Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Irennan" data-source="post: 7764583" data-attributes="member: 6778119">I understand that you were giving me an explanation, my point was that I still fail to understand aversion to detail because the problem doesn't seem to be with the details themselves (which, in the end, are options), but with the presentation. A different approach could very easily avoid the "I don't want to read an encyclopedia to run or play in this setting" problem.I know that other editions have done it poorly, that's why I suggested a similar approach, but more geared towards providing different levels of detail for different needs. As for settings going too much into detail, my entire point is that you don't need to know all those details to run the setting, they're options for those who want them, and, for that reason, presentation can heavily influence whether a setting can be palatable to people who don't like too many details. If a DM finds a setting too detailed, if the book both provides an overview and then sections going more in-depth, they can easily read the street level-perspective guide, read info on major movers, and still be able to decently run it. They will only have basic levels of detail to work with, which is what fits their style. Sure, they won't know the history and the likes, but if they don't need it (or want to make up their own) then there's no problem. It's the modular approach that 5e strove to achieve, but that they're entirely overlooking.In short, I understand that some people can find detailed setting stifling or overwhelming, but what if the setting is presented in a way that makes it easy to choose the level of detail to use (because you're never forced to use details)? Such a book could be useful both to those who like details and to those who don't, while the current approach is only useful to the latter.What did I ignore?</blockquote>

Verification