Setting Design vs Adventure Prep

[Raven Crowking]

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."

Different perspectives based on different emphasises on how the material is read, I suppose. After all, we read not only the author's intent, but what the author has written filtered through our own position and intent. And smileys are a poor substitute for body language and inflection.

I keep seeing Reynard saying "This is what I do, and why I do it, and this is the result if I don't do it -- which is fine if that is what is desired, but it isn't what I desire in my game." I assume the word "you" in his posts are a general "you" not meaning anyone in particular. I base this on the general tone of the posts and the wording in which the "you" appears. I may be wrong, of course, but I accept Reynard's word when he says that this is what he means.

That may well be true for rounser as well, although I don't read his posts as using "you" in exactly the same way. But, there again, I am more than happy to give the benefit of the doubt.

I wonder if both would argee that, for some people and some situations macro-level setting prep is as useful as micro-level setting prep (i.e., adventure locations), and that, likewise, for some people and some situations it is more efficient to fold your macro prep into your micro prep (which is what I believe rounser is suggesting)?


RC

 

[Mark CMG]

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.

But it puts the inter in Internet.

 

[Imaro]

Well I just woke up after a long night of drinking and celebrating...I'm the big 30 now .

But back to the discussion,

I think for me setting design allows me to create a more logical and consistent framework for my adventures to take place in. Put simply it gives me structure and direction, as well as a basis for my PC's to relate to the world. If I want to run a "mythic africa" based game...I don't see it as a waste to decide ahead of time what races and classes are appropriate and how their cultures and habits are different from standard D&D, what weapons exsist and are readily available(not to mention materials), How their architecture and building materials are differrent from medieval/renaissance europe, as well as other things. None of these is adventure prep per say, but all could easily tie into both character creation and the PC's first adventure.

Now I could easily just tell my players that it's an african based campaign, but this type of vagueness is problematic...is it ancient egypt, based off west african kingdoms or the tribes of southern africa? Each of these has distinct cultures, weapons, materials(for weapons and building), religious beliefs, government, etc. and this isn't even getting into the whole how do demi-humans differ in this setting. Yet these are all things that could come up even during character creation. I don't see them as a waste of time, but almost integral to a foundation for gameplay if my players are in any way trying to create characters that logically fit the setting.

 

[Reynard]

I wonder if both would argee that, for some people and some situations macro-level setting prep is as useful as micro-level setting prep (i.e., adventure locations), and that, likewise, for some people and some situations it is more efficient to fold your macro prep into your micro prep (which is what I believe rounser is suggesting)?

I'd support that statement. Even more, I am well aware that playstyles and preferences vary wildly and some people can run a game -- even a game as complex as D&D 3.x -- completely off the cuff with neither prepped adventure or explicit setting. Most important of all is that everyone's definition of "fun" is different. For me, adventures without context aren't fun and therefore no amount of creating context is wsted time. On the other side of the coin, I often find encounter/adventure design to be "wasted time" when that prep consists of creating things that could easily be replaced with something out of the MM or an NPC from the DMG, DMG II, existing adventure, or what have you. Others think differently and want every opponent, encounter or NPC to be mechanically unique.

I guess what I mean, overall, is that there is no such thing as "wasted time" as a DM as long as whatever it is you are doing increases your and your group's fun.

 

[Ry]

I'm not advocating for adventures without context - I find them boring too. I'm advocating for context (which can be highly unique and flavorful) as an upshot of the creation of the adventure, especially during play.

In another thread, I asked "What forces drive D&D history?" There were a lot of answers, but (even though it was a joke answer) I think the best was Shroomy's:

The need for ruins or tombs full of treasure in the present day.

What I'm trying to say is that if you spend an hour developing something that can engage the players for 5 minutes, when you could be spending an hour on something that the players engage for 30, you're not wasting time, but you could be making better use of that time. Setting design and adventure prep are not equally important to the experience of the game.

However, I understand Reynard's point. If an adventure prep doesn't happen for you without setting design, then you've got to do your setting design (when I say adventure prep I'm talking about the kind of adventure that's worth playing, which includes themes, has its own style, and supports extensive exploration).

But if you can go straight to adventure prep and still hit the thematic points, style, and sense of exploration and context that your players are looking for, I'm saying that time is better spent.

 

[Reynard]

But if you can go straight to adventure prep and still hit the thematic points, style, and sense of exploration and context that your players are looking for, I'm saying that time is better spent.

Which brings it back to a simple question of preferences and playstyles, which is one of the great strengths of D&D: it supports a wide variety of both, despite what its detractors might say, and the most important thing is that the groups -- players and DM -- are one something close to the same page, regardless of what other groups do with the game.