D&D 5E What do I need to build a world?

[Nytmare]

First off, a +1 to pretty much everything that everyone else has said so far.

Second off, I'd draw even more attention to the importance of focusing your energies on where the people playing the game are going to be looking, and then spiraling outward from there. Nowadays I do almost all of my world building with my players as my primary sound board. And by saying that, I'm not suggesting that you don't eventually fill in all those blanks; but I would argue that starting broad, and then filling in details where details are most likely going to be seen is going to be best. Tell them what they know, and in answering the questions they have about the world, you'll know what aspects of the world they're most interested in.

On top of that, you (and that's a collective "you" that maybe includes your players as well) should figure out how big starting characters' world views should be. Does their knowledge of the world extend to the borders of their village? To the edges of the valley they live in? For a few days travel in one or two directions? Do maps of the world even exist from a character's standpoint?

 

[MechaPilot]

When I build a world, I often find that it's helpful to determine the theme ahead of time. A theme is somewhat broad, but it does help direct my thoughts and creative energies. For example: Ravenloft has a gothic horror theme, FR has a traditional fantasy theme, Eberron has a magi-punk theme, etc.

 

[Herobizkit]

Another thing to consider is building in natural barriers so that players aren't tempted to wander off your reservation until you want them to.

One poster recommended a coastal town - this is great, because unless the players have access to boats, they're not going anywhere past that water line. Limit their access to boats, and they're stuck going anywhere but there.

Next, mountains - great natural barrier that can often have choke-points, which could then be guarded and gated. You shall not pass without the King's authorization!

Finally, deserts/frozen tundra - too hot/cold/large for extended trips.

Before you know it, you have the heroes penned into a nice, manageable chunk of land.

From there, establish a 'main' city/stronghold. This will be the largest area of population in the region. The players will likely use it as a hub or nexus for their travels, or might be inclined to stay there for some city adventures.

Dot your region with a few towns, maybe a waystation on a long stretch of road, and villages/hamlets with farms. Gotta feed those rich city folks somehow.

Now, find where your chief "trouble spots" will be - monster lairs, humanoid settlements, any natural hazardous areas (like, say, hot springs, or earthquakes, or falling rocks, or maybe a glen of razor-sharp foliage).

 

[Li Shenron]

So, all of this being considered, what do you think I should work out before I try running a quest in this world? I might be able to do so now, but I wouldn't mind having some experienced people check my work. Am I missing anything specific that you would include in your world building process?

There's two opposite approaches: "top-down" and "bottom-up".

The "bottom-up" approach is more practical, more immediately usable, but it might not deliver enough feeling that this is your own fantasy world until you've played enough. It's about building the world from a small scale, in which case all you have to do is just pick an adventure set in a place that inspires you, and start playing. While you play, pick up hooks (and record them down!) either from the written adventure, your own inventions on the spot, or even steal them from your players. Then pick more adventures and connect them using your hooks....

A lot of DMs can't resist the idea of "top-down" simply because it's a lot of fun to start with the bigger picture. For the "top-down":

- layout the world geography in broad strokes: continents and lands, seas/oceans, climate areas, wilderness VS civilized areas; draw a sketch map of it (your reference, not necessarily shared with players)

- list a bunch of major kingdoms, with a few defining features each, and locate them in the world

- define religions, factions, and other power organizations that are widely known

- choose the major races, and a good list of famous monsters and creatures

- add a few famous individuals to the previous 3

(Optional)

- connect your world with the rest of a multiverse by defining other planes of existence

- make a calendar of important events that everybody knows about

(I would not recommend investing time in designing the history of the world instead)

 

[Halivar]

Do everything Li Shenron said. Keep it in a campaign bible. But whatever you do, DO NOT make a fifty-million page campaign primer "handout" for players. I've done it. No one reads it. It'll just hurt your feelings. Instead, reveal your world to them bit by bit. Let the characters learn about the history, culture, and people of the world as they play. The best part of this approach is that from a player perspective, it appears "bottom-up", and you have more ability to tie emerging adventure elements into the world at large before the characters even see it, giving the illusion of interconnection that players love and makes you look like a pro-DM.

 

[TwoSix]

Here's the big thing with top-down versus bottom-up. How much is it going to bug you, personally, when you find out that you have deserts next to the ocean, or that all your rivers are flowing into the mountains, or that your big city of half a million people is surrounded by wasteland?

If those kind of details don't bother you, start bottom up. If they do, start with at least a big picture map and major regions, and nail down the basic politics. (Kingdom A is here, and is fighting Kingdom B here.)

Second point: If you want to make the campaign memorable, do two things. Make the details easy to remember, and make them directly connected to the characters. No one will remember the differences between your 12 feuding noble houses with centuries of history. But, they might just remember them if they're each led by a dragon of a different color. People can handle House Silver Dragon is fighting House Green Dragon. Likewise, I don't know about the different arcane orders fighting for influence, but I sure remember that the Pyromantic Order is the only place in the world to learn fire magic, and otherwise my characters can never cast fire spells.

 

[discosoc]

Here's the big thing with top-down versus bottom-up. How much is it going to bug you, personally, when you find out that you have deserts next to the ocean

Not much. There are plenty examples of deserts next to oceans. Namib Desert is a good one.

, or that all your rivers are flowing into the mountains

It would have to be a really weird map layout for that to happen and not be able to simply retcon the direction the water is flowing. I guess maybe having a river flowing between two mountain ranges or something, and without both just pooling into a central lake or sinkhole maybe.

, or that your big city of half a million people is surrounded by wasteland?

Depends on what you mean by 'wasteland' I guess. Deserts are wastelands, as are vast tracts of overgrown wilderness. Unnatural wastelands are simply areas somehow ravaged by man made or natural disasters (oil spills, floods, salt the fields, etc). In basically every case you could have a "big city" located in such a place. The only way it would seem weird or out of place is if the city was designed in a way that makes no sense (cosmopolitan trade city located in the middle of a nuclear fallout region or something).


Also, there's a ton of ways to address various inconsistencies in your geography if something does come up, because it's ultimately fiction. Maybe you really did find yourself creating a large trade city in the middle of a nuclear fallout zone. That sounds like a great opportunity to ask "how would this work?" and find a way to build it into the settings. Perhaps the city is located over an ancient dig site or diamond mine or something, and the local clergy makes casting Restoration or Healing spells a fairly common part of service (to stave off the effects of radiation). Or maybe in your world, the effects of radiation are the root cause for certain races like Half Elf and Half Orc, and they are unique to that particular wasteland.

 

[Mercule]

Here's the big thing with top-down versus bottom-up. How much is it going to bug you, personally, when you find out that you have deserts next to the ocean, or that all your rivers are flowing into the mountains, or that your big city of half a million people is surrounded by wasteland?

If those kind of details don't bother you, start bottom up. If they do, start with at least a big picture map and major regions, and nail down the basic politics. (Kingdom A is here, and is fighting Kingdom B here.)

This makes no sense, whatsoever. I have a setting that was built bottom-up for three different campaigns, starting in three different areas, and then stitched together. It was trivial to not do things like you're suggesting. In fact, I can't image a way to do those by building bottom-up. It just doesn't make sense. If you need an ocean, put it at the end of the rivers. If you want mountains, put them at the head of the rivers.

I don't think there's anything I did in the bottom-up phase that I looked back on with regret -- and some of that, I did in middle school. It was when I decided to go top-down to finish it off that I did things I ended up wanting to retcon, later, even though I was older and should have known better.

Really, top-down is for showpiece worlds that are meant to be admired rather than interacted with. Bottom-up is better for putting the focus on the PCs and their adventures. That's a generality, but represents my experiences.

 

[TwoSix]

This makes no sense, whatsoever. I have a setting that was built bottom-up for three different campaigns, starting in three different areas, and then stitched together. It was trivial to not do things like you're suggesting. In fact, I can't image a way to do those by building bottom-up. It just doesn't make sense. If you need an ocean, put it at the end of the rivers. If you want mountains, put them at the head of the rivers.

I don't think there's anything I did in the bottom-up phase that I looked back on with regret -- and some of that, I did in middle school. It was when I decided to go top-down to finish it off that I did things I ended up wanting to retcon, later, even though I was older and should have known better.

Really, top-down is for showpiece worlds that are meant to be admired rather than interacted with. Bottom-up is better for putting the focus on the PCs and their adventures. That's a generality, but represents my experiences.

No sense, whatsoever? Oh my.

But really, all you did was prove my point for me. You were comfortable stitching disparate pieces together after the fact. Not everyone is. (Maybe everyone should be comfortable with it, but that's another argument.) Some DMs will still see the seams, and be uncomfortable with them. The salient point is to know what kind of DM you are, and build accordingly.

And I totally agree with your last paragraph! I've given up on top-down design, although I still admire it when done well. But, it adds nothing to my game to actually do that work, so I've abandoned it.

 

[Nytmare]

I know that there are a couple of really good world building games out there, but I'm completely blanking on any of the names...

halp