Setting Design vs Adventure Prep

[S'mon]

This thread reminds me why I love the Wilderlands boxed set with its detailing weird cool stuff hex by hex. It's full of "stuff that looks like setting, but is actually an adventure waiting to happen." I think it's pretty much an ideal synthesis of the two approaches.

 

[Reynard]

Fair enough. I'm trying to say that you should work on your next adventure, and let the macrolevel stuff work its way out in hindsight (as in, if the players show interest in it directly) rather than in advance.

Can't. Just not capable.

But, the PCs have moved to a more open area with some semblence of civilization, so rather than working out a dungeon and its denizens, I have to work out a region and its population, politics, monsters and so on. I am much better off, I think, going for the medium level, crunchy setting design route, because I don't know what they are going to do once they get there. But because i have done a lot of macro-level setting design, I know what the big picture is, so i don't have to worry about that. i can dive right into the local temple without having to develope the whole religion, if you get my meaning.

 

[Reynard]

And you have an idea of what adventures cannot be run, because the setting forbids that kind of adventure because you've already decided that the setting is X, Y and Z, and not the A, B and C required by the adventure. So the adventure is compromised, when it should be the other way around IMO, because the adventure is effectively what the players spend their time "doing".

You've got it quite backwards. I have a bunch of things that say what exists so far. I do not have a list of things that don't exist (except for gnomes and halflings -- I hate small people races). Why would I?

But it is obvious that you think any effort spent on anything other than statting CR 4 encounters is wasted effort and there's zero chance of me agreeing that is a better way to run a game or design either campaigns or adventures, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think this cuts to the core of the disconnect we're having: variable definitions for "setting design" and "adventure design".

Reading this, I tend to agree that the biggest actual contention is in terminology.

If you are creating a world in which the PCs are encouraged to pursue their own agendas (i.e., devise their own hooks, rather than following an adventure path) then the context in which they do so is both setting and adventure design. Conversely, if you are creating an adventure path, all background materials and overplots for that path are also both setting and adventure design.

The things that I am seeing here amount to "Why do more design work than is immediately necessary?" wherein, based on playstyles, what is "immediately necessary" differs a great deal.

Should you prepare for or design encounters that the PCs may never have? 1e modules seemed to think that you should, 2e and 3e modules seem to think that you should not. Myself, I prefer the 1e method, but since 3e is labor-intensive in terms of stat-blocks, I find that I do an oversketch using generic stat blocks but non-generic fluff, and only do fully fleshed out versions of locations (stat blocks and full descriptions) after I know the players are interested. I create enough to "wing" any location the PCs can reach, while doing focused work on areas that either interest me or interest one or more PCs.

(Since I run games in the same world, though, I feel that what is ignored by one group of PCs may well be of interest to another group of PCs, so the effort is far from wasted. YMMV.)


RC

 

[Reynard]

(Since I run games in the same world, though, I feel that what is ignored by one group of PCs may well be of interest to another group of PCs, so the effort is far from wasted. YMMV.)

This is key for me too, since my intent in creating my setting is that I will be using it *whenever* I run D&D, whether it is for my regular, as a one shot, or as a con game. Every time I do so, the world gets a little better defined, and things I create -- both at the macro scale and the micro scale -- adds to the world. Assuming that I am still playing D&D in one form or another 1, 5 or 10 years from now, I'll have a consistent, playtested setting geared toward the kind of D&D I like to run. Chances are, if prospective players don't like that world, they won't like my D&D so the hurdle of finding players who fit is made a lot easier: "Here, read this primer."

On topic, it is probably less than useful to try and divide the prep work I and other DMs do between "adventure" and "setting" design. If this thread has articulated anything to me, it is that there's a continuum of game prep/design and trying to cut it up into reliably consistent definitions is neither probable nor helpful.

That's why i like forums like this one so much: I can start with a supposition and, through civil and intelligent discussion even with people whom I vehemntly disagree, test that supposition and (more often than not) modify my own viewpoint for the better.

 

[buzz]

I mean, sure, but what's the point of doing so if adventures that evoke a setting are what you're after?

I'm thinking that the disconnect we're seeing between the sides of debate on this thread lay herein.

Reynard, your priority seems to be prepping sessions that explore an evocative campaign world. I'm guessing that you and your players want to be able to point at anything in the world the characters are exploring and know there's some story or history behind it.

I think that myself and others do not have setting exploration as a priority. Our focus is on creating a situation to be dealt with. I know that my group is generally at sea when there is no clear direction provided; they want to roll the bones and loot the bodies. In general, the world beyond the adventure at hand is of little interest to them. We've had campaigns in maybe 4-5 different settings, yet I haven't seen much a of difference in what happens at the table.

 

[buzz]

I was very purposeful to include both campaigns and one-shots in my example, since one might have such expectations but the other would have the opposite.

I understand that there's not going to necessarily be any implicit expectation with a one-shot, especially if it's for a group other than your regular one (say, at a Gameday). I would still question how much macro-level data you really need in order to improvise when the players zig instead of zag.

I would also think, however, that if there's any expectation about a one-shot a player is bringing to the table, it's that there's a scenario in which they're going to involve themselves. I.e., I don't know of if anyone signs up for a con event assuming they can show up and just let their PC wander wherever.

And, yes, this is speculation based on my personal experience, and not hard data.

IME, it doesn't really require any more time than that used to detail specific adventures. It's just a different approach.

What level of improvisation are we talking about here, though? Cracking open your MM and improvising an encounter on the fly, or simply choosing from a selection of encounters you've prep-prepped "just in case"?

IME, that is indicative of a broader problem and needs to be addressed out of game.

Well, sure.

 

[Imaro]

I understand that there's not going to necessarily be any implicit expectation with a one-shot, especially if it's for a group other than your regular one (say, at a Gameday). I would still question how much macro-level data you really need in order to improvise when the players zig instead of zag.

I don't think, for some it's as simple as improvising...anyone can improvise, flip open your moster manual and pick, but does it make sense in the context of the world. Some players want that connection, and when it's not there they tend to ask all kinds of questions(IMHO). A improvisation on the fly, without basis, in your world can come back to bite you in the ass later.

Player: Well why didn't Methias, guardian of the forest tell us it was overrun by undead?
DM: Uh...because he didn't know.
Player: The guardian of the forest didn't know it was under siege?
DM:Okay he didn't trust you enough.
Player:But he told us about a sacred grove to heal our wounds, why would he do that if he didn't like us?
DM: Because I mad him up on the fly and didn't plan this particular adventure until last week.
Player...Oh.

Setting design helps me avoid the above situation. YMMV

 

[Mallus]

And you have an idea of what adventures cannot be run, because the setting forbids that kind of adventure because you've already decided that the setting is X, Y and Z, and not the A, B and C required by the adventure. So the adventure is compromised...

So adventures are compromised by establishing a context for them to take place in?

Why not create the props that the script requires after it's written, and put them where they're needed?

A play also (usually) requires a place for the action to occur, which affects what "props" would be appropriate.

 

[buzz]

Setting design helps me avoid the above situation. YMMV

Okay, then I guess we're back to the issue of what "setting design" means.

How would your example be different if it was set in a fleshed-out campaign setting?