I'm working on a game about fantasy spies. The game is set in a particular world, and I'd like to do lots of worldbuilding.
My question to you is thus:
As a player/GM, would you rather...
1: The game has detailed information on every country in the world
2: The game has detailed information on major nations
3: The game provides mechanisms for you to create your own world from scratch
@voidspiral I think I'd like two sourcebooks. One describes the game, with some notes on how to create your own world, and the other is the detailed notes on every country in the world. That way, when I need game info I can go to the "DM's guide" and not have to look through 80 pages of world info, but when I want world info it's easy to find. They can be released together, of course. Also lets you make anothersourcebook for a different world, and lets others do so for their worlds.
@voidspiral 1 sounds very dull to me. Give the DM some room to play!
2 combined with 3 sounds good, especially if the players and GM can cooperate on building the world or plop in major countries if they don't want to do the work.
@voidspiral I think, given the details of the rules the DMs that care to make their own world from scratch would be able to do it on their own, and for those that can't/don't want to it would be nice to have one with every country
@voidspiral a mix of 2 and 3. Leave gaps in the details for the players to fill out parts of the lore and find ways to integrate their own characters and backstories.
@voidspiral I ran a campaign like this recently. Even in my mature setting, I found I had to do a LOT of worldbuilding, more than I even anticipated, and in ways I didn't anticipate. So I concur about "some mix of 2 and 3", & would add: a detailed sample setting ("use if you want") if nothing else serves as a helpful model of HOW MUCH detail DMs may want--and, for players, a model of how much detail they *could* expect
@voidspiral part of me wants 3 because flexibility and stuff, but the lazier GM part of me wants 1 because it's an already made setting, and if there are things we don't like we can still change that after... and having details would still be an excellent guideline to make our own anyway if we wanted...
@voidspiral Why not all three? Give a list of major powers, how they work, how they can be spied upon, and how they relate to the framework a GM could use to make their own nations/countries.
@voidspiral I'd say it depends on your target group. If you design your game for experiented GMs you could easily go with the 3th. (and give an example for a nation maybe?)
But sometimes it's hard to have too much options to choose from. So maybe you'll go with the first or 2nd option?
I don't see many differences between those two options, because eitherway you'll design like an option pool the gm can choose from. Btw I had to think of a board game. Take a look! https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/175878/504
We are an inclusive Mastodon community for everything tabletop (& more). We welcome everyone that wants to be part of the community, boardgamers, RPG players, casual gamers, party gamers, hobbyists, LARPers, game designers and publishers, RPG characters, artists, writers, vlogers, podcasters, reviewers, streamers, lego builders and more.
This is meant to be a positive and safe space for people to enjoy each other's ideas, opinion and have fun. To keep tabletop.social that way, the Code of Conduct and Rules will be applied and enforced thoroughly.
We mostly follow blockchain's blocklist.
This community uses Mutant Standard emoji, which are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
See above for the avatar
The header is from darklavendrvoid
Join us on Discord too ! (same policies apply)