Creating my own fantasy World

[Nightlord256]

Hey Guys!

I know this is an ambishous (sp) progect, but I ahve started to create my own little fantasy world :D. I am going to post the data here as I write it. feel free to give feed back, or 'borrow' parts of it.

I am just going to attach the files to save space

lemme know what you think!

[tkdguy]

Interesting description of the deities. You may wish to include how they interact with one another.

The realms and planes have interesting names. I'm looking forward to seeing them detailed.

[teh bunneh]

It's a good start, Nightlord. It's interesting that you start with the gods and work down from there. When I'm building a world, I usually start with the geography and work up -- building cultures and people who are shaped by the world. But that's just one way to do it. Creating a mythology and working from there is certainly another way. I'll be watching this thread to see where you go from here. :)

[John Desmarais]

It's a good start, Nightlord. It's interesting that you start with the gods and work down from there. When I'm building a world, I usually start with the geography and work up -- building cultures and people who are shaped by the world. But that's just one way to do it. Creating a mythology and working from there is certainly another way. I'll be watching this thread to see where you go from here. :)

Actually, if he comes up with a really really strong creation myth (or myths), starting with the gods and working down could end up with a really interesting world.

"Why are there mountains over there?"

"Because Xethor wanted them there."

[assault]

There seem to be three main ways of designing a world: cosmology first, map first, and dungeon first. Back in the day, I used to favour the second of these.

A lot depends on the feel of the world you want to create, and, in fact, this feel can help determine which technique you want to use.

I find map first gives the most 'realistic' feel, but the least 'fantastic'. In other words, it's best for Swords and Sorcery type stuff.

Cosmology first is best for worlds where magic is a core fact of the universe, and not something bolted on the side. It's maps, as John pointed out, tend to reflect this as well. Here (http://www.henry-davis.com/MAPS/EMwebpages/205mono.html) is one world map that might be suitable for this kind of setting. For smaller areas, I suggest using itinerary maps.

One thing that I don't do any more with either of these options is use hex grids. Or rather, I do, but eliminate them from any version of the map the players will ever see.

On the other hand, I have no compunction using them with the final technique. This is the technique best used with old school DnD-type games, where you map a dungeon, a base town, and a small patch of wilderness surrounding the two. You expand from there according to need and/or inspiration. The result is usually rather more haphazard, but the resulting games can be as least as much fun as the ones that use more "sophisticated" techniques.

Personally, aside from being an RPGer, I am also a wargamer. My preferences tend to reflect that. I've long since come to the conclusion that old school Avalon Hill/SPI style hex maps aren't the preferred option for simulating pre-modern warfare, or any similar kind of strategic decision making process. Tactical decision making is something else, of course, and having a map divided into standardised areas can be useful in situations involving resource allocation. The latter is probably the best argument against the use of itinerary maps, but can be worked around.

There is a point, however, where you can't avoid conventional maps. You just don't need them on a "strategic" level.

[assault]

Looking at your stuff... why have you bothered with the planes? Are they going to be relevant? Presumably yes, but why?

EDIT: I might whip up a little world myself, just for laughs, and to see how I would go about it these days. Don't worry, I won't hijack your thread with it!

[stewart]

It's a good start, Nightlord. It's interesting that you start with the gods and work down from there. When I'm building a world, I usually start with the geography and work up -- building cultures and people who are shaped by the world. But that's just one way to do it. Creating a mythology and working from there is certainly another way. I'll be watching this thread to see where you go from here. :)


when i created my game world for the FH campaign i'm running, i also started at the gods and worked down to geography. :)

kinda like how John Desmarais says:
"why is a big mountain there? bc that's where [god's name] made it bc of [reason]."

kinda like; gods --> what the gods built/created --> world history --> present setup.

and when i did make a map, it was only of te immediate area of where the game began. tend to introduce more and more of the world through actual play.

have fun making your world!

[Remjin]

Well, that's certainly interesting... a start, certainly.

When creating worlds, I've always started with the people and worked it out from there. I'm terrible with maps, I always lose patience with them...

Being a fan of interaction between PCs themselves and the world they live in, I've always focused on the various cultures, people, and their societies. Once I determine what sorts of people would be interesting, I then start constructing various parts of the world like notable places, cities, etc., and by then I usually poop out and can't finish... I have yet to complete one, so good luck in actually creating an entire world.

At this point, all I have is a large pile of notes creating interesting people, a couple of cool cities, a few notable locations outside of the cities, and a lot of the interesting social bits that pertain to characters like orders of warriors, philosophical ideas adhered to by certain cultures, chosen architectural motifs to go with certain cultures, and even decided on a couple of races and their social, political, and military structures in a broad way.

Having a large world view and a pantheon and even a good map are yet to be conceived. Putting it all together is a huge task, I wish you the best of luck and creative... uh... what's the word... motivation. :o

[PhilFleischmann]

There seem to be three main ways of designing a world: cosmology first, map first, and dungeon first.
I generally use the dungeon-first method. And that's what I recommend to others, for the following reasons:

1) It ensures that the world will actually be *used*. Here's an adventure for the adventurers! Have fun! Neither the players nor the GM need to know everything about the world before play begins. No sense wasting time creating aspects of the world that the players will never know or care about.
2) It lets the players have some impact on the way the campaign goes. If they didn't like a particular adventure, then don't build the campaign around that one. Design another adventure (in the same world) and run that one for the players. If they like the villain, maybe you will eventually bring him back when the players least expect it. Thus are story arcs born.
3) It creates a world that feels more organic and less contrived. A meticulously planned out world can feel like living in a giant machine. A world that unfolds as the players explore it feels more natural. And it makes the players feel like a more important part of the world.
4) It's easier. Remember, this isn't a fantasy novel you're writing. It's a game. The players will do a lot of the work for you, without even trying. They'll come up with background stories for their characters, which will become parts of the world. "You're from a little fishing village with some scary orc-infested mountains to the east? OK, I'll put it on the map right here."
5) It forces you to focus on what's most important in your game. A really cool overall world-concept doesn't mean anything without interesting adventures.
6) It gives you the flexibility to add new things to the world when you need to.

I played D&D for years (and GMed - excuse me: DMed), and had a lot of fun , long before I ever even thought about the "world" that contained all of these adventures.

[Rapier]

I don't know if I would say I go "Dungeon First," but I definately work from micro to macro. I start with a small area like a valley or small town/village and then expand a bit and keep expanding.

There isn't necessarily a good time (or bad time) to start talking about deities and things. You squeeze them in whenever it seems appropriate or you get some good ideas bopping around yer noggin.

[assault]

I traditionally favoured "map first", because drawing maps is fun, even if you never use them! I've still got a big collection of maps I drew about 25 years ago. Of course, none of them suit my needs these days...

Very few of them were full world maps, however. Most covered single countries, or border areas between a couple of them. One I remember was the border between the Elvish lands to the west and the Humans to the east, which was being raided by Bad Guys from the north. The key tension was, of course, that the "human" lands had been Elvish land only a few centuries ago - well within Elvish living memory! There was always a risk that the Elves might have gotten together to reclaim their old homes...

I find that it is usually necessary to know something about deities ahead of time. Otherwise you fall foul of player questions during character generation (even in DnD). "What ghodz can my Priest character worship?" is the most obvious one.

Of course, these days I usually cheat, and give them the choice between the One True Ghod and playing some other kind of character... There are other ghodz, but their worship is socially marginalised. PCs can follow them, but they don't have specialist priests.

But that's just my preference, and a bit of laziness. It's either that or I just file the serial numbers off the ancient Greek pantheon and shuffle the order of importance a little. (Ditch Zeus and Hera, make Apollo and Demeter the chief honchoes, add some local nymphs/goddesses and heroes/gods, and away you go...)

I find the Etruscan and other early Italian pantheons good sources for alternative names.

[PhilFleischmann]

I traditionally favoured "map first", because drawing maps is fun, even if you never use them! I've still got a big collection of maps I drew about 25 years ago. Of course, none of them suit my needs these days...
Yep! So do I! I don't necessarily always follow my own advice. ;) If you want to create parts of your world just because you enjoy it, by all means go ahead. I do, too. But I try to be practical and flexible: concentrate on what the players need and want, and don't get upset when a good chunk of your creation winds up being irrelevent, or even discarded.

Somewhere, I still have my original world map that I created in loving detail on graph paper decades ago. It's pure crap, and bears only the slightest resemblance to the campaign world it evolved into. If the players ever see this map and try to follow it, they won't get far. Say, that might make for an interesting adventure! A wildly inaccurate map leads to all sorts of whackiness!


I find that it is usually necessary to know something about deities ahead of time. Otherwise you fall foul of player questions during character generation (even in DnD). "What ghodz can my Priest character worship?" is the most obvious one.
My answer would be to just continue the dialogue:

GM: What kind of god do you want your priest to worship?
Player1: How about a really obscure, almost unknown, god?
GM: Sure! What's the god's name? What are the god's values? What's the god's story? etc.
Player2: I want to worship whichever god is the biggest, highest ranking god in this world.
GM: Well, I require that all PCs be good guys, so I'm assuming you mean "biggest of the *good* gods." Fair enough, his name is Delphileq, and he is the god of justice, and creator of the world as it first was.
Player3: Is there an equivalent of Aphrodite? That's who I want for my goddess.
GM: Sure!
Player4: Is there a god of the crescent moon?
GM: Not yet. Invent one!

Yes, you'll probably need some basic framework of gods to reflect what it is you want, but the players can do a lot of the work. Let them decide what their religious traditions are. Let them decide what raiment the priests wear, what symbols they carry, what the temples look like, etc. They can make up their own myths and legends of the gods. And in fact, they don't have to even be consistant with each other, just like real world religions.

This assumes that players aren't going to come face-to-face with the gods themselves or at least not engage them in crunchy combat.

[Remjin]

Well, as a hater of dungeons and most typical elements of a D&D game (thus my moving ti Hero), I tend to avoid the typical pantheon of gods, absolutism, and other usual trappings of that sector of the genre.

I'm more a fan of the intrigue, action, and often mobile aspects of a game. As such, one must have some broad ideas on various cultural, social, and other specifics of a world before the completely unpredictable party trapes across it.

I'd never map out and plan every tiny thing. As someone suggested, letting the players help fill things in is good. But for players to have a context and a feel for the world, there are many things that should be defined. I just don't enjoy interaction on the "generic people" level and find roleplay to be richer and more interesting when players have to consider local customs, political structures, laws, and belief systems when acting in them. Otherwise, everyplace is the same...

Everyone's tastes vary, I'm just not into the simplicity of generic just because it feels like nowhere and gives me nothing to care about as faceless people mill around faceless boxes. Broadly describing a place and defining some aspects of its "feel" makes it all the more real. From there, all the details get fitted in by collaboration, with me just defining major elements like a significant home/fortress/monastery/etc.

The overall pantheon of gods is also a bit simplistic to me considering the religious variances of history. I tend to have a few systems of belief and less aspectual religions. Then again, I'm not a fan of high fantasy, I like medium... :D

[Dr. Anomaly]

Generally, I will start with the myth (usually the creation myth) and move on (downwards in detail) to there.

What I usually do is have some basic things that I want to make sure get incorporated, or to find reasons for... and then set up the myths to explain them, and let the telling of the myth fill in the other pieces as it gets told. In a way, it's a bit like drawing the map first and then confining yourself to using what you've drawn, but in this case, instead of drawing a physical map of the world, I'm drawing a metaphorical map of the reasons FOR the world.

An example of how I do it is here (http://herogame.dans.cust.servlets.net/forums/showthread.php?t=16753).

[Enforcer84]

I start statting out video game characters and build a map with a floating city and then hammer out a bunch of random "Names", call them gods and call it a day.

[PhilFleischmann]

Well, as a hater of dungeons and most typical elements of a D&D game (thus my moving ti Hero),
Just in case it wasn't clear: When I said "dungeon first," I didn't necessarily mean literally a deendee-style vast complex of underground chambers, carved out at great expense for no apparent reason, each filled with monsters who just wait around for the PCs to show up. I meant the specific adventure, regardless of its setting, underground, in the countryside, in a city, on a ship, etc., and regardless of the types of challenges it presents, monsters to kill, mysteries to solve, politicians to intrigue, locals to befriend, etc. IOW, the specific stuff the PCs are going to be actually doing in the first gaming session or three.


I just don't enjoy interaction on the "generic people" level and find roleplay to be richer and more interesting when players have to consider local customs, political structures, laws, and belief systems when acting in them. Otherwise, everyplace is the same...

Everyone's tastes vary, I'm just not into the simplicity of generic just because it feels like nowhere and gives me nothing to care about as faceless people mill around faceless boxes. Broadly describing a place and defining some aspects of its "feel" makes it all the more real. From there, all the details get fitted in by collaboration, with me just defining major elements like a significant home/fortress/monastery/etc.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, if you're referring to my post. I certainly don't endorse making places "generic" and agree that different places ought to feel different and have their own character and style. Significant NPCs should have personalities, not just stats. And many don't even need the stats, even though they still need the personality. But some of this gets more into role-playing than world building.

[Remjin]

Okay, first, let me say this... I, in no way/shape/form, meant to be insulting. After rereading my post and your comments, I could see someone reading a tone into them that I did not intend. I apologize if it came off as... well... condescending or something. It wasn't meant to be.


Just in case it wasn't clear: When I said "dungeon first," I didn't necessarily mean literally a deendee-style vast complex of underground chambers, (and etc.)

Well, as a Hero player, I kind of figured that was probably not the case with you. I do dislike the concept of even calling it such, but I was really referring to the whole D&D typical method as a whole... dungeons, deities, class structures, and the whole generic method as a whole.



I'm not sure what you mean by this, if you're referring to my post. I certainly don't endorse making places "generic" and agree that different places ought to feel different and have their own character and style. Significant NPCs should have personalities, not just stats. And many don't even need the stats, even though they still need the personality. But some of this gets more into role-playing than world building.

I'm not that sure what I meant, either, I have diarrhea of the mouth sometimes, and it just spills out whether it all makes sense or not. It doesn't help that I was typing on my PDA at the time.

In any case, I think I was meaning to go for the more defined route in world building rather than letting players define everything. As a whole, a world definition and feel tend to help define things for the players so that they don't make up all sorts of wild things that will never come together into a group in any case.

Each individual usually has his own tastes and what-not, so when a bunch of friends get together for these things, you never know what you're going to get. One of the things I like to do when starting a game is to have the players sit down and actually talk out a party somehow so that there are interactions, associations, background connections and what-not so that there's a reason that the party is together. In defining a world, I like to give a context to all of this and have a lot of things defined to imply my overall world vision, flavor of the game, etc.

Obviously, if my tastes are way off base from the players, this makes for a crappy game... so I try and match things to the players, overall. However, since I'm a terrible world builder in terms of getting anything DONE, its been an overall moot point as I stumble along putting things together and having them eventually run into the "Oh, I didn't make that part up yet" syndrome of having to do a lot of stuff on the fly.

And now, I'm pointlessly rambling on and on without any sort of structure or direction, it seems, so allow me to try and get back on point in my overly verbose way... :rolleyes:

As a whole, I like to make a relatively complete world. I run games where interaction between Faction A and Faction B (be they gangs, governments, noble houses, individuals, or otherwise) is important to the plot, sometimes complicated by Faction C or F or more... so I have to kind of define those elements to get anywhere with them, which ends up spreading out to all sorts of other things. I take great joy in creating NPCs and other interesting characters, items, histories, myths/legends, cities, societies, and otherwise. And if I ever finish one of these, it should be a lot of fun... for me. Perhaps I'll never use it, but I'll have it for whenever I find a group that will actually enjoy that type of game. Its the immersion thing, I guess. I dunno. I haven't even GMed a game in years, so it doesn't really matter anyway... hehehe.

[PhilFleischmann]

Okay, first, let me say this... I, in no way/shape/form, meant to be insulting.
Don't worry about that. I wasn't insulted. I just wanted to clarify.

The only reason I used the term "dungeon" was because that's what the earlier poster used.

Yes, it can be fun to create a fantasy world, even if just for its own sake, even if you never get to run a game in it. I certainly enjoy it.

And to summarize my advice:
If you're the kind of person who enjoys the mere act of making up a fantasy world, then just do it. Don't ask anyone else's advice. Do it the way it comes to you to do it.
If you aren't that kind of person, and you specifically *need* to creat a fantasy world because you've got some players who need a world to play in, then start with the individual adventures, and gradually build up the world as the players explore it. Pay attention to what they like. Give them some surprises often. Stay a few steps ahead of them. Eventually, all the little bits you'll have done so far will inspire ways to make connections between them and fill in the gaps.
And regardless of which kind of person you are, it's proabably a good idea to read/view as much source material as practical. Find out what the cliches are.

[assault]

The only reason I used the term "dungeon" was because that's what the earlier poster used.

And I used it, in part, to be provocative. ;)

I was also acknowledging the source of the approach.

---

Currently, my world consists of the following paragraph:
The League of the Twelve Cities hired X as their mercenary general in their war with the Kingdom of the East. His army was successful beyond their wildest dreams, totally subduing the Easterners. Treachery on the part of the League's politicians, however, led to him subjugating the League in turn, and appointing himself Tyrant...

The feel should be halfway between Hellenistic Greece and medieval Italy. Obviously I will be inserting specific names instead of "X" and so on.

[Nightlord256]

WOW!!

Thanks for all your guys comments! I have been very busy with finals and stuff (high school senoir)

I do think that after i write a rough description of all the countries i will start from the "dungeon" up so to speak.

the planes are there just because i though it would be fun to name them ;)

actually to be perfectly honest most of that stuff i didn't come up with myself, the random genorators at http://www.seventhsanctum.com/ made them for me, i just tweaked it a bit.

that site is really usfull, it has a random genorator for EVERYTHING, i recomend that you check it out.

well i'll prob up date on progress whenever i make some, but for now i need to get back to work, finals and all

Thanks agian for the help!

[phookz]

actually to be perfectly honest most of that stuff i didn't come up with myself, the random genorators at http://www.seventhsanctum.com/ made them for me, i just tweaked it a bit.

that site is really usfull, it has a random genorator for EVERYTHING, i recomend that you check it out.


Interesting site - worth of bookmarking and looking at again in the future.

Rep'd.