Worldbuilding Talk Thread

[TheStranger]

I get what you are saying and agree somewhat, but I also kind of disagree here. Perception of difference is more important than actual difference, and we choose who we empathize with, even if it's unconsciously. Human history is a testament to our ability to imagine commonalities and differences, to find new and exciting ways to hate our neighbors and love the people who hate them too, and to use science and religion to justify cultural attitudes.

I also don't think lands that value individualism will necessarily perceive an empire poorly; it really depends. I mean, if we think of real-world cultures that tend to emphasize individualism over collectivism or more accurately, are perceived to emphasize the former over the latter, those are also the nations that have created the largest empires on Earth, e.g., United States, Great Britain.

Yep. Humans can be divided into two groups - Us and Them. The dividing lines are almost irrelevant, and generally irrational. For instance, we tend to associate the KKK with southern racism (for good reason), but it was active here in Maine in the early 1900s. The target of this activity? French-Canadian immigrants, mostly Catholic, who were perceived as lazy, dumb, and taking jobs from good Protestants (as always, the question of how they're taking so many jobs if they're lazy and dumb goes unanswered). There were no lynchings (that I know of), but numerous demonstrations and probably more than a few incidents of drunken violence. Prejudice against people of French ancestry continues into the present, although it's no longer a major conflict.

Sometimes, our bias is strongest against the groups that are *almost* the same as us. Civil wars have been some of the nastiest conflicts ever, even though the factions are ostensibly of the same nationality (at least at the start of the conflict), presumably have similar cultures, and any ethnic differences are probably insignificant to anybody outside the groups involved. We don't have feuds with people halfway around the world, we have feuds with our neighbors.

[ArcanistSupreme]

Sometimes, our bias is strongest against the groups that are *almost* the same as us. Civil wars have been some of the nastiest conflicts ever, even though the factions are ostensibly of the same nationality (at least at the start of the conflict), presumably have similar cultures, and any ethnic differences are probably insignificant to anybody outside the groups involved. We don't have feuds with people halfway around the world, we have feuds with our neighbors.

This would presumably be truest in a pre-globalization world. Cell phones and airplanes have shrunk the world enormously, and even half-way around the world isn't that far anymore. But a world where high level casters are common should result in a similar phenomenon, which is why I prefer E6. It makes conflicts easier to disentangle and manage.

[Morgarion]

Sometimes, our bias is strongest against the groups that are *almost* the same as us. Civil wars have been some of the nastiest conflicts ever, even though the factions are ostensibly of the same nationality (at least at the start of the conflict), presumably have similar cultures, and any ethnic differences are probably insignificant to anybody outside the groups involved. We don't have feuds with people halfway around the world, we have feuds with our neighbors.

When it comes to civil wars, the difference in belligerents is usually one of political philosophy. Control of the state is what is being contested, pretty much by definition.

[TheStranger]

When it comes to civil wars, the difference in belligerents is usually one of political philosophy. Control of the state is what is being contested, pretty much by definition.

Yes, but I'm talking about the traits that define the groups contesting control of the state. In some cases, it is just a matter of political differences, but sometimes it's a matter of religious, ethnic, and/or cultural differences. I really don't want to get into real-world examples with this one, though.

[TheStranger]

As a general matter, how much do you feel obligated to build your world so that most or all published material has a place in it? If you're building for 3.X, are you comfortable excluding large portions of the core game and replacing it with homebrew?

I think this mostly comes up for me with regard to spellcasters. When I start to build a world, I like to have a clear picture of what magic is and how it works, and I always feel like I want to toss Vancian casting out the window and either homebrew a replacement or adopt something else, like psionics or incarnum, as the primary form of magic in my world. But then I start to feel like I'm just arbitrarily excluding half of the PHB and ruining my players' fun, so I back off my idea and leave the existing mechanics in place. So that's the example I'm thinking of, but I think the fundamental question can apply with other mechanics, or with races, or monsters, or whatever. D&D tends towards kitchen-sink fantasy, and I can't be the only person who sometimes wants a setting with a narrower focus.

So, how much do you feel like you can alter the basic assumptions of 3.X when you create your setting? If you've tried major changes, how were they received by your players?

[QED - Iltazyara]

It think it's most important that options are left open and people know what they're going into. I mean, sure throw vancian casting out the window; but make sure you have the documentation available for the alternative options you're providing your players.

I, at some point in my inane post midnight scribblings, decided elves and gnomes had gotten wiped out some time in the past; over the years I've realised my response to this is to increase racial diversity (not sub-racial diversity) ten fold. I took away two, I added in several dozen replacements.

Removing a staple will be something people notice, and you'll need anyone you want to play in your setting to know about it early on, rather than springing it on them at character creation.

Simplistic advice I realise, but it can't be repeated enough.

I my opinion though, removing some things in exchange for others works, I don't really see ToB stuff working alongside default melee classes much, better to have one set or the other. I specifically set out the classes I'm going to have in my world, going through all the source books, I picked around twenty in the end. But all that means is I'm leaving out another thirty or so.

Also on the idea of kitchen sink fantasy; I'm running stupid amounts of races, yet avoiding the kitchen sink. Races as individual cultures and nations, rather than all of them in one giant mix. I have about six native races per region, fourteen or so per sub continent. Seems to work well. For example, mind flayers are a staple, but avoid the kitchen sink; they are far away dangers, same could (once upon a time) be said for the drow, centaurrs, etc. People gather together in similar groups, the adventuring party of a halfling, dwarf, elf, human and orc is an oddity, not normality.

[Yora]

As a general matter, how much do you feel obligated to build your world so that most or all published material has a place in it?

Not at all. When it comes to D&D/PF there is waaay too much material out there, most of them cranked out in a hurry with rather poor quality and no consideration to how well it fits together with the other parts.
You can't have a game that is at the same time stone age, steam punk, wild west, pirates, middle ages, and Roman empire. I see people sometimes try it, but I think the result is almost universally poor. Make your choice what kind of setting you want to make and include only those elements that actually have a place in that kind of setting.

I go the opposite path and only use whatever I really, really need for the setting to work. Only four classes from the PF rulebook and two customized versions of other classes, and excluding animals, maybe 30 to 40 creatures from the bestiaries. The other half of creatures that exist in the world are new creations.
Even when there are ocasionally creatures or cultures that I think are really super cool and I would love to have in my setting, I discard them when they don't really work for the theme of the world.

[Morgarion]

The only things that are guaranteed to players when I'm DM are the third edition core materials. My opinion is that if you need something like a homebrew class or an encyclopedia of alternate features to properly represent your character, then your character sucks.

[Trog]

As a general matter, how much do you feel obligated to build your world so that most or all published material has a place in it? If you're building for 3.X, are you comfortable excluding large portions of the core game and replacing it with homebrew?

I think this mostly comes up for me with regard to spellcasters. When I start to build a world, I like to have a clear picture of what magic is and how it works, and I always feel like I want to toss Vancian casting out the window and either homebrew a replacement or adopt something else, like psionics or incarnum, as the primary form of magic in my world. But then I start to feel like I'm just arbitrarily excluding half of the PHB and ruining my players' fun, so I back off my idea and leave the existing mechanics in place. So that's the example I'm thinking of, but I think the fundamental question can apply with other mechanics, or with races, or monsters, or whatever. D&D tends towards kitchen-sink fantasy, and I can't be the only person who sometimes wants a setting with a narrower focus.

So, how much do you feel like you can alter the basic assumptions of 3.X when you create your setting? If you've tried major changes, how were they received by your players?

Howdy, Stranger! ^(^_^) ...

I don't ever feel the need to conform to published materials. For my tastes I tend to pitch whole books full of monsters out the window. As for rules usually we have a few minor house rules that don't really change the world as such, just minor things in combat is all.

The changes that I had done in 3.x (when I still played 3.x, that is) were received very well by my players. I home-brewed up my own races of draconians and some demons as well. Also I killed off all the elves, so no elves. They were happy with the story so they accepted the rest pretty easily and declared it my best campaign/setting to date.

[Eldan]

Not at all. When it comes to D&D/PF there is waaay too much material out there, most of them cranked out in a hurry with rather poor quality and no consideration to how well it fits together with the other parts.
You can't have a game that is at the same time stone age, steam punk, wild west, pirates, middle ages, and Roman empire. I see people sometimes try it, but I think the result is almost universally poor. Make your choice what kind of setting you want to make and include only those elements that actually have a place in that kind of setting.

I go the opposite path and only use whatever I really, really need for the setting to work. Only four classes from the PF rulebook and two customized versions of other classes, and excluding animals, maybe 30 to 40 creatures from the bestiaries. The other half of creatures that exist in the world are new creations.
Even when there are ocasionally creatures or cultures that I think are really super cool and I would love to have in my setting, I discard them when they don't really work for the theme of the world.

It works in World Travel or Crossover settings. I mostly run Planescape and my players have encountered tech levels ranging from the stone age all the way to the magitech future.

[Yora]

A related subject I've just been thinking about a bit is how settings handle the the size of the populations of different races.

I've got my hands on the old Spellbound box for Forgotten Realms because it covers a region of the setting that has actually a lot in common with the world I am working on. And reading through it and looking up some additional information online, it turns out that all the countries are pretty much exclusively inhabited by humans. Rashemen is a wild and primal land with lots of spirits hanging around, but the population is entirely elven. Aglarond was once the site of a major elven realm, but they are now completely gone leaving behind only a sizable population of half-elves. And the Great Dale also once was elven lands, but again, the elves are all gone. No mentions of dwarves, halflings, or gnomes ever.
Forgotten Realms has been the standard case for kitchen sink settings that have something of everything, but I just noticed that the North region, which I've almost exclusively played in, is the only part of the world were elves and dwarves exist in noticable numbers and have sizable settlements that are involved in local politics. And it's the only region that mentions gnomes, ever. The rest of the world is pretty much humans only. Elves are still around in Chormanthor and the North, and there are some hidden wood elf villages in Thetyr and the Chondalwood. Dwarves are at home near Icewind Dale, in the Silver Marches, and that big city below the Shaar. Halflings are native to Luiren. Gnomes have no countries or major settlements at all. Even orcs really have a meaningful presence only in the North and in Damarra.
Dark Sun makes a big deal about it's races, but again, all the cities are human cities with elves, halflings, and thri-kreen living in family groups in the desert and I have no clue where the dwarves are present at all, except for breeding muls.
I do give some credit to Eberron, for actually providing homelands and major settlements to the nonhuman races, though. It's probably still 80% humans, but the other races are at least visible.
The worlds of The Witcher and Dragon Age at least come with a good reason why dwarves and elves are so marginalized (humans are racist), but the only fantasy world I can think of where humans make up less than two thirds of the full population might be Tamriel of The Elder Scrolls. That most of them are elves is a different issue, but at leasts it's a world where there actually is a considerable number of nonhuman countries.

If someone wants to make a human-only world, that's fine and a viable design choice. If someone feels he really, really has to make a world where people are nostalgic about the old days when there were elves, dwarves, and dragons before they pretty much disappeared, it is not my cup of tea but at least a deliberate design descision.
But when a setting is created and it merely throws in a short "oh, and there are of course elves and dwarves" and quickly writes up three or four major NPCs who are not human, I consider that rather sloppy work.

[Eldan]

Well, Tamriel really only has three intelligent main species. Humans, Elves and Hist/Argonians. Almost everyone is a variant of elf or human. Dwarves and Orcs are elves, even. There's more intelligent races outside of Tamriel, but they rarely matter, especially in this era.

I'd say it works, for the setting. It allows them to keep the history at least somewhat coherent.

[Morgarion]

Well, Tamriel really only has three intelligent main species. Humans, Elves and Hist/Argonians. Almost everyone is a variant of elf or human. Dwarves and Orcs are elves, even. There's more intelligent races outside of Tamriel, but they rarely matter, especially in this era.

I'd say it works, for the setting. It allows them to keep the history at least somewhat coherent.

You forgot the Khajiit. I'm pretty sure they aren't elves.

[Eldan]

I seem to remember some implication that the Khajiit are related to the Bosmer, but the Wiki does not seem to be backing it up.

On the other hand, the Imga of Valenwood certainly aren't elves, and I forgot those as well.

[Morgarion]

I don't think I ever knew about the Imga.

And actually you're kind of right about the bosmer-khajiit connection; according to the wiki, the khajiit believe one of the aedra made the bosmer out of the khajiit. Or something.

In speaking the secrets, the first was heard by Y'ffer, who told Nirni of Azurah's deed.[28] Nirni, in retribution for her changed, and now lost, children made the deserts hot and sands biting, and filled the forests with water and poison.[28] To separate her beloved children from those of Azurah, she allowed Y'ffer to change those who remained so that they would always be of the mer, and never beasts, and named them Bosmer.[28] From that moment forth, the two were eternally separated and, as with their makers, were bound in animosity one with the other.[28] In this fashion, the Khajiit explain not only their origins, but their bind to the moons and conflict with the Bosmer.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Khajiit#Religion

[QED - Iltazyara]

I think there are two, maybe three, major reasons why humans end up making up such a large population in most settings.
Firstly: Humans are short lived, but reproduce rapidly; this is as much an excuse as anything else, but means the idea of humans outnumbering the other races has been rationalised in our minds.

Secondly: We more examples of human cultures than anything else; by this I mean we have thousands of years of history, hundreds of different lands and cultures. For elves we have the Tolkien, fairy tale, fantastical, but even if there are dozens it doesn't even come close to the hundreds we have for humans.

Other races, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, orcs, they are even worse off in this regard.

Thirdly: We emphasize best with humans; as much as elves can been cool, dwarves awesome, orcs bad ass, halflings funny, or whatever. We still, inevitably, recognise humans and find them to be most understandable to both interact as and with.

That's what I think, although I am attempting to make a non-human centric setting myself.

[Yora]

I am currently working on a monster manual for my setting, and since I am writing for (free) publication, that includes detailed descriptions for each creature entry.
But I really feel unsure about how to structure those descriptions. I tried using the AD&D format of Summary/Combat/Society/Ecology, but that never really works out for me. I'm never quite sure where to put certain pieces of information.

Any ideas or oppinions on what kind of information a monster book should have on each creature? The D&D 3rd Edition monster manuals are way too short, being kept very generic with any fluff left to GMs to fill with something appropriate to the setting. The AD&D books do it better, but any idea how I could write the entries to provide the most useful information?

[TheStranger]

Why didn't the AD&D format work for you? What information did you have that didn't fit within those categories? If there's a pattern to it, it might be as simple as adding another category.

I do think it's important to have structured monster entries for a published work, if only to make it easy for potential DMs to find what they're looking for. So you probably do need categories, even if forcing your writing into them is a challenge sometimes. You're not locked into the AD&D categories, but if there's some miscellany that doesn't fit any category, you might want to reconsider its utility for a potential DM. And if you're having trouble filling a category, that might be a sign that you need to flesh out your monster a bit more.

Or, since it's for a free publication, nothing says you can't have fun with it. Add a "Trivia" section for each monster and put your miscellaneous tidbits in there.

[Eldan]

I think it actually depends a lot on the kind of creature. A large mammalian predator? Diet is important, but not culture. And so on.

Do you have to have a set outline?

[Malachi Lemont]

A related subject I've just been thinking about a bit is how settings handle the the size of the populations of different races.

Yes! Someone who shares my obsession with demographics!

only fantasy world I can think of where humans make up less than two thirds of the full population might be Tamriel of The Elder Scrolls.

I'm so glad somebody else noticed this! One of the reasons the Elder Scrolls, for all its kitchen-sink-ness, actually works as a setting. A while back, on a whim, I actually did a "census" of Tamriel that consisted of me making up population numbers that seemed reasonable. I ended up with about 45% Elves (but only if you include Orcs) and 35% humans, leaving 10% each for Khajiit and Argonians. The reason I had Elves outnumber Humans was because I assumed that Skyrim, High Rock, and Hammerfell have pretty inhospitable climates, and so they have lower populations than Valenwood, Summerset Isles, and Morrowind where the Elves live. Also, Morrowind is just enormous. Skyrim, however, was about 75% Humans, but consisted of only about 2% of Tamriel's total population.

If someone wants to make a human-only world, that's fine and a viable design choice.

That usually seems like the best-solution to me, especially if you're going for a more serious, subdued setting.

If someone feels he really, really has to make a world where people are nostalgic about the old days when there were elves, dwarves, and dragons before they pretty much disappeared, it is not my cup of tea but at least a deliberate design decision.

And when done right, it can be a lot of fun.

But when a setting is created and it merely throws in a short "oh, and there are of course elves and dwarves" and quickly writes up three or four major NPCs who are not human, I consider that rather sloppy work.

Agreed. That's why I try to avoid this.

[Yora]

When it comes to describing creatures with the AD&D layout, I end up blurring the content of the Society section with the Ecology section, and quite often Society with Combat as well. Some information is relevant to more than one category, like other animals a race often keeps that could be used in combat, or information on hunting food and securing territory that fits both into Society and Ecology.
That's why I was wondering if there might be a more convenient set of categories where everything would appear just once. Yeah, given the length of a creature description, you can just read the whole thing at once, but I kind of prefer to have all things tidy and consistently structured.

[Eldan]

Here's a suggestion. Divide your monster manual up into a "sentient" section and a "monster" section, or somesuch. For the first, make a culture section, for the second, a culture section.

[TheStranger]

When it comes to describing creatures with the AD&D layout, I end up blurring the content of the Society section with the Ecology section, and quite often Society with Combat as well. Some information is relevant to more than one category, like other animals a race often keeps that could be used in combat, or information on hunting food and securing territory that fits both into Society and Ecology.
That's why I was wondering if there might be a more convenient set of categories where everything would appear just once. Yeah, given the length of a creature description, you can just read the whole thing at once, but I kind of prefer to have all things tidy and consistently structured.

Could you just combine Society and Ecology into something like Behavior? Combat, I see as the quick-and-dirty "this came up on a random encounter table, here's how it plays out" section. I think you want to keep that as-is, since it's a useful tool. But the Behavior (or whatever you want to call it) section is just a few paragraphs about how that creature fits into the setting, highlighting whatever you think is important for that particular creature. If that overlaps a little with the Combat section, I think that's ok. That would leave you with Summary/Combat/"Fluff," which I think is a reasonable way to arrange an entry.

[Everyl]

I agree with what several others have said - Ecology works mainly for non-sentient creatures, and Society is mainly for sentient ones. If you want to have the exact same categories on all creatures, combine them into Behavior or Society/Ecology or something like that.

Personally, I think that it's important to have this kind of thing detailed if you're writing for a specific setting. Generic bestiaries can get away with leaving details up to the DM, but in a specific setting, things should fit together reasonably.

Here's an example I wrote up intending to respond to the dragon ecology conversation earlier in the thread, but never got around to posting. In the case of a non-humanoid sentient creature, Ecology and Society are probably inextricable.

Spoiler

Show

Dragon Ecology

True dragons are all one species. Differences in breath weapon, scale color, and general disposition are a result of complicated genetic, environmental, and cultural factors. The genetics of scale color are similar to the genetics of fur color in mammals - due to complicated interactions and recessive genes, it's possible for (for example) a female red dragon and a male bronze dragon to have a clutch of three dragons, one blue, one silver, and one dull yellow. Generally speaking, males tend to be smaller and have more brightly-colored scales, while females are larger and more likely to have dull scale colors. There is no causative correlation between scale colors and breath types or personality.

Most races have a plethora of different cultures and societies, but dragons are relatively static in that regard. They can live for thousands of years - 2500 to 3000 is a normal life expectancy for a dragon who does not die in conflict, and the eldest known is roughly 5000 years old. They reach sexual maturity between 100 and 200 years of age, but rarely breed before the age of 200. Their long lifespans and slow population growth lead to relatively slow-changing attitudes, as well as a cultural memory extending further back than any other mortal race.

Female dragons are the ones who build lairs and claim territory. The size of a dragon's territory depends primarily on how much food is available in it. For the most part, a female dragon looks for a territory with enough food to feed herself, a clutch of up to six young, and some extra for any male dragons who pass through the area. Due to their extremely long lifespans, dragons make these assessments with an eye toward long-term sustainability, and often act to manipulate their environment to ensure the long-term availability of food. The exact methods used vary widely from dragon to dragon depending on their age and ability. Young dragons have smaller apetites, and thus tend to do less, while older dragons may use the sorcerous powers inherent to their race in an attempt to reshape entire landscapes over a long enough time frame.

Dragons have widely varying relations with other mortal races. Many dragons never bother to learn any languages other than their native Draconic, viewing humanoid races much the way humans view insects. Some of these dragons consider humanoids to be pests or prey, but many treat humanoids the way a beekeeper treats an apiary. To them, humanoid communities can be tended to encourage more food production, which the dragons can then take advantage of by preying on livestock. The humanoids are rarely happy about such arrangements, as the changes the dragon makes are often subtle and take many human generations to see full effect, so they don't understand how much of their prosperity is owed to dragons in the region. Some dragons who do learn to speak humanoid languages sometimes seek to formalize such relationships with their neighboring humanoids, with widely varying results. Generally speaking, however, very few dragons have any interest in managing the day-to-day affairs of humanoid governance; they are more likely to arrange a system of trade or tribute that demands less daily attention from themselves. How good of a deal these arrangements are for the humanoids varies widely; about half of all tales of dragon-slayings end with the dragons "cursing" the land with their dying breath, leading to droughts or famine that actually came from the loss of the caretaker dragon's ongoing work, but the other half end with times of prosperity after the dragon's predations end.

Male dragons are nomadic from the time they leave their mother's lair. They rarely settle in one area for a long time, instead roaming and foraging in the territories of female dragons or unclaimed lands. Their smaller size means that male dragons are generally require less food to survive, reducing their impact on local ecosystems. Healthy, well-fed males will tend to have more vibrantly-colored scales, which is seen as attractive to potential mates. Male dragons are more likely than females to learn humanoid languages, or to teach Draconic to humanoids, as they find even short-term negotiations with local humanoids to be beneficial. Male dragons are often gossipy, stopping to chat with any dragon or humanoid who they think has an interesting story to tell. They spread news of distant events to their more sedentary female counterparts, and often know the territorial limits of every female dragon they've ever met or heard of. .

When a male dragon visits the territory of a fertile adult female, he often attempts to court her. The courtship process can last several years, and involves singing, hunting, conversation, and other demonstrations of skill, strength, and intelligence. Female dragons have little interest in mating with strangers, and personality conflicts are the most common cause of failed courtships. If the courtship is successful, the mating results in a clutch of three to six eggs being laid roughly six months later. The eggs are hard-shelled and extremely durable, but are too small and awkwardly-shaped for the parents to move or relocate safely. About fifteen months after being laid, the egg shells begin to weaken and become brittle, and within a month the baby dragons will hatch. The wyrmlings are quite strong for their age and size, and are capable of walking and clumsily defending themselves, but more advanced skills, such as flight, speech, and hunting, are taught by their parents. Male dragons will generally remain with their mate and offspring for about 20 or 30 years, departing when the juvenile dragons are old enough to hunt on their own. An adult female dragon can lay one clutch of eggs every 100 or so years. They remain fertile even into old age, but their clutches get farther and farther apart as they age.

Dragons are big eaters, but they are very few in number. Their numbers have been severely culled by past wars, conflicts, and the occasional humanoid dragonslayers. Their low birthrate has kept their population low, and there are often vast distances between the territories of any two females. With so little claimed territory, females can afford to be picky when setting up a new lair, and young females who have recently left their mother's nest will sometimes spend several decades seeking the perfect place to establish their territory. Territorial disputes had been known to happen in the ages when dragons were more numerous, but in recent centuries, they are almost unheard of unless two young female try to set up shop in the same area at the same time.

Despite their solitary tendencies, dragons are social animals, like any other mortal. Males spread gossip and news with nearly any dragon they meet, and it's not uncommon for males and females alike to eagerly seek updates on the affairs of dragons they have never even met. Many dragons learn spells that facilitate long-distance communication, enabling them to stay in touch with friends and family members who live thousands of miles away. When news spreads of the hatching of a clutch of wyrmlings, dragons will come from far and wide to meet the youngsters, though they tend to carefully arrange such visits with the parents so there aren't too many guests visiting at once. A humanoid who befriends a dragon has access to a globe-spanning, if quite dragon-focused, information network.

Not all dragons are hoarders. Tales of dragon hoards are generally exaggerated, though the few material goods a dragon is likely to keep do tend to be highly valuable in humanoid society. They prefer works that require little maintenance, which tends to mean things made of gold, gemstones, and other objects that won't decay over a lifespan that spans many centuries. Some dragons learn how to enchant objects to make less durable mementos able to survive the ages.

[DefKab]

I'm hoping into this a little late, but I wanted to resurrect some points. Firstly am I the only one that LOVES drawing islands? Not big ones, just the little one off my coastlines. I get carried away tho, and they end up everywhere...

And Dragons. I don't see dragons as being a problem, much. Dragons are intelligent. They work like all the other races, and while they're naturally more powerful, they're not invincible. It may take an army to defeat one dragon, but with a dragon born only every 70 years, they're not about to martially control anything. I like my dragons to be less confrontational about it. Sure, an adult red might crash a nation's party and dominate it physically, but a Gold is much more likely to earn a controlling title, whether by being named King, or being the best candidate in an electorate, I think Dragons as rulers are a viable option. Not only that, but unless your world is 'All Dragons All the Time!' then it's real easy to give EACH and every dragon you have a name, personality, and background, which makes them, in my mind, easier to control than say an Orcish warband.
I look at it like this. 5 Dragons in an area the size of Iceland traverse that area on whims, so I play dragons in Iceland like I would play a human in a small town. They have their favorite places, somewhere to eat, a leader (the mayor) to go to, and finally their home. The rest of the creatures, to a dragon, are creatures like us. We have intelligent dogs in our fantasy settings, and we treat them as seems reasonable. I suggest that Dragons treat humans in much the same way as humans treat Blink Dogs... So, yeah... My dragons are different tho.

And finally, regarding races, I don't think there's a right number of races. I think any number can work, but you have to play with it right. A large number of races should, in theory, cut down on the amount of racism in your world. When you have Wood Elves, High Elves, Eladrin, Half-Elves, and Drow, why, that's five different kinds of elves. It's kind of hard to hate a particular race type when that type blends almost seamlessly with yourself. What you need to focus on is Culture and Religion of these worlds. If all my races mingle with each other, then the Battle Lines are drawn in the sands of Religion and Physical distant. It's not 'I don't like them Dwarves', it's more 'I don't like those fool-worshipping Northerners' which would comprise every race that fits the description... Originally, Races were Races like in Real World. The different cultures that seperate themselves by these lines we seperate. Elves just were DIFFERENT than dwarves. Worshipped a different god. Talked different, looked different, and lived in different places. Once elves stop doing that, they stop being a Race (because culturally they're now similar) and become a Species (same ecology, different genetic traits).
In fact, I think I'm now never going to use the term 'Race' unless I mean it. Now all my 'Races' are 'Species'. Species with different races, for diversity. Gold Dwarves, Rock Dwarves and Wood Dwarves. They have the same 'Genetic' line. Same species. But different cultures. Different races...

Woah. Long post... Sorry.

[00dlez]

Epic thread is epic.

After reading 3 pages, I feel it's time to just jump in and go back to read the rest later.

I am currently in the process of creating my first complete setting. I have done multiple campaigns before, but nothing that spaned all the world for all time.

I originally started down the encyclopedia track, but I simply don't have the energy to see it through. I'm much better at getting down a paragraph or two about people/places/events than getting every detail down at once and being "done" with that person/place/event. I've not restarted my efforts, but have since diverted into a new "plan of attack".

I've now taken a snap shot of "Day 1", what the world looks like on the first day of a campaign. Who the PCs are and where they are isn't important. From there I'm in the process of working out a world history that brings us to present day. It is much harder than I thought it would be. I am now leaning towards a very vague history that is full of blanks and filling in those blanks as players interact with the world.

---

I'd also like to comment on something that was brought up earlier concerning the PCs as non-primary actors in the world - level 15 errand boys etc etc. My personal DMing style almost forces the PCs into a, stricly speaking, secondary role. They aren't the biggest, baddest, or most powerul in the world... but that doesn't mean their actions can't have meaning or purpose! Look at Frodo in LotR!

[Yora]

There are reasons E6 is a thing. There are many situations in which it is desireable to keep the PCs at relatively modest levels.

Regarding history, you should remember on focusing on events that are relevant to the present. Because players will mostly remember things about the world that are relevant to the descisions they make. Focus on things that explain why the currently existing nations are at war with each other or allied. Stories about ancient nations that no longer exist are unlikely to stick.

[00dlez]

There are reasons E6 is a thing. There are many situations in which it is desireable to keep the PCs at relatively modest levels.

Agreed! I love E6, at least, I love my limited exposure to E6!

Regarding history, you should remember on focusing on events that are relevant to the present. Because players will mostly remember things about the world that are relevant to the descisions they make. Focus on things that explain why the currently existing nations are at war with each other or allied. Stories about ancient nations that no longer exist are unlikely to stick.

I'm not sure this is devils advocate, but let me press you a little despite agreeing with you.

Part of the major problem I am having with writing the world history is that whether or not the historical event was directly relevant to the present, the fact is that it still happened and should be recorded... eventually. I will grant you that prioritization needs to play its part.

I the game world, most of history has indeed been forgotten (A global war, followed by a dark age, followed by another global war will have that effect), but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and just because something isn't relevant to my "Day 1" scenario, doesn't mean that the PCs will venture down a path where is becomes relevant on Day 3487.

[Haldir]

History becomes more relevant the more it is practiced. If 00dlez has a world that was sophisticated enough to commit global war and have a history of it, there is likely a strong commitment to history socially, so people in general will be more cognizant of it, and it will have a greater influence on their day to day choices and will shape their environment.

Decisions on culture, technology, magic/science, and religion can't be made in a world without consideration of it's history. The history of a world absolutely effects the adventurer on Day 1. It is the ultimate deciding factor of the food he or she eats, the gear he or she has, and the obstacles he or she will be facing.

[Everyl]

I the game world, most of history has indeed been forgotten (A global war, followed by a dark age, followed by another global war will have that effect), but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and just because something isn't relevant to my "Day 1" scenario, doesn't mean that the PCs will venture down a path where is becomes relevant on Day 3487.

Assuming you're running D&D with fairly standard races and cosmology, don't forget to account for the influence of long-lived races, divination, and immortals on how much of history is forgotten. It's a lot harder for the past to be completely lost in a world where some people live for centuries, and ageless Outsiders can be consulted with enough effort. One of my newbie DM mistakes way back in the day was figuring that 850 or so years would be long enough for the details of a major world event to be largely lost from general knowledge. Upon later reflection, there would actually be living elves who heard first-hand accounts of that event from their parents.