writer's block

Well, first you should decide on what creatures are intelligent and what their powers are.

>>52621053
alright. I was thinking the usual's. Elves, Mermaids, Orcs, Fauna, those sorts

but what I meant was on how do I divide the land/how do I decide what governments are Incorporated

>>52621030
I will help you, but only if you include a race with cat heads, bulbous green bodies and three multicoloured tubular appendages.

>>52621657
sorry, but can you connect that to a known mythical being

>>52621030
What do the various powers want?
What goals are mutually exclusive?
Who is close enough/has reach to affect who?

These three questions, once answered for your forces, give you the initial state of play. Then you can feed in relative power levels and get the strategic picture.

Consider: What is civilization?

How your nations form and interact can loosely be described as different groups trying to fulfill Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Entities are, in the most basic terms, trying to propagate their own species and damned be anything that gets in their way.

Example: Fish people need to live in water - they can survive on dry lands for only short periods of time. Humanity like to live on rivers - it's easier to gather fresh water for agriculture and industry and dispose of waste. There is going to be potential for conflict and by extension diplomacy based on how waterways lead to the ocean and how nobody wants shit in their breathing supply.

>>52621816
I've got that part more or less down. Im stuck at the geography part of the equation. How should I divide the land? Ect

>>52621915
oooh,, this is good advice. thank you. I was already putting creatures/beings in the areas they were thought about in. I.E. unicorns in Europe and Asia

>>52621030
How much is geopolitics relevant to your game?

To be honest, the typical elves/dwarves/human/orcs thing is popular because it works. It's functional. Everybody instantly understands the dynamic. In settings where high level politics are not a primary consideration, that's enough.

We'd all love a setting that is thought out and unique in every way, but in reality, time is a resource and there is a finite amount of it - time spent developing one area is time spent NOT developing another area, and therefore, it behooves us to spend the most time where it will do the most good. So think through just how much you really need and before you do more than that, consider if extra time and attention may be spent more productively.

If high level politics are a factor, then sure, be more unique, absolutely. Consider the kinds of conflicts you want and, stemming from that, how those conflicts arise. Generally speaking factions (be they states, empires, city-states, kingdoms, etc) rival those who are roughly equivalent to them in some way (be that military might, economic power, influence in a larger context, claims on important titles or thrones, etc) and are opposed to their interests in some way (geographical proximity, holding a strategic location, claiming important resources, competing in the same markets, faith in a heretical religion, etc).

A lot of amateur writers get this wrong - they have factions that hate each other for unclear reasons, or because of insufficient reasons. For one example, a lot of amateur fantasy writers say humans are racist against whatever the oppressed minority race is in their setting. But frankly racism usually arises due to practical concerns or historical issues (and historical issues usually arise from practical concerns.) People - as in societies, communities - don't spontaneously decide one day "Hey, see those minorities over there not bothering anyone? Fuck those guys." cont.

>>52622197
So instead of just having two factions hate each other over [vague historical dispute], make sure it arises from the kind of thing where both sides would insist they're in the right. This would typically stem from a basic disagreement in ideology, faith, or understanding of historical events. The most bitter disputes tend to be over things in living memory or things that are still presently issues such as territory or religion; long-past disputes tend to show up as more general animosity.

Generally speaking, factions ally with factions that are roughly equivalent to them, and are opposed to their rivals in some way (same examples as above). Factions tend to vassalize significantly weaker allies, either formally, or loosely - for instance America has lots of small countries such as Micronesia that are overwhelmingly dependent on American military strength for defense and American economic output, to the point where they could fairly be called American client states in the traditional fashion even if they are de jure independent countries. Factions tend to be vassals or clients of much more powerful allies.

Note that two factions do not have to be equal in the same way. For instance, a small but wealthy merchant republic could be considered equal to a powerful militaristic kingdom. Playing with this kind of thing is how geopolitics can feel dynamic and varied, too many people slap down some all-round powerful kingdoms/empires on the map, make up a war or two, and call it a day.

>>52622197
Im also using this setting for a comic I plan on doing eventually (it was the original plan but a friend said itd make a great campaign aswell) so its going to be used multiple times (ideally)

as for the relevance, I wanted to try building the game after the world. Although I have a few ideas on where to go, I wanted it to fit into the world, not the other way around

(hopefully that made sense haha)

>>52622334
this is really helpful, thank you

Consider the idea of nationalism. If you have a rather multicultural and rather tense region, one particular power-hungry king might be well intentioned in trying to unite his people because of some past empire and the desire to protect the peoples of that fallen empire, peoples that he considers his people; that by itself can lead to a lot of tension in the area if suddenly it isn't one or two kingdoms, but rather a series of kingdoms, each with distinct goals and strengths that all converge on that one region of historical and cultural importance.

That's basically what happened in the Balkans (extending to northwestern Romania, Croatia and Slovenia) during the Balkan Wars in 1885-1922 (Serbo-Bulgarian War, Greek-Turkish War, 1st and 2nd Balkan Wars, 1st World War, Turkish War of Independence...) - it's a great setup for potential intrigue and warfare.

You guys are hopeless romantics.

Geopolitics doesn't come from hatred or social concepts, 99.999999999% of the time. (well, not from "pure" ideas in this sense, I mean)

It's something born of - you guessed it- geography.

Consider your societies' pros and cons that arise from their territory. Of course fantasy races kinda distort what WE would consider priorities (elves probably use permacolture, don't really like plains that much, but could possibily put tropical rainforest to way more productive agricolture in the long term than us at the same tech level; dragons if in charge would probably be pretty much micromanagement freaks, not liking to share powers, so city-states with "eternal" rulers)... but start from IRL geographical considerations.

>>52623079
thank you!

>>52623079
Yeah, ask yourself what do they have and what don't they have in terms of resources. If a neighbouring country has something they want or need they're probably great trade partners or they're at war.

>>52621030
Here's an idea if you're feeling really adventurous. Get some friends who aren't going to be in the game and let them write it. Tell them to go nuts. The thing about politics is that they often work much better if multiple people work on them rather than just one person playing every single side.
I've been running a collaborative world building game and it's hilarious to sit back and watch the players argue in a fantasy version of the UN. People are spying on each other, backstabbing, using magic to sabotage each other, blaming other players for natural disasters, vying for alliances, making weapons tech and magic deals, arguing about the nature of souls and they just started a war between two of the most powerful nations and one of the smaller ones.
I just gave them a map, some basic instructions, and let them go.

>>52623079
Hatred often does play a part in geopolitics, but hatred tends to come from practical concerns like geography, resources, etc.

>>52623079
>Geopolitics doesn't come from hatred or social concepts, 99.999999999% of the time. (well, not from "pure" ideas in this sense, I mean)
Yeah, not like any empires have ever gone to war over religion or anything. No, it's solely about map-painting. Not like there's ever been major clashes of empires arising from church disputes, no, nothing like that.