Post/Author/DateTime	Post
sbattisti 05-09-07, 04:04 PM	I'm thinking about starting a campaign, and thought I'd throw out this question: In the past (many moons ago) when I DMed, I allowed myself to get swallowed up in the need to create everything in advance. That is, I needed the world to be complete, and the map to be done, and know everything in advance. Without that, I felt, it would be hard if not impossible to know how to advance the game. This time, however, I'm older and who knows, maybe even wiser. I do know that I have a heckuva lot less free time than I did circa 1980. :) So, I have a great idea (well, so I think) for the starting point of a campaign. Question is: how smoothly do you think a campaign can go if I develop it "inside out." That is, to start, I would just define the immediate area for the first adventure, and enough background to let the characters feel "at home." As the sessions move on, I would begin to flesh out the world, and have it evolve. I know many DMs are like I was, and like to create the whole campaign setting. What do you think? Is this feasible? I'm sure others have done this before. What sort of pitfalls do I need to be aware of? What would you think I should prepare in advance, at a minimum? Opinions welcome. Steve
Anuvrix 05-09-07, 04:24 PM	The DMG reccomends that DMs do that to start anyway. this is how many campaigns are made. the ones here are the ones not made that way for the most part.
sdragon1984 05-10-07, 10:59 AM	The biggest pitfall to be aware of is consistancy. When building a world outside-in, you have a set date for when the lich overlord rose to power (as an example) before you even have any adventures. When building a world inside-out, you may find you'll need near meticulous notetaking to ensure the same level of consistancy. Another disadvantage is the level of realism in gossip and rumors. In inside-out worlds, there's never a lick of news from anywhere that doesn't directly affect the PCs. I don't know about you, but I hear quite a bit of information about countries I'll probably never see. Of course, due to the nature of plothooks, this most likely isn't the biggest issue, but it may be something to consider. The advantages of building a world inside-out, of course, are that nothing goes to waste, and that the initial workload is considerably less. If you need something easygoing, then inside-out should be fine. If you need something with some finer degrees of subtley, such as what I've mentioned, but don't have the time to create your own setting outside-in, then I'd suggest using an existing setting.
fuzzycrusader 05-14-07, 04:58 AM	this is a great idea. the PCs could be going on some epic exploratory campaign and you'd be learning about the world at only a slightly faster pace. I think this could definitely be fun.
Jürgen Hubert 05-14-07, 06:02 AM	If you know someone who has some webspace with php capabilities available, ask them to set up a Wiki for you. I've been using one for my Exalted campaign, and it has been very useful. It's probably even more useful for homemade campaign settings.
Aneutralshadeofblack 05-14-07, 07:47 AM	I don't know about you, but I hear quite a bit of information about countries I'll probably never see. In medieval time, two duchies would hardly ever hear from each other unless they were at war or directly involved in some way - and even then, it'd be rare enough to celebrate. We have TVs; commoners don't, and scrying/Sending is only available to spellcasters. :P
Naderion 05-14-07, 10:15 AM	I think outside in is something you really do only once in your life, mostly because it really can take all your life. :D If you just want to play "something different" for a time, this aproach is quite impractical, I think. When you just want to play in two or three locations, then there isn't much choice but inside out. Outside in only works if you plan to use the world a lot, lets say the next 10 or 20 years. :D
Moniker 05-14-07, 11:08 AM	If you know someone who has some webspace with php capabilities available, ask them to set up a Wiki for you. I've been using one for my Exalted campaign, and it has been very useful. It's probably even more useful for homemade campaign settings. You can use pbwiki.com for free. I use it for my own gaming world: http://deismaar.pbwiki.com
Ayers 05-14-07, 12:02 PM	To sum up what's below: Essentially the "Inside-Out" approach is better for storytelling, because it's more personal, whereas the "Outside-In" method is better for world-building because it gives you more pre-planned work to build with. Either way, Dungeons and Dragons is all about storytelling, and the two types of world building methods reflect two types of storytelling. Outside-In is all about building a world where the PCs are struggling to survive, and their story is evolving at the will of the world around them. In essence, they have very little pull in the world, and they are pretty much insignificant to how things turn out. The most advantageous purpose for building a world this way is the realism. The most disadvantageous reason for not using this method, is that your PCs may lose that sense of 'Adventure' in a world that's already been pretty much completely explored and looted. As well, another disadvantage is that you will probably do mountains of work that your PCs will never see, because there are some important plot reasons, or the level of realism you're looking for simply wouldn't have them know all the things that reading that information would give them. When building a world through the "Inside-Out" approach, you're building a world that evolves around the story of your PCs, and in essence, I think this is more truthful to the term "Campaign Setting" (a setting that reflects your campaign). The advantages of this method are that, the world evolves with the growth of the players and it becomes something that they feel more involved in because they've helped to create it, and the players feel less like just another random, faceless adventurer in the minds of Inn-Keepers everywhere. As well, the other advatage is the level of flexibility that this method gives you (things can change to suit your campaign setting, and your adventures; the world becomes a lot less rigid to yourself, and gives you far fewer headaches). Finally, the last advantage is that you can control the flow of information. Players can't read about your setting on the Internet, or go through your notes -- because really there's nothing that's been pre-determined. Everything that happens is happening, and you can introduce them to more information as you go along, and they only know what they ask to know about, and what you choose to tell them. Of course, the main disadvantage of this type of setting is that you sacrifice a level of realism that some DMs feel very comfortable with and want to give to their players. As well, another disadvantage is that it can become difficult to keep consistencies. Overall, building a campaign the "Inside-Out" is something that I have found to be a lot more fun for both my players, and myself. That's not to say that there's not some credit to the other "Outside-In" method, especially when you want to plan everything out in advance, but generally, I find it becomes too rigid and too unenjoyable for players. The "Inside-Out" method is simply a lot more enjoyable for players, in my experience, because the world develops with the story -- something that all great stories should do. Having read this, feel free to skip what's below. But if you want a little more in-depth analysis, then read on. Either way, best of luck to you in your setting. Now, to the point: I think building a world Inside-Out is a lot of fun. When it comes down to it, most of the information that you make in a Outside-In world, or Campaign Setting is something that your players will never fully see, and you're the only one that will ever benefit from it's existence. Unless you're marketing your Campaign Setting, it doesn't really matter about consistencies, as long as the major things remain consisent (for example, the kingdom on the other side of the river, stays on the other side of the river, or the name of King doesn't change without reason for it to be changed, etc -- basically anything important to plot details or a general sense of geography). An Inside-Out approach doesn't give you any less or any more work, though, it just spaces out the work you have to do over a period of time, which can make it seem like less work. Eventually, your PCs are going to come to the point where they want to spread out into the world around them, and eventually you'll have to come around to making that up. So in the long-run (assuming there is a long-run) you end up doing the same amount of work. Anyways, I think you should go for it. I'd start off with a small region to design. For example a County in a larger Kingdom, or a small geographical region (perhaps, bound to the limits of the mountains to the river; or in a big city, a radius of only a few blocks to give them some roaming room). However, when you start off limiting your PCs abilities to travel from certain places, you have to give them a good reason. Perhaps, the forest on the other side of the aforementioned river is currently being used by the Prince as his Royal Hunting Grounds, and anyone who attempts to cross into it, can be arrested. Or perhaps the Mountain's passes are blocked by snow and ice, and won't be open until springtime comes. Maybe, in a city, the PCs are stuck in that few block radius because of gang-wars, and although they're allowed to wander into other blocks, they won't survive very long. Basically, the reason that I make it difficult for PCs to leave an area isn't to railroad them for the sake of railroading. It's so they can unlock the world when they're ready to. Besides, if I just let them go wherever they want, than I feel like they haven't earned anything. In this game I think there's more to rewards than just Experience and Cool Items. My philosophy is that they should have to earn their trip around the world and not just be able to wander around at their own behest. I think it helps promote a level of verismiltude, as well. 'Cause really, in the Midieval Era, who knew everything about the world around them before leaving their home for the first time? Not a lot of people knew much about the world, and it probably wasn't horribly uncommon to find a remote village where people weren't sure who their king was, at any given time. Another benefit from the Inside-Out approach is the level of flexibility you have with the world around you. It's really like the Simpsons. In every episode the Geography of their world changes around them, so that the designers of the show can tailor the town to their needs. For example, sometimes, Springfield is right on the ocean -- other times, there's no water around the city as far as the eye can see. Obviously, this is a storytelling device that we accept because it is only a cartoon, and it does entertain us (even if not as much as before). By not providing your players with a map of the world, you give yourself a great deal of flexibilty to change elements of your world to better suit your adventures and to just generally make it a more entertaining game. Of course, there are some things you`re going to want to keep constant, but you will also be able to change certain small things as the adventures progress. This does sacrifice a level of realism in the game, but it also makes it more entertaining and not as rigid. Because, let`s face it, players sometimes just want to adventure and have some fun. And that`s all this game is about. Remember though, don`t just change everything at your own will -- you have to leave some things constant and some things unchanged, or your players will simply get frustrated when they try and find a tavern that is now replaced with a forest. The major problem you need to be aware of, though, is your own desire to flesh out the world around the PCs. I, personally, find that when I start off with a small little design for a town and the surrounding area, I have this urge -- this unholy, pathological urge to flesh out the rest of the world around it. Oftentimes, I can be found rocking back and forth holding my knees, chanting: "Flesh. Flesh. Flesh." If you're going to do it this way, then take your time with it. Just let the world evolve itself around your story, and not have your story revolve around it. Obviously, it isn't as realistic as some would like and that's fine if you love realism. But really, remember that D&D is just a game about telling a story, and it's not neccesarily about being realistic. Just let your world unfold around your story, and make it better. Maybe your players won't feel that realism you wanted from the game, but from my experience, they have a lot more fun being someone who has a pull in the world than just another, nameless,faceless, adventurer looking to make it big.
Araes 05-14-07, 03:29 PM	You can use pbwiki.com for free. I use it for my own gaming world: http://deismaar.pbwiki.com Interesting, I'm glad this option has gained some traction, as wiki's are a very useful way of hosting and setting up worlds. My own is actually hosted there (http://ifmcs.pbwiki.com/) too as well as on these boards (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=518823). Nice picture on the intro page btw. As far as the actual inside out world creation goes, since Ayers just did a massive post, I don't think its necessary to cover too many of the points again. I don't agree with his thematic assumptions on Outside In vs Inside Out, but that's fine. In bullet point summary, the general things I think you need to note for Inside Out are: General progression should be: Start with local setting, idea, person, adventure Build up immediate area to support that Build up successive regions around that in higher levels of detail until you reach the maximum size of the world. For people you detail down to their items if you need them. Don't do this for everybody by any means. For towns you detail town to the important people (name, what they do) and maybe items (name, what is it) For nations you detail down to the important towns (name, population) and maybe really important items or people (King, a sword that represents the kingdom (Eberron), ect...) For the world you detail lightly (like names only, or more with time) the nations around the important one and really world spanning stuff like religions, gods, ect... that would impact local scale. No matter the type of world building, don't worry too much about specific stats unless they are really important. Descriptive names can cover nearly everything. Let your PCs do as much legwork for world creation as you can. If they suggest things in random conversation that they think are cool, grab them and use them. Do keep good notes as you go. Given an hour here or there, you can look over them and find good stuff that you can work back in later that you created while playing. Learn how to improv. I made a Big post on it a while back that can be found here. Improvization, like world creation, mostly focuses on just being able to partition up your ideas efficiently so you don't spend too much time in one place. It can also allow you to deal with some rather massive shifts in player interests or locations without having to pause. Don't railroad. This can be a big temptation using Inside Out so that you can use whatever material you made. Don't get married to your material, and if you don't use it in one place, you might be able to shift it to another without much work. Maybe that neat shopkeeper with the cool traits or that cool adventure hook will just shift to the next town. Again, don't go detail crazy. It reduces how tied you are to things, allows for flexibility, and really isn't necessary in most games. Overall, I'm not a fan of Inside Out, but that's mostly because I've had a lot of practice at Outside In and improv gaming. I just tend to find them easier for my brain. However, much like learning, some people are big picture first, and then small details, while other people would rather know small details and then how it all fits together later.