How much detail for published campaign settings?

[Yora]

I really like how this thread is comming along. I feel like this is all going to improve my own work quite substentially.

 

[grodog]

I think I see what you did there. I'll keep one eye on you.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, Yora, but apparently you approve?

 

[Yora]

Vecna, hands off.

 

[NN]

I think rather, any amount of detail is the right amount of detail if the detail suggests adventuring ideas. If they don't, then who needs it?

I agree. But then I think: maybe this is the wrong way round?

What we actually want is adventures that illustrate and inform the setting.

Think: bottom-up not top-down creation.

 

[Desdichado]

I agree. But then I think: maybe this is the wrong way round?

What we actually want is adventures that illustrate and inform the setting.

Think: bottom-up not top-down creation.

That may be true for you, but not for me. I've never had much use for adventures, and I never use them.

 

[gamerprinter]

I prefer the bottom up approach myself, though this doesn't have to mean adventures. Rather I enjoy creating detailed specific locations that are easily insertable into any campaign setting, or by gathering up the various individual site designs to build a unified area and expand from there. Because I am a pro cartographer, for me at least, that means starting with maps, creating extensive gazetteer notes of a given location, creating viable NPCs, agendas and relationships with other local NPCs. It is here that the varying cultural elements can be introduced to look at culture as a microcosm.

While the following is just a city map, and no other of the above mentioned ancilliary data - it shows you the level of detail I work into my maps as locations to build that data from. This is a hand-drawn version of the City of Kasai, Empire of Minkai for #6 Jade Regent Adventure Path for Paizo Publishing. I created some of the entries in that publication's gazetteer based on specific locations from the map. Although I didn't create the final version, with the printed adventure in my hands, I can tell that nothing has been altered from my original work. Since this map was part of the gazetteer work for this project, and since I did write some of the entries to the gazetteer, I have name credits as the last listed contributing author for that adventure.

Here's the map linked (too big for an effective thumbnail):

Map of the City of Kasai

Is that detailed enough for you?

 

[Yora]

I think top down has the huge advantage of creating consistency. Starting with the geography and culture first, everything you create after that can be explained as a result of these. If you start with one location after another, you will likely end up with some places that make lots of references to other places and cultures, while the earlier ones have none of that.
Though it does depend on the intend of the setting. If it is the society and culture of the world, that interests you, top down is almost mandatory, but not all games really are about that.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't know that I have a preference. I know that my own efforts tend to be more top-down and fairly light on detail until I need to deep dive into a specific area for a specific game--but even then, I've long run games in a way that mirror's Chris Perkins' maxim of underpreparing and then winging it to fill in the gaps.

That said, some bottom up detail in published settings is helpful to me because I can swipe that kind of stuff, remix it, and use it out of context in my own settings.

 

[gamerprinter]

I think top down has the huge advantage of creating consistency. Starting with the geography and culture first, everything you create after that can be explained as a result of these. If you start with one location after another, you will likely end up with some places that make lots of references to other places and cultures, while the earlier ones have none of that.
Though it does depend on the intend of the setting. If it is the society and culture of the world, that interests you, top down is almost mandatory, but not all games really are about that.

I think if you're consistent in design anyway, there's no particular advantage with top down. Personally, I hate creating worlds. While a group of PCs might venture from one part of the world to another, they seldom venture over every square inch of land, so I do not need to develop (even portray) land that will never be visited. I prefer to create regions that can easily be dropped into any world - one needn't ever see the whole world. I tend to develop nations and rarely continents, generally perferring regions or smaller. I also prefer to look at one culture at a time. Once each are developed, how they react to one another creates regional dynamics. Only after multiple cultures are developed can anything like a continent be conceived.

When I create maps, all the above goes through my mind as I design.

 

[Yora]

You are certainly free to do that, but the result you get will be a different one. Sure, it works all right. But depending on the results you want to get, other approaches might result in a higher quality.