I'm hoping to generate a discussion about building a campaign, and possibly a world around it. I'm going to be running a group of players through the Shackled City adventure path, and then hoping to ease them into a modified Blue Rose campaign, but eventually I'd like to build my own homebrew campaign. I'll probably want to use True20 for the ruleset, but that's not really important for this thread I suppose. My question is what method do ya'all use for starting/building a campaign/world? Do ya start by fleshing out only a locale and it's immediate vicinity, then build up from there ala Shackled City? Do ya design an entire world first, including weather patterns, trade routes, etc? I can see the merits of both but I'm kinda torn about which I might prefer. I have plenty of time before I'd start running players through it, so either method would be acceptable, I'm just curious to read about ya'all's experiences and what rticks/tips/advice ya might have. Thanks in advance

There is the start big and start small method, I suggest the start small method.  With the adventure selection you have chosen, you will find that you will not need that much in "campaign world," concepts beyond a reasonable locale, gods and such.  As you start small you can branch out and as you run more campaigns you can flesh it out and combine the various lands and concepts into the campaign world you want.  I suggest you start with the stuff that really matters and work from there, and work on the other stuff in your spare time for yourself.

I like developing a whole contenent first, and going from there.

I consider my Physical Geography class in college to be nothing other than a "campaign world map generating" class. It's amazingly applicable stuff.

If you don't mind a lot of fairly dense information, here's an online Physical Geography textbook: http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/contents.html

Thanks PS. I really am leaning that way. It seems to me that it would be better because it allows my players to actually help develop the world with their IC actions and input, but I can understand the start big style too, so I'm hoping someone will relate their experience with it.

Very cool link NL. I have a basic continent map, but I was thinking of looking for some info to use in making it geographically logical...your site will help lots. My thinking is, whether I only flesh out a little piece...starting small as PS says, or detail the whole damn thing at once, a good continent map is always a Good Thing.

Quote from: SigmundThanks PS. I really am leaning that way. It seems to me that it would be better because it allows my players to actually help develop the world with their IC actions and input, but I can understand the start big style too, so I'm hoping someone will relate their experience with it.

I've done both methods myself and found that the big grand approach, while gets the big picture, tends to forget the little things that matter.  You tend to concentrate on the stuff that really doesn't initially matter, while the info that does slips by.  

Then again if you have the time to work on it, and depending on the detail you wish, it may work out for you.  My current D&D world is heavily influenced by players and their actions over the years, with older characters becoming Campaign NPCs and such.  It was a mix of A huge world concept, creation mythos, the entire package with small campaigns I combined together over the years and then finally made alterations and made it into one world.

Also, one suggestion, is only do this if you want to.  I can't put too much emphasis on that aspect.  Because with the selection of adventures you picked, unless you feel the need to really get into your own world, it may be best to run it with Greyhawk as it is presented because the Age of Wyrms takes a bit to put into another campaign world... then again you have the option of starting without preconceived notions of what your world is and shoehorning the adventure into your world (as I have experienced in the past).  Campaign creation, especially the larger the scale, is a lot of work and is time consuming.  I don't want to discourage you from it, just want to put it out there for you.

Heh, I understand what you're saying. Thing is I've had this world-concept in my head for sometime, and I'd really like to get it out and on paper some. Then, if I think it's ok, I'd run it, otherwise it'd just remain an exercise for my imagination.I even already have basic ideas about races/cultures, religions, even some specific adventure spots....all in my head. It's getting really cluttered in there.

I've done both, and found both to have advantages.  Overall, though, I tend to lean "start small".  Actually, I'd almost say "think globally, design locally."  Be aware of some names, but don't worry about fleshing (or even mapping) things out that don't have an impact now.
 
If you want to play before the world is "finished" (as if there is such a thing), starting small is the best way to go.  Plus, it makes it a lot easier to make the PCs shine brighter because the world is built around them.
 
After my current campaign ends, I'm actually considering doing the next few as "stand alone" settings.  That is to say that I'll come up with a good idea for a campaign story arc, then build the setting around that idea as things progress.  When done, discard (or archive) the setting and move on to the next campaign.  In this mode, I definitely don't want to be detailing any more than will actually be used.  If the players like a setting well enough to ask to continue, then we can, but I'll know what it is that they like.

Some links

http://www.io.com/~sjohn/demog.htm

http://www.sfwa.org/writing/worldbuilding1.htm

http://users.tkk.fi/~vesanto/world.build.html

Names, thousands of them...

http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/fantasylinks.htm

The times when I've started to make my own setting, I have tended to start by looking at the big picture (say, continental scale) - what makes this world different, what kind of nations are there around, what gods there are, and so on. Then I immediately zoom in on the place where I'm going to start the campaign, and work outward from there.

Then again, none of my attempts have ever gotten anywhere useful, so maybe this isn't the best advice.

Regardless, one book I can heartily recommend for making your own settings (especially for D&D) is the 2e World Builder's Guide. It might be hard to find nowadays though (not sure if they got around to it on the ESD project).

Quote from: DackeThe times when I've started to make my own setting, I have tended to start by looking at the big picture (say, continental scale) - what makes this world different, what kind of nations are there around, what gods there are, and so on. Then I immediately zoom in on the place where I'm going to start the campaign, and work outward from there.

Then again, none of my attempts have ever gotten anywhere useful, so maybe this isn't the best advice.

Regardless, one book I can heartily recommend for making your own settings (especially for D&D) is the 2e World Builder's Guide. It might be hard to find nowadays though (not sure if they got around to it on the ESD project).

It's ESD, I was going to suggest it but didn't know if the edition thing would be an issue.

The WBG has very little edition-specific material. Hell, it has very little mechanical material at all. The closest thing I recall to discussing actual game stats was a bit about determining how many people of various levels are around in a community (where it uses a "ground-up" method rather than the "top-down" method of 3e - instead of saying "this place has a 4th level wizard, which means there are two 2nd levels and four 1st levels" it says "this place has 10 classed people, which means 5 1st level, 3 2nd level, 1 3rd level and 1 4th level").

There might also be some talk about how to fit in various classes and/or kits, but overall there's VERY little game-mechanical material in WBG.

I think it is one of the few 2nd edition books worth acquiring.

I recall a discussion on this some time ago on RPG.net, the thread spoke quite highly of the book for those GMs who want a good helping hand.

Quote from: LawbagI think it is one of the few 2nd edition books worth acquiring.

I recall a discussion on this some time ago on RPG.net, the thread spoke quite highly of the book for those GMs who want a good helping hand.

Half the book (well if you want to call it a book) is graph paper and charts of various types for different maps and campaign specific items, small close up areas and the like.  It's been a while since I looked through mine, however it is an excellent source I wish I had before I started my world building eons ago.

I like a map with some vague ideas for each landmark mentioned but nothing too constraining.  When the players make up their characters, it can be like an adopt-a-highway program but with a fantasy world's map.  They can take a city and make it their own.

For example:

QuotePlayer: This city is called Ulula, what is it about?

Me:  It is a city ruled by Paladins who worship this holy owl totem.  They are all about hunting in the night but their order ain't what it once was.  Once, every noble had an Ululan Paladin as a tutor for their kids or castellan for their keep and now they are on the wane and they mostly just deliver messages from the back of their giant owl steeds.

P: Cool, can I make up a halfling Paladin of Ulula who converted late in life due to a run-in with some beastie of the night?

M: Sure thing.

And that's how it rolled.  It turned into this huge to-do with the Ululan Inquisitor and the Justicar and this and that.  It become a really fleshed out place, all through the player's interest.

So, I tend to keep it fairly vague until the players get really into it and then we flesh it out together.