Homebrew – Where did you start?

[Janx]

I spent maybe 10 hours preparing my homebrew world, before the first game. This occurred over about 3 weeks.

First came the idea. I chose to emulate a story/universe I had seen somewhere else (tv/book/movie - not spoiling it here).

For me, I knew I needed racially divided lines. I made a list of all the races/countries I needed (and linked them to the original races/organizations from my source for quick mental reference)

At this point, I knew that the players would all be humans, and the game would start out with the human race having limited knowledge of the world beyond their border. The humans had made contact with a few races, namely gnomes and dwarves. This is what spawned my world-map drawing. I went to a fractal map site and had one done up (mostly water, lots of islands). I then used my Paint Shop Pro to re-arrange the islands a bit to my taste (spreading things out). I then assigned a race to each island area, with the humans in the center.

My last step was to write a 3 page hand-out for the players, explaining the basics of the world. Namely, covering the military, the primary religion and the role of Wizards. It also had a short timeline so the players had some backstory. Lastly, I zoomed in on the human homeland and pasted a map with the specific provinces named. I also named the capitol. I did not do any city maps or individual province maps.

Later, as I needed to in the game (which has been running for 8 months now), I've added a document for the Monk's Dojo, the Cleric church/religious structure, and a guide for the Wizard players. Each document is 2-4 pages long and is pure fluff. It describes titles for ranks, attitudes of the people towards that class (and vice versa).

I keep several files handy, which I update before and after each adventure. One is an NPC list, a spreadsheet naming all the NPCs I've invented, their class, location, and a brief explanation. This helps me find people who I've mentioned in the past, but can't remember their name.

I also keep a timeline spreadsheet. One tab holds the secret Plot outline, where I lay out the general flow of the big story arc. For instance, I knew when the elves and humans went to war, and how long that will last. I also know when the next big event will take place. Other tabs are used to track the player's adventures. I know when each adventure started, and I log the exact date that major events in their campaign took place. This lets me keep track of things like knowing when they sunk the first elven ship, which might come up later in a parallel game I'm running with a different set of characters. It also helps me keep pace for tha characters with the big secret timeline. I know how much time has gone by in perspective with the big story.

And that's about all I do. I'd say my current method is pretty low maintenance while still keeping track of details and continuing the world building.

 

[Psion]

I am curiouse where all you Homebrew GM’s started fleshing out your world?

For example; did you start by creating an Uber-Plot? Or maybe just a simple map and let your imagination run rampant? Did it start as an add-hock improvised game session?

Hmm. A bit complicated.

My first homebrew was an attempt to map out regions of the map that were "off the edge" of the blackmoor map in the D&D expert set blue book. We basically put a mapped location to some places we had been adventuring in and never mapped, and expanded from there to get some new ideas of adventures and relations. Some of my fellow GMs pitched in and created their own little subsettings, which was sort of cool. I called this world Aphrodomis.

As the setting grew, I grew dissatisfied with the rather chaotic and ad hoc way the world evolved, and resolved to make a new one. But I liked the existing characters, deities, and plotlines. I orchestrated what I would call the chaos wars, which would wrack Aphrodomis. The story went that a few peoples fled through a gateway which led them to a new campaign setting, Trinalia, which had a strong Ultima influence. Though it is not the campaign I am playing right now, it's the one I always come back to because of the rich history behind it.

The map for Trinalia started as a sketch of a very Britannia like continent on a bunch of hex paper. I translated it to Campaign Cartographer, CC2, applied the Traveller's world builder's guide to it to define continental shelves and weather, fleshed out backwaters using the TSR World Builder's Guide when that came out. The latest version finally has me fleshing out other continents in the world.

Other world efforts:

• (forget the name) When I was still in the Navy, I collaborated with a friend of mine on a world in which Drow and Githyanki rules the main continent, while free humans were forced to outlying islands. When I went to college in my home town, I collaborated with some friends to put this world on paper. Arcane magic was stripped from teh world until returned via an asteroid strike; the meteorite remnant of this strike is called "the gift" and is now a central fortress on one of the central islands.
• Another world was a collaborative effort that we tinkered with for a while as a Co-DM effort that we set the night below and some homebrew games in. The idea was spawned by a map that one of the fledgeling GMs drew; we carved out pieces and defined them. We pictured a lot of lovecraft and Clark Ashton Smith feel in this world, including a decadent nation ruled by what might now be described as "alien-touched" creatures descended from the void lords. It also had steampunk dwarves and degenerate humanoid drake-riding troops.
• My Aphrodomis setting got a new lease on life as a "fantasy post apocolypse" ice age world. I pictured a world locked in ice, populated by grim survivors and plagued by insectoid creatures and demons. I ran it as a world hopping campaign for my Trinalia group, but my players liked it so much, I toyed with the idea of running it as a regular campaign and entering it in the setting search. See here and here for details.
• I also toyed with making a more up to date setting based simply on a Fractal Terrains map and a few ideas of things I wanted to include in a setting, including the caveat of making places for d20 setting products to fit in. See here. In actuality, I was also designing this world as one of eight that were supposed to be a "tesseract" of gate-linked worlds along with Aphrodomis and Trinalia, and some of the history for this world dovetails with the history of Trinalia.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

One observation:

I'm struck by how many people start at the macro level in designing campaigns, working down - which usually means the first things the players will see in the campaign are the last things worked on.

I suppose that can make sense, and it certainly appeals to those of us who enjoy designing whole worlds, but shouldn't the focus be reversed? Shouldn't a GM start out focused on what the players want, what kind of characters will be played, what adventures they will have initially, then expand from there as needed? J Dyal mentioned that he plans for flexibility down the road, which makes a lot of sense to me. Players never, ever do what GM's expect, and it's too easy to begin subtlely (or not so subtely) railroading parties so they'll get to all the stuff the GM spent so much time working on - whether or not the players really want to.

Note, this is not intended as criticism - by definition, if the GM and players are having fun, the campaign is a success, however it was put together. I'm just thinking out loud, wondering how often we're putting the cart before horse, so to speak. How often are GM's enjoying focusing their world, as opposed to focusing on their players' characters.

 

[Psion]

One observation:

I'm struck by how many people start at the macro level in designing campaigns, working down - which usually means the first things the players will see in the campaign are the last things worked on.

I suppose that can make sense, and it certainly appeals to those of us who enjoy designing whole worlds, but shouldn't the focus be reversed? Shouldn't a GM start out focused on what the players want, what kind of characters will be played, what adventures they will have initially, then expand from there as needed?

As far as I am concerned, the more of the big picture you know, the easier it is to work on the little picture. You need only define some regions in broad strokes. I sort of think of defining a lot of nations, cultures, and history as sort of a "plot generating machine." Once you know what the nations and cultures are, they become fertile ground for the imagination and your adventures almost write themselves.

That's why, I think, Trinalia is my mainstay campaign after these many years. I never have to struggle to come up with campaign ideas. They are everpresent. They grow out of the woodwork. I recently started a much less rigorously defined campaign setting and find that I have to work much harder from week to week to get the adventure ideas to roll.

Even when not actively mining your established setting for plots, the fact that there is a self consistent world there and to be talked about adds a feeling of realism and depth to the game, when you can talk about where an NPC is from and what their culture and background might be like.

But that's just my take. YMMV, naturally.

 

[William Ronald]

Henry originally posted:

Believe it or not, my homebrew started kind of like Ed Greenwood started the realms. I created a "place" to set all my fantasy adventures when I played with d/o/l/l/s/ Action figures when I was a kid. I shortly afterward discovered Dungeons and Dragons; I first played just disconnected games of it, set in no place special, and for a few teenage years didn't play at all, and forgot about it. When I was first DMing 'seriously' at age 17, I realized that all my childhood stuff would do well as source material, and gradually ported over the characters and adventures from my childhood into my new homebrew world. There may be a reason that the oldest mage in my homebrew looks suspiciously like Emperor Draco from the Buck Rogers toys, the most powerful wizardess looks like Princess Ardala, or the most skilled rogue looks like G.I. Joe's Storm Shadow.

From there, it grew as my first few campaigns grew, and the rest of the story is pretty typical.

The process you described, minus the toys, is somewhat similar to what I am doing with a homebrew that I am working on. Initially, I worked on a homebrew that was a "descendant" of a game a friend had played in for a few years. This was back in 1982.

During the past few years, I have been working on some fiction and intially set the story in the homebrew. However, my co-DM and I had a falling out. (I described this in another thread. However, when you go from being called a co-DM and co-creator to a "research assistant", it is time to move on.) I decided to create a homebrew to set the stories in, as I already had some geographic references.

In this I had some idea of what I wanted, so I reread a few of my stories and started working on a map. I tried to think of of what would make this homebrew different from the former one I was involved in for many years. The new map spurred ideas, as I looked at places for trade and conflict, and determined how the world could shape different cultures.

Psion originally wrote
As far as I am concerned, the more of the big picture you know, the easier it is to work on the little picture. You need only define some regions in broad strokes. I sort of think of defining a lot of nations, cultures, and history as sort of a "plot generating machine." Once you know what the nations and cultures are, they become fertile ground for the imagination and your adventures almost write themselves.

That's why, I think, Trinalia is my mainstay campaign after these many years. I never have to struggle to come up with campaign ideas. They are everpresent. They grow out of the woodwork. I recently started a much less rigorously defined campaign setting and find that I have to work much harder from week to week to get the adventure ideas to roll.

Even when not actively mining your established setting for plots, the fact that there is a self consistent world there and to be talked about adds a feeling of realism and depth to the game, when you can talk about where an NPC is from and what their culture and background might be like.

But that's just my take. YMMV, naturally.

I find it easier to start with the big picture, and then try to work on the details. I think it is critical that a world is self-consistent. A DM and players try to breathe life into a world, so it is important that they believe that events make sense based on the nature of that world. It also helps to have a background to generate new ideas, as well as to help create a sense of history and reality in a fantastic world.

 

[AIM-54]

One observation:

I'm struck by how many people start at the macro level in designing campaigns, working down - which usually means the first things the players will see in the campaign are the last things worked on.

I suppose that can make sense, and it certainly appeals to those of us who enjoy designing whole worlds, but shouldn't the focus be reversed? Shouldn't a GM start out focused on what the players want, what kind of characters will be played, what adventures they will have initially, then expand from there as needed? J Dyal mentioned that he plans for flexibility down the road, which makes a lot of sense to me. Players never, ever do what GM's expect, and it's too easy to begin subtlely (or not so subtely) railroading parties so they'll get to all the stuff the GM spent so much time working on - whether or not the players really want to.

Note, this is not intended as criticism - by definition, if the GM and players are having fun, the campaign is a success, however it was put together. I'm just thinking out loud, wondering how often we're putting the cart before horse, so to speak. How often are GM's enjoying focusing their world, as opposed to focusing on their players' characters.

At least for my part, a good deal of the appeal of homebrew's is that it is a GM sharing their world with the players. PC's aren't railroaded unless the GM creates a plot and forces the players to follow it. If one merely creates a detailed world, particularly at the macro level, there should be plenty of room for players to play the characters they want. In some instances they may be curtailed to some extent from standard D&D, because of cultural differences etc that the GM builds into the world. That, in my opinion, only makes the world that much more interesting.

I tend to have very player-central campaigns, where there is no overarching plot necessarily, until the PC's go out and make one. If they just want to do a whirlwind tour raiding tombs or some such other thing, that's cool, too. But having started at a macro level and created a rich history and general rules for how the races interact should not take away from the players ability to play what they want, how they want. But I also think a GM should not be required to break the "rules" of their world, simply because a PC wants to play a certain class or some such thing. Of course, a certain degree of flexibility should exist, but half the fun is exploring a non-standard setting.

But maybe I'm way off here.

 

[random user]

Players never, ever do what GM's expect, and it's too easy to begin subtlely (or not so subtely) railroading parties so they'll get to all the stuff the GM spent so much time working on - whether or not the players really want to.

Note, this is not intended as criticism - by definition, if the GM and players are having fun, the campaign is a success, however it was put together. I'm just thinking out loud, wondering how often we're putting the cart before horse, so to speak. How often are GM's enjoying focusing their world, as opposed to focusing on their players' characters.

Well, I think in a good campaign, options will exist for players to either be actors or witnesses. If there is a BBEG and he's intent on conquering the continent, the players can either try to thwart him, ignore him, or even join him! (I'm sure there is probably another option there I haven't thought of either.)

Regardless of what they choose there is a framework for consequences for their actions, and something to keep the world alive and dynamic. Even if they choose to ignore this BBEG, they can't totally escape the effects of his war. Perhaps the main city they have operated out of for 6 levels will get conquered or destroyed by the BBEG. It's not important that the players choose any particular action, but it ensures that they will have potential actions to choose.

I think as long as the DM provides motivations for BBEG and creating broad goals rather than just planning his every move, I don't think there will be much wasted time.

 

[Guillaume]

In my case, I started out with a desire to run a Cadfael type of campaign. Now, it has evolved far away from that, but my campaign world remains heavily influenced by medieval England and France. I then drew up the religion of the world and then the map. The rest is a bunch of compromises to adapt adventures and scenario to my world.

Have fun,

 

[barsoomcore]

Shouldn't a GM start out focused on what the players want, what kind of characters will be played, what adventures they will have initially, then expand from there as needed?

Geez, how do you know what kind of characters will be played until you know if you're running a swashbuckling world or a grim mercenary campaign? How can you tell what sorts of adventures they'll have unless you know what's IN the world to some degree?

And who cares what players want, anyway? Sheesh.

My players take what they get and show their gratitude, by golly. I got no time for whingey "I wanted to play a half-dragon advanced celestial dire flumph..." They bring money, and cars, too, if they know what's good for them.

Hee.

But seriously, I don't care what the players want, in a sense. To me, starting a campaign is like starting up a business: you put up a sign, explain what you're offering, and see who bites. If nobody wants to play, then I guess you'd better come up with something else. I can't really imagine starting a campaign by saying, "What would YOU like to play?" -- my campaigns have always started with, "Wouldn't it be cool if...?"

So I can't even begin to define what sorts of characters my players might take on until I've done some of the macro work.

Players never, ever do what GM's expect, and it's too easy to begin subtlely (or not so subtely) railroading parties so they'll get to all the stuff the GM spent so much time working on - whether or not the players really want to.

It's also too easy to railroad parties so they won't go into areas you haven't done any thinking at all about.

The truth is, you have to do some macro work, and some micro work, and you have to keep going back and forth between them as the campaign develops. Just the nature of the work.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

The truth is, you have to do some macro work, and some micro work, and you have to keep going back and forth between them as the campaign develops. Just the nature of the work.

Absolutely. Without some macro work, a world will never be more than a 2-dimensional prop. Maybe the question I should be asking is: how much time should be spent on macro vs. micro?

My concern is two-fold: first, that too often GM's (myself included) can become so enamored of their creation, they forget it's still just a prop for the players. I suspect this is because many GM's enjoy world creation, especially the parts that the GM controls completely (which often means the parts the players can't screw up). And second, that the elements most specifically focused on the players seem to be the lowest priority.

To me, starting a campaign is like starting up a business: you put up a sign, explain what you're offering, and see who bites. If nobody wants to play, then I guess you'd better come up with something else.

This has happened to me. The lesson I learned is what I've been talking about. Don't get so caught up in creating the world that I forget what the players really want. Don't do something that I think is cool, if the players don't think it's cool.

I got no time for whingey "I wanted to play a half-dragon advanced celestial dire flumph..."

But I WANNA...[insert suitably whiney voice]