Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew better

[Nolgroth]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

This reminds me of an idea i had for a thread series i would call "Let's Hack," in which posters discuss a particular setting and how they would modify it. For example, "Let's Hack: Turakian Age."

 

I guess I'll ask now: anyone interested in the concept?

I'm game.

[Nolgroth]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

This kind of thing is why so many fantasy game worlds go nowhere

...

We all only have so much time, so you want to use it where you'll use it, if you know what I mean!

 

cheers, Mark

Ain't that the truth! Which is why I now have little smatterings of a world. The very last campaign I ran, I purpose designed to setting to by about 40 square miles in size. It was a small group of islands and I intended to cram as much into that 40 square miles as feasible. Then the game went on permanent hiatus and, somewhere, I lost the original XCF (Gimp native) file with all of the layers that I had turned off. Le sigh. Looking forward to doing something similar in the very near future.

[Markdoc]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

Ain't that the truth! Which is why I now have little smatterings of a world. The very last campaign I ran' date=' I purpose designed to setting to by about 40 square miles in size. It was a small group of islands and I intended to cram as much into that 40 square miles as feasible. Then the game went on permanent hiatus and, somewhere, I lost the original XCF (Gimp native) file with all of the layers that I had turned off. Le sigh. Looking forward to doing something similar in the very near future.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I think this is actually a good way to start: my last campaign started on a decent-sized island (about 80 km north to south and 120 km east to west), and that was the whole game world for about a year of real-time play. Then as the campaign progressed, the players left their little island and the adventure island-hopped across several other islands for a year or so's play until the reached the really big island, where the last 3 years (real-time) of gaming took place (pretty much all centered around one city). It let me develop the settings one step at a time, and at the same time, introduced the players to the setting in small digestible chunks.

 

cheers, Mark

[Old Man]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

This reminds me of an idea i had for a thread series i would call "Let's Hack," in which posters discuss a particular setting and how they would modify it. For example, "Let's Hack: Turakian Age."

 

I guess I'll ask now: anyone interested in the concept?

 

 

I'd hack Turakian Age by making at least half of it sink beneath the sea. That setting was just too damn big.

 

Wait--first I'd populate half of it with tieflings, kender, and drow. Then I'd make that half sink beneath the sea.

[Jhaierr]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

I often find that I work best when I am co-creating a game setting because we can bounce ideas off each other and "talk through it," whereas if I were by myself it would never really get beyond a few general ideas.

 

Lately I've been working on a new fantasy setting with a friend of mine. It's in the early stages, but I really love it. Lots of possibilities and stories built into the main setting, and it's a bit different from your standard fantasy setting as well. Maybe "someday" we'll publish a setting book if we ever get it fleshed out.

[Markdoc]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

I often find that I work best when I am co-creating a game setting because we can bounce ideas off each other and "talk through it," whereas if I were by myself it would never really get beyond a few general ideas.

 

Lately I've been working on a new fantasy setting with a friend of mine. It's in the early stages, but I really love it. Lots of possibilities and stories built into the main setting, and it's a bit different from your standard fantasy setting as well. Maybe "someday" we'll publish a setting book if we ever get it fleshed out.

 

One of the things that helps me is to start with a question or an idea. Too many fantasy games I have played in, are apparently set in the far-off land of Generica: a vaguely medieval-ish Europe with 20th century sensibilities, composed mostly of rolling hills dotted with forests and the occasional ruin.

 

It's actually pretty hard to avoid at least some aspects of Generica, but it helps if you have a specific concept. One of the regions I worked on, for example, I started with the question being debated on another thread: what would a society run by women look like? (And how/why would it stay like that, if it had neighbouring male-dominated societies?) Another question was: what would a society look like if vampires were regarded as "honoured ancestors" instead of bloodthirsty monsters? and so on.

 

I start with the question and then set it in specific area so, for example, "What if the tribesmen from this tropical area by the sea regarded vampires as honourable ancestors rather than blood thirsty monsters? How do they feed their honoured ancestors? Why are there any non-vampires left at all? This coastline is major sea-trading route: how do the sailors and ships passing by deal with these guys? How do thelocals react to passing ships? Are there any ports at all? If so, what kind of person visits a port where you know there are lots of vampires about? etc"

 

The answers to these questions shaped a society which doesn't look or feel much like Generica - or indeed, even Gothica, the south-eastern part of Generica.

 

cheers, Mark

[Nolgroth]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

Generica has a certain lure. Generica is easy and disposable. I don't have to vest much into the setting itself. Most players, including recent additions to whatever group I may be running, have a pretty good idea of what Generica is all about. The names may be different and the mountains may be in the wrong spot, but it still feels familiar all the same. In Generica, vampires are monsters and there is only on way to deal with monsters; kill them and take their stuff. Nothing could be simpler. Sometimes a simple setting is better. Easier to establish a baseline expectation and build stories from there.

 

At least until somebody complains about how bland and familiar it is.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

I would recommend that you not mess up your previous setting. You had years of fun with it, don't muddy the waters...leave it be.

 

Make a new setting, distinct from the old, and build it per your current tastes.

 

Don't be surprised if a more "correct" or "mature" approach results in a less fun game however. When you approach things from a cerebral, orderly vector you might get a more coherent and internally consistent setting, but you might also get over-processed un-fun drek that fails to entice or entertain. Players generally don't read a lot of game material, they rely on tropes, archetypes, stereotypes, memes, (pick a label) that they have absorbed via osmosis over the years and have internalized. The further your engineered setting diverges from their expectations, the more foreign and ultimately incomprehensible and un-engaging it becomes.

 

A handy rule of thumb I've used over the years is a ratio. For every 1 totally new or unique concept I try to add no more than 2 somewhat fresh takes or spins on accepted concepts, and at least 3 well accepted staples of the genre. Sort of like a pyramid; a good sturdy base of accepted ideas upon which the hooks and shticks that make the setting distinct can comfortably rest.

 

I also try to have a minimum of 3 reasons or justifications for everything I add to a setting (at least 2 of which should be _good_ reasons). If the only reason to add something is because I thought of it and it seems cool, its not really anchored into the setting and is at best a distraction and at worst might turn out to work at cross purposes to the overall goals I have for the setting as a whole or conflict with other things that more properly belong in the setting.

 

Anyway, I'm digressing. Long story short, leave your old setting alone in its glorious trainwreck-ishness and savor the nostalgic memories of gaming in it. Take a fresh start on a "new" streamlined setting.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

One of the things that helps me is to start with a question or an idea. Too many fantasy games I have played in' date=' are apparently set in the far-off land of [b']Generica[/b]: a vaguely medieval-ish Europe with 20th century sensibilities, composed mostly of rolling hills dotted with forests and the occasional ruin.

 

It's actually pretty hard to avoid at least some aspects of Generica, but it helps if you have a specific concept. One of the regions I worked on, for example, I started with the question being debated on another thread: what would a society run by women look like? (And how/why would it stay like that, if it had neighbouring male-dominated societies?) Another question was: what would a society look like if vampires were regarded as "honoured ancestors" instead of bloodthirsty monsters? and so on.

 

I start with the question and then set it in specific area so, for example, "What if the tribesmen from this tropical area by the sea regarded vampires as honourable ancestors rather than blood thirsty monsters? How do they feed their honoured ancestors? Why are there any non-vampires left at all? This coastline is major sea-trading route: how do the sailors and ships passing by deal with these guys? How do thelocals react to passing ships? Are there any ports at all? If so, what kind of person visits a port where you know there are lots of vampires about? etc"

 

The answers to these questions shaped a society which doesn't look or feel much like Generica - or indeed, even Gothica, the south-eastern part of Generica.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Funny you should mention...

 

World of Generica

The World of Generic is organized as a collection of "Realms", regions or bodies of work with a theme or that hang together somehow (influenced from a common fictional source or mythology or culture), but filtered thru a High Fantasy lens.

 

A Realm can be a region or continent or sub continent or an island or a pocket dimension, or whatever makes sense. Each Realm should be self contained, but sufficiently vague as to allow for crossover from other Realms.

 

The underlying HERO System mechanics should be basically compatible between the Realms. For instance, it should be possible for a character from the Realm of Barbarica to travel to the Realm of Tolkienica or the Realm of Gygaxica.

 

The Realms that are complete enough for use are:

 

Barbarica: Conan-esque Material

Esoterica: Planescape-esque extra dimensional Material

 

 

The Realms currently under development are:

 

Gygaxica: DnD-esque Material

Celtica: Celtic-esque Material

Tolkeinica: Tolkein-esque Material

Apolyptica: Post-Apocalyptic Material

Gothica: Horror Material

Classica: Greek / Roman / Sandal-epic Material

[Markdoc]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

Yeah, I recalled that project, that's why I chose the name Generica.

 

And back in the good ol' days, we had a lot of fun in Generica. We played AD&D obsessively as college students - sometimes, three campaigns running simultaneously with different GMs, meaning we might play up to 4 or 5 nights in a good week! All of those kingdoms were set in one or another corner of Generica, and although - because I've got a really good memory - I could sketch you a decent rough outline of the geography of 2 out of those 3, I couldn't tell you a single damn name on the map, nor anything about any of the towns, castles, etc*. And we actually had 3 talented GMs!

 

You end up with this (from DM of the Rings):

 

For fun, have your players describe the plot of your campaign after it’s over. I promise it will sound something like this:

 

The dragon guy with that black sword was oppressing the people that lived on those hills. Then that one king with the really long beard got that one chick with the crazy hair, and she went to that one lake. Then she got corrupted by that curse thing that made her attack that group of guys we found dead. You know, the ones that had that +1 sword and the bag of holding? Once we broke her curse she told us about the dragon guy and gave us that thing. And the map. Then we found the dragon dude and kicked his ass.

 

It’s like living in a word without proper nouns.

 

On the other hand, we also played a campaign set on Tekumel, and one in Glorantha. I recall a great deal more about locations and places, despite the fact that they were strange and novel ... well, because they were strange and novel.

 

So I agree that you don't want to make things too weird (it's way too hard for players to remember never to drink their koks without frapping ) but too familiar also has its perils. Doesn't every GM want players to remember their game?

 

I went back to the university town where I ran my first games, years later, and one of my old buddies introduced me to his friends. When they heard my name they said "Wait, you're the guy that ran ...." and then proceeded to regale me with stories from my old campaign, even though I had never met any of them before! Apparently, generations of students, huddled around the fires in their humble abodes, had been retelling stories from somebody else's old D&D game. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have happened if it had been set in Generica.

 

cheers, Mark

 

*Well, except for my own castle. 25 years on, I could still draw a pretty accurate sketch and tell you how we built it

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

Yeah, I know what you mean; I've done both as well. Hyper-detailed unique settings with tons of exposition, depth, interstitial connecting tissue, and flavor; and the generic "whatever" just go with it approach.

 

Both are fun and memorable, one takes tremendously more effort on the part of the GM than the other.

 

My motivations are simple; if I get personal satisfaction from developing a setting (or whatever) then I will do it for my own benefit as a thing unto itself. If I just need a backdrop to run a game in and I don't feel the need to put the time investment into it then I go with something less time consuming.

[Jhaierr]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

Don't be surprised if a more "correct" or "mature" approach results in a less fun game however. When you approach things from a cerebral' date=' orderly vector you might get a more coherent and internally consistent setting, but you might also get over-processed un-fun drek that fails to entice or entertain. Players generally don't read a lot of game material, they rely on tropes, archetypes, stereotypes, memes, (pick a label) that they have absorbed via osmosis over the years and have internalized. The further your engineered setting diverges from their expectations, the more foreign and ultimately incomprehensible and un-engaging it becomes.[/quote']

 

I've often wondered about this, too. Would a "perfect" world also be an "unfun" world?

 

I wonder if it goes back to being flexible -- having the ability to come up with something interesting in the spur of the moment even if it is a perfectly honed world.

[Markdoc]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

I've often wondered about this, too. Would a "perfect" world also be an "unfun" world?

 

I wonder if it goes back to being flexible -- having the ability to come up with something interesting in the spur of the moment even if it is a perfectly honed world.

 

Both can be fun, in my experience, but there's no such thing as a perfect world, and a GM has to be able to improvise on the spur of the moment, no matter how detailed his plans are, because players are always unpredictable! That said, in my experience (both as GM and player) more detailed worlds are more fun to play in, and generate more memorable adventures.

 

But I think also that there's a wide space between "Hyper-detailed unique settings with tons of exposition" and the "generic "whatever" just go with it approach": a lot of the time, I run with a pretty clear idea of what I want, but few detailed maps, and fill in the details as I go. I have the feel and the basic idea, but not necessarily much in the way of detail. As long as the basic concept is clear, it's easy to fit things in, without compromising the feel - and as the game develops, the "feel" of the area becomes more detailed (and possibly alters slightly if I have brilliant ideas underway). That way instead of trying to herd players in the direction of where I have placed things, they get the illusion of freedom of choice, and also the illusion that the world is much bigger and more detailed than it actually is. I get the feeling my players would be horrified if they saw how thin the tissue of illusion actually is

 

cheers, Mark

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

As long as the basic concept is clear' date=' it's easy to fit things in, without compromising the feel - and as the game develops, the "feel" of the area becomes more detailed (and possibly alters slightly if I have brilliant ideas underway). That way instead of trying to herd players in the direction of where I have placed things, they get the illusion of freedom of choice, and also the illusion that the world is much bigger and more detailed than it actually is. I get the feeling my players would be horrified if they saw how thin the tissue of illusion actually is [/quote']

 

Among all the excellent gaming advice in Aaron Allston's Strike Force book, I particularly remember his suggestion for the GM not to worry too much when you introduce a new character or other element into your game world, if you don't yet have a clear picture of precisely how it fits with everything else. You can wait until the evolving circumstances in the campaign create the perfect tie-in for it. Then you can pretend to your players that's what you had in mind all along, and look like a genius.

[The Main Man]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

I finally started LET'S HACK: The Turakian Age; so there you go, folks who were interested. I hope the theme catches on with the general community. I plan to start more for other settings.

[Sir Ofeelya]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

When I started GM'ing, I didn't have any published game worlds: all I had was a copy of the AD&D player's manual. So I had no idea of how things were "meant to be". So, I built my game world on the fantasy and myth I loved: Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Conan, Lord of the Rings and old norse tales. As a result, my fantasy world was middle to low magic and relatively low-monster. It's held up surprisingly well: I'm still using it after 27 years. What I tend to do is choose one area of the map, develop that and run a campaign there. After a few years of play, that part of the world is heavily detailed, and I bring the game to a close and start up somewhere else. So far I have only detailed about half the world, so there's a good quarter century left in it, I reckon.

 

cheers, Mark

 

 

Maybe if you ever retire back to NZ you can GM a new game here:)

[Sir Ofeelya]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

Yeah, I recalled that project, that's why I chose the name Generica.

 

And back in the good ol' days, we had a lot of fun in Generica. We played AD&D obsessively as college students - sometimes, three campaigns running simultaneously with different GMs, meaning we might play up to 4 or 5 nights in a good week! All of those kingdoms were set in one or another corner of Generica, and although - because I've got a really good memory - I could sketch you a decent rough outline of the geography of 2 out of those 3, I couldn't tell you a single damn name on the map, nor anything about any of the towns, castles, etc*. And we actually had 3 talented GMs!

 

I can

[Badger]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

I constantly rework my worlds. Granted' date=' I spend more time doing that than I do running them, so there's less sentimental value that way.[/quote']

 

Hopefully you constantly rework it for the better, unlike the Lucasian model.

 

Han shot first, damn it.

[Badger]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

Sounds like my current project. It started out as Spelljammer crossed with One Piece (with a bit of Firefly)' date=' but it's developing into something unique.[/quote']

 

Now I am having visions of the characters of One Piece placed into the Firefly Universe.

[Steve]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

Now I am having visions of the characters of One Piece placed into the Firefly Universe.

 

An intriguing thought. Would you say there are any similarities in their governments?

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

An intriguing thought. Would you say there are any similarities in their governments?

Well, one has a tyrannical government that enforces obedience, boot-on-the-neck style. The other has a band of rebels and outlaws, fighting to survive and maybe even thrive.

 

Now, which is which?

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

An intriguing thought. Would you say there are any similarities in their governments?

 

WRT my campaign, the ressemblance is mostly coincidental. I created the Celestial League, a federation of merchant princes trying to maintain a monopoly on interstellar trade. They happen to define piracy as including unsactioned trade. (Yes, you can be a pirate who doesn't steal anything.) Since tyrannies resemble each other, they wind up looking like the Alliance. The fact that orcs resemble Reavers adds to the similarities.

[Stacie.Winters]

Re: Fantasy worlds you had to "rework" years later once you've grown up and knew bett

 

I have a couple of fantasy worlds that I have gone back to over the years, modifying it here and there, but I have a problem with focusing. I am a classic ADHD Gamer.

 

When I focus on a world, I ask myself... How can I use typical fantasy tropes and uniquify them while still making sense within the setting I am designing? I like my elves and dwarves and all that, but I dislike the Tolkien versions (except in Hackmaster, there they kick butt). In one world I had elves who were scientists who abhorred magic, yet used the planets energy to create powerful scientific discoveries and I made dwarves a xenophobic race who mastered necromancy and were warmongers, and this world's religion was a single god who bestowed his followers with powerful psychic powers (I was kindly stealing from Exalted and Star Wars here) and I had a history where for a couple thousand years the druids were like Balance keepers of the Four elements and their magic was elemental and nature based and all druids also were linked to an animal. But in the history that was lost the first druids were wizards who stole magic from dragons and then went to war with the dragons and eventually the dragons died off, but they released their essence into the planets Lifestream. Later on, about when the elves arrived in their island fortresses there were strange births of kids being born with draconian features (also taking ideas from Exalted of sorts).

 

I never did name this world. I just wanted a fantasy world that was not a typical fantasy world. I don't even know if this world Sounds fun, it's the first time I've shared it.