Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 18:48:50 GMT -6
TPD, not to be unfriendly, but instead of getting more and more lost in your very particular semantic framework, between all sorts of, again, very contestable subdivisions (primary-quinary), and equally debatable, implied personal rating systems (good-"bad"), why don't you ask the most basic question first, and then go from there:
"When you create a campaign setting, what do you do?"
Personally, I'd assume that worldbuilding, to most, would be something organic - like, usually, people don't sit down and say, "I'm going to create a world". Mainly, they want to tell stories, even if just in the background of a game, and from there, things gradually evolve. In time, the degree of separation from the original source of inspiration or model gradually become so big that any initial similarity eventually fades. That's why I think it would be so hard for most to give a simple answer to what you're asking.
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Oct 25, 2016 19:55:17 GMT -6
What do you mean by "from scratch" and "whole cloth"? As opposed to using someone else's setting, like Greyhawk or Blackmoor? [snip] Or do you mean, not incorporating anything from any outside sources, such as Greyhawk and Blackmoor or Fantasy literature and film? Yes, it can have elves and dwarves, etc, but not be imitative of Greyhawk or Blackmoor. By from scratch, I mean inspired from original literary sources (such as Tolkien), myth, legend, folklore and the like, including films such as the Ray Harryhausen films. Not pre-filltered through modern 3rd party eyes. I do mean with your own take on it, not imitating another existing campaign world. [snip] By 100% I mean not imitating any existing campaign, it means a fresh take on the material from as many original sources as you want to use. So, I think that by the above definition, my main alternate original AD&D campaign world, Mendenein, would fall into the 50-80% original range or so. (My primary AD&D campaign is of course Greyhawk). I've created and built other campaign settings and worlds over the decades, and leveraged published material too, of course, but Mendenein is probably my most realized AD&D setting. Its main connections back to Greyhawk were the nations of the Horned Society and Iuz, and some shared gods, and the Castle, but I was always actively reeling in and stepping away from Greyhawk and its influence in my campaigns (my Greyhawk Castle was also known as the Lair of Thelmon Onvalth on and off for many years, too, for example). I've also run alternate and amalgamated takes on Greyhawk*, the Known World, Sanctuary/Thieves World, Blackmoor, The Primal Order, HPL/CAS/REH, Lankhmar, Averoigne, Middle Earth (primarily First Age), the Great Kingdom Ascendant, and the pre-greybox Forgotten Realms, but I'm not counting those in this mix. We've done small-scope campaigns that were Grecian, Nordic, and Slavic in flavor, but none were ever more than several adventures strung together---no real worlds-building with planar cosmology, gods, nations, and such. So I don't count those as true campaigns either. Most of my primarily original campaign building was for non-D&D RPGs, I suppose * Perhaps most notably my 175 CY Greyhawk campaign, and I've been working on an Abyssal campaign and a Black Ice Age campaign most-recently, along with the usual mix of other Greyhawk/Kalibruhn/Maure Castle-derivative materials. Still all derivative
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 20:04:56 GMT -6
So, I think that by the above definition, my main alternate original AD&D campaign world, Mendenein, would fall into the 50-80% original range or so. A quite masterly self-evaluation and well done. Just what I was hoping for when I started this thread. I would love to have the chance to play in one of your campaigns. I think it is obvious that you could do a 100% original if you wanted. But there is nothing wrong IMO if you do not do so. What you do is about what works for you. As stated, I was curious about where people think they fall in what they do and I was not wanting to have a debate about terms and definitions. Thank you grodog for honoring the spirit of the question with a thoughtful answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2016 21:38:00 GMT -6
Just wondering, have you ever created a campaign world completely from scratch? Very good question. My answer would be yes, several times over. Worldbuilding is my favorite part and I am always building whether I have anyone to game with or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2016 22:24:29 GMT -6
Great to see the (MIY) Make It Yourself group voting, thanks guys!
|
|
|
Post by dragondaddy on Oct 30, 2016 13:48:31 GMT -6
Yes, there are multiple fantasy worlds, these were completed just since 2009 or so, and are linked for your viewing pleasure... Merthyr, known by some as Ashavergath 2014 The fourth D&D game world. I started inking this in 1991. Completed it in 2014. Includes a 64 page campaign guide. With more than twenty major kingdoms covering the west half of the map, and more unexplored wilderness than all twenty kingdoms put together. Merthyr, a.k.a Ashavergath Political Map 2008 This political map was finished before the final large scale map as the unfinished eastern seacoast ended up being slightly different. Azebron 2011 For DJ Chadwick. He created the world, I added more to it and completely redid the map. Unnamed Map 2011 Done in just over an hour as five-minute Friday map. For G+. Don't have your own custom brew gameworld? Start with this one and give it a name. Falchodas 2012 After suffering a major defeat, the Roman Ninth Legion was lured through a Star Portal by the Druids of the Picts North of Eboracum in 117 a.d., and they have never returned. The remainder of the Legion found themselves on a distant planet circling a distant star named Falchodas. They had been summoned by Dragons to help fight a great war. This is their story... When a group of Roman soldiers are trapped on a strange new world, they must learn new ways to fight, and new magic. Failing in their bid to steal enchanted stones from the legendary dragons the players begin an all out war on the dragons to ensure the survival of their fellow legionaires. In the process they might discovers the keys to the magic that may see them all home safely, and free themselves from being marooned so far from their homes. Falchodas, Fantasy D&D Campaign Map 2012 Falchodas, Fantasy D&D Political Map 2012 Some new creatures found on Falchodas (There is an entire new 36 page monster manual for creatures just unique to this world;Hadarn ValA Large 8'-12' at the shoulder Beast found in Ashavergath. Artwork for the campaign setting by Stefan Poag. This winged quadruped somewhat resembles a flying dire wolf, although it lacks fur, and canine teeth, and is smooth jawed. Typically, Hadarn' Val only attack... QordasQordas are giant 12'-14'+ tall very dangerous semi-intelligent Saurians that can be found in the wilderness close to Novus Roma (New Rome). Artwork for the Ashavergath Campaign setting by Stefan Poag. These giant reptiles were created by Fai'Tal wizards. Ranging from 12 to 16 feet tall full grown, they closely resemble the creatures they were derived from, the Lizardmen. Biped reptiles with a long tail to balance, they are fast, agile, and aggressive hunters... Dat DefDat Def are highly intelligent, lawful, giant Insectoids from the Coleoptera family. They share a telepathic link with other Dat Def, and are a hive/brood species led by a giant Queen. They have built some of the most advanced subterranean cities in Ashavergath, and they often fight the Dragons (and their former Roman allies). Artwork for the Ashavergath Campaign setting by Stefan Poag. Full gallery of gaming maps created to support these worlds; Campaign Maps and ExtrasI have three more in the works at the moment, an old school D&D campaign world, one I'll be beginning in about a week with a brand new D&D game group we are forming, and one more the week after when I host a worldbuilding workshop at UCon in Ann Arbor just outside of Detroit on the weekend of the 11th-13th.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2016 18:18:09 GMT -6
Unnamed Map 2011 Done in just over an hour as five-minute Friday map. For G+. Don't have your own custom brew gameworld? Start with this one and give it a name. Wait dragondaddy, you created this map in an hour!!!! Wow!! I like your maps and the other stuff you did too. This is great and I am really impressed. You and I need to talk.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Oct 30, 2016 20:53:31 GMT -6
Merthyr, known by some as Ashavergath 2014 The fourth D&D game world. I started inking this in 1991. Completed it in 2014. Includes a 64 page campaign guide. With more than twenty major kingdoms covering the west half of the map, and more unexplored wilderness than all twenty kingdoms put together. DD, that's amazing! Ever think about publishing that?
|
|
arkansan
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 229
|
Post by arkansan on Oct 30, 2016 21:16:46 GMT -6
Merthyr, known by some as Ashavergath 2014 The fourth D&D game world. I started inking this in 1991. Completed it in 2014. Includes a 64 page campaign guide. With more than twenty major kingdoms covering the west half of the map, and more unexplored wilderness than all twenty kingdoms put together. DD, that's amazing! Ever think about publishing that? Seconded, that is really great work!
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Oct 31, 2016 4:44:52 GMT -6
DragonDaddy -- those are some nice maps. I am envious.
|
|
|
Post by capvideo on Oct 31, 2016 12:36:44 GMT -6
DragonDaddy’s maps remind of the very first campaign I developed. Before I’d ever even DMed, and I had no idea how to go about creating a map—and no idea that I didn’t have any idea. I mapped an island at 50 feet per square. I ended up with seven taped-together “scrolls” five sheets high, and every time the players went east/west I had to unwrap another scroll. Impossible to game with, but somehow we still had fun!
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Oct 31, 2016 13:56:24 GMT -6
Totally from scratch? Yup. That's my preferred method. I favour "bottom-up" design as opposed to "top-down". The latter seems to be less enjoyable as much more details must be front-loaded.
Which raises another question: how many people design their campaigns via one of those two methods -- or perhaps both?
I have used published modules (solely as disconnected one-offs) and love doing that, but, to me, that's a secondary pursuit.
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Oct 31, 2016 16:08:19 GMT -6
Very interesting stuff folks! Just in case you don't know this about me, I have a BA in creative writing. Now that being said, all creative effort is usually inspired by something else and then spun to your own purposes. It makes doing some things a little easier on the whole. That being said there is also a case here for cultural bias. Having grown up in the Western World my folkloric and mythological background is steeped very firmly in the Medieval, Norse, Celtic, and Greco-Roman. Great stuff to be sure! However I find Meso-American, African, and Asian folktales and mythology more fascinating as I was not steeped in the cultures of those peoples. Case in Point: Tekumel. Great world, but lots of people seemed to not get "it". From what I gather if you ran it like a cross between a Cecil B Demille epic and a pulp story you were on the right track. (Thanks Chirene!) Ok, enough about that. It was just some observations.
I have tried to create whole cloth worlds to be sure. But I usually give up because the detail I start getting into really bogs down quickly. It tends to be more of an anthropology experiment.... Trying to simplify things is hard for me to do. The best advice I ever got though was start with a map. Maps give you a solid foundation for where the world is. The landscape suggests borders and areas of conflict over resources. The basic things that all species struggle with.
As far as borrowing from other sources, absolutely do it. If it isn't quite what you want, give it a tweak or two till it does! Reskinning races is a great tool as well.
|
|
arkansan
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 229
|
Post by arkansan on Oct 31, 2016 16:13:50 GMT -6
Totally from scratch? Yup. That's my preferred method. I favour "bottom-up" design as opposed to "top-down". The latter seems to be less enjoyable as much more details must be front-loaded. Which raises another question: how many people design their campaigns via one of those two methods -- or perhaps both? I have used published modules (solely as disconnected one-offs) and love doing that, but, to me, that's a secondary pursuit. I use a mix of both. I try to get some very basic cosmological details and then focus on one area and work out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2016 18:02:58 GMT -6
Totally from scratch? Yup. That's my preferred method. I favour "bottom-up" design as opposed to "top-down". The latter seems to be less enjoyable as much more details must be front-loaded. Which raises another question: how many people design their campaigns via one of those two methods -- or perhaps both? I have used published modules (solely as disconnected one-offs) and love doing that, but, to me, that's a secondary pursuit. See the poll here.
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Oct 31, 2016 21:26:22 GMT -6
Totally from scratch? Yup. That's my preferred method. I favour "bottom-up" design as opposed to "top-down". The latter seems to be less enjoyable as much more details must be front-loaded. Which raises another question: how many people design their campaigns via one of those two methods -- or perhaps both? I have used published modules (solely as disconnected one-offs) and love doing that, but, to me, that's a secondary pursuit. See the poll here. Thanks for the link, but with only three votes that hardly qualifies as a good sampling.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Oct 31, 2016 21:41:12 GMT -6
Thanks for the link, but with only three votes that hardly qualifies as a good sampling. Well, to be fair, that poll/thread is younger than (and inspired by) this one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2016 14:12:42 GMT -6
Thanks for the link, but with only three votes that hardly qualifies as a good sampling. Well, to be fair, that poll/thread is younger than (and inspired by) this one. Thank you foxroe, I created that thread to answer that question and then I was inspired by DungeonDevil's post to add the poll and yeah, I hope as many people vote in it as have voted here.
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Nov 1, 2016 17:39:54 GMT -6
Thanks for the link, but with only three votes that hardly qualifies as a good sampling. Well, to be fair, that poll/thread is younger than (and inspired by) this one. Ah, good to know. Apologies all around.
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Nov 5, 2016 0:57:33 GMT -6
Nowadays I'm more likely to mix and match stuff from different campaigns. I have a bunch of games and sourcebooks that have been read but never played in, so I may as well save myself a lot of work and use my stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Nov 5, 2016 8:00:53 GMT -6
As most good peaople answered before me: I created all the settings my players adventured in, but borrowed from/imitated a lot (at first mostly Tolkien, later from "real" History).
To sum up: "100% made up from scratch, but 0% original"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2016 10:39:04 GMT -6
As most good people answered before me: I created all the settings my players adventured in, but borrowed from/imitated a lot (at first mostly Tolkien, later from "real" History). To sum up: "100% made up from scratch, but 0% original" I would surmise from what you have described that you are quite high on the originality scale as well. Too many IMO sell themselves short!
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Nov 6, 2016 14:57:47 GMT -6
Don't get me wrong: there is nothing bitter nor self-deprecative in my statement. Fifteen years ago, it would have been, but not nowadays. First I wouldn't value originality just for the sake of originality. Besides, too much bizarre settings can be hard to get into: I can create a world were every name is composed in consonants, were -us is a suffixe for female names and -ia for male names, where gods are abstract shapes and concepts instead of anthromorphic entitie, where gravity works upwards, etc., but I don't want to impose to my players to have to do their homework before play. For all their merits, some settings like Tekumel or Glorantha can seem overwhelming to the neophye player (or DM)
Familiarity has its advantages: either with the tropes of "vanilla" post-tolkienian fantasy or with real-worls analogues ("You see what dwarves are in Tolkien? You can imagine sea-raiders like the vikings ? Rights? Well, the land of Septentriona is a world of small mountains islands populated by dwarves and vikings ").
In the other hand, lately I have come to ask me wether we really need fantasy settings if those are just a patchwork of real-world cultures with the numbers filed-off: I mean, wy bother inventing fantastic names? If you want a setting with a vestigial empire , barbaric hordes roaming on the borders, northern sea-raiders and southern camel riding swarthy nomads, why not just pick Europe circa 900, sprinkle some elves, goblins and dragons, and call it a day ? And if you think that real History is a little limiting , you can play the card of alternate realities: just change one or two elements that the players can easily incorporate
If you veer for an original setting, because you want to have some change, for the sake of exotism, etc., I think that the best is to have one or three central elements that everyone can easily grasp, then rely on player's familairity with the usual tropes to fill-in the gaps .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2016 20:38:00 GMT -6
Don't get me wrong: there is nothing bitter nor self-deprecative in my statement. Fifteen years ago, it would have been, but not nowadays. First I wouldn't value originality just for the sake of originality. Besides, too much bizarre settings can be hard to get into: I can create a world were every name is composed in consonants, were -us is a suffixe for female names and -ia for male names, where gods are abstract shapes and concepts instead of anthromorphic entitie, where gravity works upwards, etc., but I don't want to impose to my players to have to do their homework before play. For all their merits, some settings like Tekumel or Glorantha can seem overwhelming to the neophye player (or DM) Familiarity has its advantages: either with the tropes of "vanilla" post-tolkienian fantasy or with real-worls analogues ("You see what dwarves are in Tolkien? You can imagine sea-raiders like the vikings ? Rights? Well, the land of Septentriona is a world of small mountains islands populated by dwarves and vikings "). In the other hand, lately I have come to ask me wether we really need fantasy settings if those are just a patchwork of real-world cultures with the numbers filed-off: I mean, wy bother inventing fantastic names? If you want a setting with a vestigial empire , barbaric hordes roaming on the borders, northern sea-raiders and southern camel riding swarthy nomads, why not just pick Europe circa 900, sprinkle some elves, goblins and dragons, and call it a day ? And if you think that real History is a little limiting , you can play the card of alternate realities: just change one or two elements that the players can easily incorporate If you veer for an original setting, because you want to have some change, for the sake of exoticism, etc., I think that the best is to have one or three central elements that everyone can easily grasp, then rely on player's familiarity with the usual tropes to fill-in the gaps. Just for the record,familiarity does have its advantages and you can keep all of those advantages and still be very original.Also just for the record,You can do all of the things mentioned here in this quote and not be original at all.Let me restate what you said in your last sentence:
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Nov 6, 2016 21:43:50 GMT -6
Right on, @prophyre, my campaign is set in our own historic pasts where all the legends and myths are somehow true and syncretically relatable.
Some of my players started retiring their high lvl PCs in the fay wilderness in the middle of Europa. The next round of low lvl PCs will be heading off on the silk route. They may just find Xanadu. And then what?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2016 10:48:58 GMT -6
Right on, @prophyre, my campaign is set in our own historic pasts where all the legends and myths are somehow true and syncretically relatable. Some of my players started retiring their high lvl PCs in the fay wilderness in the middle of Europa. The next round of low lvl PCs will be heading off on the silk route. They may just find Xanadu. And then what? Another good example of how to be original! You don't have to be bizarre to be original.
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Nov 7, 2016 12:56:31 GMT -6
I enjoy playing in or running historical settings. Unfortunately, I seem to be in the minority in my group.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Nov 7, 2016 16:10:22 GMT -6
Don't get me wrong, though.
It is still pretty much just coo coo land.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2016 17:31:51 GMT -6
Don't get me wrong, though. It is still pretty much just coo coo land. To be coo coo would mean your game is radically different from all of the excellent stuff I have seen online from you. Coo coo can be fun, I just haven't seen that in your stuff up to now!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2016 17:33:28 GMT -6
I enjoy playing in or running historical settings. Unfortunately, I seem to be in the minority in my group. Starting from any point in time, you have so many options, who wouldn't want to play in that? Maybe you can run an online game with your setting of choice?
|
|