Me and a friend of mine made a fictional universe. Being massive comic nerds, we made it based on superheroes (The story behind how it came to be is for another day). We both wrote a little origing story for our protagonists, but it was here we noticed a difference in our styles.
My friend placed his character in a city where heroes were prominent and the accepted norm, and his guy was another person playing in the events. Anything that existed was explained to him by preexisting characters. Everything of most importance was either already there or we agreed on when something would appear
My part featured a guy who had becomse a hero in a city that had no heroes due to laws about them and how the laws were enforced. After a change in public opinion, heroes began to emerge, but the criminal underworld that had been lurking in the shadows slowly began to reveal itself. The other heroes, villians and secrets of the hidden underworld would grow as things began to establish themselves.
I noticed both sides had pros and cons. My frined can get right to the point, or take time to explain without taking things away from the action. But on the other hand, there was little room for growth, as things had already been put in place, but it helped create a sense of scale.
Mine may have taken longer to get to the point, but it built up things, albeit not always in the best of ways, but i got to put in details. We both mixed our styles, but the other's main method definatly tends to show.
What's the point of this? Simple; whoes method of creating your own universe would you take? Would you take something you made earlier, and insert the hero right in the thick of it, or let the world iteslf grow with the people? Would you sacrifice scale for growth? Would you prefer to get to the point or let things build? Let me know!
Let the insanity begin!
My friend placed his character in a city where heroes were prominent and the accepted norm, and his guy was another person playing in the events. Anything that existed was explained to him by preexisting characters. Everything of most importance was either already there or we agreed on when something would appear
My part featured a guy who had becomse a hero in a city that had no heroes due to laws about them and how the laws were enforced. After a change in public opinion, heroes began to emerge, but the criminal underworld that had been lurking in the shadows slowly began to reveal itself. The other heroes, villians and secrets of the hidden underworld would grow as things began to establish themselves.
I noticed both sides had pros and cons. My frined can get right to the point, or take time to explain without taking things away from the action. But on the other hand, there was little room for growth, as things had already been put in place, but it helped create a sense of scale.
Mine may have taken longer to get to the point, but it built up things, albeit not always in the best of ways, but i got to put in details. We both mixed our styles, but the other's main method definatly tends to show.
What's the point of this? Simple; whoes method of creating your own universe would you take? Would you take something you made earlier, and insert the hero right in the thick of it, or let the world iteslf grow with the people? Would you sacrifice scale for growth? Would you prefer to get to the point or let things build? Let me know!
Let the insanity begin!
