How to build a world

[Turtlejay]

I've been lurking this board for a few days, poking around to see if there is any advice along the lines I'm looking. I haven't found any. And since I know the posters at ENWorld are such a creative bunch, I figured I'd post and see if I could get some help.

I'm currently not in a good place to DM much. I work too long, and have too much on my plate to devote regular time to DMing. But I miss it. I really, really loved the creative outlet that it gave me, and even though I can't do what I'd like, harnessing all that empty time (driving, showering, falling asleep, staring into space) towards something . . .exciting, would be great.

I'd like to build a homebrew setting of my own. I have given it a shot on one other occasion, and realized that it was a lot of work. More than I was willing to take on at the time. With no need to use it anytime soon, this is the perfect time to lay out the details of my ideal home setting. What I'm looking for is any advice on how to do so.

When I first had this thought, a rush of ideas flooded through me, and I posted some of them on my blog. I kind of regret it, because I moved too soon. I think the details I posted (my blog is in my sig, I won't repost them, but they are there for the curious) are fine, but it is like drawing just the left eye of a fine painting. . .before you have even sketched out the form of the subject. I really need to start bigger and work in.

So, this post is soliciting advice. I have some general ideas I'd like to post, but I'll hold off, as I feel this is a wall o' text too long for comfort already. . .

Jay

 

[fba827]

there are two general approaches...

1) Top down/zoom in: start with massive overview of geography and regions, and then start detailing individual areas.

2) Bottom up/zoom out: start with a specific starting area where the PCs will likley begin, and then build out the surrounding areas, and then the further out areas, and so on as needed over time.

#1 is often the more cohesive because you've had more thought in to each individual detail (i.e you know a river needs to run across the entire half of the continent, etc) but it is equally more time consuming and very often you'll have spent time developing areas that never get touched by PCs

#2 is more "i don't have time, build as you go/ build as needed" type. but it has the distinct advantage of no real time wasted -- if you designed it, it's because it's needed based on where the PCs might go next. It also has the advantage of being more flexible (as you're playing the first few sessions, if a plot hook opens up that would follow perfectly you can easily plop in an appropriate location for it; where as in option 1 it's a bit harder if the spots are already filled and it needs shuffling)

In either case, you'll need a couple all-encompassing factors decided such as gods and if there is a particular theme you want (i.e. very non-magical, very elven-woodsy lands, etc)

In my younger years, when I had more time, I found #1 to be the better creative outlet. But as my time became more precious, I veered towards #2. Sure, it doesn't -always- give me the same satisfaction, I don't feel like any of my time is 'wasted/unused' and i like the added open flexibility since players often do or want things/themes/plots that i wasn't initially planning. Plus, with #1 I would easily overwhelm myself to the point of "this is too much, I'll do it later ..." with #2 it is more compartmentalized so I don't feel as overwhelmed when brainstorming...

But that's just all personal experience -- different styles work differently for different people.

 

[Cyronax]

there are two general approaches...

1) Top down/zoom in: start with massive overview of geography and regions, and then start detailing individual areas.

2) Bottom up/zoom out: start with a specific starting area where the PCs will likley begin, and then build out the surrounding areas, and then the further out areas, and so on as needed over time.

But as my time became more precious, I veered towards #2. Sure, it doesn't -always- give me the same satisfaction, I don't feel like any of my time is 'wasted/unused' and i like the added open flexibility since players often do or want things/themes/plots that i wasn't initially planning. Plus, with #1 I would easily overwhelm myself to the point of "this is too much, I'll do it later ..." with #2 it is more compartmentalized so I don't feel as overwhelmed when brainstorming...

But that's just all personal experience -- different styles work differently for different people.

I tend to do both approaches depending on the campaign. I currently find the slow, build one-at-a-time world to be superior. The sole reason I say that is because it gives me, as the DM, more surprises and more to work with.

I use the players' backgrounds to craft additional regions. I use improv statements to indicate what's "in that direction."

fba827's #2 path gives a DM worldbuilding in a more episodic nature. So its a hobby that demands and keeps giving, along with normal DMing tasks.

C.I.D.

 

[weem]

I have been using the bottom-up approach for the exact reasons you are mentioning - I'm too busy and don't have time to create everything BEFORE we play. It is the first time I have done it this way, and it's been amazing.

Just to give you a brief run-down of what I did. It's simpified, but really it wasn't a whole lot more complex than this...

1. I started with a theme - basically, a world where humans were brought to be saved from the destruction of the old world. A world that did not have humans before their arrival. I wanted to explore what that meant, not just from the human point of view, but from others already there.

2. I drew out the basic outline of a continent, then drew circles in various areas marking down "elves", "dwarves", "desert", "mountains" etc - super basic stuff.

3. I decided on a location where the humans first arrived.

4. I decided that 1,00 years have passed since the time of their arrival, and i circled out areas they had spread to.

5. I dotted down some towns (no names)

6. I selected one, called in Malinev and decided, this is where the game begins.

7. Planned the campaign theme (lists of people showing up within nefarious organizations... they are gathering these people... the pc's are on some of these lists) - I decided game 1 would have them coming together because of such a list... an NPC will have gathered them and a few others to show them a list with their names on it... "why are we on this list"

8. Go.


From there, we played. The players knew going in this was a bottom-up approach to setting creation. They asked me questions, and I answered them taking notes so I knew to include them in the details later... sometimes I didn't have a full answer, but we move on, etc.

As I said, it has been awesome for us. The players chose their characters race/class etc and as they played them THEY were giving ME insights to the races etc. I would see how they were playing out and incorporate things into the setting based on it.

For example, a player playing a Dwarf wanted to be all about the spirits of the land etc, and the idea was really cool - so as we were talking about it, I was taking notes, "yea, that's cool... so there are two kind of mindsets then when it comes to Dwarves... those who are pretty spiritual, and about the old ways, and others who care about the here and now... profit margins, etc - they have forgotten the old ways".

Anyway, it's a great way to almost cooperatively build a setting and you don't have to spend a year(s) building it first... you develop it as you go. It's very flexible this way and leaves a lot of room to adjust and develop cool things in the moment without preset ideas blocking the way.


---edit---

Here is the map by the way (done in photoshop)... the details you see (city names, etc) are their either because the players have been there, or they have been mentioned before...

http://www.lastlands.com/upload/lastlands_color_map.jpg

...the rest, hasn't come up yet (except via vague descriptions sometimes).

 

[aco175]

I would like to use the #1 idea of top down and zoom into the detail, if time and ambition allowed. To start with the map of the world and you could place things like deserts and mountains with some sort of realism or magical explanation would be great. Moving onto the ideas of race, you could plan how and where races started from and how they moves along with interactions and language. Ideas of trade and indusrty would rise from this and lead to history timelines where things like war and invention would be noted. Sounds great, if I had the time and thought my players would like it as muich as I would.

My campaign I run now is a map of a section of mountain range, a large town/used to be an ancient city, and some other ideas that would fill a duchy. As each adventure goes along new things are added to the map and general knowledge of the kingdom. This way goes great with adapting the campaign to the needs of the pc's, at the cost of sacrificing realism.

I seem to remember a lot of others saying that the players do not care or rather understand the amount of time you put into design. They say that you should spend more time on adventuring design and modules. I would like to have a general section of the world, or even the whole world maped out roughly. Remember whole sections of the world may never be used. I could have areas with different flavor campaigns if this is what is needed. My players and I never realy got into campaigns that wasn't based on historical Europe, so whole sections of the world with great flavor never needs to be detailed. Even Forgotten Realms is focused only on one continent with only minor variations in culture. I would like to have some of these other areas in case I wanted to have a one-shot in meso-american dinosaur valley.

 

[Turtlejay]

These replies are great. I had heard of the top down and bottom up approaches, and was pretty set on top down, since I do have the time to do it that way. Also, using Weem's numbered progression I have myself to about 4.

Except for #2, drawing the continent. I fiddled around a bit with Gimp on this one. I think a good size/shape for what I'm working on is Australia. Lots of diversity in landscape, but not large enough where I'll overwhelm myself right away. I'm just working out how to transfer that onto paper (or into pixels).

I've also been thinking a lot about absolute truth vs perceived truth. For example, if I were setting a game in the real world, as DM I would know the absolute truth about where the Pyramids came from. I would know that aliens taught humans how to build them as immense tombs for their haughty egos. Would the PC's know that? Only if the campaign touched on it. . .and if I am building top down, the campaign might never actually encounter this 'Truth'.

So, I have the kernel of an idea, but as I develop how that will impact a gaming group, and the world they inhabit, I wonder how much of that I should make public. I don't want to lay bare the secrets of the world, but I want to make my homebrew interesting and I am legitimately proud of some of the ideas I've had. Where do you draw the line between in character and out of character knowledge, and how much behind-the-curtain stuff to the players know?

As a general idea, I want to make a post apocalyptic kind of setting, but the apocalypse is magical, not technical. The world the PC's start in used to be part of an immense network of worlds linked by portals. In the few thousand years since the network went down, this world has descended into a kind of dark ages, and is only now surging out of it. Recent discoveries hint at a grand past, and the party is privy to some world shattering information.

I'd like the game to just be an over the top, world romping ride. The first few levels might be establishing the setting, but after that it would be an excuse to portal to strange and exotic locales on different worlds and planes. Star Trek/Stargate adventure a week episodes and an overarching plot are my goals.

So you see, *I* may know the true nature of their world, and the players will go in knowing the above (since I would plan on dropping that bomb early on, this allows them to bring thematically appropriate characters), but there are loads of surprises I'd love to spring that are directly tied to the world and the timeline.

Do you segregate your knowledge into an 'obvious' pile and a 'secret' pile? How does that effect your development of the world?

Jay

 

[Nonei]

I have done two campaigns, the first was decidedly a bottom-up - as my first campaign, I decided that it would be just a standard world lol, and pretty much knew absolutely nothing more than the local area, a trade town on the edge of the desert. I then added as things came up; it was a fairly short campaign, only got to about level 8-9.

The one that we are well into now, I really wanted to have a better idea of, and so I did kind of a mixture in that I decided what the world looked like and what generally had been happening over the last 1000 years - not as much as I would like to have, but it definitely added a lot of depth to the campaign. I have also added many details as we've played through. I never have as much prep time as I would like!

I think perhaps the best approach - for me - is slightly more top-down even than my last one. I would handle it the same way that I currently do my sessions: I have well-planned one-two sessions in advance, semi-plan between that and the end of the current storyline (i.e. have a directionish and know a bit about key NPCs and what the party might encounter, depending on their choice of paths, but no stats or anything like that), and then have kind of a grey foggy idea of overarching plotline. This lets me be extremely flexible during the game as I can easily ad-lib NPC/monster reactions, and since I don't really know what will happen in the future in the story I don't get too attached to a specific plotline and so am not tempted to railroad.

So, this is my plan for making the world when I start my next campaign, perhaps it will help:
I will start just by brainstorming. What's unique about this world? How is it different than other worlds? How do the races interact? Anything geographically unique? What sort of religions might there be? Do people worship one god, many gods, spirits, all of the above depending on culture? Are the gods actively involved? That sort of thing. I won't have the answers to all of those questions I'm sure.

Once I have a good idea of the feel of my world and the uniqueness of it, I should in the process have gotten a general idea of how it looks - if it's earth-like, more desert, more water, or cloud cities, etc. I probably would stick with one land mass or island (or group of islands) rather than an entire world, but have an idea if they are aware of any other lands, if there's any trade, suspicions about the sea, etc. Then for that land mass kind of figure out about deserts, rivers, mountains, etc, decide how big it actually is. Kind of have an overview of what and who is where, where the "civilized areas" are, and the wild areas, etc.

Each kingdom/area at this point would just be a barest sketch of what's there: maybe what major creatures/races are there, what sort of political system it has (or doesn't have), religion, persecution, any secrets; if it's a kingdom what sort of "feel" it has (i.e. loosely policed, military state, mage state, etc) and maybe - if I think of it - a few key NPCs in power (not necessarily named although they can be) and a 4-5 words about them. So that would be the "foggy grey areas" - basically only decide just enough about them that you can respond if the PCs ask "what's over that way", or can have the PCs bump into someone from there.

Then depending on time can pick 1-3 areas that the PCs might start in and get into much more detail. I saw a map somewhere here on the enworld forums that was drawn so each hex (it was 36x36 hexes) represented 1 day of foot travel - that seems like a great size for more detailed knowledge. The actual town/area they start in you of course want to know everything about (but leave room for flexibility) and then further out than that you probably just want a semi-solid knowledge about who's there, a couple key named NPCs they might run into or encounter, where the treasure's supposed to hide, who's been raiding who or making nice, etc.

Granted, I doubt I will have enough time to do all that but if I did, I would. lol.

Personally, I go by the philosophy that what the PCs don't know about the world/plotline/NPC is 100% changeable,so I try to note down the things that actually come up in game to keep them consistent and then change anything else to fit what seems interesting or seems to fit.

 

[Gilladian]

My campaign world has been growing for 20+ years now, and has done a lot of both top-down and bottom-up growth.

I THINK I started with a world map, and then laid out kingdoms and began writing a world history. But then I changed to a different map, stole my pantheon of gods from a published product, decided I hated 2E's planar cosmology, and invented my own.

Then I changed world maps again (settling on using the "real world" this time for various reasons), and moved to a different region of the campaign world to focus on. I rewrote my campaign history, and built a fairly elaborate timeline. I redid the pantheon, and thought a lot about how and why my world existed the way it did.

In the meantime, I was running campaigns in the world. I'd pick a place on a map, start establishing who lived there and why, design a kingdom or a duchy or whatnot, and lay out a few towns, roads, trade routes, a villain or two, and spin out a campaign.

I'd add modules to the campaign, and their backstories would be added to my world timeline. I'd work them into the politics and history of other kingdoms and nations. Gradually, I linked my little campaign bits together with my big world and lo, I had a whole, united piece of worldwork.

Nowadays, I can sit down, pick a spot practically anywhere on my continent, and within two weeks, be ready to run a campaign there.

Needless to say, I recommend a combination of the two techniques, with lots of judicious "borrowing" from other sources, whether they're other campaign worlds, novels, history, or whatever. Never force yourself to re-invent what someone else has invented for you!

 

[aco175]

Two things I seem to recall about world design. First you should try and find on the Wizards site what one of those guys did over the last few years, on how he went indepth on design. I think the first modules on what he finally came up with are called the Chaos Scar. It has some good stuff on where to start and what you should spend time on, as well as what would be a waste of design time.
The other thing, which I think is covered under the first thing, is you can include players in the world design. I have played in campaigns that were in the same world with different dms. We had seperate kingdoms, or even different times in the same kingdom. We played a campaign once that led to another involving sons and grandsons. That being said, some players may also enjoy world design and buy into your ideas more when playing if they know some of the why's in the world.

A third idea that has worked for me was to write a short leadin for the campaign with some highlights players would know about the state of the kingdom and local npcs each may know. This helped establish why each pc was in town and how they may knnow one another.

 

[Aramax]

a big time saver would to be stick to the gods published in your rule set,use them to build on.

Make it devistated by some problem that way you can have fewer countries and cities to worry about

stick as close to the RAW as poss.This means you spend a lot less time on rules and more time on setting

I wish I could give credit for this idea but I cant remember who's idea this was,Describe your cultures in no more than 3 words to start-Arctic Orc Azteks.build from there