More Commentary on World Creation
This is a bit of a stream-of-consciousness rant, so I apologize in advance if it's not clear or rambles on...
I've been working on the Mythosa revision lately and I've come to a realization that I should have come to years ago. Ray Winninger [sp?] said it in Dragon years ago, and others have echoed it: Don't create more than you have to. I've always given lip service to that idea but I haven't followed it as much as I should have. The reason I say this is that as I've been working on the wiki entries for the new Mythosa I've been at time hard-pressed to describe the features of a particular mountain range, woodland, or other geographical feature. For the previous version and this one I've been using the common model you find in such examples as the old 3.0 D&D Gazetteer and the Player's Guide to the Wilderlands. But looking at the old Mythosa gazetteer, I've come to a simple conclusion: I wasted a heck of a lot of time on needless details.
Not that details are bad. But coming up with them when you don't need them or when they really don't matter is a bit of a waste. Not every river, for instance, needs to be named right away. Not every clump of trees needs some fabulous secret. Unless there's something particularly special about a geographical feature, it really doesn't need much description. Especially since what you write will be ignored if necessary in the course of running a campaign.
This may sound like a minimalist approach, but that's not entirely true. For instance, I've still created a map of the "known world" even though there are places where the PCs may never get to. But I do want a framework in place for consistency and to give me a starting point if something needs further development. The problem for me is that in the past I've tended to go overboard and come up with details that go beyond the framework but really are something that won't be used.
Another area where I usually overdo it is history. Let's face it - for the vast majority of players, they couldn't give a monkey's red butt about the intricate and detailed history you've woven for your homebrew. And, again, these are usually pretty boilerplate: elves were the first race to learn magic, dwarves have been on the decline due to orcs and their kind, the past had an ancient empire (or empires) that littered the countryside with ruins and treasure troves, at least one major cataclysm altered the world years ago, etc. We usually present it as a big "info dump" to our players and then wonder why they aren't as enraptured with our creation as we are. Personally, I'm much more of a "let's explore the world" type of player than a "gimme XP and phat l00t" one, but even I can't find myself really that interested in just poring over a GM's 75-page campaign world history.
In that regard, I've decided to limit the history of the new Mythosa to no more than a few printed pages. Part of the reason is that, as I said, players don't care, and part is to give myself enough leeway to make alterations without having to resort to retconning. Recent history will be relatively well-known, but past that the only things will be the major events (cataclysms, divine wars, etc.). The in-game justification for this is that the major cataclysm of Mythosa took place only a few decades prior to much history was lost.
However, there's another reason for this. Earlier I said that the players don't care. Except for the number cruncher/power fantasy folks that would probably be better served with an MMORPG, that's not exactly right. Players can appreciate your world's detail, history, etc., but it needs to be delivered in such a way that it's relevant to them. As the writers say, "Show, don't tell." Slapping a 200-page printout on the table and hoping your players read it and enjoy it is unrealistic. But involving the details of the world in your actual game - that's something else entirely. Get the players involved and they may start to appreciate what you've created. That's not to say that they should be creating parts of your world (though why not?), but the greater their stake, the more they'll care about this town or that forest or how navigable a particular river is.
How do you do this? That's an exercise I leave to the reader - mainly because I don't have too many good examples. Mini-info dumps during play ain't it (i.e.; a sage relates a full page of text to them). I'll try to post some examples as I think of them and/or use them in the future.
I've been working on the Mythosa revision lately and I've come to a realization that I should have come to years ago. Ray Winninger [sp?] said it in Dragon years ago, and others have echoed it: Don't create more than you have to. I've always given lip service to that idea but I haven't followed it as much as I should have. The reason I say this is that as I've been working on the wiki entries for the new Mythosa I've been at time hard-pressed to describe the features of a particular mountain range, woodland, or other geographical feature. For the previous version and this one I've been using the common model you find in such examples as the old 3.0 D&D Gazetteer and the Player's Guide to the Wilderlands. But looking at the old Mythosa gazetteer, I've come to a simple conclusion: I wasted a heck of a lot of time on needless details.
Not that details are bad. But coming up with them when you don't need them or when they really don't matter is a bit of a waste. Not every river, for instance, needs to be named right away. Not every clump of trees needs some fabulous secret. Unless there's something particularly special about a geographical feature, it really doesn't need much description. Especially since what you write will be ignored if necessary in the course of running a campaign.
This may sound like a minimalist approach, but that's not entirely true. For instance, I've still created a map of the "known world" even though there are places where the PCs may never get to. But I do want a framework in place for consistency and to give me a starting point if something needs further development. The problem for me is that in the past I've tended to go overboard and come up with details that go beyond the framework but really are something that won't be used.
Another area where I usually overdo it is history. Let's face it - for the vast majority of players, they couldn't give a monkey's red butt about the intricate and detailed history you've woven for your homebrew. And, again, these are usually pretty boilerplate: elves were the first race to learn magic, dwarves have been on the decline due to orcs and their kind, the past had an ancient empire (or empires) that littered the countryside with ruins and treasure troves, at least one major cataclysm altered the world years ago, etc. We usually present it as a big "info dump" to our players and then wonder why they aren't as enraptured with our creation as we are. Personally, I'm much more of a "let's explore the world" type of player than a "gimme XP and phat l00t" one, but even I can't find myself really that interested in just poring over a GM's 75-page campaign world history.
In that regard, I've decided to limit the history of the new Mythosa to no more than a few printed pages. Part of the reason is that, as I said, players don't care, and part is to give myself enough leeway to make alterations without having to resort to retconning. Recent history will be relatively well-known, but past that the only things will be the major events (cataclysms, divine wars, etc.). The in-game justification for this is that the major cataclysm of Mythosa took place only a few decades prior to much history was lost.
However, there's another reason for this. Earlier I said that the players don't care. Except for the number cruncher/power fantasy folks that would probably be better served with an MMORPG, that's not exactly right. Players can appreciate your world's detail, history, etc., but it needs to be delivered in such a way that it's relevant to them. As the writers say, "Show, don't tell." Slapping a 200-page printout on the table and hoping your players read it and enjoy it is unrealistic. But involving the details of the world in your actual game - that's something else entirely. Get the players involved and they may start to appreciate what you've created. That's not to say that they should be creating parts of your world (though why not?), but the greater their stake, the more they'll care about this town or that forest or how navigable a particular river is.
How do you do this? That's an exercise I leave to the reader - mainly because I don't have too many good examples. Mini-info dumps during play ain't it (i.e.; a sage relates a full page of text to them). I'll try to post some examples as I think of them and/or use them in the future.
posted by MythosaAkira | 11:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home