Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 6906865" data-attributes="member: 5100">Point 1: The "start small" is a major piece. That doesn't literally mean just create one little village. You can start mapping out large chunks of your world, do some notes on various cultures, even draft some crazy new magic system used by the star elves (or whatever) that live on the next continent. What "start small" really means (IMO/IME) is that you shouldn't paint yourself into a corner. As others have said, your players' characters are the stars. If you ever get to the point where it's painful for you to add/change something to let the character personalities show through, your setting is done. The story has run its course.To put it in a slightly different light, the old novelist adage about "kill your darlings" doesn't apply to RPGs the way it does to a novel. In an RPG, the players are your audience. If you build something that you love, there's a better than fair chance that the PCs will try to steamroll right through it the second you put it on display. They might not even wait long enough for the full exposition. They definitely won't care about the three pages of history for it. Where you'll see success with cool concepts is by watching which way the PCs have interest, then introducing things that play well with that. Killing your darlings for dramatic effect -- or even just because you realized you've gotten too attached to them -- is one thing. It's completely different to see your darlings stillborn due to player whim or have to quietly take them out back and shoot them.That's why I support the "start small" line. Make a bunch of notes for cool ideas. You don't have to place them. You don't even have to use them all for this setting. Just don't bring them to life until they have a good home. Your world must be able to grow and adapt to your players.Point 2: Your players don't care as much about your setting as you do and they never will. Ever. Seriously. Never. Unless you're playing with a very unusual group of players, they're not going to learn the names of more than a handful of gods or cities, let alone the various family trees that bind either together. Even when you have those players (and I have), it'll just prompt you to do even more detail on those things until you've hit the player's tolerance. That's not bad. It's your baby, not his. I generally can't remember all the Wizard PC's spells, so why should I expect him to remember the favored weapon of nine gods and the crest of three orders of knighthood?Heck, I rearranged the continents on my world map three times during the stay of a couple players (it was several years between). No one even noticed that the grey elves went from being east of the core play area to the west. I was just happy that they finally knew that Lithselinori was the home of the grey elves and remote. Also, hobgoblins come from the desert, but no one remembers the name of the state.Point 3: I wouldn't use the same world in which I was setting a novel -- unless the goal is to shape the world before writing the novel. The demands are significantly different because the game is interactive. Even when playing in an existing setting (say, Star Wars), I pick and choose canon, especially as it relates to contemporary "NPCs". My tack is to more "reimagine" those settings such that they resemble the source about as much a JJ Abrams' Star Trek resembles Rodenberry's -- similar themes, technology, etc. but different principals.All this goes back to the key of PC agency and not doing too much throw-away (or even counterproductive) work.</blockquote>

Verification