Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How thorough do you like your settings?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9012743" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>If what's written in it is good, I might. But I wouldn't run it 100% canon, other than MAYBE the very first time, just to capitalize on the ease-of-running aspect.</p><p></p><p>I'm too much of a convert to Dungeon World: "Draw maps, leave blanks." I <em>want</em> a world that everyone--player and GM alike--has to discover through play, rather than it being perfectly nailed down to the letter from the beginning.</p><p></p><p>Further, I genuinely think that such a detailed setting is going to encourage one of the greater GM ills: Becoming too precious about the plot/story/etc. Being <em>constantly</em> tempted to railroad or employ illusionism or deny players the consequences (good or bad) of their actions. Because YOU can see the diamond perfection that could be, if only the players interact with these things in <em>just</em> the right way. YOU know how deeply satisfying it would be if they befriend group X only to be betrayed later, how much the party will love NPC Y if they just get a chance to meet them and how <em>far</em> they'll go to save (or resurrect!) that NPC, how much <em>fun</em> it will be to romp through location Z twice, once before and once after the <<em>Really Messy Time.</em>></p><p></p><p>Thing is, that sort of stuff? That's normally my bread and butter. I LOVE a well-executed, theme-driven, tight story. And that love is exactly why I force myself NOT to do that. Because it would be too easy to slip up. Too easy to make excuses when I have a really really good reason, and once a good reason is enough, that love can very easily make me excuse a merely <em>pretty good</em> reason, etc. Temptation is, of its very nature, a slippery slope, doubly so when you add in the "it's for their own good," Utopia Justifies The Means excuse.</p><p></p><p>In a certain sense, this is how I feel about Eberron. I would happily run an Eberron game for my friends if they asked me to (once the current campaign wraps...but that's probably not happening for a good while yet.) But I don't think I would run things 100% perfectly on the official line. It leaves much open, the maps have <em>some</em> blanks, but I'm not sure those blanks are quite as large or numerous as I'd want, and I'm not sure they're distributed quite where I'd want either. I also like deities and have already been playing a game where religion is very very much a matter of faith alone rather than "just call up your god for a chat," so I might play with some of the setting concepts (as a campaign theme anyway--a world <em>changing</em> from "no one even knows if the gods are real" to "okay maybe SOME gods are real??? If you believe them and they aren't charlatans or self-deluded???")</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9012743, member: 6790260"] If what's written in it is good, I might. But I wouldn't run it 100% canon, other than MAYBE the very first time, just to capitalize on the ease-of-running aspect. I'm too much of a convert to Dungeon World: "Draw maps, leave blanks." I [I]want[/I] a world that everyone--player and GM alike--has to discover through play, rather than it being perfectly nailed down to the letter from the beginning. Further, I genuinely think that such a detailed setting is going to encourage one of the greater GM ills: Becoming too precious about the plot/story/etc. Being [I]constantly[/I] tempted to railroad or employ illusionism or deny players the consequences (good or bad) of their actions. Because YOU can see the diamond perfection that could be, if only the players interact with these things in [I]just[/I] the right way. YOU know how deeply satisfying it would be if they befriend group X only to be betrayed later, how much the party will love NPC Y if they just get a chance to meet them and how [I]far[/I] they'll go to save (or resurrect!) that NPC, how much [I]fun[/I] it will be to romp through location Z twice, once before and once after the <[I]Really Messy Time.[/I]> Thing is, that sort of stuff? That's normally my bread and butter. I LOVE a well-executed, theme-driven, tight story. And that love is exactly why I force myself NOT to do that. Because it would be too easy to slip up. Too easy to make excuses when I have a really really good reason, and once a good reason is enough, that love can very easily make me excuse a merely [I]pretty good[/I] reason, etc. Temptation is, of its very nature, a slippery slope, doubly so when you add in the "it's for their own good," Utopia Justifies The Means excuse. In a certain sense, this is how I feel about Eberron. I would happily run an Eberron game for my friends if they asked me to (once the current campaign wraps...but that's probably not happening for a good while yet.) But I don't think I would run things 100% perfectly on the official line. It leaves much open, the maps have [I]some[/I] blanks, but I'm not sure those blanks are quite as large or numerous as I'd want, and I'm not sure they're distributed quite where I'd want either. I also like deities and have already been playing a game where religion is very very much a matter of faith alone rather than "just call up your god for a chat," so I might play with some of the setting concepts (as a campaign theme anyway--a world [I]changing[/I] from "no one even knows if the gods are real" to "okay maybe SOME gods are real??? If you believe them and they aren't charlatans or self-deluded???") [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How thorough do you like your settings?
Top