World Building Every Which Way

In the Dungeon Master's Guide^®, the concept of World Building is presented with two options that are as different as night from day.

The Inside Out approach preaches beginning with a small part of the world—perhaps a single building, a city, or a small region. Here, the world developer is encouraged to "start with a small area and build outward. Don't even worry about what the whole world looks like, or even the kingdom." [135] The key is to build in detail; to create what the players will encounter first, and to ensure that they are fully fleshed out from the very beginning. If your players will receive their first quest from an Apothecary named Jonathan Millsworth, then you are encouraged to explain who mister Millsworth is, what his shop looks like, his history, his personality, his motivation, and his theory. From there, the world developer is expected to develop the buildings near mister Millsworth's shop, and those that will be encountered along the way while the players complete the assignment they have been given. You are to "expand slowly, and only when needed," and "outward, in all directions so you're ready no matter which way they go." [135]

A number of benefits are readily apparent with this method. The campaign creator is free to develop only the things that are needed, allowing them to work slowly towards their goals, rather than rushing to complete everything in time. The developer has more time to focus on the intricate details and to work out the specifics rather than requiring a more broad view. Small areas generally have more vibrancy and realism to them when they are generated from the inside out, and NPCs have more credible personalities, as more time is spent on them individually rather than on the whole. However, several downsides also exist to this method. Often-times, aspects which may be important to the player characters are overlooked as not yet relevant to the world developer; for example, if only a few gods are fleshed out in great detail, then a player's choices of deity are severely limited even when the world creator may have intended a large pantheon. Often-times, the inside out method can lead to jarring and unrealistic topology and terrain; a savanna situated next to a massive snowy region, or a river that flows opposite the other rivers in the region. These things may seem unimportant to the casual world developer, but to players who thrive on a game whose physics match the real world or are otherwise explained, they are often devastating blows.

The Outside In approach encourages the world developer to begin with the macro; developing a map of the entire world first, and then slowly defining features from the vaguest outline down to the narrowest. You are expected to separate the land-masses separate from the water, perhaps by defining such details as tectonic plates, followed by coastal areas, mountains, forests, rivers, lakes, deserts, and so on. Finally, you create political regions, which may or may not have historical backgrounds. Cities, and individual businesses come last, along with demographics, racial groups, ecologies, and regions. "Only after you have this level of concept design worked out should you focus on a particular area." [135]

Like its alternative, the outside in approach has a number of benefits. Details that the players often wish to know are usually available—such as who the deities are and what they stand for (even if the full details are not yet known). The world works cohesively together as one piece, and terrain flows naturally from one region to another with few unexpected changes. On the grander scale, the world feels more plausible. Yet too like the alternative, the outside in method also has a number of drawbacks. Often the world feels unfinished and lacking in focus. NPCs may come off as cookie-cutter or flat as their personalities have not yet been fully fleshed out. The deities, individual cities, indeed entire regions may yet feel somewhat empty or lacking in substance, when they do not have the individual flair to make them breathe with lives of their own.

Both of these methods are incredibly useful in generating worlds, and to the first time setting creator, I advise you to give them both a try one at a time—not because they are perfect, but because a working knowledge and understanding of each of them is important to truly understand what is necessary for world development that works. Once you are comfortable with both inside out and outside in world building, then you can truly learn how to develop worlds with the best of both methods, and as few of their drawbacks as possible. That is—ultimately—what is necessary to build a world properly: the ability to develop both outside in and inside out simultaneously.

Every world developer will reach key goals at different times in the development process; and for some developers, it will be different with each new world they develop. However, there are a few guidelines which all would-be world developers can benefit from when they begin work in earnest to create their own living, breathing world.

Next time in Intelligent Deisgn, I will delve into the most important aspect of world development, and the first step to ensuring a living, breathing world: Stating the Obvious.

Further Reading:

• The Dungeon Master's Guide contains an entire chapter on world building in the Dungeons & Dragons game. Although focused towards that system, this chapter is useful for any development of a Fantasy world.
• Rich Staats has written an excellent article about designing fantasy worlds using the standard outside in and inside out methods, although he changes their names to bottom up and top down.
  
• FUDGE (developed by Grey Ghost Press, Inc.) is a "customizable role-playing game, perfect for game masters who like to tinker with rules." Although the system itself is extremely vague, the principles espoused within are a great resource for any would-be world developer.