Do you focus solely on one setting, or work on many at a time?

[Weave]

This is something that I've been itching to be answer. I have a single setting known as Avernus (no relation to the Lake in Italy or the entrance to the underworld), that I've been devoted to for almost a decade. In its time, it's changed immensely, going from a standard, Tolkien-esque world that strove to fit every possible detail within it that my 13-year-old mind could handle, to a dreamlike world that attempts to mix my knowledge of psychology, fairytales, and art into a coherent but unique setting. I have hundred and hundreds of pages describing Avernus, a good portion of which aren't even applicable to it in its current form. I constantly scrap 10+ page outlines, draw out new landscapes and vistas I've thought up, and look for inspiration anywhere I go. In short, its almost always on my mind, like a piece of artwork I'm never quite finished with but love nonetheless. That's not to say it dominates my thoughts (I'm fully capable of going out with friends without a single mention of the thing and enjoy myself), but its a "hobby" that definitely dominates all others for me.

At the same time, my mind often wanders. It thinks of new and interesting worlds that, frankly, Avernus cannot hope to assimilate within itself. Often, these worlds are one-shot interesting thoughts that I yearn to explore more, ...but I also fear. As strange as this might sound to some of you, I actually fear that I'll be so interested in this new world that I'll neglect my old one, my unfinished piece. Then again, will Avernus ever be finished? Probably not, but its a fantasy I like to entertain nonetheless. My players love Avernus, and they've never played in a different world before. To delve into another is a very precarious and serious endeavor for me (and technically my players, should I design it for them to play in... which I don't see why I wouldn't), and one that I have yet to convince myself is worthwhile (but deep down, I think I want to convince myself). I've had the interest of challenging myself to make a stable and coherent world by randomly taking 20 pictures from my Spectrum 15 art book (I highly recommend them to anyone with an interest in fantasy art), I've wanted to make a world without the traditional Dwarf, Elf, or Human, or one that transcends the typical fantasy setting and strives for something closer to science fiction, or something with a Myst-game feel to it. I want to make a campaign that has no recognizable earth creatures and develop my own ecosystem and animals. I've wanted to make a campaign that takes the traditional "hero saves the princess guarded by a dragon" trope and throw it on its head in a desert-like magic vs. technology setting with cyborgs and a heavy Eastern influence. To put it simply, I've had countless ideas pop into my head that I've danced around for some time, but eventually given up on for one real reason: Avernus. Let me make it clear that I am not attempting to imply that Avernus bores me, the setting itself is unique enough that it constantly has me thinking of new ways to approach things, but that sometimes I wish there was more than one of me, to devote myself to other worlds that I can really bask and consume myself within.

Perhaps the way I make my worlds is "flawed", at least, for what I wish I could do. I leave them very open-ended; I don't think I even have the intention of actually seeing them "end," so to speak. Maybe some of you do have a knack for knowing when to "stop," or at least recognize that the setting has been expanded enough to allow it to function properly. You can always go back and touch up on it whenever you want! I envy that, but I also like my way of doing things, too.

Now, I know some of you folks stick with one setting and run with it, often to great effect. Some of you make many settings, again, often to great effect. How does that work? For the people who devote themselves to a single setting, do you find you have similar feelings to mine, or am I the lone wolf here? Why only one setting? To the other folk, what exactly do you do differently? Do you like the idea of having multiple options for players? Do you jump upon new thoughts and inspirations (like I wish I could) and run with them? Something else? Basically, why do you choose to make many settings (or more than one)?

I'd love to get some thoughts and opinions on this, and let it be known I don't think one way of setting(s) creation is better than another; I'm equally fascinated by both groups. So, if you please, explain your process!

[Mason]

As life has slowly gotten more complicated, Ive switched from writing specifically for gaming to writing for the pleasure of writing.
 
   I prescribe to the idea of 'games as art' school of thought. Game Informer has an interesting article about that this month. Anyways...
   
   I don't really stick with an idea for too long unless my group takes an interest in it. That seems to be my biggest problem as many of us are in our late twenties now, and are slowly moving away from gaming.
   
   I still enjoy writing as a hobby, and have ten! boxes full of notebooks going all the way back to 2001. Most are filled with the beginnings of adventures or rough maps, sketches of creatures, artifacts, characters and cityscapes. I have outlines for worlds that never got beyond that initial idea of 'wouldn't it be interesting if...'  

   I suppose I work on one thing for a month or two. Other worlds, which I have a very personal investment in (like your Avernus) have evolved with me through the years; I am constantly incorporating ideas and concepts that appeal to me. Most of the time, whatever else I'm reading at the time has a way of subconsciously working itself into my current setting. Pinnacle evolved from a friend asking me to come up with a simple clear-cut morality system, while I was reading some Neil Gaiman book. World Break evolved out of a three page story about a Conan-like figure who in later ages became mythologized. I had watched the old Conan movies at a friends prior to that.
   
   I have to say, I highly commend those folks who stick with one setting over a great length of time. I enjoy reading these rich settings here on the CBG, and spend more time browsing than writing lately. Settings like Clockwork Jungle, Cadaverous Earth, the Savage Age, Jade Stage, the more recent Bizzarerie and Eldritch Earth, and many others are all, in my opinion, a form of Art. I must be honest, I'm a bit jealous of those creations, but at the same time thankful that they share them in this community.

  I guess what I am saying is that, I work on whatever pleases me at that time. Or, if my group is into the setting, then that is what I work on.    

[Gamer Printshop]

You mean there are people who only work on one setting at a time!?  :explode:

GP

[Polycarp]

You mean there are people who only work on one setting at a time!?

think[/i] about one setting at a time, and I suspect the same is true of a lot of the folks on this board who focus on a single project.

For the people who devote themselves to a single setting, do you find you have similar feelings to mine(...)?

Very much so.  I'm inspired by something I see or read, and come up with a concept totally unrelated to my main setting.  Usually this is not a "world" in itself, but many ideas have the potential to be the kernel for a new setting project, just like looking at an album full of pictures of Cambodian ruins eventually led (along with a few other such kernels) to the Clockwork Jungle.

I have come to realize over many years of making settings for fun that if I don't impose some "idea discipline" on myself, nothing gets done - or at least, nothing gets done past a certain level.  Instead, I try to fold new ideas I have back into my current setting - and if they just don't fit, they get dropped.  They might end up in a lonely word document somewhere if I just feel compelled to write them down, but I don't just start new settings at the drop of a hat any more.  For me, at least, that's not really the result of any predisposition of mine or an aversion to multitasking, it's just a conscious decision to focus on one thing.

That said, I benefit tremendously from the fact that my current setting is actually something that I want to keep working on.  There have certainly been weeks and even months where I don't really think about CJ at all, but eventually I come back to it.  I'm fortunate enough to have found something that really interests me beyond just a few ideas and pages; if it interested me less, I'm sure I wouldn't be able to give it the attention that it gets now.

Plenty of "main settings" of mine have fallen by the wayside for just that reason.  There were good ideas at their core, but ultimately those ideas just didn't have enough conceptual depth to hold my interest.  If you'll excuse the awkward metaphor, I have made a lot of "candy settings" - settings with sweet ideas that give you an immediate rush of flavor, but don't last long (and soon enough, I get sick of them).  One the novelty begins to wear off, you slowly begin to lose interest, and drop the project entirely when a new idea pops up.  It's hard to tell what ideas will be candy and which ones will really stick with you; you just have to keep trying new things and exploring new ideas until you realize one day that you've been working on this setting for an awful long time and you're not tired of it yet.  That, to me, is the beginning of a great relationship.

[Nomadic]

I'm with Polycarp on this one. I spent years creating short candy settings that were fun to play in for awhile but didn't hold up over the long term. I'd done that because I hadn't found a core idea that I liked enough to say "this is what I want to work on for the next month/year/ten years". Then as cliche as it sounds the idea came to me in a dream (literally) for Mare Eternus. While I haven't worked on it much physically due to time constraints, I find myself drawn back to it and I will often just think of new ideas for it while I do other things. It's the sort of setting I can see myself still tinkering with when I'm 45.

[Steerpike]

[blockquote=The_Weave05]I've wanted to make a campaign that takes the traditional "hero saves the princess guarded by a dragon" trope and throw it on its head in a desert-like magic vs. technology setting with cyborgs and a heavy Eastern influence.[/blockquote]First of all, that's a pretty awesome idea.

I don't think leaving worlds open-ended is flawed... our own world is GIGANTIC.  A fictional world will never approach the depth of our own, so why demarcate an arbitrary line?

In response to the question, I have the one big setting (Cadaverous Earth) I've put a lot of work into (though some of the cities STILL need detailed descriptions), and then I have a bunch of candy settings - Society, Tempter, and the Gossamer Isles were all created as diversions rather than big settings.  I think Bizarrerie and Eldritch Earth have the potential for far greater staying power, but time will tell...

[Hibou]

My reasons for creating are periodic in nature - I've been going back and for between writing to game and writing to write. The methods and preferences have changed over the years - I started out with a specific interest with my first setting, and that blossomed into a wide variety. My earlier settings tended to be fantasy ones with multiple planes that would allow me to switch gears at pretty much any time, as the planes were all very differently themed. Then I got into horror, and a little later on realized that sci-fi is really my thing, and now I'm hooked on the futuristic settings where science tends to come before fantasy (although you might say Vibrant has a lot of both traits).

I honestly find it very hard not to have multiple settings, and it seems pretty natural for people to change interests (and thus their settings) and have them evolve as they are introduced to new sources of inspiration. It's so easy to see something new and instantly want to write a setting themed around it - for example, I recently picked up Red Dead Redemption, played it nearly nonstop, and now I'm probably going to revive an old wild-west-with-sorcery type setting that I started a while ago but never took anywhere. I've also been inspired by "what-if" scenarios to try designing a setting based on Earth, but if humans had possessed access to D&D-like magic from the time of the Mesopotamian civilizations. Pretty much every time I read an article about something historic, I wanted to write something based around it. Now, the majority of my interest lies in sci-fi and Vibrant is the result of that, but all of my work tends to be written towards the horror genre.

One of the most important things about a setting has to be the size - it seems more and more vital to me that a setting  has frontiers and things left to understand, new places to go, etc. or else it just doesn't feel real. It's fine to focus on a small part of a world, but I think (and some will disagree) that even if you don't plan on ever looking at things on a grander scale, you should always allow for that grander scale to exist. Ravenloft and my own setting Vilydunn had that issue -  they both seemed to unreal - and even though Vilydunn is a bad dream, I ended up having to make it part of a much larger multiverse just because it didn't feel like there was anywhere to go with it. You could adventure for a while, save the small realm and whatnot, but then... what?

I think I will be working on Vibrant or a very similar setting when I'm 50. It's definitely something I continue to enjoy adding to, although it feels quite often like I'll never have enough to feel satisfied running a game. I'd love to see people contribute to it like members of the CBG have contributed to other settings, but I don't expect people will do that until I've written a lot more of the basics of the setting up. Another reason why I like Vibrant is that the genre is much less common on the CBG, being futuristic, as not as many members appear keen on writing that kind of setting as opposed to various sword-and-sorcery or sword-and-sandal (did I get that right?) settings.

[Mason]

I recently picked up Red Dead Redemption, played it nearly nonstop, and now I'm probably going to revive an old wild-west-with-sorcery type setting that I started a while ago but never took anywhere.

    BAD-ASS

[LordVreeg]

Umm.
1 setting at a time.

Whether it be PC's 'Idea-discipline' or Horse's need for size...I'm a very busy man in the real world, one that looks back to working full time and graduate school as idyllic in terms of time management, so time is at a true premium.  I know a lot of us are very busy.  So while it may shock and surprise many to know that I still get ideas that dont fit in Celtricia and would love to work on, I trasnfer the creative impulse as much as I can to the one session I have time to really make the most realized for my playing.

Yes, every player goes off the map for GMs regularly...it's one of the things that makes GMing so fun, that in the most developed setting still very creative.  But I find that the more that is developed and consistent, the more that the Pcs can immerse.  

So my late-night time is spent making Celtricia as complete as I can.

[Drizztrocks]

I have very creative ideas and then I always go back to medeival settings. I guess that's why I got into the fantasy/sci-fi hobby, and that's what I like most about it.

[Llum]

Alright, so I finally have some time to take a crack at this.

First off, I conworld for the sake of conworlding. Making settings is something I enjoy and it relaxes me. I don't game, I've never tabletop'd in real life, (I do play in Vreegs mIRC Steel Isle Game and I will be playing in Steerpikes Cadaverous Earth Iron Heroes game) I don't know anyone who games/tabletops. It's not something I've ever really thought about doing. So settings is just another hobby of mine, I don't have any of the, for lack of a better term, baggage that one has when making a setting for gaming. I don't have players to please, I don't need to make it playable, I don't need to worry about mechanics, etc.

Some people around here might remember when I was really active I'd have anywhere from one to four active settings. So, I tend to work on multiple settings at once. It hasn't always been like that.

Originally I had Divergence, and I tried to crame everything and anything into it. Didn't work so great, but live and learn. I started to realize that I had some ideas that didn't fit together well, or that I wanted to think thinkgs through in a different way, or follow a completely different line of thought. Thus, a big slew of settings came about.

Now here is something strange that I've noticed. The more settings I have on the go at once, the more I get done in each setting and the more I get done overall. The optimal number is somewhere in the 2-4 range, I've found so far at least.

Now, me being me, I got tired of my settings. I lost the spark of interest, and so they were put to the way side. But I still liked conworlding so I decided I would tear apart every setting I've made and examine what bits I liked and disliked. I wanted to make an "essence of llum" setting. I kind of worked, I got a good amount of work done but eventually since I was just focusing on the one thing, I lost the spark and it was kind of pushed to the side.

Now with all the background out of the way, I think what makes me able to work on a lot of settings, and make it "workable" is this. Whenever I have an idea, I can usually fit it in somewhere. If not, I can whip up a new setting and use it there. Basically, I'm always thinkin full-tilt I guess, I don't need to stop and slog out issues or what not. If I tire of one thing, I can skip to another and then another and eventually back to the first project. So yes, I jump on new ideas and run with them, constantly.

I think it boils down to this, I have multiple settings because I like to be able to use all my ideas. I know that most things don't hold my interest, so I can switch back and forth on my whim, and still be productive. As I said earlier, I can just work on settings non-stop, and I find if I work on a single one, I start to slack off and lose interest which results in the setting dead in the water.

As for my process, I just try and fix ideas together. All my settings start out with a kind of picture, an event that happens. Then some characters are fleshed out. From there I start to build up the big things of the world like places, peoples, technologies or magics. After that I tend to go back and start outlining smaller things again, rinse and repeat with this back and forth between smaller and bigger aspects.

[Superfluous Crow]

I have been working on Broken Verge for a very long time, but the issue is that the setting wasn't always Broken Verge. In reality, this is like the 5th or 6th incarnation or something like that; as my tastes evolved so did my setting. Or maybe it didn't so much evolve as it was scrapped, scavenged, and put back together in a new configuration. So in some ways I'm a single world guy, although a dynamic one. But every so often I have another idea that comes along and just seems too great to give up, yet is impossible to fit into my setting. Ecumenopolis was a setting that sprang from an idea like this, and although I haven't worked on it for a long time, I haven't forgotten it either.  

The issue with these ideas that you can't get out of your head is that it is impossible to work on your current setting when you have that thing running around in your head. So you have to make a new setting just to "vent" ideas, so you can get back to the status quo.

But generally I'd say I'm much more about the ideas than I'm about the setting in many ways. The setting is just the structure that keeps the ideas together and infuses them with a purpose, and that structure is not always equally sturdy. Broken Verge has some great ideas to be sure (in my opinion anyway), but it should be apparent to most who look at it that it is a somewhat "broken" setting (pun intended) that still lacks some glue to hold it together.

And I remember that western setting FREAKINAWESOMEHORSE! It was a pretty cool setting, it could definitely take a resurrection.
 

[Cheomesh]

I have a tendency to be rather unhappy with my settings, and my interests shift between one and another.  I have two really "active" settings, one of which is on the Wiki as The Waltz.  The other is a rather typical low fantasy setting that exists only in a notebook.

M.

[Kindling]

I currently have nothing approaching an "active" or "primary" setting. Most of my creativity at the moment is being directed into music rather than writing.
I would like to start a new IH campaign sometime this summer though (I've just moved away from my old set of players) so I may be creating a new setting for that to occur in... this assuming I can find a group of mortals foolish enough to submit to my DMing :P

But, anyway, I think that in general I do tend to work on one setting at a time, it's just that as I'm a very slow working worldbuilder (at least in terms of actually writing up my ideas) by the time I've started to really get anywhere with one setting I've already moved on ideas-wise to another one... I don't think I've ever had a setting, posted on the CBG or not, that I've considered to be anywhere near gameable in terms of its completeness - with the obvious exception of settings I've gamed into existence rather than preconceived.

[SA]

My friends have pathetic attention spans, which wouldn't be so bad if I (as the GM) had a little more discipline. Unfortunately I'm no better than them.

My remedy as of recent months has been to merge much of my material into an ambiguous meta-setting. I come up with a bunch of thematically connected vignettes as well as larger but more nebulous settings which all serve as "snapshots in time" for a planet called "Earth" (I call all my settings earth or wheel, because they're either pretty much like Earth or pretty much like a wheel, and why complicate things?). These snapshots can span from hundreds to thousands to hundreds of millions of years apart and my writing is always opaque enough (assuming that's a good thing) that the sequence of events is almost totally subjective.