Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 3654496" data-attributes="member: 22424">I've certainly seen a fair amount of bad advice given in the &quot;Save my Game&quot; feature on Wizards.com, much of which seems to lean a bit too far towards the &quot;player's entitlement&quot; end of the scale.That said, I can't disagree with everything stated in the article. It is certainly the case that the players won't be as interested in the world as the DM, and if the DM expects them to be, then he's setting himself up for disappointment. Likewise, preparing a long paragraph of exposition on a random item (rather than one the PCs have deliberately researched) is likely too much.But that doesn't mean there should be no setting exposition - just that it should be done sparingly.One thing I have found works very well with making a setting come alive is a sort of &quot;Easter egg&quot; view of campaign detail, where you throw out a nugget or two fairly frequently, and leave it to the players to either put it together (and enjoy making those connections), but where players who aren't interested, or aren't paying attention, can still play the game just as well.For example, when the PCs visit the village of &quot;Kargoth's Stand&quot;, you casually mention that everyone is wearing some item of green clothing. Later on, they find Kargoth's tomb, which describes an artifact he used, a sceptre of great magical power. Later, when researching this item, they find that it is called the Jade Sceptre. Furthermore, the sceptre was lost near the site where Kargoth made his last stand. (Okay, that's not an example I think I would actually use, but it gives the idea - little details are revealed over time that, individually, are just dressing and don't take too much time to give out, but when taken as a whole they build a consistent world.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 3654496, member: 22424"] I've certainly seen a fair amount of bad advice given in the "Save my Game" feature on Wizards.com, much of which seems to lean a bit too far towards the "player's entitlement" end of the scale. That said, I can't disagree with everything stated in the article. It is certainly the case that the players won't be as interested in the world as the DM, and if the DM expects them to be, then he's setting himself up for disappointment. Likewise, preparing a long paragraph of exposition on a random item (rather than one the PCs have deliberately researched) is likely too much. But that doesn't mean there should be no setting exposition - just that it should be done sparingly. One thing I have found works very well with making a setting come alive is a sort of "Easter egg" view of campaign detail, where you throw out a nugget or two fairly frequently, and leave it to the players to either put it together (and enjoy making those connections), but where players who aren't interested, or aren't paying attention, can still play the game just as well. For example, when the PCs visit the village of "Kargoth's Stand", you casually mention that everyone is wearing some item of green clothing. Later on, they find Kargoth's tomb, which describes an artifact he used, a sceptre of great magical power. Later, when researching this item, they find that it is called the Jade Sceptre. Furthermore, the sceptre was lost near the site where Kargoth made his last stand. (Okay, that's not an example I think I would actually use, but it gives the idea - little details are revealed over time that, individually, are just dressing and don't take too much time to give out, but when taken as a whole they build a consistent world.) [/QUOTE]

Verification