Thread by @rdonoghue

Ok, quick technique trick for GMs looking to use a mind map.
This is a very fiddly, inconsistent map, but it is a treasure trove for me as a GM because i follow one simple rule to building it, and that is this:

Nothing comes from nothing.

Such a map is very easy to start because the ONLY nodes on it are the PCs. If there is some sort of collective group (such as a Blades in the dark gang) you MIGHT, give it a node too, but that's optional.

From that point on, you use it to capture setting elements but follow one simple rule: You cannot add anything unless you can draw a line to something else.

"But wait!", you might inquire, "What about established elements of the setting? Surely those get a pass?"

And I will say to you that no, no they do not.

Instead they introduce a challenge. If you want to add Elminster or the Emperor or Captain Kirk or whoever to the map, they have to follow the rule, which means you have two options:
1. Connect them to something in play or
2. Connect other things, then add them through those

That is to say, if I REALLY gotta add Elminster to the map, and I don't want to tie him to the PCs because I am boring, then I see if one of the PCs has a tie to shadowdale. If so, I add that, then link Elminster to that.

A few interesting bits of nuance: because the anchor points of this are the PCs, then you generally don't get to link things to them without their buy in. This is one of those things that may seem constraining, but isn't so long as you TALk to your players.

What it *actually* cosntrains against is you creating a sprawling setting that YOU'RE really invested in which they are unconnected to.

It also is a limiter on setting building as solo fun - this technique simply does not work without the players at least providing a foundation. TO which I say, don't use it for that.

Using mind maps for solo fun creation is an absolute blast, and you might build something cool and engaging, but that's a *different technique*. Do not try to screw in a nail.

The other tip: This is designed to be a LIVE map that is added to in play, and the "it must connect" rule REMAINS IN EFFECT.

In that way, it is a guideline to the GM that if they want to introduce a recurring villain or NPC, they need to do it in a way that ties them to the web. NO ONE OFFS.

Again, this is very easy in practice, especially if you elicit your player's contributions. I will note that every directly-linked NPC on that map is a result of me asking those players a question and then using their answer. My creations tend to link to those.

It also provides an analytical tool during downtime. You will note that in the original map, the connections are lopsided. Elsbeth has WAY MORE than any other, and Kain has none.

There are reasons why this is so which don't really need exploring at the moment, but seeing it laid out there made it easy for me to think about that, and maybe ask if I need to tilt things.

In this case, those are reflective of the playstyles of the two players, so it's not a huge problem, but Kain *does* worry me a little, so I start thinking about that, and what steps I might take.

(In this case, a background NPC who he had some fun interactions with a session or so back who I never got around to naming is probably going to get a name and get dropped into the map)

But here's the thing that's key: As a pure creative exercise, I could expand this map indefinitely. And I'd have fun doing it. But the necessity of anchoring it to the characters does two things.
1) it focuses me on play
2) It makes me more aware of my own fun

1 is pretty self explanatory, but 2 requires a bit of unpacking.

We don't talk as much as we should about GM fun, but it's kind of essential. If the GM's not having fun, then (just like any other player), maybe this isn't the game for them.

But what *is* fun for a GM?

There's no one answer, and it's something every GM needs to figure out for themselves. But that's hard because the fun parts often end up getting muddled with the responsibility and the identity that come with GMing.

For me, the limitations of this format serve as something of a ouija board, pointing at what I want. When I want to break the rules and add something unlinked, that's a trigger to ask myself what I *really* want.

The answer may be complex, but the it's valuable, because it lets me then move onto either integrating my fun with the game (rather than imposing it), acknowledging that this isn't the place for that fun, or recognizing my own dissatisfaction.

Anyway, bottom line, three simple rules.
1. Make a mind map
2. Starting nodes are the PCs
3. No adding anything unless it connects to something else

Just try it as an exercise and see how it plays out. Bonus: see how it goes differently when you can converse with your players.

Because someone will ask: That map was done in miro (miro.com) but there are a TON of other software options. I will note that while mind maps are fun to draft by hand, I encourage keeping them in software because it helps SO MUCH to be able to move stuff around.

One more bonus technique for GMs who really dig world building for fun.

Do your own world mind map in the same software, but keep it separate. You can move stuff from your map to the "real" map, but the rule of linking remains in place.

The balancing act is this: Since you've built your notes as a map, bringing across one element will bring across its connected elements. This is great, up to a certain point, but if your map is too big, you bring in too much.

It's hard to give a HARD rule of how much you can bring across, because a lot depends on the relative granularity of the maps, but as a rule of thumb, consider limiting yourself to the children of the node, no grandchildren and beyond.

This may seem to break your beautiful vision, and that's because it ABSOLUTELY is supposed to. Because if the only way you can add those elements is further out on a branch, then they probably don't matter that much.

That raises the other question of how far your branches should go. If you're adding stuff 7 steps out from a PC, is that actually useful?

I find the answer is kind of situational, and best addressed by pruning.

Specifically, I will happily go deeply down a branch *during a session*, because that branch more or less aligns with the plot of the session. They deal with X which lead to Y which lead to z and so on.

But what do i do with that branch *after* the session?

I am most likely to keep it around for a while. It's still in recent memory, and the players have context for these things, but eventually I'm going to want to prune it.

And pruning is pretty simple. If it hasn't come up in a long time, I either remove the unused branch entirely, or just compress it to a single node.

if it *has* come up? I just add more immediate links, and now it's not off on a branch.

There's a probably a rule of thumb for how many steps away from the PCs is too many, but it also probably varies from GM to GM. But it's totally reasonable to find your threshold and use it as guidance when you tidy.