This is where things get murky, though. Almost nobody plays these games one hundred percent RAW. Groups are filled with little quirks or modifications to the rules. Game masters tweak the rules to their liking, or fill things in when RAW has a gap. The truth is, because of the frequent use of house rules in these types of games, almost nobody plays them RAW.

Admittedly, I’m a bit of a rules lawyer. I’m the type of game master who leans heavily on RAW. I find that the more I stray from RAW, the greater the chance that I’m potentially going to make the wrong call or a controversial call on a rule while playing. I like to be fair with my players, and the goal, first and foremost, is to have fun. Consistent rules means that player expectations get met, and it’s rare that somebody is unhappy to see a rule as written in a book.

Lately though, there’s been a trend. I’ve seen heavy criticism against game publishers who don’t fully flesh out every nook and cranny of their rules system so that every possible situation can be handled. I think this is unrealistic and has the chance to make things un-fun very quickly. Too many rules in a game makes things overly complex. It means players spend more time hunting through rule books trying to find just the right rule to handle a specific situation than actually playing the game.

The goal is to have fun, after all.

I think if a publisher can give a framework for a system, and fill in some of the details, or give examples, it leaves a lot of flexibility open to the game master to decide how to handle things. So long as the game master doesn’t have to basically invent the whole rule system themselves, I think this makes for a decent system. Give the high-level overview of the rules, and enough detail to run a smooth game without getting mired in the details. Then let the game masters fill in the rest. In my experience, that’s what good game masters do anyway.

As a player, trying to insist that every game master adhere strictly to the rules as written can lead to arguments, and potentially robs the game of its fun. Most tabletop systems specify that it’s ultimately up to the game master to decide what rules they do and don’t follow, and many systems offer optional rules that game masters can choose to use. It’s about flexibility, because not every player and game master experiences the game in the same way.

One of the first questions I ask game masters when I join their group is: are there any house rules I should know about? I don’t like surprises, and finding this out up front means that I can be comfortable when I want to try something, or use a specific attack or ability, and won’t get blindsided by a house rule that could derail my attempt to play my character the way I want to play them.

Ultimately, players and game masters find a balance. Some groups are very strict with RAW, and others are very loose. Making sure your players have appropriate expectations means fewer surprises during game play, and less potential for hurt feelings when things inevitably don’t go their way. The dice are sometimes cruel.

Always remember: no matter what, the goal is to have fun, and if you’re a game master, to make sure your players are having fun. Whether you follow RAW, or make it up as you go, I hope all of your die rolls end up in your favor.

What's it All About?

Building a world or universe is a massive undertaking. Consider our own universe from the top down: The universe is made up of empty space, interspersed with galaxies, which in turn are made up of billions of stars, each of which might have one or more orbiting bodies that make up a solar system. Each planet has its own conditions: gravity, atmosphere, weather, land masses, water, life, economics, religions, races, animals, microbiology, geology, technology, and maybe even a little magic. Crafting all the intricacies of a world down to the finest details can take years.

You don't have to do it all at once though. I've spent the last twenty years building worlds and writing stories for games, and I have yet to come to a point where I would consider my world-building to be done. The thing is, once you get started you'll realize that if you focus too much on getting every detail right, the world will feel less organic. Living worlds are always in flux, so it's really hard to get the details down before they change again.

The Reason

There are many published settings and worlds out there for you to choose from, so why build one of your own? Actually, you may find that using a published system is right for you. That's perfectly fine. Some of us just can't. We need the control, and the reward that comes from starting with a blank sheet of paper and making something beautiful out of it.

Start at the Beginning

World building needs to start somewhere, and this is where a division begins to form. There are two types of world-builders: writers and thinkers. Whether you are one or the other will depend a lot on how you process information. Writers will jot everything down, and will likely have binders or notebooks packed with notes, sketches, stories, tables and anything else they need to make the world run. Thinkers, on the other hand, will have very few notes, and will keep a large portion of their world in their head. Personally, I'm a thinker.

Whatever your process is, the start of world building should be a goal. What are you trying to accomplish by building the world? Is it for a game with a small group of players? Are you trying to create something that you can publish for the world to use? Are you writing a novel which is set in your world? Once you figure that out, the goal is simple: build as much as required to accomplish your purpose, and nothing more.

That's the deadly secret of world building: you don't need to flesh out every detail of a world in order to make it feel real. You only need to fill in the details required to accomplish your goal. The thing is, if you are filling in details that will never be read or used, what's the point? You can drive yourself mad trying to fill in every detail. It would take you a lifetime, and you still wouldn't get it done. Once you have enough detail in your world to satisfy your goal, stop.

Choose an Approach

How to actually go about starting your world will depend a lot on what kind of personality you have. You can start with the high-level concepts and then break them down into details (a top-down approach), or you can start with the details and work your way up from there (a bottom-up approach). Both approaches have their merits, and will both produce a usable world.

Using a top-down approach is better suited to building a world that you plan to publish. It will produce a world that is broken down into details that all support the high-level concepts. Some people work better this way, and can produce a nicely meshed, believable world using this approach. The downside to this approach is that it's a lot of work before you have something that is usable in a game or story.

The bottom-up approach is what I use, because that's how I think. I have details that I know I want to include, and so I start from there and work my way up. This approach tends to work better for stories or novels, as there is less work up front in order to create a functioning world. It's faster than the top-down approach, but can leave you filling in a lot of details on the fly, and can create some consistency problems if the details you want don't work well together.

What's Next?

As you get further into world building, you'll discover new things about your world, and new techniques that can be used to make that world run smoother and feel more realistic. In the coming weeks, I'll be posting additional world-building articles about geography, landmarks, cities, history, races, religions, deities, magic, politics, and much more. I hope you'll stick with me, as I have a lot more to give.

Does the character abide by all local laws of the land and live an orderly existence, or rail against authority and thrive on chaos? Do they strive to do good by everyone they meet, or snuff out life any chance they get? These things are determined by alignment. Each specific classification has its quirks, but lawful evil is one of the most challenging alignments to get right.

This alignment rests at the extreme end of two spectra that don't mesh particularly well, and actually mastering this alignment takes great skill on the writer's part. Having a character who is evil by nature, but who also lives by a strict set of rules, respecting law in some form is quite hard.

Being lawful does not necessarily mean that the character lives by the laws of the land, though. In fact, it may simply mean that the character adheres to a personal code of conduct, even if that conduct includes doing things that would otherwise be considered immoral or illegal. Writing about a character who is lawful evil can take you to a dark place.

The other side of this alignment, evil, does not mean that the character is malignant, thoughtless, or heartless. A lawful evil character is calculating and methodical. They won't hesitate to torture or kill, but will never do it for no reason at all, and certainly not solely for pleasure, though they might take joy in performing the act if it is done in accordance with their own personal code of conduct.

So you can see how walking the lawful evil line can be a challenge.

Why bring it up?

If you've read Legacy, you've already had a brush in with a character who walks this line. Gladius meets him in Findoor, and puts himself in the debt of this shady character. He's an assassin, but he doesn't take just any job. Chronic gamblers who have taken out more loans than they can pay back, or shop owners who bought from the guild, but have failed to make payment and are dodging the collectors, or anyone who has crossed the guilds of Galadir for whatever reason. When a person can't be found, they turn to Taraxle.

He tracks them down, unafraid of whatever deep, dark hole they have crawled into, and makes them pay. When a job is handed to Taraxle, it's beyond cash payment. He doesn't care for their groveling or begging. The law has already been broken, and his job is to carry out punishment. There are no judges and no juries, their fate is decided.

Taraxle is by far one of my favorite characters of all time, which is why he is set to become the subject of my next trilogy. The Spell Breaker Chronicles will focus on Taraxle and how he became one of the most dangerous criminals, and yet, possibly one of the greatest heroes Galadir has ever known. But how do you take a character who is lawful evil, and make them a hero?

That's the big challenge. That's where learning to be lawful evil is going to be imperative, because in order to write about a lawful evil hero, everyone else must be worse than him.

The Spell Breaker Chronicles will take Galadir to a dark place I've never explored before, and I hope you'll journey with me.