New Dungeoncraft: The Dungeons of Greenbrier Chasm

[The Little Raven]

You're aware not everyone shares your tastes, right? Why should you care what other people do in their games?

Because, if they care more about running off to do some task or adventure than they do about some long expositions about the village's history, then obviously they're doing it wrong.

 

[pogre]

As for Hong -- has he really posted any arguments of substance or relevance on this thread? I have failed to notice. I think he's mostly interested in trolling.

You haven't interacted with Hong much on here have you? Needless to say there is an artifact on ENWorld called a Hong Stick which is used to bash Hong from time-to-time.

Having said that, he usually has a point, as he does here. Most folks here are disagreeing with your play style preference. I doubt you will find 4th edition satisfying given your requirements. I'm not sure how 3.5 does it, but there is no wrong fun.

I think you can always pour time into DM prep. What is valuable is learning new ways or methods of cutting this prep time down. I enjoy prepping for adventures myself, but taking lots of time is always an option - give me a way to prepare quickly when I don't have the time.

 

[BryonD]

Good grief. Really?
...

As far as world building goes, I hope, truly hope, that the DMG buries it deeply in the ground. If you want to build worlds, you don't need the DMG to help you with that. You never did. What you need the DMG to do is get you up and running as fast as possible. Expecting new DM's to spend dozens, or hundreds, of hours before play coming up with worlds is unrealistic and one of the worst things D&D has done for the past 30 years.

I don't play D&D to create imaginary worlds. I play D&D to have adventures and watch PC's grow and develop. All I need for that is a setting. Take whatever history that you have in your world that does not apply to my PC and keep it to yourself. I simply, completely do not care to waste my time with six page treatises on Elven tea ceremonies.

Three hundred years ago, unspeakable rites were performed on yonder hill? Fantastic. This factoid has nothing to do with any adventures I can reasonably expect to undertake? Don't give a rat's petoot.

Hopefully, hopefully, 4e will finally take the position that playing D&D should be about PLAYING and not writing amateur fanfic.

Setting aside the absurd exaggerations regarding such things as hundreds of hours, tea parties and fanfic, I believe the attitude you are describing will be a core reason why two years from now it will be a lot more difficult to find a really good DM. They will still be out there. But they will be fewer and farther between.

Hell, a Descent character can grow and develop.

I don't have a fraction of the time I wish I had for my gaming. I'm one of those real job, 40 hours is for losers, wife and kids types. But if I've only got one hour to spend, I'd prefer to build a really cool, detailed and rich single encounter rather than an entire stick figure adventure. D&D, to me, is about a hell of a lot more than grinding through a string of encounters that are set up like so many bowling pins. And moving away from that is a very sad thing that will make D&D a lot less distinct when compared to the throngs of other quick and easy games out there.

The love for the texture of the game and being a great DM have a pretty notable correlation.

 

[The Little Raven]

But if I've only got one hour to spend, I'd prefer to build a really cool, detailed and rich single encounter rather than an entire stick figure adventure.

I'd prefer to build several really cool, detailed and rich encounters with that time, rather than spending most of it crunching numbers for a couple monsters for a single encounter (which will take up less time than it takes me to prepare for it). What you call "stick figure adventuring," I call "not giving me needless homework."

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Yeah I have to say, if the DMG gives me the options to make a good adventure by letting me concentrate on dialogue, story progression, atmosphere, alternative situations, etc. while putting me essentially off the hook of having to spend 4-5 hours making up npcs and monsters I will be so grateful.

Also while some people can make up NPCs and monsters in no time since they have memorized all the rules others have not, simply because they don't have good enough memory for some things. Hell I basically need to re-read the DMG/Monster Manual every time I make an encounter to make sure it is done properly if in 4e I don't have to, that will cut down on time a great deal.

 

[Campbell]

The love for the texture of the game and being a great DM have a pretty notable correlation.

I agree that a love for the texture of the game is a worthwhile quality for DMs to possess. Still, let's put everything in its proper place. Setting material serves to provide a broader context for game play and adventure material, but the adventure material is what actually drives the game play. I don't think its absurd to suggest that GMs should focus more on preparing game play related material than the work that is meant to provide context to the course of play. I would also argue that a GM does not need to know the shape of an entire world before game play even begins. He merely needs enough setting material to place game play within the context of the wider setting. Setting material should be subservient to game play and adventure material not the other way around.

 

[Primal]

Because, if they care more about running off to do some task or adventure than they do about some long expositions about the village's history, then obviously they're doing it wrong.

The thing is that I've seen many people gripe about a richly-detailed setting (such as FR) and calling it "impossible to run without pouring over thousands of pages of fluff and hundreds of NPC stats", while this is not actually true. You can *choose* which parts to ignore and which to use, just as you don't have to run a published adventure "as written". Yet if you or your players are into details, they are there to use. It's optional. However, now that the FR Design Team has advanced the timeline by a hundred years and blown most of the known Faerûn to bits, it will take years and years for to get that same amount of lore we have had in 2E and 3E. The option touse that vast amount of fluff does not exist in 4E anymore.

Note that I'm not saying that my way to DM is the "right" way or the "best" way to run the game. IMO you *only* need to do the amount of prep your *players* expect of you. So if they like about details and want to know about town X's history or ancient architecture in kingdom Y, why not cater to their wishes? After all, you're running the game to make sure they're enjoying it. Don't write the fluff if nobody (including yourself) do not care about it. My players may expect that their DM is into detailing history, local customs, trade routes, economy, etcetera. And I'm more than willing to do it, because I (as a player) also love the fluffy bits, and expect my DM to invest his time on it.

 

[The Little Raven]

The thing is that I've seen many people gripe about a richly-detailed setting (such as FR) and calling it "impossible to run without pouring over thousands of pages of fluff and hundreds of NPC stats", while this is not actually true.

If plenty of people don't run the Realms, they cite this as their reason, then it is true as far as they are concerned.

You may have a different opinion, but that doesn't make them wrong.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If plenty of people don't run the Realms, they cite this as their reason, then it is true as far as they are concerned.

You may have a different opinion, but that doesn't make them wrong.

It's exactly the reason I don't run games in the Realms. I have too many FR fans in my groups, and I don't need them second-guessing my canon. They love it, I don't feel strongly about it, so I usually run my games in Greyhawk because I know exactly how malleable that setting is, especially because I'm the one in my group who knows the most about it.

I know, from experience, what happens when I run FR games with those players. They try to correct me, and I tell them to stuff a sock in their cakeholes, because I don't intend to follow canon. They nod, and agree that as the DM, I have the right to do that, and back off. Then, ten minutes later they forget that discussion and tell me that Lord Whozit is the leader of Whateverdale, not King Whatshisname. Then I throw dice at them. It's not a pretty picture.

Plus, they go to all that trouble to define FR right down to the colour of Elminster's codpiece, and it seems somehow weird to just ignore all that text.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

Thank you Dr. Awkward, now I have to go and stat out Elminster's Codpiece...