What are the tools for Home Brewing a World?

[Claudius Gaius]

There's a modest section on world design, and a fair number of setting options, in Eclipse: The Codex Persona and The Practical Enchanter. The Heartstones, Wards Major, and Social Magic Items sections in The Practical Enchanter are pretty useful in setting up organizations and such. The shareware versions are linked in the signature, so its easy to take a look.

 

[Imaro]

@Buzz: I get what you're saying, though I think this only works with certain players. There really are players who enjoy playing the game and experiencing the surprises a world created by the DM holds, but may find even the smallest amount of actual worldbuilding on their part to be unfun. I have felt this way in different campaigns for different reasons. I've played in campaigns where I had really cool thoughts (mainly about my character/background/etc.) and wanted to integrate it into someone elses game. I've also played in games where I felt the world or campaign arc was cool enough that I enjoyed exploring and discovering it's mysteries. There are even times where I have felt both. In the end I think it really does boil down to playstyles and there's really no right or wrong as far as how to worldbuild. Though I would be a little dissapointed in a game where the DM can't answer basic questions about how the world works or what my character knows if I ask him.

@Ryan: I wonder how you determine what is important enough to be created or worked on and what is not. I am of the mindset that anything can have potential use in one's game, but do not see a way to cherry pick which potential hook PC's will want to investigate. In your Ptolus example, The hook about the noble family seems just as likely to be ignore as pursued. If it is ignored then wouldn't it fall into your category of useless prep?

I guess it's just different philosophies, as I like a more brainstorm approach where stuff I think of that seems cool or interesting is waiting in some corner of my world and the PC's can discover and explore it if they choose to. In this method, there is no prioritizing of the hooks, though level and power of characters can still create this to an extent. I also like to have the basics of my world down, so that if a question is asked (or bardic knowledge used) there is, or can be extrapoliated, a feasible answer to the question. This in no way stops me from revising something if it seems uninteresting or there is a cooler alternative...especially since there's no way a player's character can know everything about a subject. But it does give me a solid framework to draw from.

 

[Psion]

I'd like to think that he's getting at what I'm getting at, which is moving away from the idea of DM-as-Tolkien. I.e., that world-building is this thing you do alone, compiling reams of data that may or may not be used, with no input from the players, and that is immutable.

Sure, I get that. It just seems to me he's created a "rule of thumb" with some pretty absolute verbiage ("if it's not TRAPs, it's not worth your time") that exhibit something of an excluded middle.

 

[buzz]

One of the thing that disturbs me about Eberron every time I looked at the map the DM put up was that it looked wrong. Knowing geography can help avoid that feeling so much, and make the setting seem so real.

True, but I think published settings is a whole 'nother ball o' wax.

 

[Psion]

If you're creating a world primarily for a game, then the time you spend should feed right back into that game. If your game is about a particular dungeon under the city of Ptolus, detailing the family tree of a noble family that lives on the outskirts is a BAD IDEA.

Sure, but is that the sort of thing you'd enter in a historical timeline? I think a timeline would feature major historical events that shape the campaign setting and affect the people in it.

 

[buzz]

@Buzz: I get what you're saying, though I think this only works with certain players. There really are players who enjoy playing the game and experiencing the surprises a world created by the DM holds, but may find even the smallest amount of actual worldbuilding on their part to be unfun.

Oh, absolutely. I'm running an Eberron game right now, and interacting with the setting (as opposed to creating it) has been very fun.

My point was more "don't forget that there's this other way, too" and not "this way is superior." Granted, I tend to prefer the "create as you go" way more these days.

 

[buzz]

Sure, I get that. It just seems to me he's created a "rule of thumb" with some pretty absolute verbiage ("if it's not TRAPs, it's not worth your time") that exhibit something of an excluded middle.

I'd maybe just read it as enthusiasm.

 

[TerraDave]

To touch on the debate above:

As a DM, you should design the world the way you want to. No other way. Its your time and your hobby, not your job, and the PCs are not your customers or clients.

It is true that uneeded details are, uneeded details. But you never know, I have had too many cases where things aimed at certain players or campaigns didn't really matter, and too many where I found myself wishing I had made some decisions, taken notes, and clarified things--for myself--earlier.

And, of course it goes without saying that players have the attention spans of monkeys. But then again, you might be surprised what gets them interested or excited.

But there is an easy solution: just do what you want. So if you are bored by doing pantheons or religions, take them from somewhere. But if you are finding that you are really getting into your worlds mythology, then spend time on it and detail to your hearts content. That is the whole point of do it yourself: you can do what you want.

 

[Psion]

I'd maybe just read it as enthusiasm.

Well maybe it was, but if we are making prescriptions for how one should run a game, one hopes for sound advice, just just enthusiasm.

Not that there isn't sound advice in Ryan's TRAPs formula, but it's just one tool in the toolbelt, and it almost seemed to me like someone with just a hammer calling everything a nail.

 

[Ry]

@Ryan: I wonder how you determine what is important enough to be created or worked on and what is not. I am of the mindset that anything can have potential use in one's game, but do not see a way to cherry pick which potential hook PC's will want to investigate. In your Ptolus example, The hook about the noble family seems just as likely to be ignore as pursued. If it is ignored then wouldn't it fall into your category of useless prep?

What I recommend as a guideline is "think about play"

Bad 1 (GM is making a world without considering play):
"Well, a society at this technological level would have gaslight. Oh, and that means some piping underground. Well, just in case it ever comes up, I'd better map out the piping system, and figure out how each side of the river's gas lines work."

Bad 2 (GM is trying to use Threat/Reward/Asset/Problem to dictate what he does - which is not going to work because they're empty without content):
"Well, a society at this technological level would have gaslight. I don't know how these gaslight lampposts turn into a problem / asset to the players, so I'll just leave them out."

Good (GM is thinking about Threat/Reward/Asset/Problem as he does everything else, and uses that to manage his time):
"Well, a society at this technological level would have gaslight. How can I make that something more than window dressing? Oh, what if there's danger of a gas explosion? Maybe the players can take advantage of that by tearing up the cobblestones on purpose.