|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jun 15, 2018 17:37:32 GMT -5
Actually, I will slightly disagree. Gary wanted this. He did remind DMs in OD&D to create new Laws and such, but he just did not go far enough with the examples of why (thus he game proceeded the world, or BOTTOM UP design). As D&D became a hit he just added to the incongruity of amalgamated parts, to the point to where this hodge-podge approach, in Forgotten Realms for instance, where you have a city of hundreds of thousands of people with monsters, like bands of ogres, living right outside of it, etc. This is just one glaring example of Fantasy taken to the heights of absurdity, throwing all congruity to the winds for entertainment only, Strange, too, for the myths and legends and Fantasy stories, all of these which D&D was based upon, are more congruous, more believable, than many D&D games and campaigns that I've witnessed and that supposedly "emulate" them. Thus I really believe that Top Down design is the way to go, or at the very least, a well planned and incrementally staged bottom-up approach. Gary was on track with that through WoGreyhawk and to me that was exciting, as it would have eventually allowed for what I had been suggesting all along, an ordering of PC Classes/Spells/Monster information between the world and the game, just as he had in WoG ordered migration, the heavens above, etc (which I had already been doing with World of Kalibruhn). Again I agree, while maintaining that not all the rules in the world can give a referee a backbone, which was my point. The extreme of this is that I have seen a surprisingly sizeable population of gamers who say that the referee has to do what the players want, even taking it as far as "the referee can't kill my PC without my permission." Or Skip Williams stating publicly that one of the goals of 3rd edition D&D was "rules to protect players from the arbitrary whims of the DM." Or maybe the players should ****ing learn to play. It is ridiculous, but amazingly prevalent in some quarters. There is a sizeable contingent of the entertainment portion of this hobby that wants to turn the referee into a mere rules parser. Preserving the setting is important, but sometimes I do question myself. As a dedicated DM I'll come up with this idea that sounds like fun to me, but in actuality, is totally unfair to the players. Course the DM does have to be the guy in charge. I can and do say no. I never liked that whole, Always say Yes philosophy. That isn't how you build trust from your players IMO. robkuntz you bring up a top down approach to worldbuilding. I've seen this term used elsewhere but would like to clarify my thoughts in regards to the phrase: It means to build a world first and fill in the details as you go? I'm not doing that. I have a city that sits on a dungeon and that is all that I and my characters will know about the world. I know that the city has been under siege for decades, and must hold else the realm will be engulfed in the war against an enemy that it cannot defeat on an open field. I know that city funds are tight as goods must be shipped in and the kingdoms sense of patriotism no longer supports giving stuff away. I know that their only source of income is forcing people to go into this insane wizard's tower and not letting them out until they buy their freedom. I know a few other facts, but this is all the info that I need right now to start the game. I had tried the top down approach to world build before, and it always ended in failure, so this time I am working small, and expand as I go. I read Admin Pete top down conditions and WOW! I have never thought in that big of a scale. It's actually intimidating, the amount of work that he put in before a game ever took place. That amount of forethought is beyond me. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 15, 2018 19:27:11 GMT -5
Again I agree, while maintaining that not all the rules in the world can give a referee a backbone, which was my point. The extreme of this is that I have seen a surprisingly sizeable population of gamers who say that the referee has to do what the players want, even taking it as far as "the referee can't kill my PC without my permission." Or Skip Williams stating publicly that one of the goals of 3rd edition D&D was "rules to protect players from the arbitrary whims of the DM." Or maybe the players should ****ing learn to play. It is ridiculous, but amazingly prevalent in some quarters. There is a sizeable contingent of the entertainment portion of this hobby that wants to turn the referee into a mere rules parser. Preserving the setting is important, but sometimes I do question myself. As a dedicated DM I'll come up with this idea that sounds like fun to me, but in actuality, is totally unfair to the players. Course the DM does have to be the guy in charge. I can and do say no. I never liked that whole, Always say Yes philosophy. That isn't how you build trust from your players IMO. robkuntz you bring up a top down approach to worldbuilding. I've seen this term used elsewhere but would like to clarify my thoughts in regards to the phrase: It means to build a world first and fill in the details as you go? I'm not doing that. I have a city that sits on a dungeon and that is all that I and my characters will know about the world. I know that the city has been under siege for decades, and must hold else the realm will be engulfed in the war against an enemy that it cannot defeat on an open field. I know that city funds are tight as goods must be shipped in and the kingdoms sense of patriotism no longer supports giving stuff away. I know that their only source of income is forcing people to go into this insane wizard's tower and not letting them out until they buy their freedom. I know a few other facts, but this is all the info that I need right now to start the game. I had tried the top down approach to world build before, and it always ended in failure, so this time I am working small, and expand as I go. I read Admin Pete top down conditions and WOW! I have never thought in that big of a scale. It's actually intimidating, the amount of work that he put in before a game ever took place. That amount of forethought is beyond me. As Kurt Vonnegut once said, "So it goes." |
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Jun 15, 2018 20:28:07 GMT -5
My larger point is that if you are serious about constructing a sensible world (like Barker did, like I did) then you must invest the time to do so. If not, deal with the matter as you feel is best. I solved that by making it my own. I own its structure; the game rules do not. But then I had a head start with all of that... 
Oh, certainly. And when I finally get my gaming stuff out of storage, I'm starting over again on my world. And there is nothing wrong with an iterative process, either; I know better what I want in a world now than I did when I was 16, and my tastes have changed.
I'd love to see your world @gronanofsimmerya. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2018 21:31:51 GMT -5
First I have to dig my copy of Tony Bath's "Setting Up a Wargames Campaign" out. I could come up with my own tables, of course, but why reinvent the wheel?
It's loosely based on R.E. Howard's Hyborian Age for much the same reason Tony Bath used it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jun 15, 2018 23:16:01 GMT -5
First I have to dig my copy of Tony Bath's "Setting Up a Wargames Campaign" out. I could come up with my own tables, of course, but why reinvent the wheel? It's loosely based on R.E. Howard's Hyborian Age for much the same reason Tony Bath used it. Yeah, I have to thank you for directing me to that book. An amazing read! |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 16, 2018 9:48:39 GMT -5
For those who want to assess my general approach to World design which in fact eventually influences all design angles, classes, etc., note this blog post of mine: lakegenevaoriginalrpg.blogspot.com/2012/12/world-of-kalibruhn-2nd-iteration.htmlThere's also WAY more content in the Kalibrugn section of the El Raja Key DVD. Top>Down design is not for everyone, but I have had years to complete it (and all aspects are still not covered, in fact I lost some pertinent mss in a fire that now have to be recreated); and any one Top>Down approach should not be seen as the only possible course, because design emphasis trajectories can change over time and by inclination. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jun 16, 2018 11:20:00 GMT -5
I read Admin Pete top down conditions and WOW! I have never thought in that big of a scale. It's actually intimidating, the amount of work that he put in before a game ever took place. That amount of forethought is beyond me. I am assuming you were looking through the sub-forum Ruins of Murkhill Campaign and the threads there. I have posted very little and I can only assume it is the numbers for continents and islands you are referring to. That part is just running numbers. The tougher part is trying to rough out maps and unfortunately I can not draw a lick. I can picture it and I can use many words to describe it, but I can not draw it. But I thought I will jump this discussion over to its own thread to avoid any further derailment of OD&D Classes thread. I don't think the forethought is beyond you at all. You will probably just approach it differently than I do. I enjoy numbers so I can easily do that part. But calculating the orbits of moons is beyond my skill level. Do the parts you enjoy and that are fun for you. Since a lot of things only you know, your player will never know the things you skipped because a) they were not fun or you and b) because they have no impact on the game. I am quite interested in hearing more about the World of Kalibruhn, 2nd Iteration and I enjoy Rob's maps and hope someday to have my maps upgraded to being presentable. But I thought this thread would be good to discuss Top Down World Building. I am also starting another thread that is also about world building and I am titling it " On the Other Side of the Portal". |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jun 16, 2018 12:56:17 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply Admin Pete! Finding the proper space to maximize the play area is difficult for me. I had started worldbuilding before but gave up. I found some of the old maps that I had drawn and I can see now that they are far too tiny. I mean really tiny. I had drawn a poorly designed but realistic continent to the scale of an island, not to mention difficult to reproduce on smaller maps. I have a better idea of the gaming needs now, but since this is my first attempt at it I don't want to bog myself down by over-thinking it. I am good at and have a lot of fun matching different ideas that didn't originally go together into something which makes sense. BTW, you are correct, I was going through your Murkhill folders and marvelling at your work. Have you ever taken any Drafting Classes? I took some basic ones in High School. I make two kinds of maps. Maps for myself, which are ugly as all get out: Pencilled affairs with my personal codes to save space so they aren't always on a specific scale, and maps for my players which are prettier. Player maps from me are very rare. I also don't compare them to professional products. Actually, to be honest, I rarely ever used pro maps. They were usually too big and I like to hide them from the players, and I despise 3d maps and always redraft them. The best maps aren't pretty to look at, but they serve specific purposes. Hex maps are prefered over accurate geography maps. Figuring out a decent scale is the hard part. Basic scale is 1 hex= 5 miles or 10 feet/yards, the big ones is where things get tough for me. I don't think in Leagues, and constantly have to reconfigure things so that I know how far a person can travel in a week. I struggle with math, and those rulebook codes of 2" or whatever get me almost every time. IT HURTS MY BRAINS! |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Jun 21, 2018 8:47:15 GMT -5
My 31 year long game was bottom up and my failed game was top down (incredibly so) and failed in 3. Your mileage may vary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jun 21, 2018 16:22:35 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply Admin Pete ! Finding the proper space to maximize the play area is difficult for me. I had started worldbuilding before but gave up. I found some of the old maps that I had drawn and I can see now that they are far too tiny. I mean really tiny. I had drawn a poorly designed but realistic continent to the scale of an island, not to mention difficult to reproduce on smaller maps. I have a better idea of the gaming needs now, but since this is my first attempt at it I don't want to bog myself down by over-thinking it. I am good at and have a lot of fun matching different ideas that didn't originally go together into something which makes sense. BTW, you are correct, I was going through your Murkhill folders and marvelling at your work. Have you ever taken any Drafting Classes? I took some basic ones in High School. I make two kinds of maps. Maps for myself, which are ugly as all get out: Pencilled affairs with my personal codes to save space so they aren't always on a specific scale, and maps for my players which are prettier. Player maps from me are very rare. I also don't compare them to professional products. Actually, to be honest, I rarely ever used pro maps. They were usually too big and I like to hide them from the players, and I despise 3d maps and always redraft them. The best maps aren't pretty to look at, but they serve specific purposes. Hex maps are prefered over accurate geography maps. Figuring out a decent scale is the hard part. Basic scale is 1 hex= 5 miles or 10 feet/yards, the big ones is where things get tough for me. I don't think in Leagues, and constantly have to reconfigure things so that I know how far a person can travel in a week. I struggle with math, and those rulebook codes of 2" or whatever get me almost every time. IT HURTS MY BRAINS! I marvel that you marveled, no I have never taken any drafting classes other than one mechanical drawing class over 40 years ago. But that was all straight lines and curves using a compass and mostly just imitating other drawing or going from a picture to a drawing. Nuts and bolts and things like that. I sweat blood in that class. I don't sweat the details too close. I will describe the terrain and then tell them you had to backtrack three times and you only made a mile today or you found an existing trail in good condition and you made good time and did ten miles today. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jun 21, 2018 16:23:22 GMT -5
My 31 year long game was bottom up and my failed game was top down (incredibly so) and failed in 3. Your mileage may vary. Nothing works for everyone, it is all about what works for you. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jun 24, 2018 14:15:23 GMT -5
Preserving the setting is important, What do you mean by preserving the setting? |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 24, 2018 14:27:24 GMT -5
Preserving the setting is important, What do you mean by preserving the setting? Perhaps by pickling it with vinegar? |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 24, 2018 14:32:06 GMT -5
Preserving the setting is important, What do you mean by preserving the setting? It's gonna be one of those individualist responses as it should be. I have gone through so many "settings" and many have changed from their initial states. So I don't think in integral ways for these. They are what they are when they are. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jun 24, 2018 16:05:38 GMT -5
What do you mean by preserving the setting? It's gonna be one of those individualist responses as it should be. I have gone through so many "settings" and many have changed from their initial states. So I don't think in integral ways for these. They are what they are when they are. I wondered if by preserving the setting he was talking about limiting what the players could do in terms of messing with the initial status quo. Some people have features of the setting that the players cannot mess with and others are fine if the players would to take actions that would upset apple carts and introduce turmoil into the game. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 24, 2018 16:12:44 GMT -5
It's gonna be one of those individualist responses as it should be. I have gone through so many "settings" and many have changed from their initial states. So I don't think in integral ways for these. They are what they are when they are. I wondered if by preserving the setting he was talking about limiting what the players could do in terms of messing with the initial status quo. Some people have features of the setting that the players cannot mess with and others are fine if the players would to take actions that would upset apple carts and introduce turmoil into the game. Could be. I have world events that are happening out of site and that change history even as the PCs are about changing their own section of it. But it's not scripted. The players establish local, or growing, plots on the main, and whatever they end up with, so be it, that even means if they become Emperor or accidentally unleash a thousand curses upon the world. A creator should learn not to get too tied to their creation, let it evolve according to your own and the player's own actions, but don't insist that the player's actions do not or cannot change things, sometimes permanently. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jun 24, 2018 16:32:15 GMT -5
I wondered if by preserving the setting he was talking about limiting what the players could do in terms of messing with the initial status quo. Some people have features of the setting that the players cannot mess with and others are fine if the players would to take actions that would upset apple carts and introduce turmoil into the game. Could be. I have world events that are happening out of site and that change history even as the PCs are about changing their own section of it. But it's not scripted. The players establish local, or growing, plots on the main, and whatever they end up with, so be it, that even means if they become Emperor or accidentally unleash a thousand curses upon the world. A creator should learn not to get too tied to their creation, let it evolve according to your own and the player's own actions, but don't insist that the player's actions do not or cannot change things, sometimes permanently. YMMV. Agreed, the player's actions should be able to change things, sometimes permanently to remain open. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jun 24, 2018 16:36:47 GMT -5
I had tried the top down approach to world build before, and it always ended in failure, so this time I am working small, and expand as I go. I read Admin Pete top down conditions and WOW! I have never thought in that big of a scale. It's actually intimidating, the amount of work that he put in before a game ever took place. That amount of forethought is beyond me. First off whatever work for how you think about this stuff is good. Every setting is potentially an entire planet with a tapestry as rich as our own. But we are not God nor have the hobby time to flesh everything out. So we make do in a manner that works for us as individual referee. A couple of points from my perspective. In general I think of my setting as if they are real places. I live in a small town with 15,000 people. Yet there are lot of stuff around each with their own unique story. We got several convenience stores. Convenience store is a convenience store right? Even when they are different companies? Well when you start adding the customers and the staff then each as unique as the 100 year old general store that in a village a couple miles up Route 87. What this means that even a small region can have a lot of potential for adventure if you about all those who live and what they are up too. Now you don't throw this all once nor detail it all once. But it is something to keep in mind as you work on this. Make some brief notes for later so if the players are not interested in what you prepared you don't have to throw away all the work you have done. For example you start off with a small barony with a market village and nearby ruins with a dungeon. A handful of sessions later the players are becoming disinterested in the dungeon. But one time when they went back to the village to resupply they ran into a group of bandits and had a fun encounter. You didn't think of it much at the time but perhaps is could be built on. So you test it by having the brother of one of the bandits arriving at the village with his own gang looking for his brother's killer. The player really seem to like that small adventure and some of the bandit minion survived and were captured. So you decide to give a hook that if followed will let the PCs find out more about the bandits of the regions. How they live, who they prey on, how they fence their ill-gotten goods, and the secrets they harbor. The key technique is paying attention to what the PCs are interested in interacting with. And building on that interest. Keeping in mind that every character in the setting has a story that could be explored. Every stone has a history if there the interest. If the PCs don't have the interest then the only work you wasted was in that one-off encounter/adventure. I wrote a popular series of posts called How to make a Fantasy Sandbox. One thing I found that helps is a tool chest full of bits about the settings that you can use whenever you need them. These posts are about developing that tool chest for a specific setting. Keep in mind you don't have to start at Step 1. Jump in at the point you need and go from there. Furthermore the posts are silent on type of campaign (other than it is fantasy), the point of them is a way of organizing information about a setting so it manageable. There is a worked out example but it is meant to illustrate not define. batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-to-make-fantasy-sandbox.html |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 24, 2018 16:47:36 GMT -5
Could be. I have world events that are happening out of site and that change history even as the PCs are about changing their own section of it. But it's not scripted. The players establish local, or growing, plots on the main, and whatever they end up with, so be it, that even means if they become Emperor or accidentally unleash a thousand curses upon the world. A creator should learn not to get too tied to their creation, let it evolve according to your own and the player's own actions, but don't insist that the player's actions do not or cannot change things, sometimes permanently. YMMV. Agreed, the player's actions should be able to change things, sometimes permanently to remain open. This becomes even more prevalent if you design the world TOP*DOWN as you are then ultra-aware of so much, and are in fact rolling for meta-content out of sight so often, that this information tends to set up related content for the PCs to get involved in; the world stages itself to the players just as the players are staging themselves into the world. Therein is the stuff that heroes and legends are born or die from. I have always found this a superior course having done bottom> up design beforehand. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jun 24, 2018 17:07:43 GMT -5
Agreed, the player's actions should be able to change things, sometimes permanently to remain open. This becomes even more prevalent if you design the world TOP*DOWN as you are then ultra-aware of so much, and are in fact rolling for meta-content out of sight so often, that this information tends to set up related content for the PCs to get involved in; the world stages itself to the players just as the players are staging themselves into the world. Therein is the stuff that heroes and legends are born or die from. I have always found this a superior course having done bottom> up design beforehand. When you say TOP*DOWN, how far up is the top? How many pages would Kalibruhn be if you printed it all out, what does 45+ years of world design look like? I can see that what you are doing creates a real synergy that is not possible with the bottom up course of design. It is the difference between knowing about a small village and being able to look at a world map and consider things as random as weather patterns, latitude and longitude, trade routes, what is connected by land and what is separated by sea and how widely separated is it? Is there a desert here or mountains there, is the river navigable or not? |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 24, 2018 17:13:18 GMT -5
This becomes even more prevalent if you design the world TOP*DOWN as you are then ultra-aware of so much, and are in fact rolling for meta-content out of sight so often, that this information tends to set up related content for the PCs to get involved in; the world stages itself to the players just as the players are staging themselves into the world. Therein is the stuff that heroes and legends are born or die from. I have always found this a superior course having done bottom> up design beforehand. When you say TOP*DOWN, how far up is the top? How many pages would Kalibruhn be if you printed it all out, what does 45+ years of world design look like? I can see that what you are doing creates a real synergy that is not possible with the bottom up course of design. It is the difference between knowing about a small village and being able to look at a world map and consider things as random as weather patterns, latitude and longitude, trade routes, what is connected by land and what is separated by sea and how widely separated is it? Is there a desert here or mountains there, is the river navigable or not? Cosmology on down to the minutia that we commonly tread upon. Printed out? Hmm. Never added it up, but including what's already published probably 1,500-2000 pages including the maps and rules, etc. That's a conservative estimate. Plus there's a lot more in my head that is guided by sumptuous notes, all of which is what I'd expand on and incorporate if I had the time to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jun 24, 2018 18:00:42 GMT -5
When you say TOP*DOWN, how far up is the top? How many pages would Kalibruhn be if you printed it all out, what does 45+ years of world design look like? I can see that what you are doing creates a real synergy that is not possible with the bottom up course of design. It is the difference between knowing about a small village and being able to look at a world map and consider things as random as weather patterns, latitude and longitude, trade routes, what is connected by land and what is separated by sea and how widely separated is it? Is there a desert here or mountains there, is the river navigable or not? Cosmology on down to the minutia that we commonly tread upon. Printed out? Hmm. Never added it up, but including what's already published probably 1,500-2000 pages including the maps and rules, etc. That's a conservative estimate. Plus there's a lot more in my head that is guided by sumptuous notes, all of which is what I'd expand on and incorporate if I had the time to do so. Do you work out phases of the moon(s) (assuming you have one or more moons)? Or calculate eclipses? That is the kind of thing, that it would be fun to have, but the players would probably never get more than a comment here or there, so do you go into that kind of detail or just fudge some things? I don't think I would want to learn the math at this point in my life, so some things I would probably not do with an rigor. Of the 2000 pages, how much is published? |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 24, 2018 18:37:49 GMT -5
Cosmology on down to the minutia that we commonly tread upon. Printed out? Hmm. Never added it up, but including what's already published probably 1,500-2000 pages including the maps and rules, etc. That's a conservative estimate. Plus there's a lot more in my head that is guided by sumptuous notes, all of which is what I'd expand on and incorporate if I had the time to do so. Do you work out phases of the moon(s) (assuming you have one or more moons)? Or calculate eclipses? That is the kind of thing, that it would be fun to have, but the players would probably never get more than a comment here or there, so do you go into that kind of detail or just fudge some things? I don't think I would want to learn the math at this point in my life, so some things I would probably not do with an rigor. Of the 2000 pages, how much is published? I have indeed worked out the planetary spheres and the moon. I have no need for mathematical method due to the emphasis on their cosmological histories and happenings thorughout myth and legend, so I really do not need to bring forward what fictional astrologers "know" as far as science goes, I only need to concentrate on the "strange cosmic matter " that they foretell of and track. Pages published? Oh, about 250 I guess spread here and there. |
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Jun 25, 2018 14:40:15 GMT -5
Do you work out phases of the moon(s) (assuming you have one or more moons)? Or calculate eclipses? That is the kind of thing, that it would be fun to have, but the players would probably never get more than a comment here or there, so do you go into that kind of detail or just fudge some things? I don't think I would want to learn the math at this point in my life, so some things I would probably not do with an rigor. Of the 2000 pages, how much is published? I have indeed worked out the planetary spheres and the moon. I have no need for mathematical method due to the emphasis on their cosmological histories and happenings thorughout myth and legend, so I really do not need to bring forward what fictional astrologers "know" as far as science goes, I only need to concentrate on the "strange cosmic matter " that they foretell of and track. Pages published? Oh, about 250 I guess spread here and there. Having read the thread to this point, I would have to say (with all due respect to Admin Pete) that I think robkuntz and what he has done with Kalibruhn is intimidating and impressive. That takes nothing away from Admin Pete or any of your other fine people. His post immediately above about the planetary spheres and the moon, show the way to what is important in game for the characters to know or learn. The numbers are nice and if that helps you visualize your world that is great, but the numbers don't tell the part of the story that makes the world interesting and compelling. 250 pages out of 2000 or about an eighth of the whole and a sixteenth of the whole as more accurate would be my guess. I have typed up notes before and for me it takes about 5 pages of notes to get one typed page and I think Rob is talking about typed page to begin with. I can see robertsconley's Fantasy Sandbox series and other similar world building essays as being very intimidating to a beginner, I tell people to start by thinking about the world you would like to game in and start making notes in a notebook and just keep making notes as you get ideas. When it starts to become real to you, then start doing things with the notes besides thinking about them. For one person you might start with a map, another person might start with a creation legend, another might write an essay about a great hero or about a disaster, and another and another would each start some different way. Putter around and figure out what works for you, every designer follows their muse in their own way. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 25, 2018 15:19:24 GMT -5
I can take 1 (one) design element and by interrogating it and expanding on the information derived from repeatedly doing so, create a strong world concept synopsis in about an hour.
Let's see. I've done that at least 8 times, maybe more, over my many years.
Some other time someone should ask me to iterate a drop of water using my methodology (which I do in A New Ethos in Game Design, and I also provide the methodological approach for the reader to emulate by inserting their own data-elements).
|
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Jun 25, 2018 15:52:55 GMT -5
I can take 1 (one) design element and by interrogating it and expanding on the information derived from repeatedly doing so, create a strong world concept synopsis in about an hour. Let's see. I've done that at least 8 times, maybe more, over my many years. Some other time someone should ask me to iterate a drop of water using my methodology (which I do in A New Ethos in Game Design, and I also provide the methodological approach for the reader to emulate by inserting their own data-elements). Consider it asked. At your convenience, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jun 25, 2018 16:05:59 GMT -5
Preserving the setting is important, What do you mean by preserving the setting? The short answer is protecting the integrity of your world. We make hard facts and soft facts, the DM changes the soft facts but if he allows a hard fact to be altered it will affect the integrity and the playability of the setting. The DM, I believe, is a player as well, and we have the right to say no and not have to tell the players why. We are judges; if we always say yes and change our setting to fit the fickle whims of the player, are we really judging? They did not spend their days off building and fussing over this thing. Not to mention that I want my games to have a specific feel to them. Does this mean that the players aren't affecting the world and bringing change through play? Absolutely not! Part of protecting the integrity of your world is to make sure that the laws of consequences are observed, including unintended consequences. I am also a fussy man, things bug me that might not bug others. I keep a very strict calendar, I do observe the value of a gold piece, I keep the track of NPCs on multiple levels, and I do my very best to keep consistency there so that the players can lean on it. Things must make logical sense to me. My players are the same way so we have an agreement on that. I do take a writers approach to this. If I am going to change one of the hard facts, I will start subtly foreshadowing. Once the players have explored and settled in, then it might be time to mix things up. Since I was consistent they can tell when something happens that shouldn't. BTW, I don't consider players knocking off a King or starting a Thieves Guild to be trashing my setting, that is interacting and playing within the parameters of the game. A big part of preserving the setting is to not allow modern ideas and principles into the game on my end. If we are playing a medieval game the NPCs follow those guidelines. If I create a hardrule that dictates that citizenship must be purchased and comes with specific responsibilities, that is the way it is. That is a condition of the game. I hope this answers your question Q Man  |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jun 25, 2018 22:07:58 GMT -5
I can see robertsconley 's Fantasy Sandbox series and other similar world building essays as being very intimidating to a beginner, I tell people to start by thinking about the world you would like to game in and start making notes in a notebook and just keep making notes as you get ideas. When it starts to become real to you, then start doing things with the notes besides thinking about them. For one person you might start with a map, another person might start with a creation legend, another might write an essay about a great hero or about a disaster, and another and another would each start some different way. Putter around and figure out what works for you, every designer follows their muse in their own way. While everybody thinks different about this stuff, it helps to have some way of organizing the information. That what the How to Make a Fantasy Sandbox is about. A method to organizing the information about the setting. If a person is intimidated then start with a smaller area. What people don't realize that double the map size means 4x the work. Conversely half the map size is 1/4 the work. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jun 26, 2018 13:30:51 GMT -5
I can see robertsconley 's Fantasy Sandbox series and other similar world building essays as being very intimidating to a beginner, I tell people to start by thinking about the world you would like to game in and start making notes in a notebook and just keep making notes as you get ideas. When it starts to become real to you, then start doing things with the notes besides thinking about them. For one person you might start with a map, another person might start with a creation legend, another might write an essay about a great hero or about a disaster, and another and another would each start some different way. Putter around and figure out what works for you, every designer follows their muse in their own way. While everybody thinks different about this stuff, it helps to have some way of organizing the information. That what the How to Make a Fantasy Sandbox is about. A method to organizing the information about the setting. If a person is intimidated then start with a smaller area. What people don't realize that double the map size means 4x the work. Conversely half the map size is 1/4 the work. I think your Fantasy Sandbox series is quite intimidating to most people. I am glad I did not see it before I started reffing. Now a year into reffing, now at that point I was ready for it, shame it was not around back then in the spring of 76 after I had my first 500 hours of reffing under my belt. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jun 26, 2018 15:02:20 GMT -5
I think your Fantasy Sandbox series is quite intimidating to most people. I am glad I did not see it before I started reffing. Now a year into reffing, now at that point I was ready for it, shame it was not around back then in the spring of 76 after I had my first 500 hours of reffing under my belt. What intimidating about it? I gotten a lot of feedback over the years so I am curious where yours fall. For example step 1 1) Using one page sketch a world or continent map To me that doesn't seem to be a big deal. People doodle all the time, this is doodling for a purpose. However if one glances at my post I talk about currents and wind pattern. But I do preface with this. Followed by And then attempt to give three rules and an example of how one can make a semi realistic map. But it may be in doing that a reader, like yourself, lose track that I said A result I didn't effectively communicate there is a range of ways to doing step 1. Most of my posts I tried to write in this manner. Describe a loose easy way of doing, talk briefly about a super detailed method, and then describe a intermediate level of doing things. I also got feed back on the fact there are 34 steps and that it takes two weeks of evening to do. I tell them that I find most people are doing this. They are not doing in the order I outlined. Nor they write everything up. But most referee I know novice or otherwise do say step 29 and have a list of important NPCs or monsters in their hand. It may not be 12, it may be more or more likely a lot less. And it is 50-50 whether it is written down in any fashion. But they thought of their important NPCs and creatures and came to some decision about it while doing work on the campaign. I just lay it out in a explicit procedure. And yeah when you look at it all at once it make a person go wow. The final thing I will say that the scope of the article is to create a region for a campaign, 200 miles by 150 miles. What I didn't get into is the smaller (or larger) scales. I guess i figured when the day came I wrote this up for publication that I would cover those in other chapters. |
|
