Setting Design vs Adventure Prep

[Mark CMG]

At this point, D&D is very much it's own genre of fantasy, (. . .)

This is calling for its own thread, I believe.

 

[rounser]

It seems to boil down to whether conflict or exploration is higher on the priority list while designing.

That doesn't explain the Wilderlands, which are much more exploration-oriented than the macro-level stuff that usually passes for setting design. Wilderlands has much more in common with an adventure (it's a big wilderness dungeon) than said macro design.

Similarly, something like the Secret of Bone Hill is much more exploration oriented to me than the entire World of Greyhawk, as run from the boxed set, because there's actually something to find in that (much much smaller) wilderness. I remember someone likening GH's 30 mile hexes to "howling voids", which is rather apt. In defense of GH, at least it has the hexes so that it could be populated with areas of interest if the DM was so inclined.

To boil it down to as simple a D&Dism as I can, macro-level setting design lets me make every +1 sword unique.

But you won't have a "uniquely flavoured" +1 sword until you design it on a micro level. So why not cut out the middle man and just make the sword, making it unique in the process? You don't need macro design to do that.

Designing from the 'bottom up', without regard for a macro-level framework, looks to me like an embrace of the utterly generic.

This beats spending a great deal of your effort on macro level stuff which the players never interact with, because there isn't enough time and attention left to give the low level stuff the necessary TLC to run a good game.

Yes, they did/do, hence the need for setting.

Interesting. It suggests that there's no point in preparing encounter-level stuff for such a group, unless it's very generic (and so can be moved all around the world as necessary, based on the whim of where the PCs decide to go today). Almost pure improvisation seems to be demanded.

 

[Reynard]

But you won't have a "uniquely flavoured" +1 sword until you design it on a micro level. So why not cut out the middle man and just make the sword, making it unique in the process? You don't need macro design to do that.

But because I have a context, I can create a unique +1 sword that also fits -- and I can do it more easily and more quickly.

This beats spending a great deal of your effort on macro level stuff which the players never interact with, because there isn't enough time and attention left to give the low level stuff the necessary TLC to run a good game.

You're missing the point entirely. The players interact with the macro level stuff every moment of the game because it is part of the setting. Everywhere they go, every adventure, every NPC, every situation is in some way informed by the macro-level setting design.

Look, i get it that you'd rather just get on with the adventure when you play and you don't care one whit about the name of the country the dungeon is located in. I can respect that -- you know what you like and what makes for good fun. but you are being entirely to adamanat about this "setting design is a waste of effort" point of view.

It is not a waste of effort. I know because every time I put effort into setting design, it improves my adventure design and improves my game. When I don't -- as the example I gave above -- it makes my adventures and campaign weaker, because all I have to fall back on is the old tropes and tired cliches of D&D's implied setting. if all you want out of a game is a few hours of distraction, that's great. But I want more than that, so it is insufficient.

 

[rounser]

Look, i get it that you'd rather just get on with the adventure when you play and you don't care one whit about the name of the country the dungeon is located in.

Not really, that's a bit reductio ad absurdum. It's more a matter of priorities - where is the most time best spent (low level stuff IMO), and what should take precedence over what (micro over macro IMO - write the micro first and make the macro fit it's needs). You on the other hand use the macro as a foundation for the micro, whereas I'm not certain that the macro isn't sometimes quite redundant (cf. the Wolfgang Baur observation).

Just as valid and potentially more efficient might be to use the micro as foundation for the macro, because if you run out of time the micro is more useful than the macro in terms of actual gameplay, and what the characters directly interact with is more important than macro setting ideas that may or may not ever reach the table in a meaningful way...IMO. That IMO is where we differ, though.

 

[Ry]

But because I have a context, I can create a unique +1 sword that also fits -- and I can do it more easily and more quickly.



You're missing the point entirely. The players interact with the macro level stuff every moment of the game because it is part of the setting. Everywhere they go, every adventure, every NPC, every situation is in some way informed by the macro-level setting design.

Look, i get it that you'd rather just get on with the adventure when you play and you don't care one whit about the name of the country the dungeon is located in. I can respect that -- you know what you like and what makes for good fun. but you are being entirely to adamanat about this "setting design is a waste of effort" point of view.

It is not a waste of effort. I know because every time I put effort into setting design, it improves my adventure design and improves my game. When I don't -- as the example I gave above -- it makes my adventures and campaign weaker, because all I have to fall back on is the old tropes and tired cliches of D&D's implied setting. if all you want out of a game is a few hours of distraction, that's great. But I want more than that, so it is insufficient.

Reynard, the reason we keep at this is because you're adamant in asserting that those who don't do setting design are missing something in their campaigns. That assertion is drawing out these arguments because the GMs that don't do setting design are looking down at their notes and saying "Well, hey, I'm not missing anything from my game."

Just above, you've said that those who don't prep setting just get a few hours of distraction, which ignores several other posts about how designing adventure material thematically can be done without setting design. You said that adventures and campaign get weaker because they'll just be D&D's implied setting - again, something we've already discussed. The things you're taking as given - that you're working more quickly because you've got the setting, and that the setting "informs" everything else you do, and that as a result the macro-level setting design is something that he players are interacting with - aren't borne out by our experiences. No one is missing the point here.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Reynard, the reason we keep at this is because you're adamant in asserting that those who don't do setting design are missing something in their campaigns. That assertion is drawing out these arguments because the GMs that don't do setting design are looking down at their notes and saying "Well, hey, I'm not missing anything from my game."

It seems more to me that he is saying that his strengths and weaknesses as a DM are such that doing setting design helps him to do adventure creation, and that not doing setting design prevents him from winging it as effectively.

It does not seem to me that he is saying that his strengths and weaknesses are absolutes, and therefore apply to everyone else. When he says that, without setting design, he can only fall back on the tropes of D&D, thus only providing a few hours distraction, he does not say that you (or anyone else) are in the same boat.

A DM should play to his strengths, IMHO, regardless of what those strengths are. Likewise, a DM should try to cover his bases on the points where he is weak. It sounds to me that this is exactly what Reynard is advocating.

RC

 

[Ry]

That's hard to tell; I mean, look at his last paragraph in the most recent post - it starts off the way you describe, but then ends changing all the "improves my game" to "if all you want" - and that latter one is loaded with assumptions about D&D in general.

 

[Reynard]

Reynard, the reason we keep at this is because you're adamant in asserting that those who don't do setting design are missing something in their campaigns. That assertion is drawing out these arguments because the GMs that don't do setting design are looking down at their notes and saying "Well, hey, I'm not missing anything from my game."

I thought I was being pretty clear that I was talking about myself and my campaign and my methods, which rounser has consistently argued are a waste of time. I have never suggested that my experiences or preferences are universal, just that they are perfectly viable.

 

[Reynard]

That's hard to tell; I mean, look at his last paragraph in the most recent post - it starts off the way you describe, but then ends changing all the "improves my game" to "if all you want" - and that latter one is loaded with assumptions about D&D in general.

I find the need to constantly engage in IMO, IME, YMMV disclaimers during what is very obviously a discusion of opinion and preference to be tiresome and meritless. Like everyone else, I have a tendency to slip into a little bit of hyperbole and generalizing, but I would like to think that those times are in the minority and my other posts should bolster a little confidence in my objectivity and ability to accept that other people have different preferences. Hell, sometimes theose different preferences change mine, which is why I bother to discuss things on message boards at all in the first place.

Maybe I am asking too much, but it would be nice if people didn't immediately assume the absolute worst possible interpretation of a post.

 

[Ry]

What have I got to go on? I was taking the middle route between "Reynard really doesn't think this about other peoples' campaigns." and "Reynard thinks other peoples' methods are crap, but is coating it with a few 'I'm OK, you're OKs' to try to shore up his argument." I went for "Reynard thinks this about D&D, and isn't recognizing the key points in other peoples' arguments because he's been harped on."

Over the course of this thread I get the sense that you and rounser are getting more entrenched rather than less, so it seems pretty unlikely that either of you will get much out of it. When I see the general statements about other peoples' campaigns coming back to the fore, I'm pointing to them and saying "here's what's fanning the flames."