Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Deadguy" data-source="post: 2043856" data-attributes="member: 2480">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).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Deadguy, post: 2043856, member: 2480"] [b]Both Ways![/b] 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). [/QUOTE]

Verification