This is just the video I needed right now, I always struggle between the two. Either I have so much detail that means nothing to the players. And by doing so flip over to soft worldbuilding to the point it seems like I'm just making things up on the fly and is just surface level at best. This helped me understand where and how to put my creative energy to better use
YES!! 👏🏾 I’ve been also struggling with the same issue of forcing my world to fit a certain category or details for players. when in reality it should be hard & soft, a world built on structure & stability with cracks of imagination in it for each player. 😌 thank you for the video
I think that's why I appreciate Elden Ring so much. The implication that there is some vast lore that is just outside of your reach generates immersion into the world itself. The experience of this comes off as "soft", as you know as much as you need to in order to move forward through the narrative.
Being a GM/DM with decades of worldbuilding under my belt, I find it crucial to know your audience (the players). If you have an understanding of their play style, you can determine which is most effective. Secondly, I look at the length of the game. Is this a one-shot with no tie-in or is this a long campaign or a short one in a familiar setting the players may already have an understanding of. Lastly, I stay flexible and don't mind adding things in when needed, even if it may change other elements of the world. (I.E. a calamity caused by the players that was completely unexpected. )
Dude I love your content. It is informative and not full of BS. Keep it up, you supply I am there. You actually inspired a launch of my own homebrew DnD Campaign...so far awesome.
I have been working blend. I have been doing both the outside ->in and inside -> out approach of constructing the world. Noting the major continents, leaving space for continents I might need over time. The original location(s) of the story gets the most immediate details and then I fan out the "rules" to the nearby locations and ultimately world-wide, but I want there to be enough opportunity to integrate and/or expand on some aspect that really resonates with the players. In the few years of play I have already adjusted details based on player decisions and questions, and ultimately allowed me to follow other trains of thought that I didn't originally consider. Ultimately, once the players have experienced it, it's cannon. Unless it really needs to be changed, but I bring that to the players, and sometimes allow them to vote.
I'm a hard world builder. I've laid out in detail how things interact with each other but I don't push it in the ttrpg I'm running. I know exactly what magic can and cannot do but the players knows only what a person living in the world would believe to be true. Having tinkered with my world for over 20 years I can info dump for days but I'd rather tell the story and reveal details as it progresses or when the players ask specific questions.
This was super helpful! Thank you so much. I think I tend to be a soft world builder. Like with this science fiction trilogy I’m writing. I have to go into a little bit of detail on how the starships work and the weapons, but the alien society is left vague with a lot of questions unanswered. I know more than the reader will, but I still don’t know all the details.
I started writing my 1st novel thinking I would figure it out as I'm writing (soft worldbuilding). Turns out, I like hard world building because I get stuck every few sentences asking myself why and how does one thing work 😂
My brain builds worlds when left unoccupied for too long. In any D&D campaign, there is a minimum level of "hardness" required (gosh, that sounds awful). You need gods to cater for clerics and paladins, mysterious entities to cater for warlocks, etc. Whole classes and subclasses don't work without this information, so you either have to make it up or you have to ban those options from the get-go (and then you still need to explain why those things don't exist!). Fortunately, super-powerful entities are a great starting point for world-building, since they've presumably been there since the beginning and will be integral to any world you create. I always start with a pantheon - either original or stolen - and the starting town/city. Then you just need a central tension for the world, and a central tension for the campaign, and off you go!
Hey, I think you should check out Brent Weeks, he‘s an awesome fantasy-author. He published two series, a trilogy and one with seven books (whatever that’s called😅). And he’s currently writing on another few books that continue the trilogy. I think it would enrich your repertoire of great things to quote of 😁(is that right, english is not my native language)😅 And the reason for my recommendation is that he does a great job at dancing between hard and soft worldbuilding. There are a lot of mysteries that get uncovered along the way but some of them just stay a mystery.
Haha, I find every soft world I introduce to my players inevitably trends towards metapod. I think it's just natural human curiosity. There's also, perhaps, a certain glee in getting me to admit, "I dunno. What do you think?" or "let's leave this and I'll have an answer for you next session." To concretely answer your closing question, I think I'm a soft world builder who somehow can't escape binders of lore 😂. But world building is fun! So, maybe I have a distorted self-view. You start to deconstruct the distinction towards the end, though, with the Game of Thrones and Star Wars examples you gave. And indeed, even Tolkien has soft edges or the most whimsical fairy tale some internal logic. Does knowing our own tendency help us navigate those pitfalls better? "In service of the story/experience" is fine as a guideline, but it's often hard to tell what will capture your players' imagination.
Fair point! I think the biggest question is to ask "does knowing X or Y change the current status quo?" If the answer is no, then it's probably best left unsaid until they discover it for themselves. I think as long as you have an idea and not going in willy nilly it's probably good haha
Loved this video.
Appreciate you taking the time to leave some love :)
This is just the video I needed right now, I always struggle between the two. Either I have so much detail that means nothing to the players. And by doing so flip over to soft worldbuilding to the point it seems like I'm just making things up on the fly and is just surface level at best. This helped me understand where and how to put my creative energy to better use
@@captainsquest4860 i have similar problem , care to elaborate your conclusion
YES!! 👏🏾 I’ve been also struggling with the same issue of forcing my world to fit a certain category or details for players. when in reality it should be hard & soft, a world built on structure & stability with cracks of imagination in it for each player. 😌 thank you for the video
I think that's why I appreciate Elden Ring so much. The implication that there is some vast lore that is just outside of your reach generates immersion into the world itself. The experience of this comes off as "soft", as you know as much as you need to in order to move forward through the narrative.
100% agree, that's why the game is so mysterious and so enchanting
Bro I love your channel, little bites of consistently high quality worldbuilding content
aw shucks I appreciate the love
Being a GM/DM with decades of worldbuilding under my belt, I find it crucial to know your audience (the players). If you have an understanding of their play style, you can determine which is most effective. Secondly, I look at the length of the game. Is this a one-shot with no tie-in or is this a long campaign or a short one in a familiar setting the players may already have an understanding of. Lastly, I stay flexible and don't mind adding things in when needed, even if it may change other elements of the world. (I.E. a calamity caused by the players that was completely unexpected. )
Dude I love your content. It is informative and not full of BS. Keep it up, you supply I am there. You actually inspired a launch of my own homebrew DnD Campaign...so far awesome.
Oooo! Tell me about the world! I love homebrew worlds!
Appreciate the love :)
I have been working blend. I have been doing both the outside ->in and inside -> out approach of constructing the world. Noting the major continents, leaving space for continents I might need over time.
The original location(s) of the story gets the most immediate details and then I fan out the "rules" to the nearby locations and ultimately world-wide, but I want there to be enough opportunity to integrate and/or expand on some aspect that really resonates with the players.
In the few years of play I have already adjusted details based on player decisions and questions, and ultimately allowed me to follow other trains of thought that I didn't originally consider.
Ultimately, once the players have experienced it, it's cannon. Unless it really needs to be changed, but I bring that to the players, and sometimes allow them to vote.
I'm a hard world builder.
I've laid out in detail how things interact with each other but I don't push it in the ttrpg I'm running.
I know exactly what magic can and cannot do but the players knows only what a person living in the world would believe to be true.
Having tinkered with my world for over 20 years I can info dump for days but I'd rather tell the story and reveal details as it progresses or when the players ask specific questions.
I love this! I've been building Malidea for almost 10 years now, and I feel the same way about info dumping. Can I do it? Yep! But I stop myself haha
I think the ideal is a hard world build that looks like a soft world build from the perspective of the player/reader.
I'm inclined to agree with you there, that's what I try to go for
This was super helpful! Thank you so much. I think I tend to be a soft world builder. Like with this science fiction trilogy I’m writing. I have to go into a little bit of detail on how the starships work and the weapons, but the alien society is left vague with a lot of questions unanswered. I know more than the reader will, but I still don’t know all the details.
hello. for the question at the end i will say that im a hard worldbuilder. nice vid btw
Thanks for the love!
I started writing my 1st novel thinking I would figure it out as I'm writing (soft worldbuilding). Turns out, I like hard world building because I get stuck every few sentences asking myself why and how does one thing work 😂
Like Jill Bearups touch on this with her main character being fully aware of the story and asking the author "Because you don't know either?" 😂
My brain builds worlds when left unoccupied for too long. In any D&D campaign, there is a minimum level of "hardness" required (gosh, that sounds awful). You need gods to cater for clerics and paladins, mysterious entities to cater for warlocks, etc. Whole classes and subclasses don't work without this information, so you either have to make it up or you have to ban those options from the get-go (and then you still need to explain why those things don't exist!). Fortunately, super-powerful entities are a great starting point for world-building, since they've presumably been there since the beginning and will be integral to any world you create. I always start with a pantheon - either original or stolen - and the starting town/city. Then you just need a central tension for the world, and a central tension for the campaign, and off you go!
Hey, I think you should check out Brent Weeks, he‘s an awesome fantasy-author. He published two series, a trilogy and one with seven books (whatever that’s called😅). And he’s currently writing on another few books that continue the trilogy. I think it would enrich your repertoire of great things to quote of 😁(is that right, english is not my native language)😅
And the reason for my recommendation is that he does a great job at dancing between hard and soft worldbuilding. There are a lot of mysteries that get uncovered along the way but some of them just stay a mystery.
Love the recommendation! I'll check out their trilogy and....septilogy?? LOL
Thanks for leaving some love!
@ of course 😁
Haha, I find every soft world I introduce to my players inevitably trends towards metapod. I think it's just natural human curiosity. There's also, perhaps, a certain glee in getting me to admit, "I dunno. What do you think?" or "let's leave this and I'll have an answer for you next session." To concretely answer your closing question, I think I'm a soft world builder who somehow can't escape binders of lore 😂. But world building is fun! So, maybe I have a distorted self-view.
You start to deconstruct the distinction towards the end, though, with the Game of Thrones and Star Wars examples you gave. And indeed, even Tolkien has soft edges or the most whimsical fairy tale some internal logic. Does knowing our own tendency help us navigate those pitfalls better? "In service of the story/experience" is fine as a guideline, but it's often hard to tell what will capture your players' imagination.
Fair point! I think the biggest question is to ask "does knowing X or Y change the current status quo?" If the answer is no, then it's probably best left unsaid until they discover it for themselves.
I think as long as you have an idea and not going in willy nilly it's probably good haha
wot kinda worldbuilder am i matey? i'm 'ard. well 'ard
Soft world building > Hard!!! Both as a consumer of content and long time GM.