I found my copy of the World Builder's Guidebook yesterday by accident. It's an old AD&D supplement but it's nice enough as inspiration. They describe a couple of ways to build a world. One of them is by staring with the bigger details (macroscopic) and the other by focusing on a smaller area and building from there.

Usually, when building a fantasy world, I start with what this book refers to as a macroscopic approach. I define key elements that I want to explore, sort of creating a subgenre. Then I build a cosmology and the complete geography and so on, with a huge timeline. This has been a lot of work and in 25 years, I've probably built four worlds that I can say have been a success.

The recent conversation on religion and cosmology has made me think hard. And finding this supplement, looking at microscopic building has made me reconsider my approach. I think this time, I'm going to build from a small place and go from there. I'm going to sketch things a little but I want to focus on small details and make them richly detailed.

Are there any pitfalls to starting with a small place? Anyone has experience building a world from small areas and adding other pieces later? I'm kind of afraid I'll have to backpedal, retcon, fuck up some details. Will the world still look coherent?

Hrm, interesting question.  I know (generally speaking) the two different pieces of advice you're talking about (essentially the same 2 approaches are outlined in the current DMG if I remember correctly.)  I can't say as I have much experience with world building however, mostly because I lack the patience and attention span necessary I think .  I did try once and went for the macroscopic approach, drawing a world map, figuring out a timeline, current nations and their histories, a general cosmology, etc.  I quite enjoyed what I did on it but, to be honest, it wasn't some super amazing world.  It was pretty generic fantasy fair in fact.

If I were to do it all again I'd probably try the microscopic approach.  I'm coming round to the idea that starting small, say a town or city detailed and very sketchy local geography but nothing else, and letting the players lead you where they want to go and help flesh out details with what the group thinks would be cool might not be such a bad idea.  If nothing else it would probably mean less prep work for me and I'm awful at prep work!

Geoff, that's kind of my thinking. Because what I fail to mention is that while I made perhaps four successful attempts at macro-building, that doesn't account the (probably) dozen time-consuming attempts that failed. And that is freaking painful.

It also doesn't account that even in the successful attempts, some large areas, cultures, etc... went essentially unused because the player eventually go on a certain course and focus on certain things.

I'm thinking that starting small will just be less *disappointing*, if nothing else. I'm just unsure if it is efficient.

Yeah, it's gotta be a bit galling to put so much effort into constructing a cool world only for the players to ignore large chunks of it, rendering that effort mostly worthless.  That's not to say you didn't have fun making it (meaning the effort wasn't entirely wasted) but it would definately be cooler to see the PCs wandering through and causing havock in your carefully constructed creation!

I'm betting that the microscopic approach would lead to less disappointment in that respect, after all you'd only be focussing your effort on the parts of the world that mattered with regard to the characters.  However that may well translate to significantly more prep in between sessions (or it may not, I guess it would depend on what the group did and how into adding to the world themselves they were.)

The way I see it the best method of finding out whether or not it works for you is to try it

Quote from: Geoff HallThe way I see it the best method of finding out whether or not it works for you is to try it

I'm on it as we speak

Hope to get more feedback too. I picked a lot of interesting ideas on my religion thread.

I'm trying to make the world a little more standard than I am used to. My four successful attempts were all weird worlds. For standard stuff I usually relied on commercial stuff and novels that I homebrewed. I feel awkward trying to do something from scratch that will be derivative yet interesting for me and my players.

I'd have a million questions and they're all "off-topic" for my own damn thread!

Quote from: Consonant DudeI'd have a million questions and they're all "off-topic" for my own damn thread!

~Looks around warily~

It's just you and me, fire away...  (Note: I guarantee nothing, as I've already said my experiences in this field on endevour are, erm, pretty damn limited!)

I also advocate the "start small and build out" approach.

I was kinda shocked to see that the "build out" approach is listed secondarily in the AD&D World-Builder book, when they admit right up front that nearly all of the memorable classic campaigns (Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms) were built that way.

It also ensures everything you do (or the greatest possible percentage) is useful.

Quote from: Geoff Hall~Looks around warily~

It's just you and me, fire away...  (Note: I guarantee nothing, as I've already said my experiences in this field on endevour are, erm, pretty damn limited!)

Thanks for the offer!

First, I'll outline the kind of things I want for the campaign/world. Most of it fairly standard:

-Late antiquity/dark age aesthetic feel. (it's not rooted in real history at all, just picking the bits I like about those periods)
-Dark fantasy elements. Scary stuff, some gritty stuff.
-Magic is rare, often insidious, powerful without being flashy, comes with a price
-No aliens or space-fantasy elements
-Human-centric (at least, as far as the campaigns are concerned)
-Moral ambiguity is present but absolutisms of good and evil "forces" exists.

Having said that, here's a first question. What about villains?

I need some kind of "orc" but like a lot of people, I'm tired of orcs. I'd like a twist on the concept, while keeping the main element for me: a tough enemy for physical confrontations. Something powerful enough. Something scarier than orcs (this may be due to overexposition to orcs by a lot of us). Humanoid, capable of using tools. Also, I'd like them to have an interesting culture. Something weird and scary and different from the usual random nomadic tribe that look like bad clichés of "indjuns" or hordes of mongols.

Ideally, I'd like to have variations. Different "families" of orcs.

I've been thinking mutations, maybe? Maybe they feed exclusively on a diet consisting of humans? What do they look like? What kind of weapons do they use?

A few things I've been thinking:

-They are pure evil
-They don't have sexual organs. Or they're all males. New "orcs" are created by dark rituals, possibly involving human sacrifice. Possibly, the more "good" the sacrifice, the more powerful the orcs.
-They have mounts of some kind. Real evil, scary stuff. I'm at a loss as to what.
-They carry disease or are poisonous. Something along those lines

Of course, the sub-question is... who is the boss? Is there even one? Are there powerful evil wizards behind this, some kind of demon-god or are they on their own?


Does that sound lame? Have a better idea? Something to add?

Thanks!

Rip off one of the old Ork origins from Warhammer 40K. Mobile Sentient Fungus...that kills! Seriously, for awhile there they were spore based creatures, if you didn't slash and burn any area where they fought you'd eventually end up with another Ork infestation in fairly short order. Spores carried by the wind could find them popping up anywhere, even behind the lines or in a city. Some basic racial genetic memory and you've got ready made killing machines that don't need alot of training time to get to the smashin'.

-WAAAAGH!, Mike

Quote from: Consonant DudeAre there any pitfalls to starting with a small place? Anyone has experience building a world from small areas and adding other pieces later? I'm kind of afraid I'll have to backpedal, retcon, fuck up some details. Will the world still look coherent?

I think it depends on the kind of players you have.

For the sake of argument, we'll keep it simple, and say that there are two kinds of players, Adventurers and Roleplayers, or Hack and Thesp, whatever you want to call 'em.

Adventurers are quite likely to want to travel from their home town, or inn where they meet and decided to adventure together, etc. So if you start small and work up with them, you'll be rushing to keep up. It'd be better to go big and focus in on whatever they focus on, instead.

Roleplayers are more likely to hang around a place, talking to people, discovering its history and legends. With these kinds of players, having a richly-detailed small area is perfect.

It's a simple and imprecise division of players types, but gives you something to think about - there's no use detailing some small area if they won't stick around in it, nor is there any sense in drawing a map of a continent if they're never going to leave the island they're on. So consider the sort of players you have. Of course, you could always just design things the way you want and then find players to fit it...

The game world only has to be as coherent as the real world, which isn't very. Like, how the fuck are the Basques still around, speaking a language unrelated to any other in Europe? Why is there more genetic diversity among humans just in Nigeria than there is in all Europe? Why are there more languages in PNG than in North America? Why is it that there are more Anglicans in Nigeria than in England, and some of them are polygamous?

Incoherency, inconsistency, in fact reveal some of the most interesting things about history. Strangeness gives mystery, which intrigues players.

Quote from: Consonant DudeThanks for the offer!


Having said that, here's a first question. What about villains?

I need some kind of "orc" but like a lot of people, I'm tired of orcs. I'd like a twist on the concept, while keeping the main element for me: a tough enemy for physical confrontations. Something powerful enough. Something scarier than orcs (this may be due to overexposition to orcs by a lot of us). Humanoid, capable of using tools. Also, I'd like them to have an interesting culture. Something weird and scary and different from the usual random nomadic tribe that look like bad clichés of "indjuns" or hordes of mongols.

Ideally, I'd like to have variations. Different "families" of orcs.

I've been thinking mutations, maybe? Maybe they feed exclusively on a diet consisting of humans? What do they look like? What kind of weapons do they use?

A few things I've been thinking:

-They are pure evil
-They don't have sexual organs. Or they're all males. New "orcs" are created by dark rituals, possibly involving human sacrifice. Possibly, the more "good" the sacrifice, the more powerful the orcs.
-They have mounts of some kind. Real evil, scary stuff. I'm at a loss as to what.
-They carry disease or are poisonous. Something along those lines

Of course, the sub-question is... who is the boss? Is there even one? Are there powerful evil wizards behind this, some kind of demon-god or are they on their own?


Does that sound lame? Have a better idea? Something to add?

Thanks!

Off the top of my head, two commercial "orcs" come to mind. The first are the Gargun, http://www.columbiagames.com/cgi-bin/query/cfg/zoom.cfg?product_id=5071 the "orcs" of Harn. (The sourcebook has d20 stats, but it isn't really d20. Like most Harn products, you can use it with just about anything.) There are five species of varying sizes. What sets them apart is that they are eusocial, they have a queen, who does all the breeding, a few "princesses", and the vast majority of the colony is males. (This actually kind of bugs me, since in the eusocial insects the workers are all females, while I believe in Naked Mole Rats the workers can be of either sex.) They don't ride, but that can easily be changed.

The other option that comes to mind is "Broo".
http://stuff.mit.edu/people/thebeast/RQ/Races/Broo.html
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=108122
http://www.glorantha.com/library/dad/broo.html
They reproduce by rape, and what they rape doesn't matter. Males, females, goats, dogs, cattle; they'd do lions, rhinos and dragons if they could get away with it. The end result is kind of like aliens, where little broo burst out of the hosts in a couple of days. The above links give a little more detail.

By the way, what system are you using? That might help tailor replies to your needs.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI found my copy of the World Builder's Guidebook yesterday by accident. It's an old AD&D supplement but it's nice enough as inspiration. They describe a couple of ways to build a world. One of them is by staring with the bigger details (macroscopic) and the other by focusing on a smaller area and building from there.

Usually, when building a fantasy world, I start with what this book refers to as a macroscopic approach. I define key elements that I want to explore, sort of creating a subgenre. Then I build a cosmology and the complete geography and so on, with a huge timeline. This has been a lot of work and in 25 years, I've probably built four worlds that I can say have been a success.

The recent conversation on religion and cosmology has made me think hard. And finding this supplement, looking at microscopic building has made me reconsider my approach. I think this time, I'm going to build from a small place and go from there. I'm going to sketch things a little but I want to focus on small details and make them richly detailed.

Are there any pitfalls to starting with a small place? Anyone has experience building a world from small areas and adding other pieces later? I'm kind of afraid I'll have to backpedal, retcon, fuck up some details. Will the world still look coherent?

I like a hybrid approach. Start with geography, with a rough planetary map (continents, major islands, mountain ranges, major rivers and lakes), then zoom in on a region, do a rough outline (countries, capitals, terrain and vegetation, maybe trade goods and races), then zoom in on a country, do a slightly more detailed outline (provincial boundaries, cities and major towns, cultivated areas and wilds, names of major NPCs and organizations) , then zoom in or a province, do an even more detailed outline (more of the above), then zoom in on a community (local map, NPCs, mysteries and so forth). That way you can focus on one area, and still maintain consistency when you leave.

I always start small and build up from there. A lot of great stuff in my settings come from the stuff I riff of from what my players say and do. I stay two steps ahead of the players (most times) in terms of ongoing setting creation. I slip in interesting things about the world in every adventure/session.

It's these little details that establishes tone/atmosphere very effectively IME.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: apparition13Off the top of my head, two commercial "orcs" come to mind.

Yeah, I'm familiar with Harn. Never found the stuff very evocative as presented but there are common themes here which are salvageable. I don't remember much about Broos.

I'm starting to lean toward creatures spawned by some kind of demon.  

Quote from: apparition13By the way, what system are you using? That might help tailor replies to your needs.

I plan to make it my default fantasy world for a long time. Hopefully the last one. So we're likely to use several systems in the next few months/years. Assume light systems all the way to GURPS will be used.

But I'm going to homebrew something for the world eventually.

Thanks for the suggestions!

Okay, I've had a few ideas whilst letting my brain mull overnight but I wont have time to type them up until this afternoon due to work and getting kids/me ready to go out. (Of course I might not even then, I think I'm coming down with some kind of flu-like disease, my wife currently has it and I don't feel too great...)