Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 13:33:21 GMT -6
Just wondering, have you ever created a campaign world completely from scratch?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 13:34:14 GMT -6
I create my worlds completely from the whole cloth and am curious about what others do. I voted for "Yes, 100% from the Whole Cloth".
|
|
randyb
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 92
|
Post by randyb on Oct 18, 2016 15:56:19 GMT -6
I have attempted to do so, usually more synthesis of "stuff I like" than anything from whole cloth. Hard to assess a percentage, though.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Oct 18, 2016 16:49:44 GMT -6
What do you mean by "from scratch" and "whole cloth"? As opposed to using someone else's setting, like Greyhawk or Blackmoor?
Or do you mean, not incorporating anything from any outside sources, such as Greyhawk and Blackmoor or Fantasy literature and film?
|
|
|
Post by ritt on Oct 18, 2016 17:31:51 GMT -6
Yes, I always create my own campaign settings. But I've been inspired by (and/or blatantly ripped-offed) so many fantasy novels, pulps, horror movies, game blogs, comics, old toy lines and so-such that adding "From scratch" would feel dishonest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 20:09:49 GMT -6
What do you mean by "from scratch" and "whole cloth"? As opposed to using someone else's setting, like Greyhawk or Blackmoor? 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. Now if you have the time, energy and creativity to do "absolutely everything new and utterly unique," that would be fantastic. Most of us do have day jobs so we can't really do that 100%, but that is what I wish I could have done for the last 40+ years. My current campaign does not have elves, dwarfs, hobbits or gnomes as PCs and there are no npcs of that type on the continent that the players are currently on. There may be some version of them in other parts of the world. 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.
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Oct 18, 2016 21:21:45 GMT -6
I've dabbled with creating campaign settings, but never used one. I already own too many campaign setting products I haven't even used yet!
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Oct 18, 2016 22:40:11 GMT -6
Only once. I drew up a map of an area around a large bay, ringed by mountains, then named everything (as pretentiously as possible for a teenager). Then we just went to town and made stuff up on the fly, taking turns DM'ing. It didn't last long, but it was fun. The most memorable NPC was a Magic-user of questionable alignment known as Sulaman Red-Eye who would patron the characters. His "familiar" was a creepy mute boy. I also remember it was the first time we experimented with a party of mixed alignment and hidden agendas, which resulted in a lot of PvP back-stabbing... which is probably why it didn't last very long! Otherwise, I like to use published material and tweak it to my tastes. And the sparser the material, the better (unless it's Tekumel ).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 23:20:21 GMT -6
Meleon, my only original creation of note, notably spawned from an attempt to adapt "The King of Elfland's Daughter" into a roleplaying campaign, FWIW. Now, TPD, the reason I find the wording of your question highly problematic is that I would consider it extremely pretentious to claim that I, you, or anyone, within any literary genre, built anything "from scratch": Especially in a genre as narrowly defined, and as overcrowded as fantasy, who can really say to have found anything completely new? Like, I ran a Blackmoor online game on a daily base for seven years, participated in a Midgard game for eight, and ran Ravenloft games for around ten years before I started with developing "Meleon" in earnest; I am not really that good at analyzing my own work, but I would assume my fantasy fiction, especially in English, from the outside will suspiciously look as if I had been inspired by, wait for it, Blackmoor, Midgard, and Ravenloft. What I mean is, it's impossible to negate your personal history, or means of contextualization.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Oct 19, 2016 1:06:50 GMT -6
That's a good point Rafael. In retrospect, the world I mentioned in the previous post was likely very much influenced by Greyhawk (which is where my group adventured 95% of the time) and Mystara (where most of us probably started ). Not to mention all of the literary influences...
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Oct 19, 2016 3:37:13 GMT -6
I've created several settings. Whether they ever see the light of day is another story.
|
|
|
Post by xerxez on Oct 19, 2016 4:48:07 GMT -6
I created one from scratch that was somewhat original but in adapting it for gaming purposes I added pop fantasy elements because we ran it using 1st Ed. It was originally to be a novel setting, I got several chapters written and then it got shelved. I have since lost the pages.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Oct 19, 2016 15:47:50 GMT -6
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. Admittedly, I prefer to make my own. You may find me odd ( don't answer that ), but I really find it difficult to run published material. It may be that my play style makes it feel inhibiting. I prefer that a campaign unfolds organically, little by little. I don't think it's necessarily anything to do with the quality of material available. There is some cool and interesting stuff put out by others. And there are some long running campaigns that I completely get why others would be interested in them (like Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Tekumel). I've just found it difficult to make it my own, so, instead, just make my own. Even in making my own settings, cultures, and, ultimately, world(s), I do draw from many sources, which will depend on what might be striking my interest at the time. It might even be something I read on a blog or this forum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 16:09:36 GMT -6
Meleon, my only original creation of note, notably spawned from an attempt to adapt "The King of Elfland's Daughter" into a roleplaying campaign, FWIW. Now, TPD, the reason I find the wording of your question highly problematic is that I would consider it extremely pretentious to claim that I, you, or anyone, within any literary genre, built anything "from scratch": Especially in a genre as narrowly defined, and as overcrowded as fantasy, who can really say to have found anything completely new? Like, I ran a Blackmoor online game on a daily base for seven years, participated in a Midgard game for eight, and ran Ravenloft games for around ten years before I started with developing "Meleon" in earnest; I am not really that good at analyzing my own work, but I would assume my fantasy fiction, especially in English, from the outside will suspiciously look as if I had been inspired by, wait for it, Blackmoor, Midgard, and Ravenloft. What I mean is, it's impossible to negate your personal history, or means of contextualization. IMO there is a world of difference between something inspired you and you created a fresh take on it and you just imitated it and did not do anything new with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 16:12:23 GMT -6
That's a good point Rafael. In retrospect, the world I mentioned in the previous post was likely very much influenced by Greyhawk (which is where my group adventured 95% of the time) and Mystara (where most of us probably started ). Not to mention all of the literary influences... Creating it from scratch means starting with literary sources, folk tales, fairy tales, etc. As for the Greyhawk and Mystara influences, did you deliberately imitate or did you let it inspire you to do a fresh take on some ideas? I think some of you might be selling yourselves short.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 16:13:55 GMT -6
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. Admittedly, I prefer to make my own. You may find me odd ( don't answer that ), but I really find it difficult to run published material. It may be that my play style makes it feel inhibiting. I prefer that a campaign unfolds organically, little by little. I don't think it's necessarily anything to do with the quality of material available. There is some cool and interesting stuff put out by others. And there are some long running campaigns that I completely get why others would be interested in them (like Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Tekumel). I've just found it difficult to make it my own, so, instead, just make my own. Even in making my own settings, cultures, and, ultimately, world(s), I do draw from many sources, which will depend on what might be striking my interest at the time. It might even be something I read on a blog or this forum. Definitely odd in a good way!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2016 0:15:08 GMT -6
Depends on what you mean. Everything from whole cloth, inc. dungeons, hexes, etc.? No. More abstract stuff, like nations, history, etc.? Yes, at least 80%.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Oct 22, 2016 0:33:58 GMT -6
|
|
randyb
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 92
|
Post by randyb on Oct 22, 2016 7:51:14 GMT -6
Which means I have created four worlds from scratch, as part of that project and by the definition used for it.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Oct 23, 2016 15:17:45 GMT -6
Still a little hazy on the "from scratch" rule, because to me worlds like Greyhawk are themselves imitative of the generic fantasy literary sources, so even if you haven't read much of the Greyhawk setting materials (I've only glanced at them,) you're going to have a lot of similarity.
I at first took it to mean "all elements are invented by you, rather than pre-made and dropped into your framework". Almost all my campaigns have been 100% from scratch, under that definition, with only one or two campaigns where I dropped in a dungeon module or something like that. Only time I went below 80% from scratch was when I ran GURPS in the Yrth setting.
I would consider the setting I've been working on for the last several years (The Nine and Thirty Kingdoms) as being 100% from scratch, but there is a fallen empire destroyed by a supernatural cataclysm, something that popped up in more than one published setting, including Greyhawk. But in my setting, it was a wormpocalypse caused by a religious conflict with the Chaos Druids. Is that different enough to be considered original?
|
|
randyb
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 92
|
Post by randyb on Oct 23, 2016 16:00:34 GMT -6
Still a little hazy on the "from scratch" rule, because to me worlds like Greyhawk are themselves imitative of the generic fantasy literary sources, so even if you haven't read much of the Greyhawk setting materials (I've only glanced at them,) you're going to have a lot of similarity. I at first took it to mean "all elements are invented by you, rather than pre-made and dropped into your framework". Almost all my campaigns have been 100% from scratch, under that definition, with only one or two campaigns where I dropped in a dungeon module or something like that. Only time I went below 80% from scratch was when I ran GURPS in the Yrth setting. I would consider the setting I've been working on for the last several years (The Nine and Thirty Kingdoms) as being 100% from scratch, but there is a fallen empire destroyed by a supernatural cataclysm, something that popped up in more than one published setting, including Greyhawk. But in my setting, it was a wormpocalypse caused by a religious conflict with the Chaos Druids. Is that different enough to be considered original? I vote "Yes".
|
|
arkansan
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 229
|
Post by arkansan on Oct 23, 2016 20:19:32 GMT -6
Yep. A few actually. Only one of them really very fleshed out, a science fantasy setting I've been working on and off on for a couple of years. I intend to use it for gaming and fiction. I had been thinking about coming up with my own old school style ruleset for it, with the confinement that it must be limited to four pages tops, essentially what could fit on a DM's screen.
|
|
18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251
|
Post by 18 Spears on Oct 23, 2016 20:22:12 GMT -6
yeah
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Oct 24, 2016 3:52:58 GMT -6
Like others, I see this as a huge "gray area" question but I voted yes and 100%. My first campaign world was created a little at a time starting with a dungeon, then a village, then a region, then a world. I threw it together before the WoG folio or FFC products were printed, but clearly from Tolkien and Howard I knew what a world could become. What I did as I developed more and more of the world was to swipe places from literature -- Camelot, Rohan, Lothlorien, Aquilonia, Stygia, Lankhmar, etc. -- and make them the equivalent places in my world. I sometimes made up new names but mostly kept the names the same so that I could remember what to find there. I still use that trick today when I throw worlds together. So, most of my worlds are full of "inspired by" places even if their contents aren't exactly those in the books. I guess I figure why make up something from scratch if others have done the hard work for me already?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 6:25:31 GMT -6
Still a little hazy on the "from scratch" rule, because to me worlds like Greyhawk are themselves imitative of the generic fantasy literary sources, so even if you haven't read much of the Greyhawk setting materials (I've only glanced at them,) you're going to have a lot of similarity. I at first took it to mean "all elements are invented by you, rather than pre-made and dropped into your framework". Almost all my campaigns have been 100% from scratch, under that definition, with only one or two campaigns where I dropped in a dungeon module or something like that. Only time I went below 80% from scratch was when I ran GURPS in the Yrth setting. I would consider the setting I've been working on for the last several years (The Nine and Thirty Kingdoms) as being 100% from scratch, but there is a fallen empire destroyed by a supernatural cataclysm, something that popped up in more than one published setting, including Greyhawk. But in my setting, it was a wormpocalypse caused by a religious conflict with the Chaos Druids. Is that different enough to be considered original? IMO "from scratch" as I am using it here includes and is primarily from all types of literary and oral sources, not including published game materials. If you are using something from a book that really intrigued you an you are presenting something with your take on it, that is "from scratch". If you using Greyhawk as your primary source and trying to do a fresh take on it, then that would not be purely "from scratch" because Greyhawk is not a primary source IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 6:28:56 GMT -6
Inspired by primary literary sources with your own take on it is "from scratch". "from scratch" is not making everything up 100% original without ever having read anything. It is being inspired by what you have read. Now if you can start with your mind as a blank slate and create something, that would be wonderful. Tolkien started with myth and legend and mixed it with what was going on around him. The further back you go to original primary sources the more freedom you have to create something truly original IMO.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Oct 24, 2016 11:04:35 GMT -6
IMO "from scratch" as I am using it here includes and is primarily from all types of literary and oral sources, not including published game materials. If you are using something from a book that really intrigued you an you are presenting something with your take on it, that is "from scratch". If you using Greyhawk as your primary source and trying to do a fresh take on it, then that would not be purely "from scratch" because Greyhawk is not a primary source IMO. But what I'm asking is "What do you mean by 'using something'?" I get the distinction between published game material and non-game sources like film, TV, novels, history non-fiction... But the published game materials all borrow heavily from these same sources. And everyone here has seen at least one or two elements of a published game setting. Hell, the spell and monster lists in the core rules can be considered part of the Greyhawk setting. Gelatinous Cubes are from Greyhawk. If you use gelatinous cubes, even if you've never read the Greyhawk setting material, does that count as borrowing from Greyhawk? That's the real issue, for me. I think I bought two actual Greyhawk products, the one with the booklets in a folder, and the hardback 1e Greyhawk book. But I didn't really study either. Started reading the gazetteer and found the description of the nations kind of boring. Skimmed through monster and spell descriptions in the hardback, but don't remember any of it. I never used anything from either of those, and the only things I really "know" about Greyhawk are the bits and pieces mentioned in the 1e PHB/DMG. I've used an ancient apocalypse backstory, and I know there's one in Greyhawk (the Invoked Devastation?) but know nothing about it. Does the fact that I've heard about this via the DMG mean that I am borrowing it from Greyhawk? Or does hearing about Atlantis since before there was a D&D count as my primary source? My apocalypse involves giant purple worms. I may have heard of purple worms before I heard of Lovecraft's Dholes. So which is my source? The same applies to other settings. I've read all the Nehwon books, and I also have the first TSR Lankhmar book, plus Gods, Demigods and Heroes and the Deities & Demigods book. If I haves something resembling the miniature rat city, where am I borrowing it from?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 15:07:04 GMT -6
IMO "from scratch" as I am using it here includes and is primarily from all types of literary and oral sources, not including published game materials. If you are using something from a book that really intrigued you an you are presenting something with your take on it, that is "from scratch". If you using Greyhawk as your primary source and trying to do a fresh take on it, then that would not be purely "from scratch" because Greyhawk is not a primary source IMO. But what I'm asking is "What do you mean by 'using something'?" I get the distinction between published game material and non-game sources like film, TV, novels, history non-fiction... But the published game materials all borrow heavily from these same sources. And everyone here has seen at least one or two elements of a published game setting. Hell, the spell and monster lists in the core rules can be considered part of the Greyhawk setting. Gelatinous Cubes are from Greyhawk. If you use gelatinous cubes, even if you've never read the Greyhawk setting material, does that count as borrowing from Greyhawk? That's the real issue, for me. I think I bought two actual Greyhawk products, the one with the booklets in a folder, and the hardback 1e Greyhawk book. But I didn't really study either. Started reading the gazetteer and found the description of the nations kind of boring. Skimmed through monster and spell descriptions in the hardback, but don't remember any of it. I never used anything from either of those, and the only things I really "know" about Greyhawk are the bits and pieces mentioned in the 1e PHB/DMG. I've used an ancient apocalypse backstory, and I know there's one in Greyhawk (the Invoked Devastation?) but know nothing about it. Does the fact that I've heard about this via the DMG mean that I am borrowing it from Greyhawk? Or does hearing about Atlantis since before there was a D&D count as my primary source? My apocalypse involves giant purple worms. I may have heard of purple worms before I heard of Lovecraft's Dholes. So which is my source? The same applies to other settings. I've read all the Nehwon books, and I also have the first TSR Lankhmar book, plus Gods, Demigods and Heroes and the Deities & Demigods book. If I haves something resembling the miniature rat city, where am I borrowing it from? The case that you are describing, as long as you are making an attempt to give these things a fresh take I think IMO it counts as "from scratch". I am relying on people to self evaluate what they are doing an pick the option that you think is most accurate for you. I am trying not to give sharp boundaries because that starts becoming a little too judgemental(yes, there is some judgement involved, but I am trying to limit that some, while providing so meaningful information in the results). What you are doing is IMO miles away from rote imitation. IMO the most salient point is are you consciously trying to imitate the game stuff you have read or are you consciously trying to do a fresh take on things. If you go back to re-read something what are you going back to the oldest sources you have access to or the newest sources you have access too. That is my opinion, but I am again letting you decide where you fit on the continuum.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Oct 24, 2016 16:09:18 GMT -6
Another question (that might generate less confusion and be easier to answer) might be:
When you create a campaign setting, how much material do you borrow from published campaign setting material?
And then break down the percentages.
I feel like just about everyone in an 0e community is going to be making things "from scratch," so the survey, as worded, might not yield very much information.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 13:25:41 GMT -6
Another question (that might generate less confusion and be easier to answer) might be: When you create a campaign setting, how much material do you borrow from published campaign setting material? And then break down the percentages. I feel like just about everyone in an 0e community is going to be making things "from scratch," so the survey, as worded, might not yield very much information. Or to phrase it yet another way: When you create a campaign setting, do you borrow from other existing published campaign setting material? If so how much? Is it used as is or do you try to put a fresh spin on the material? Is the campaign you devised inter-changeable with many other campaigns or does it have features (few or many)that are unique to your campaign? When you create a campaign setting do you go back to the oldest original primary sources that you are able to access, myth, legends, fairy tales and folklore or do you use books based on these oldest primary sources that are good secondary sources such as Tolkien, Howard, Lovecraft, or Burroughs, 1950's and 1960's movies, etc or do you use tertiary resources which are books, games and movies published during the 70's and early 80's or do you use quaternary resources which are the books, games and movies published during the late 1980's or 1990's or the quinary resources which are the books, games and movies published after the year 2000. Disclaimer: the above is for illustrative purposes, I am not making any hard and fast rule here. The point being that as a general (very general) principle the further you get from the original sources the less creative and less original things tend to be. Please note that I said "tend" not "are". There are good original books with good original takes on things that have been published after 2000, just as there are a boatload of blatant imitative low quality books. Again, to be clear, I am talking about published fiction in the previous sentence and not about anyone's campaign. None of this is to say you are a "bad" person if you go out and rip off Eberron for your campaign. If you and your players are having a load of fun, then that is fantastic because that is the goal is to have fun. No, this is just to satisfy my curiosity about how many people are doing their own thing and not imitating a published game world. Again I am not saying there is anything wrong with imitating a published game world.
|
|