Top down, or bottom-up?

[Templetroll]

Well, I drew a map of the world, and the town the party started in and one larger town detailed. They started on an island at the mouth of a river, went to the large town upriver and then one of the players said, "I'm not from either of these places. Where can my character be from?" I told him "...the capital city on the other side of the country..." and he smiled, "I want to go home!"

I DMed weekly from then on often tossing in 'random encounters' while I designed the next section they wanted to roam off to. It was a blast keeping up with them. I just made notes on what would still be there and that placed a few of the more interesting dungeons for various parties to check out.

 

[Deadguy]

Both Ways!

I am a proponent of doing things both ways at the same time. I often start at the very beginning with an overall picture of the setting - a basic premise as it were. And I might sketch out a large-scale map. But then I also begin working on material for specific adventures, outlining small regions, thinking of local traditions and history, etc. I will then alternate back and forth between these elements, as mood and need drive me. Eventually - if i did all my work fully (I never do!) then I would sort of meet in the middle, with detailed regions supported by a global structure of magic, religion, race and history.

I like this way because it means I am never having to work on the same sort of material for extended periods at a time. And by examining specific instances and examples, I can identify gaps in my overall planning. That means the final campaign is that much better (I hope).

 

[TerraDave]

When creating your homebrew, did you

A) start with a specific area and grow outwards (I think Greyhawk basically started like this)

or did you

B) start with a concept and design the setting, and work your way downwards to the details? I would imagine that Planescape was created in this fashion.

or

C) something else entirely.

again, a mix, with key development basically occuring in paralel.

Though eventually the top down part took on a life of its own

 

[Wombat]

For the current campaign, the concept came first, the setting material second.

I created the context for the campaign, then started putting together various cultures, myths, etc. The local material and maps came dead last. But at that point they were deeply informed by the wider world, which was important for the shape of the game as I envisioned it.

On the other hand, as far as the players were concerned, they dealt with a small section of town first, then a wider swathe, and then slowly introducing them to the wider world.

In that case, I suppose you could say it goes both ways

 

[arnon]

I'm not sure what to choose...

I started with a big map and then strated to fill her up, going into more details where i knew i wanted the players to start, but knowing prety well what every other part of the wolrd had to offer. Conflicts, beliefs, ruling system and such crop up as I populate the area.

 

[Hodag]

Concept first!

I never run unless I have the framework (at least) of a plot to torture the party with. So I design all that's necessary to support that plot and wing the rest.

 

[taliesin15]

I usually do a combination of both approaches

 

[SWBaxter]

Generally I start with a small area or idea, and fill that in. Then I do whatever top-level stuff is necessary - an idea of gods, overall geography, etc. - in enough detail to get started but also vague enough that I can add stuff later as ideas occur. Generally at this point it's ready for players, and development becomes collaborative - player ideas and character backgrounds start to fill in some of the areas and niches that I've only sketched. I also try to stay a couple of steps ahead of where the players are going. So I guess it's primarily bottom-up, but with a top-down framework.

 

[Darkness]

Generally I start with a small area or idea, and fill that in. Then I do whatever top-level stuff is necessary - an idea of gods, overall geography, etc. - in enough detail to get started but also vague enough that I can add stuff later as ideas occur.

I do the same.

Welcome to the boards, BTW.

 

[Davelozzi]

A mix I guess, that I'd lean towards top down if I had to. Basically, I started with the outline of a huge continent and related subcontinent, then zoomed in show about 1/4 of that area and started filling the map in with countries and terrain features. While doing this I had a pretty good idea of the general flavor of each country. I also divided them into broad cultural groups dominated by different human peoples as well as the various demihuman races (except gnomes, of course )

Next I started focusing in on the one kingdom (Tüornil) that I wanted to start the campaign in, dividing it into duchies and counties and populating it with more cities, towns, and other local details, while at the same time working on the its culture, religion and history. This naturally filled in some additional details about the neighboring countires that had interacted with Tüornil and shared historical and cultural influences. Finally I focused in on one particular province (duchy) of Tüornil, mapping nad further detailing the largest local city and adding villages, dungeons, local features and NPCs.

This is the point at which we started the campaign and since then I just add things as it becomes necessary.

Reading over all that, it sounds like a straight top down, but when I voted I was thinking it was more mixed. The thing is that I started with the big details, but all along I had an idea of what I wanted on the local level, and I never ironed out more than just the basics for the other parts of the world until it became relevant.