Is there any good advice for worldbuilders out there?

>story
lel

Stop bothering people for free art.

Start small, go big.
Start with what you need, meaning the local area, some very basic general world history, some cultural quirks, and a short list of important locals.

Ask players where they want to go a session or two in advance so you have time to plan the next local area, and just keep expanding the setting that way.

If players have specific questions about the world, either work with them to figure it out, or just make a note and fill it out for the next session.

I don't see how that contradicts each other. I find it easy to have cool shit happen when I already know what cool shit exists in the general area we're in.

>"world building is cancer because the players won't experience the cool shit"
>But Retard-kun, knowing what cool shit is in the area they're in gives me easy options and avoids pitfalls like obvious, clashing, and bad improv detracting from the experience.
>"WORLDBUILDERS GET OUT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"

Nice argument.

Stick to the interesting bits, never bring up your irrelevant aspects of your world.

Yes: don't. Lay out a few key points, together with your players, and make the rest up as you go along.

Except that is bullshit.
The "cool shit" you write on your own is mastrubatory regurgitations nobody would care about.
Play the fucking game instead.

Why would the players not care about it?

Build the very base. Then expand when needed. Don't put too much work into it, because something just might won't compe up and will be a waste of effort.
In general have an interesting idea about the setting and expand from it.
Also steal ideas.

Don't lay down track, build train station and plant them where your players are trying to go.

>luca turilli
>Rhapsody of fire
The Italian powermetal scene is so well known?

because you are most likely not a good storyteller or worldbuilder. And even if you are, these things need a powerful depiction and usability ingame, which always should be the focus of a GM.

You can do both. I'd rather have no game at all, than a good story with a boring world (and hence no scope). So I plan for weeks/months, then and only then start the game, in which I do plan for mostly story.

Some people enjoy doing work to enjoy it later, shocking I know.

How did you turn his twelve words into a hundred? That's some outstanding projection.

>Is there any good advice for worldbuilders out there?

Assuming D&D, you are ready to play when you have:

Low-detail world
Medium-detail region
High-detail starting area.

You can work top down, starting with a world map, picking a region for some details and then letting that region inspire you when you make the starting village or

You can work rising upwards, starting with a detailed village, then creating a region that could have such a village, then a world that could have such a region but

either case, do not get derailed - do not start by creating a low-detail world, then a mid-detail region, then a mid-detail region, then a mid-detail region, then... because you don't need that until later.

>The "cool shit" you write on your own is mastrubatory regurgitations nobody would care about.

Hey listen, I'm truly sorry about what Jim told you about your game, that was uncalled for, but you need to realize that you're a botttom-5% DM and other DMs out there don't have your problems.

>How did you turn his twelve words into a hundred? That's some outstanding projection.

It's not hard when you've heard those twelve words many times before and always from people who'll go on to say the next 88.

I'm going to suggest the middle ground and say that you shouldn't get too caught up in worldbuilding at the expense of your game. A little bit is fine, just don't go overboard. Focus on what needs to be detailed, either immediately or in the near future, and put everything else on the back burner. You don't need to explain anything about the desert on the other side of the planet if the players are never going to go there.

Design Session 1 and 2 first, then work your way down from there.
Top Down tends to be more productive overall, because it's the surface level stuff players are going to be interacting with. Also helps you by letting sessions set the tone for the setting if you don't have that already.
Usually all I need to start is one or two gods for the cleric/paladin, some basic magical taboos/restrictions for casters (does rez exist, is necromancy evil, how common are wizards, etc) and lastly, and most important, what kind of food and music do people eat and listen to in the town. Food and Music set just how comfy the setting can be.

Brevity is the soul of wit when trying to propose a setting to your players. If you can sum up your setting's tone, theme and aesthetic in a single line, do it.

Your map only needs to show rough ideas. As an example: I should know Grunsbelt is a heavily forested country north of the Empire, and your blurb on it should tell me just enough to get a feel for the place in case my character comes from there.

Have as much history, religion, politics and culture as you want. Have all the trivia you could possibly want to have. But here's the thing: You might have a detailed explanation on how the folk religions believe Grun, the Earth God, used its body to build the continent, that Grunsbelt means "Grun's Waist" in their tongue, and that the region got its name because it's a mountain range and strip of forest bordering a southern region of fertile land like the whole country was the god's groin. That's neat. If I ask about the region or go through your texts on it in my own time I might even really like it. But when I'm trying to build a 3rd level barbarian for the game about raiding dungeons I am not likely to give a shit enough to read it, and having skipped that shit I'm far less likely to go back and read it once we've started.

/thread

Rare to see a correctly done version of this meme

Italians probably do the best powermetal as of now

you don't need a world map or a giant world
Best campaigns Ive ever run were centered around a small region
1-3 (Optimally 1) towns that are very fleshed out with rumors, people, goings on, families, maps
a city with a general map and deep political intrigue and some quests if the party wants
a dungeon with a very clear purpose and not just a hole in the group with enemies

have something intersting for the players around every turn, all the npcs have opinions about current events and motivations.

People like conspiracies

Not OP, but I have had this problem when I do that: when I ask such questions as that, all I get is "oh I dunno, whatever." What then?

Well, good for me because that's exactly what i do

If you think of something cool use it immediately, there's not point in delaying it to another session, because there is a chance there won't be any other session. In other words, don't worldbuild.

I completely agree. The bare minimum effort for posting on /wbg/ should be geological history at least four supercontinent cycles back, realistic fluid dynamical modelling of ocean currents (with the flow rate rounded to the nearest Sverdrup), albedo calculations for each biome and their effect on local evaporation and drainage, the planet's current axial tilt's effect on glaciation, and an overview on world population dynamics from the Neolithic or its equivalent to the "present" age (generally iron age/medieval), which is usually roughly 200-300 generations' worth of detail.

Maybe you're just bad at improvisation.

Don't. Instead, maybe try. "Oh I dunno, I'll get back to you." and then figure it out.

Worldbuilding is like going to a titty bar, you might see something good but you'll never get to touch it.

Is it bad that i do worldbuilding with no scope in mind?

I just enjoy it for the sake of it.

Time ago collaborative worldbuildings were fun at Veeky Forums.. but something changed.

Worldbuilding art is hard.

make a world in dwarf fortress

you're done

...

First post worst fucking post