Map versus Story

[Larb]

I say story mostly. Especially as I make more and more maps. Ages ago, I'd just throw down a map and then try to come up with a story to fit it.

But lately, I like to think of a story behind features (particularly in city maps). Why a city wall is in a certain place. Why it was built where it was. Whether it was a planned city, or just grew up, etc etc.
History has some place in this. Cities like florence and its towers that were used as district control points. Old city wall towers that, as a city expanded, weren't torn down but just reused while the walls they were connected to were.

I like to do it for city buildings in my key as well. Like on one map I named a brewery "Vallin's Company", and I thought about how it might have been an old army officer who, after being discharged, formed a brewery with a few of the same men from his company. Little things like that.

[ravells]

For me it's a question of what the map/story are for, but they work in tandem. If you're writing a novel for example, then I would say the story drives the map, but by drawing the map as you go along you may find bits of the story that may not 'work' eg a journey that took 2 days by horse is a distance of 500 miles, so drawing sketch as you go along is invaluable. For RPGs I think the map can drive the story as much as the story drive the map as it will be the players that create the story anyway and from that point of view getting interesting locations etc should be a priority.

[Juggernaut1981]

I write the plot (big picture, few details just the big key points), sketch out a map (making sure I have the key elements detailed), flesh out the plot & map simultaneously.

The Big WIP project I'm working on is actually digitising a map I did across 3 or 4 A4 grid-paper sheets about 8 years ago. The guys I was playing with loved the plot and I wasn't up to speed with computerised drawing at that time, so they were living with my "pen line and pencil line" maps on grid paper. Super-lo-fi, but effective.

[rocketmonkey]

The McChicken* came before the McEgg**

Here, the McChicken is the Story and the McEgg is the Map.


* The alien entity that is McChicken was banished aeons ago by an ancient, elder race of unknown and unimaginably powerful beings. Entombed in a small meteorite, the octopoid deviant known as McChicken was sent hurtling through the frozen depths of space, covering untold light-years, until his prison-tomb smashed into the primal Earth and was buried beneath the crust.

Millions of years past, and McChicken was trapped, incarcerated beneath rock and ocean. Dreaming evil dreams, he laid waiting throughout the ages until weak-willed and power-hungry creatures called humans, in their folly and blind curiosity, came to know the dreams of McChicken and became enthralled by his promises of power. A plot was set in motion to release the alien being and today we approach the day of reckoning, when McChicken will rise from His slumber and break free onto the surface world. And he will bring with him one huge appetite…

** The original McEgg, laid 100 million years hence, had a diameter of two miles. This gives you an idea of just how big McChicken is.

[Ryan K]

I always go for world-building first. Nothing extremely detailed, just a good workable map that I'm not going to bin after looking at it a dozen times, and a general idea of where I want to have my story take place.

Then comes the story, which expands in step with expanded world-building.

For instance, I know where my towns and countries are going to be, but I won't name them, and instead have a lot of dots labelled 'Town' or 'City' and other 'Country' labels ready to go. Then as I establish in the storyline where places should be, local history and politics, I add it to the map as I go along, so it sort of feeds back into it.

It's the philosophy of setting the board before you play chess.

[waldronate]

The two need to grow together to be coherent. Usually it's form the big ideas (the purpose for the map along with the places needed), then do a rough map, then a rough story, then a better map, then a better or more story, and so on.

Having said that, there are stories that don't require a map, maps no requirement for a story (pure art), and maps that lead to stories.

OK, I think that covered all the bases on the way to being totally noncommital.

[LonewandererD]

Wow I didn't expect to get so many answers so fast, cool. So I guess the safest option would be to try and find a mid point between the two, develop both story and map at the same time, like what Waldronate said. Thnx guys.

On a side note, would anyone be interested in reading my fantasy back stories and stuff, I would really need some outside opinions on my world's story before I get too indepth with a story.

-D-

[Ryan K]

On a side note, would anyone be interested in reading my fantasy back stories and stuff, I would really need some outside opinions on my world's story before I get too indepth with a story.

I'd be glad to help, mate.

[LS-Jebus]

I find it much easier to create a world, then draw a story from it.

When I have a developed world, all the political conflicts, history, social issues and everything just pop out at me.

If the story is involving a rebellion against an unwanted duke, I can gather my thoughts and place everyone in a reasonable location and plan out where they would go, who would become involved... although I suck at writing stories and never get very far. Lots of ideas, just little ability to put it down.

[JoeyD473]

For me it varies. Sometimes I have a story in mind and work on it a little, then begin mapping and changing the story as I map to fit the map, and ideas generated from it. Other times, like what I am working on now, I have begin working on a map and come up with varies story/plot lines as I go on. so basically I agree with waldronate. Story and map building go hand in hand and need to be worked on together.