core classes, monsters, items, rules mods, and locations contribute to that atmosphere.

 

[Dog Moon]

Originally posted by rounser
It's been my experience that not enough worldbuilding is game-oriented, and is instead concerned with history, politics, nations, gods, races, big maps and NPCs more or less irrelevant to the actual adventuring.

I think that's the important thing. People build their worlds different. I know that when I thought of what political aspects I want in my game, I also think of how it would affect a group of adventurers [namely, the PCs] and how they would interact in the world because of it. When thinking of races, I also think of conflicts and how they might involve other people. When I think of locations and brief histories regarding those locations, I think that they might be interesting adventuring sites.

However, I don't think of the PCs first and foremost, but I think it's important to always keep them in mind no matter what you're doing.

Other things which are done in the campaign is bonus stuff to help keep the players interested enough in your world.

 

[Joker]

I usually start with an interesting premise (e.g., dungeon and economic system) and reverse engineer it from there.

This is what I like doing aswel.

Also, what I'm doing now is taking a setting I'm familiar with (FR in this case) and setting the campaign far enough in the future for there to have been some major changes. This allows me to take away the things I don't like and adding things I do want while still keeping the familiarity of the setting, in terms of history, names and places.

Anyway, just my .0203333333 cents.

 

[Turjan]

I think it's difficult to overstate the case because it's often such an afterthought. DMs seem to build their worlds for supporting theoretical fantasy novels, rather than a D&D game.

Which is fine if the DM enjoys it and doesn't inflict the whole thing on his players . My point was that I tend to distinguish between world-building and adventure-planning. An adventure or campaign is a very focused project, but I don't like it when whole campaign worlds have the same focused touch. That's one reason why I was never interested in Midnight (based on what I heard), as I could see myself having one adventure in that setting, but several campaigns? I don't think so.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

DMs seem to build their worlds for supporting theoretical fantasy novels, rather than a D&D game.

Hey, it's only theoretical because I haven't finished writing it yet...

 

[Turjan]

Without answering that question, it's much harder to plan adventures. D&D's answer is "kill things and take their stuff to get more powerful". If the campaign doesn't support that, you have to come up with something else. Like "the PCs pick sides in the war between good and evil" or "is it worth it to gain the world and lose your soul" or "what's it like to live in a world ruled by an evil overlord?"

There are lots of offers for the PCs contained in my homebrew. They can go and kill things and take their stuff. There's not much about "good" and "evil", but there are religious conflicts, racial conflicts, political conflicts, pirates, barbarians and the whole shebang. They can go look for the lands of their ancestors (if they are human), or they can discover an uncharted world. There is not just one big conflict that they cannot avoid.

The players should have input in this as well, I think.

Of course, it's theirs to choose .

What do you mean by script?

Sorry, this was just a quote from rounser, whose theater example seemed to suggest that the whole world needs a script. Of course, you are right that even an adventure or a campaign don't need scripts, but outlines.

 

[Turjan]

I think that's the important thing. People build their worlds different. I know that when I thought of what political aspects I want in my game, I also think of how it would affect a group of adventurers [namely, the PCs] and how they would interact in the world because of it. When thinking of races, I also think of conflicts and how they might involve other people. When I think of locations and brief histories regarding those locations, I think that they might be interesting adventuring sites.

An important point. Quite a few ideas for my homebrew did not survive the "how would this affect a group of adventurers" test and got scrapped.

 

[LostSoul]

There are lots of offers for the PCs contained in my homebrew. They can go and kill things and take their stuff. There's not much about "good" and "evil", but there are religious conflicts, racial conflicts, political conflicts, pirates, barbarians and the whole shebang. They can go look for the lands of their ancestors (if they are human), or they can discover an uncharted world. There is not just one big conflict that they cannot avoid.

Cool. To me that would be putting #5 from above into action - there's a lot to do and the players can pick and choose what interests them at the moment.

 

[rounser]

Of course, you are right that even an adventure or a campaign don't need scripts, but outlines.

Given that many (if not most) campaigns seem to consist of railroading the PCs through a sequence of adventures of the DM's choosing, perhaps we should call a spade a spade. The adventure path is called that because there's no player choice; there's only one path.

If you don't like the idea of scripts, perhaps spending less time on "worldbuilding" and more on status quo adventuring sites (which is worldbuilding of a sort, but at a D&D game level) and branching adventure paths that the PCs can choose their path from.

This amounts to a hell of a lot of work, and involves sacrificing a lot of DM control over the game, but it's probably more useful than most worldbuilding in terms of generating player satisfaction.