So whats your preference? Im asking as a GM to other GMs but a player's opinion is important too. Do you prefer a massive setting such as the Hyborian Age or the Forgotten Realms where the world map covers thousands of miles, dozens of different environments and cultures or do you instead feel more comfortable confining your adventuring to a smaller area. Something like Inner Sea map in Pathfinder or Greyhawk where the adventuring area is only a few thousand miles at the most and is dominated by a more limited list of cultures and influences?
I realize that your versatility and range of possibilities expands with the size of the map but in most cases even a prolonged campaign rarely uses even a good fraction of the available world. It would seem more proficient for a GM to focus his time and effort detailing and fleshing out a smaller workable area than trying to build an entire world. Im on the edge where this decision is concerned. I can see the benefits of both approaches, and can even imagine sketching out a large world map and only building a small section to allow the occasional character, influence, object or whatever to herald from one of those 'far across the map' locations and requiring only a limited amount of background due to their distance and rarity of involvement.
Thoughts?
We run with general "D&D-like" or "Traveller-like" without too many details. Stuff gets filled in as we play.
For example, orcs and goblins aren't just evil sword-fodder. My players like dealing with sapient dungeon denizens, so orcs and goblins became more civilized.
The map gets filled in as we play--usually with the letter/number of the module that occurred in that hex.
IME world maps & world settings are pretty much just background fluff. A campaign is almost always centred on an area a few hundred miles across, maybe with occasional departures. Something the size of Britain is plenty for almost any campaign. For Paizo think Varisia, not Inner Sea. For FR think Western Heartlands not Faerun.
I go smaller and smaller with every campaign I run. I mean, if I want a theme to run throughout the world I'll come up with that (post-apoc, high fantasy, etc.) but I'd rather just come up with a starting location and plot hooks/dungeons/whatever that can fit in a six-mile hex or three and make it quality.
For Traveller, I just randomly roll up and rationalize a subsector and then usually select a spaceport where the PCs happen to be when we start.
Most other games I play are set in the "real" world so there is not much I need to do aside from choose a starting location. I can research anywhere the PCs might go from there or make it up if needed.
Typically I like to have a campaign set on a continent, with most or all of the action and detail probably on a part of that continent.
But it depends on the transportation available. If there is no in-game reason why the players shouldn't be able to reach (or research!) a place with reasonable effort, then I want to know what's there, and be able to support them going there, at least with a bit of additional GM prep. So the level of transportation tech/magic is important. A space game will need multiple planets or star systems. A medieval game only needs "the known world". So the detail/prep can only be so detailed if the scope of where the players can go or research is huge.
I like to have at least a sketch of the big picture as far out as it might ever matter. In my first game world, I just started with the ITL campaign map showing the towns, roads and terrain of one duchy surrounded by others, and then added maps as I went, but I noticed this approach meant I was mapping things without a big picture on geography. politics, or history, and I wasn't satisfied with the randomness and inconsistency and lack of continuity and information relevance that would be possible if I had known more of the big picture before I mapped out places in detail. So for later campaigns that aren't intentionally limited, I start at the beginning, thinking about cosmology (scientific and/or mythical) and at least a sketch of the whole world or several surrounding continents, then the continent of interest, then its history, where nations were over time and major changes/wars, before even starting to do detailed maps of nations, recent history, current agents and specific terrain. When I start a campaign, I may just have one nation, or the starting location and surrounding locations, and add more detail of other places later, but I'll at least know what the next couple of rings of countries are like and their layout.
Except for small-scope games, I will always have different levels of detail for everything. Like, even on my very first campaign map, most of the hexes only have a terrain type, and several settlements were only ever briefly passed through, and I several I only know the type (e.g. orc village), population, and have just an intuitive idea of what it's probably like and what's probably there or not - though that idea could be quickly and easily fleshed out based on looking at the rest of the map and remembering what else I know about the setting and what's happened in play. When I create a regional hex map, I imagine the history and details in a rough way, such that seeing the map evokes something and I can use that to conjure up details as needed, while what I write down is mainly just the map info (place names, settlement type, terrain, roads, nations and subdivisions) and brief maps notes (population, maybe a sentence or a few).
Once I do decide details, especially during play, I will write it down for later reference. Between sessions I copy details from session notes and file it, and elaborate some details and develop related things for fun and use in later sessions.
I do also prep some things in elaborate detail in advance sometimes, either within a campaign or for a limited-scope game. But for me it's far easier to detail (and remember) things (either prep or during play) when I have a map of the surrounding area that goes far in all directions, and know something of the history. I need maps and context unless (or else) the campaign becomes like a surreal dreamscape to me.
Quote from: S'mon;994250IME world maps & world settings are pretty much just background fluff. A campaign is almost always centred on an area a few hundred miles across, maybe with occasional departures. Something the size of Britain is plenty for almost any campaign. For Paizo think Varisia, not Inner Sea. For FR think Western Heartlands not Faerun.
Thats kind of what Ive been thinking. I have the rough info and a map laid out for a continent sized area but am thinking maybe scaling down to just a 1000x1000 mile area is the way to go for as many adventures as I will ever need.
Quote from: Skarg;994262Typically I like to have a campaign set on a continent, with most or all of the action and detail probably on a part of that continent.
But it depends on the transportation available. If there is no in-game reason why the players shouldn't be able to reach (or research!) a place with reasonable effort, then I want to know what's there, and be able to support them going there, at least with a bit of additional GM prep. So the level of transportation tech/magic is important. A space game will need multiple planets or star systems. A medieval game only needs "the known world". So the detail/prep can only be so detailed if the scope of where the players can go or research is huge.
I like to have at least a sketch of the big picture as far out as it might ever matter. In my first game world, I just started with the ITL campaign map showing the towns, roads and terrain of one duchy surrounded by others, and then added maps as I went, but I noticed this approach meant I was mapping things without a big picture on geography. politics, or history, and I wasn't satisfied with the randomness and inconsistency and lack of continuity and information relevance that would be possible if I had known more of the big picture before I mapped out places in detail. So for later campaigns that aren't intentionally limited, I start at the beginning, thinking about cosmology (scientific and/or mythical) and at least a sketch of the whole world or several surrounding continents, then the continent of interest, then its history, where nations were over time and major changes/wars, before even starting to do detailed maps of nations, recent history, current agents and specific terrain. When I start a campaign, I may just have one nation, or the starting location and surrounding locations, and add more detail of other places later, but I'll at least know what the next couple of rings of countries are like and their layout.
Except for small-scope games, I will always have different levels of detail for everything. Like, even on my very first campaign map, most of the hexes only have a terrain type, and several settlements were only ever briefly passed through, and I several I only know the type (e.g. orc village), population, and have just an intuitive idea of what it's probably like and what's probably there or not - though that idea could be quickly and easily fleshed out based on looking at the rest of the map and remembering what else I know about the setting and what's happened in play. When I create a regional hex map, I imagine the history and details in a rough way, such that seeing the map evokes something and I can use that to conjure up details as needed, while what I write down is mainly just the map info (place names, settlement type, terrain, roads, nations and subdivisions) and brief maps notes (population, maybe a sentence or a few).
Once I do decide details, especially during play, I will write it down for later reference. Between sessions I copy details from session notes and file it, and elaborate some details and develop related things for fun and use in later sessions.
I do also prep some things in elaborate detail in advance sometimes, either within a campaign or for a limited-scope game. But for me it's far easier to detail (and remember) things (either prep or during play) when I have a map of the surrounding area that goes far in all directions, and know something of the history. I need maps and context unless (or else) the campaign becomes like a surreal dreamscape to me.
I agree entirely that if there is a world out there beyond the framework of you campaign map the GM needs to have enough info on it to make what he is presenting fit in the grander scheme. Politics, history etc. as you mention, should extend at least with minimal info, into neighboring areas even if the action never goes there.
For fantasy gaming, while often there is incentive to start in a small area, I like to have enough space on the map that there can be long journeys, though in OD&D, it may be insane to take such at low level. I have used the Wilderlands of High Fantasy and Blackmoor (using the updated First Fantasy Campaign maps from the TSR DA modules).
For Traveller, I have generated an area slightly larger than two sub-sectors (well, it's actually almost 3 sub-sectors, 13x18 hexes), however, much of the space is taken by a great rift so there are only 96 worlds. The initial area of focus is about 5x12 hexes with 29, so not even a single sub-sector.
Quote from: ffilz;994272For fantasy gaming, while often there is incentive to start in a small area, I like to have enough space on the map that there can be long journeys, though in OD&D, it may be insane to take such at low level. I have used the Wilderlands of High Fantasy and Blackmoor (using the updated First Fantasy Campaign maps from the TSR DA modules).
For Traveller, I have generated an area slightly larger than two sub-sectors (well, it's actually almost 3 sub-sectors, 13x18 hexes), however, much of the space is taken by a great rift so there are only 96 worlds. The initial area of focus is about 5x12 hexes with 29, so not even a single sub-sector.
...and 29 planets could last you an entire multiyear campaign depending on what the PCs want to do...
Quote from: Dumarest;994278...and 29 planets could last you an entire multiyear campaign depending on what the PCs want to do...
Or longer since the active games are two play by post campaigns...
I prefer three levels:
A. This is the main campaign area. If it's sandbox, you can go anywhere in here, any time you can manage it. If it's not a sandbox, this is where all or nearly all of the action will take place.
B. The border areas, though they can be rather large. It's nebulous, and might not be more than a few names and terrain features. It's explicitly there but undeveloped. If you really want a character from a culture that is outside the norm, they are probably from here. Occasionally, actions may take place here, but usually not. If something really catches our interest, then A may absorb sections of B as we go, but usually not.
C. The rest of the world. Ideally, it will never come up, unless the campaign runs a lot longer than planned or morphs into a series of campaigns. It's acknowledged that it is out there, but other than that, seldom even referenced.
I prefer that area A be set to just big enough to accommodate whatever travel is expected to be a focus of the campaign. If I need something longer than that, can always dabble in area B. My latest version is a cozy area A about 300 by 400 miles, a slice out of continent.
I tend to like large settings.
Quote from: rgrove0172;994241I realize that your versatility and range of possibilities expands with the size of the map but in most cases even a prolonged campaign rarely uses even a good fraction of the available world. It would seem more proficient for a GM to focus his time and effort detailing and fleshing out a smaller workable area than trying to build an entire world. Im on the edge where this decision is concerned. I can see the benefits of both approaches, and can even imagine sketching out a large world map and only building a small section to allow the occasional character, influence, object or whatever to herald from one of those 'far across the map' locations and requiring only a limited amount of background due to their distance and rarity of involvement.
Thoughts?
A large map/scale in utterly no way denies the possibility of a more focused campaign. You could have andless adventures in and around a single city on one place on a map and never see the rest. Broad campaigns allow a DM the options of where to start. Say they dont want to start in an Arabian knights themed kingdom? But that Aztech+Plains Indians themed one over there looks fun. Or maybe they want to do an elf-centric campaign? etc.
Since I run a sandbox, for the most part, I like a decent-sized area to give the players at least the sense that they can go to a lot of different places. The Black Mountain District, where I'm running now, is smaller than Vermont but not _much_ smaller. The link to it is in my sig. If the characters decide to leave the District, they can reach a tamer human-dominated area, the Lake Country, which is the first place in which I ever ran games. Since some of them are from there and it is just to the south, it would be the easiest place to go. The rest of the Dwarf Kingdom of Glon' is also easily accessible. I know where all the rivers, forests and mountains are, although I have never run a campaign there. Eventually, they would reach the Inland Sea and I have run campaigns on all of its shores. I've been running this setting, or world, since the early Eighties and have run in many of the places.
Depends on the scope of the campaign I want. Overall, I believe in "small and useful" vs. "large that I won't use"
I don't need more than one city in a Cyberpunk or Urban Fantasy game.
Traveller runs fine with a single solar system. AKA, no jump drives. Even with jump drives, a dozen systems will do a campaign just fine for years.
My OD&D campaign has yet to have any travel beyond a week's journey from the main port city. I've run 20+ sessions and there is so much to see & do close by that even though the "larger world" is known to the PCs, they are so invested in the local area and its conflicts that they haven't even gone deep in any cardinal direction.
My Mazes & Minotaurs campaign is an island hopper through a misty archipeligo. I plotted 18 isles and after 20+ sessions, I think I've used 8 of them.
Regional. I started the latest world in the central region of a land mass, and have been developing different parts of it as I go. The previous group fleshed out much of the central region, while the newest group is located east. There's still a great deal of land unexplored west and north that, I guess, become the backdrop for the next campaign.:-)
That said, I think I could've continued running in the central location for a very long time, given the shifting political alliances, and places still wild and unknown there.
Start small and expand only at need.
Good rule of thumb, IME: slower pace, smaller scale; faster pace, further scale.
That way you are matching pacing, as that affects relationship development. It matches closer to life, from my globetrotting experience, too. It also helps you decide how much preparatory work you want to invest into the materials.
Fast and furious can easily enjoy a grand tour because it is all transitory. It is a survey course, a tasting not savoring, of the material. Conversely slow and subtle can easily linger around a single point because all pieces eventually impart textured meaning to the whole. It is (and I hate the potential elitist misinterpretation, but roll with the analogy parallelism with me) an upper division course, a marrow sucking savoring, of the material's multifaceted nature.
It's an axiom to support my GM laziness and lowered expectations. This is just happy fun time in imagination land for most of us, so I'll take the least resistance when I can. If and when I get more stellar players down for it, we can try more complex, experimental stuff. Until then, baby steps.