I have a number of projects taking up much of my time, and a lot of procrastination eating away at the rest. So, I think I'll just ask some questions. Feel free to answer, or don't, or talk about something that interests you right now.
Some setting materials are designed with a particular game system in mind, so that the magic system fits the physical structures in the game world (Hârn does this, where the places the magicians live are built around the Hârnic magic system; most games do the same for religious structures, of course). When you are using a product with a game other than the one it was designed in conjunction with, how do you handle that? If your game of choice has a magic system that centers on massive fireballs and lightning storms as the magicians' combat abilities, how do you fit that into a low-magic setting's products? Or whatever.
In general, how do you use setting products? Do you always take the setting and run it as it is written? Or do you modify it to suit your tastes? Or do you even just pull out small sections, or even single locations, and set them down in a setting of your own design (that's my general use, though some settings, like Oerth, are too good to break up like that)?
When you are designing your own setting, do you use the assumptions in your game of choice directly (encounter tables, price charts, etc)? Or do you carefully redesign those components of the game to better suit your vision?
What is your general process for designing a setting? Do you have ideas that you set down before even sitting down at the table with the players? Do you have some general ideas, but keep things loose so that ideas can come up in play? Do you just let it go and do all of your designing at the table? Some combination of these?
I always break the setting into the most useful parts and discard the rest. It makes things easier for me when I'm running a world that fits with the noise in my head rather than with a static book - although saying that the Iron Kingdoms Campaign Guide is the single greatest setting book I've ever bought and I've used about 80% of it as written over the years.
ReplyDeleteI can understand that. The Iron Kingdoms is a really good setting.
DeleteI start with the background, discarding elements that don't work and adding snippets from other systems that I want to explore. Like having the Starship Warden from Metamorphosis Alpha orbiting the Warhammer FRP setting. NPCs always get morphed to match the campaign.
ReplyDeleteThat sounds neat. So, do your settings end up being sort of gonzo franken-monsters of Cool Stuff? I love those sorts of things, sort of lurching, moaning creations of wild adventure.
DeleteI just use teleportation, planar travel, spaceships, etc. To allow my players to travel from one world to the next. This way I can use all the campaign worlds I want and it's fun to find out what fits and what doesn't.
ReplyDeleteThat's always a fun way to go. In some ways, it's like making a bigger world, since (as pointed out in the comment below) a world can be seen as a collection of various locales, each with its own flavor. I've been playing with the idea of making a huge world setting, like a ringworld, and using that as a way for the players to wander as widely as they wish. Probably there would have to be some sort of long-range travel to get from region to region - gates are always a good choice.
DeleteSpelljammer was a really neat idea for that sort of thing, too. There was a series of Judges' Guild books called the "Portals" series: Portals of Torsh, Portals of Irontooth, and Portals of Twilight were the three that saw print. It was built around the idea that there are a group of worlds tied together by a system of portals put in place in the distant past. The portals are in varying states of repair, and there are special magic items that help control the portals. It was pretty interesting.
Settings used to be the one thing that I HAD to design myself. I might steal bits from here or there, but in the end, it had to be MY creation. I got over that. Now, I enjoy using written settings more-or-less as-is, even though I tend to use my own for longer campaigns.
ReplyDeleteWhen I design a setting, I usually start either top-down or bottom-up. For bottom-up design, check out Zak's excellent article on the subject that I can't find right now.
Top down (which is intellectually more fun but has a substantial chance of being a lot of work and time going to waste at the table) should start with a map, or a few lists. A map is good for spurring the imagination; a list is good for getting the various elements of your vague vision to cohere into something resembling a unified idea (even if "post-apoc fantasy mashup randomness" IS your idea). For the map, any old map will do to start, or sketch your own. For the lists, write down a list of critters, a list of power struggles, list of things to discover, and a list of "stuff I want to see happen." Think of it like a movie trailer--it establishes that, ok, "In a world with androids, dryads, and alien centaurs, a war breaks out between the Robot Mage and the Church of the Possessed. Will our heroes discover the lost continent, discover the true origins of the Robot Mage or the sinister forces behind the Possessed?" Meanwhile, you have all of these images of cool things going on in your brain--if you're like me, it's stuff like hidden temples, and tavern brawls, and weird spaceships, etc. Then you just break the whole thing down by region.
Think of each region as a little "package deal" of stuff to explore, conflicts to get embroiled in, and ecologies to mess up. And the interactions between these things makes all of the cool x-factor stuff come out; the unintended consequences when your players upset the way the world is already interacting with itself and those events start to snowball. Because if it is a really well-designed world for gaming, then your players should be able to leave it VERY DIFFERENT from the way they came in. I used to be a little too much in love with my worlds and hated the way they got altered and messed around with by my chaotic players. But I grew up. I realized that a cool gaming world is one that gets more interesting and involving the more the player characters screw around in it, and pulling that off is a neat trick, and very rewarding.
Yeah, one of my new guiding principles is that the players are the ones telling the stories. As Referee, I am the audience and editor, and I generally provide the setting (either of my making or my choosing), but the things that happen are up to them. It is up to me and the game system to keep their ideas within the parameters of the world, and it is necessary for the players to operate under restrictions so that their creativity is tested and refined. The game system and I generate events for the players to affect or in reaction to their choices, which allows them to do things that make a difference in the setting. That can change things, as you say, and that is what is wonderful about it.
DeleteAs worldbuilders, we need to get away from all of the "My Precious (thing)" ideas. My Precious Encounter, My Precious NPC, My Precious Country. Those things may be of special interest to us, but the players may have other ideas. As Referees, we need to neutrally judge the situation, without attachment to our worldbuilding ideas. In some ways, that's why prepackaged worlds can be particularly interesting: we aren't making them, so presumably we will have less emotional investment in them. This could also be a benefit of the "just in time" sort of creation done at the table - "bottom-up" design. It's also why, I think, settings that are based on Intellectual Properties tend to be less sandboxy, more based around predesigned stories with limited interactivity. Everyone loves the setting (it's why they are playing), so no one really wants to mess it up. It's hard to imagine players carving out a new faction in Star Wars, or killing Muad'dib in Dune - and if they do, it changes things in a way that is difficult to express to others! "So, after we kicked Frodo's ass, gutted Gollum, and carved Sam's skull into a chalice, we took the One Ring and fought Sauron." It ends up sounding like the worst sort of fanfic, with the players standing in as the worst sorts of Mary Sue characters. It might be fun for those involved, but to anyone else it will naturally sound like mere power fantasy (and perhaps it is). On the other hand, if the players are required to stick within certain confines of pure narrative convenience (rather than only being limited by what I would term "world physics"), that seems unsatisfying.
Just some random thoughts that came up due to what you wrote.
Setting is something I really enjoy writing for myself, but not for others. Within the setting I'll develop cultures. From the cultures I'll expand on what gods the worship and what kind of classes would be available. Tailor make them for the setting. If magic is involved then there will be another entire culture built around it.
ReplyDeleteYeah, there's something deeply satisfying about worldbuilding in itself. It doesn't really have to be done for a functional purpose, though people like to justify it by incorporating it into gaming or writing or some other artform. I think that's why I really appreciate Zompist's Almea/Verduria project.
Delete