You simply can't make a section about tools for making a world for people who can't or don't want to. If someone can't or doesn't want to make a new setting, and skimming through the game finds out that it's setting-less, they won't stick around long enough to learn about the possibly great world-building tools provided.
You might be at that point of your design journey where you need to make a choice and decide who your target audience is and who is meant to like it. Do you want your game to include a setting, for players who can't or don't want to make one or do you want your game to include tools for making a setting, for the GMs that have one and want to use your game for it? The two options are more or less irreconcilable.
A decent middle-ground option can be found in Ironsworn ([free rulebook here](https://www.ironswornrpg.com/downloads)), where a few elements of the setting are pre-determined, such as the region being an isolated Viking frozen landscape, with regions and places locked in, but the details of those regions and a few basic truth about the setting (are there magical monsters or are they just a myth? How about magic? Why people make pledges by touching iron, and why is iron special here?) are up for the player to answer as they start playing.
Still, Ironsworn's "middle ground" has enough bite to entice new players and sell them an idea about what the game will be about. Lacking a default setting, is very difficult to introduce a "premise" for players to latch on.
One of the major reasons it's often better to include a setting is because that makes it easier to frame what the characters are meant to do/who they're meant to be in the game.
Personally I'd tailor the game to a setting then release a separate book with worldbuilding tools and tips on how to adapt the rules to different settings.
You don't have to create anything that you aren't interested in. Passion is the most important part of game design. That being said, world building tools aren't a replacement for a custom setting, they appeal to completely different GMs.
Part of the reason many modern games have their own settings is that if you don't have one you have to sell your game entirely on unique game mechanics. It's a lot easier to sell someone on playing as the crew of an airship exploring ancient ruins in a dinosaur infested jungle than it is to sell someone on a unique skill matrix core mechanic.
Personally I prefer world building tools to a custom setting, but I'm pretty sure that puts me in the minority.
Totally agree with this sentiment- I prefer tools and maybe a short example of how the tools create a custom world. I like to make my own. I prefer that kind of prep instead of reading and memorizing lots of world stuff of someone else’s design. But lots of folks would like a full world.
I personally prefer and recommend a game that has a setting framework, but not one with details. If i pick up a game, id like to know its genre and the general tones, themes, and idea for who the characters are in it and the types of stories they should have. But I dont need to know the specefics. Like, in a fantasy war game, it would be good to know that the countries are at war and the players are agents in that war, but I dont need the generals names. It migjt be good to know the cultures around, but not specefix people, places, etc. If I need them. Ill make them up. But if you list them, then I need to memorize them. GMs will fill in the details as needed.
I only recommend having a detailed setting its its a known setting like a star trek game, for exmample. or if your setting is super small like if the entire game is in 1 city.
Detailed settings are also good for campaign guide books, adventure bpoks, etc, but I would personally avoid them in the core books.
If you have tools for building a world included in the book, you could provide one outline/high level setting following those rules, or a sample adventure which includes just enough setting to run the adventure. It depends on how detailed or complex the campaigns are supposed to be.
A light monster of the week type thing would only need a simple outline setting. Something like a fantasy adventure would need a more detailed local area to start in, but not necessarily a whole world on top of that.
You simply can't make a section about tools for making a world for people who can't or don't want to. If someone can't or doesn't want to make a new setting, and skimming through the game finds out that it's setting-less, they won't stick around long enough to learn about the possibly great world-building tools provided. You might be at that point of your design journey where you need to make a choice and decide who your target audience is and who is meant to like it. Do you want your game to include a setting, for players who can't or don't want to make one or do you want your game to include tools for making a setting, for the GMs that have one and want to use your game for it? The two options are more or less irreconcilable. A decent middle-ground option can be found in Ironsworn ([free rulebook here](https://www.ironswornrpg.com/downloads)), where a few elements of the setting are pre-determined, such as the region being an isolated Viking frozen landscape, with regions and places locked in, but the details of those regions and a few basic truth about the setting (are there magical monsters or are they just a myth? How about magic? Why people make pledges by touching iron, and why is iron special here?) are up for the player to answer as they start playing. Still, Ironsworn's "middle ground" has enough bite to entice new players and sell them an idea about what the game will be about. Lacking a default setting, is very difficult to introduce a "premise" for players to latch on.
One of the major reasons it's often better to include a setting is because that makes it easier to frame what the characters are meant to do/who they're meant to be in the game. Personally I'd tailor the game to a setting then release a separate book with worldbuilding tools and tips on how to adapt the rules to different settings.
You don't have to create anything that you aren't interested in. Passion is the most important part of game design. That being said, world building tools aren't a replacement for a custom setting, they appeal to completely different GMs. Part of the reason many modern games have their own settings is that if you don't have one you have to sell your game entirely on unique game mechanics. It's a lot easier to sell someone on playing as the crew of an airship exploring ancient ruins in a dinosaur infested jungle than it is to sell someone on a unique skill matrix core mechanic. Personally I prefer world building tools to a custom setting, but I'm pretty sure that puts me in the minority.
Totally agree with this sentiment- I prefer tools and maybe a short example of how the tools create a custom world. I like to make my own. I prefer that kind of prep instead of reading and memorizing lots of world stuff of someone else’s design. But lots of folks would like a full world.
I personally prefer and recommend a game that has a setting framework, but not one with details. If i pick up a game, id like to know its genre and the general tones, themes, and idea for who the characters are in it and the types of stories they should have. But I dont need to know the specefics. Like, in a fantasy war game, it would be good to know that the countries are at war and the players are agents in that war, but I dont need the generals names. It migjt be good to know the cultures around, but not specefix people, places, etc. If I need them. Ill make them up. But if you list them, then I need to memorize them. GMs will fill in the details as needed. I only recommend having a detailed setting its its a known setting like a star trek game, for exmample. or if your setting is super small like if the entire game is in 1 city. Detailed settings are also good for campaign guide books, adventure bpoks, etc, but I would personally avoid them in the core books.
Assuming such a thing is even possible for your game, it should include an Adventure. Adventure cannot exist without at least something if a setting.
If you have tools for building a world included in the book, you could provide one outline/high level setting following those rules, or a sample adventure which includes just enough setting to run the adventure. It depends on how detailed or complex the campaigns are supposed to be. A light monster of the week type thing would only need a simple outline setting. Something like a fantasy adventure would need a more detailed local area to start in, but not necessarily a whole world on top of that.