Only the Lonely: Why We Demand Official Product

[Maxperson]

Fair enough, if you want that kind of detail. I tend more toward just-enough. They're only staying at the one inn, for instance, how many more do they need? The parties are more goal-oriented than locaton-oriented, so I haven't needed to work out every single location within three days' travel of a given city (which it sounds as though you feel you need to do).

Hah! Yeah. My players want to know where all the inns are, what the names are, what sort of clientele goes there, and so on. They use the inns to gather info, hang out and more.

 

[Maxperson]

You don't need that much information though.

One in, one town and one dungeon is enough to start with.

Don't tell me what I need.

 

[Maxperson]

Seems to me we have plenty of pre-written settings already.

Seems to me that people like different things. There may only be one or even no current pre-written settings that a DM likes.

I'm okay with them having their fun and me having mine. I don't need to have more settings to run and 0 for them in order to be happy.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Hah! Yeah. My players want to know where all the inns are, what the names are, what sort of clientele goes there, and so on. They use the inns to gather info, hang out and more.

Then I would suggest your players are rather inconsiderate. My players understand that I only have limited time, and don't waste too much time asking about incosequentials.

But I don't know of any campaign setting books that would give you that level of detail anyway. You would still have to make it up.

 

[Maxperson]

Then I would suggest your players are rather inconsiderate. My players understand that I only have limited time, and don't waste too much time asking about incosequentials. important parts of the game.

But I don't know of any campaign setting books that would give you that level of detail anyway. You would still have to make it up.

Fixed that for you. Don't tell me or my players what's consequential or inconsequential for us, either. You have a really bad habit of trying to apply what you think and like to other people. You don't get to decide for others what they need or has meaning.

 

[prabe]

As someone whose first campaign in the world I'm running in now didn't have anything like a dungeon (an underground base, really) until the party were ... 7th level, I think, I'm inclined to say you don't even need a dungeon, just something (or things) for the party to engage with. Obviously, YMMV.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Fixed that for you. Don't tell me or my players what's consequential or inconsequential for us, either. You have a really bad habit of trying to apply what you think and like to other people. You don't get to decide for other what they need or has meaning.

The second point still apples - maybe that stuff is important to your players, but since it isn't in any campaign setting book that I know of, there is no point in having the book.

 

[prabe]

I think those of us who homebrew our settings (at whatever level of detail) are always going to think there's too much being published in the way of setting material. We don't need it or really want it.

That doesn't mean other people don't want or need it, and it doesn't mean WotC shouldn't publish it. It just means that I won't be buying as many 5E books as I did 3.x. I'd rather see the game (and WotC) do well, though, so I try to keep my grumbling in check.

 

[hawkeyefan]

When it comes to stuff like the inns in a town, I actually lean on the players to fill in those elements. If they ask if there's a seedy inn, then I just say yes. When they ask the name, I say, "I don't know, you tell me."

No reason for the DM to have to come up with every single detail when there are a few other imaginations available to assist.

 

[3catcircus]

I think those of us who homebrew our settings (at whatever level of detail) are always going to think there's too much being published in the way of setting material. We don't need it or really want it.

That doesn't mean other people don't want or need it, and it doesn't mean WotC shouldn't publish it. It just means that I won't be buying as many 5E books as I did 3.x. I'd rather see the game (and WotC) do well, though, so I try to keep my grumbling in check.

The other thing about homebrew is that it is (should be) consistent because you are the only developer and your players are the only ones who influence it. It is easy to fill out what details you need and when - if you have the time to develop a homebrew setting.

For those of us who don't have that time, the issue is that existing settings that don't have a 5e update were developed by multiple developers and influenced across multiple Gencons or multiple in-house TSR campaigns. The source gets corrupted in a whisper-down-the-lane across later publications.

Greyhawk is relatively clean in comparison to Forgotten Realms, but it is still in need of a good scrub. I'm not talking about RSEs that may not be popular amongst those with experience in prior products (such as the Greyhawk Wars or the 4e FR treatment), but basic failure to do research when writing a new product or failure of the publisher to maintain continuity of the lore.