World Building and Maps

[dragoner]

So I read a lot of threads in other places on "world building" which can go from the mechanical: https://www.cartographersguild.com/showthread.php?t=27118 and https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.2418.pdf which is about climate, mostly, and complex, very easy to get wrong; which I shrug off mostly, but it's nice to have the info there. To other aspects such as societies, cultures, civilizations (mmm ... civ), and some places that used to be a good place to discuss them, that are falling off: https://plus.google.com/communities/101345585942312694263

Then there are maps, my latest:
View attachment 563

I admit I am a map-addict (sing it to the tune of the Buzzcocks), a lot is just I like doing the artwork, sort of playing the game solo.

It wraps back around into naming conventions, what people like or don't like, I don't like the "planet of hats" trope that Star Trek does where each planet had the one defining feature, I have used it though, guilty of being lazy, because in sci-fi, I have made a lot of planets. I also don't like names that seem like random camel case with too many apostrophes. I do hunt around for RPG map libraries, like this on G+: https://plus.google.com/communities/101813627127281811598

My questions for the brain trust: what do you like? What don't you like? Feel free to post images, examples of the most beautiful maps would be cool.

 

[Stevethulhu]

A lot of people seem to do world building in what I call a top down style. That is, starting with world maps and filling n the details of nations, cultures, inhabitants of particular regions and so on. I've come to take the exact opposite approach these days. That is, start with a bottom up approach. Design the village the PCs live in and the immediate area and grow from there.

It's a different way to conceive of things. Have a general idea of what the local culture is and take it from there. What starting from the bottom up allows is flexibility. Rather than being locked in to a given concept, you've got the option to add, change or alter things as play develops.

The way you develop things is a process of zooming out. So you start off with a small area, say a township. Then zoom out to the county, the country, the local nations and so on. Adding detail as you go. And because you're not locked in by anything you might have shown the players, nobody knows that the blank bits on the edges of the map were literally the world forming as you go through the campaign.

The idea came from the way B/X and BECMI D&D present the world. It starts off with the things the characters can experience directly and grows organically from there as the campaign goes on.

But htat said, I do love a good map, and this one here is a nice one.

 

[Dumarest]

Sorry, I need you to add two more syllables for me to sing to the Buzzcocks' tune.

 

[Dumarest]

A lot of people seem to do world building in what I call a top down style. That is, starting with world maps and filling n the details of nations, cultures, inhabitants of particular regions and so on. I've come to take the exact opposite approach these days. That is, start with a bottom up approach. Design the village the PCs live in and the immediate area and grow from there.

It's a different way to conceive of things. Have a general idea of what the local culture is and take it from there. What starting from the bottom up allows is flexibility. Rather than being locked in to a given concept, you've got the option to add, change or alter things as play develops.

The way you develop things is a process of zooming out. So you start off with a small area, say a township. Then zoom out to the county, the country, the local nations and so on. Adding detail as you go. And because you're not locked in by anything you might have shown the players, nobody knows that the blank bits on the edges of the map were literally the world forming as you go through the campaign.

The idea came from the way B/X and BECMI D&D present the world. It starts off with the things the characters can experience directly and grows organically from there as the campaign goes on.

I concur; if I'm playing in a made-up world I just start with the essentials the players might encounter or be privy to and expand as the scope of their explorations dictates. Throw in some rumors or mentions of other people and places, but generally with no fixed things I can't change as needed (it is hearsay, after all, who says it's accurate?). I roll up subsectorssubsectors randomly for Traveller and then later the results as needes to make them useful and interesting.

Mostly lately I'm playing games set here on earth in different eras and locales, so maps aren't much of an issue but rather knowing enough about the time and place to make it feel right is the real task at hand. I will use fictional towns and counties in Boot Hill, dropped into New Mexico or wherever, but for Flashing Blades I'll just use real places and fictionalize the people and some events.

 

[Dumarest]

Maybe you could just hum along to the Yeah Yeah Yeahs.

Wait...they don't love you like I love you.

 

[daniel_ream]

I don't care for fantasy worlds based on amateur attempts at planetology. Not that there's anything wrong with it, it's just been done endlessly to death and it crowds out other approaches. I prefer worlds that are allegorical or metaphorical, or that are based on myth - much the way pre-Age of Reason man saw the world around him. That, or worlds that attempt neither to be rigorously scientific nor kitchen-sink gonzo. Majipoor is a good example, as is the alternate 14-century England of The Dragon Knight or the baroque faux-Byzantine Empire of Dune.

 

[Baulderstone]

A lot of people seem to do world building in what I call a top down style. That is, starting with world maps and filling n the details of nations, cultures, inhabitants of particular regions and so on. I've come to take the exact opposite approach these days. That is, start with a bottom up approach. Design the village the PCs live in and the immediate area and grow from there.

It's a different way to conceive of things. Have a general idea of what the local culture is and take it from there. What starting from the bottom up allows is flexibility. Rather than being locked in to a given concept, you've got the option to add, change or alter things as play develops.

The way you develop things is a process of zooming out. So you start off with a small area, say a township. Then zoom out to the county, the country, the local nations and so on. Adding detail as you go. And because you're not locked in by anything you might have shown the players, nobody knows that the blank bits on the edges of the map were literally the world forming as you go through the campaign.

The idea came from the way B/X and BECMI D&D present the world. It starts off with the things the characters can experience directly and grows organically from there as the campaign goes on.

But htat said, I do love a good map, and this one here is a nice one.

Complete agreement on that. Over the years, I have gotten so sick of published setting where nothing in the book or boxed set is on the actual scale of the PCs. You have whole countries. You have dozens of religions. Yet there is actually little in the books that the players can directly interact with.

I started with B/X so maybe that helped me form my biases on the matter.

 

[Apocryphal]

I don't care for fantasy worlds based on amateur attempts at planetology. Not that there's anything wrong with it, it's just been done endlessly to death and it crowds out other approaches. I prefer worlds that are allegorical or metaphorical, or that are based on myth.

This doesn't seem like an either/or situation to me - one can have both good physics based geography and allegory/myth - I present Earth as an example. And I certainly don't think it's been done to death. If fact, I see way more efforts that describe how to do it (ok, yes, maybe that's been done to death), than I see worlds that actually take that advice. Also, who are these professional planetologists that are designing fantasy worlds? Should mythological worlds only be designed by professional mythologists? Without amateurs, I'm not sure we'd have roleplaying.

 

[daniel_ream]

Should mythological worlds only be designed by professional mythologists?