JacktheRabbit
Explorer
"and written in a concise, efficient way"
You neglected to mention his caveat that he only reads that important to the campaign stuff if he feels it is written with a high enough quality to justify his time.
Question for players: how much reading is okay before a campaign?
- Thread starter RangerWickett
- Start date
"and written in a concise, efficient way"
You neglected to mention his caveat that he only reads that important to the campaign stuff if he feels it is written with a high enough quality to justify his time.
Billd91 pretty much summed up my reply to this, but to reiterate...
Reading pages of labored and overwritten backstory bores the heck out of me. Even if I do it, I'm unlikely to remember much of it. So I don't want DMs to give me pages of backstory; and since my experience is that most players respond the same way I do, I don't give my players pages of backstory when I DM. A paragraph is quite sufficient.
I do give my players a few pages of non-backstory reference material, and expect them to read the bits that are relevant to them. If you give me similar reference material (preferably no more than 2-5 pages, like I said), I'll read all of it and pay close attention to the bits that are relevant to me. If I'm going to play a drow, I'll read the "drow" section attentively. I'll glance over the "dwarf" section, but if I have no intention of playing a dwarf, I won't make an effort to commit it to memory.
No, I'll read it regardless. I just get irritated if it blathers a lot.
Last edited:
JacktheRabbit
Explorer
Guess we are just different then. I am going to read the information for each race because, to me, picking a race without knowing how all the major races work in the campaign world is setting yourself up to have less fun. How do you know that the background for one of the other races wont interest you more than the one you chose without doing any reading?
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
You can keep grasping at straws to find the problem with Dausuul, but concise and efficient is simply good technical writing for explanatory text of this nature. If it's disorganized and rambling, I can see not wanting to read it. Note here, of course, that Dausuul does not declare that the text he gives his his players is disorganized and rambling. There's no reason to expect he doesn't intend for his own reference materials to also be concise and efficient. So there's still no hypocrisy.
I glance over the other sections, as I said. That's usually enough to tell me if it's something I might want to play. I don't have to ponder every detail of the kender race before deciding it's something I'd never play in a million years.
Last edited:
JacktheRabbit
Explorer
Of course not. I would expect his writing to be incredibly talented otherwise it would be rather rude of him to make negative comments about the writing style or ability of others.
Either way I will give him the benefit of the doubt. He initially said he would only read a paragraph campaign description and the absolutely necessary text for the race he has chosen. He changed that to he will read it all and just complain if it was written badly.
Hussar
Legend
Honestly, IME, in a given group, one player will read the setting bible, one player will skim it and the rest will glance at it once and never refer to it again, and then react badly when you try to bring up setting canon later on down the road.
It doesn't seem to matter if it's professionally done, like the Player's Guides from things like the Paizo adventure paths, or hand written or a wiki.
By and large, I prefer setting points to come up in game.
It doesn't seem to matter if it's professionally done, like the Player's Guides from things like the Paizo adventure paths, or hand written or a wiki.
By and large, I prefer setting points to come up in game.
The map & one paragraph should be enough to get them playing:
I say develop the rest in play. Give yourself some flexibility to really let the players' hands control the gears of the turning age. And don't reinvent the wheel by redefining much of the core game.
(The map below is just a rough thumbnail, and will definitely be changed, but it gives a vague sense of the relations between the different nations.)
[sblock][/sblock]
Campaign Primer: A Step Away from Classic Fantasy
In the ZEITGEIST campaign saga, your characters serve in the Homeland Directorate of the nation of Risur, protecting the country and its citizens from foreign threats lurking within Risur’s borders. During missions of espionage and assassination, your duty will be to root out hostile spies and pursue international conspiracies. As you learn more of your homeland’s own secrets, however, your loyalties may be tested, may even be turned, and you may find that it is you whose hand controls the gears of the turning age.
I say develop the rest in play. Give yourself some flexibility to really let the players' hands control the gears of the turning age. And don't reinvent the wheel by redefining much of the core game.
Wednesday Boy
The Nerd WhoFell to Earth
That's funny, I fall into the first two levels. Or all three if I'm especially hungry.
Wednesday Boy
The Nerd WhoFell to Earth
It might work well to explain your setting with the players and give them a paper writeup on the setting for future reference. I think a conversation will engage the players more, whereas giving them a paper and asking them to read it may be seen more like a homework assignment. Since a conversation would be more casual and interactive you could highlight the important points of the setting, then delve into more detail in the areas where the players showed interest.
It may be a terrible idea and fall flat but I imagine players who would not be willing to read very much could be roped into listening for a little bit about it.
It may be a terrible idea and fall flat but I imagine players who would not be willing to read very much could be roped into listening for a little bit about it.
Similar Threads
