Mercurius
Legend
Forked from: An Epiphany -- My new Fave thing about 4E
Hmm. First you use pejorative terms like "setting wankery" and "setting nazis" and decry such folks for saying "Thou Shalt"...then, in the last sentence, you turn around and effectively say "Thou Shalt create campaigns after My Own Image." Isn't that a bit contradictory, even hypocritical?
Look, I think there is something to what you are saying but would point out that there are many different ways to create a successful (that is, enjoyable) campaign experience. But it is way too trite to say that no world-building and backstory is required.
In many ways running a campaign is similar to writing a novel. In one sense you only need to know what the readers/players know; in another, there is the potential for things to look flat if the players/readers get a glimpse that the old western town is actually a set piece (two-dimensional) and behind it is the bald-and-chubby old Wizard of Oz randomly generating reality via use of the Ultimate Toolbox (not a dig on this book...I just bought it and like it). I think we can safely say--at the least--that world building doesn't hurt and can only help with bringing dimensionality.
OK, what I hear is that you, perhaps with good reason, are pissed with the so-called "setting nazis." But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater; that is, let's not throw out the question of whether world-building is needed for a good campaign, or rather to what degree it is needed, with the Thou Shalts and absolute statements of This Is How Gaming Should Be Done, which no one likes.
I would amend your above sentence to say:
"...without adequate world building, your campaign has the potential to be flat, with relatively meaningless dungeon crawls and lacking to some degree in depth or consistency."
Alright, it kind of made the statement meaningless, but you get the point (I hope)! So let's discuss these questions:
To what degree is world-building needed to run a good/enjoyable campaign? How does world-building support depth and internal consistency? Can these qualities be achieved without a lot of world-building? What qualities does a campaign more likely have with or without a lot of world-building? What are the potential drawbacks to a lot of world-building and can it be excessive? Is it possible to "build as you go"? Etc.
There is a lot of room for fruitful discussion here, if we throw the "bathwater" out of Thou Shalts and pejorative accusations, whatever our viewpoint on the matter.
Stormtalon - you mean... you are creating a campaign without spending hours and hours and hours on setting wankery first? And NO ONE here is yelling at you for it. Wow, times really have changed. I thought the setting nazis around here insisted that THOU SHALT WORLD BUILD, before creating any campaign.
Must wait for it.
But, kudos to you. This is EXACTLY how a DM should be creating campaigns IMNSHO.
Hmm. First you use pejorative terms like "setting wankery" and "setting nazis" and decry such folks for saying "Thou Shalt"...then, in the last sentence, you turn around and effectively say "Thou Shalt create campaigns after My Own Image." Isn't that a bit contradictory, even hypocritical?
Look, I think there is something to what you are saying but would point out that there are many different ways to create a successful (that is, enjoyable) campaign experience. But it is way too trite to say that no world-building and backstory is required.
In many ways running a campaign is similar to writing a novel. In one sense you only need to know what the readers/players know; in another, there is the potential for things to look flat if the players/readers get a glimpse that the old western town is actually a set piece (two-dimensional) and behind it is the bald-and-chubby old Wizard of Oz randomly generating reality via use of the Ultimate Toolbox (not a dig on this book...I just bought it and like it). I think we can safely say--at the least--that world building doesn't hurt and can only help with bringing dimensionality.
Really? Every time I've stated pretty much exactly that, that you should focus on your campaign and not building your world, I've been told in no uncertain terms, on these forums, repeatedly, that I am absolutely wrong.
That without world building, your campaign will automatically be flat, nothing but meaningless dungeon crawls and completely lacking in any sort of depth or consistency.
THAT'S the bizarro internet I've been reading.
OK, what I hear is that you, perhaps with good reason, are pissed with the so-called "setting nazis." But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater; that is, let's not throw out the question of whether world-building is needed for a good campaign, or rather to what degree it is needed, with the Thou Shalts and absolute statements of This Is How Gaming Should Be Done, which no one likes.
I would amend your above sentence to say:
"...without adequate world building, your campaign has the potential to be flat, with relatively meaningless dungeon crawls and lacking to some degree in depth or consistency."
Alright, it kind of made the statement meaningless, but you get the point (I hope)! So let's discuss these questions:
To what degree is world-building needed to run a good/enjoyable campaign? How does world-building support depth and internal consistency? Can these qualities be achieved without a lot of world-building? What qualities does a campaign more likely have with or without a lot of world-building? What are the potential drawbacks to a lot of world-building and can it be excessive? Is it possible to "build as you go"? Etc.
There is a lot of room for fruitful discussion here, if we throw the "bathwater" out of Thou Shalts and pejorative accusations, whatever our viewpoint on the matter.