Setting Design vs Adventure Prep

[Zendragon]

A good setting will help drive adventures. when the party goes off in a direction you didn't expect, the DM should have an idea what lies that way.

 

[buzz]

IMO, the better the players become at creating their own fun, instead of relying on the DM to deliver it for them, the more enjoyable the game becomes for all.

QFT. Also why I'm liking a lot of recent games that encourage this sort of thing.

 

[Ry]

QFT. Also why I'm liking a lot of recent games that encourage this sort of thing.

I love those indie games too, but D&D can do this too... once you stop thinking in a "how does this fantasy world / genre operate" way, and spend a few ... well, weeks, in my case, figuring out how the game works in a "how do these people at the table have fun?" way.

 

[Reynard]

I love those indie games too, but D&D can do this too... once you stop thinking in a "how does this fantasy world / genre operate" way, and spend a few ... well, weeks, in my case, figuring out how the game works in a "how do these people at the table have fun?" way.

I don't think those things are mutually exclusive. In fact, I think those things are recursive and symbiotic -- improving one is quite likely to improve the other.

 

[Ry]

I don't think those things are mutually exclusive. In fact, I think those things are recursive and symbiotic -- improving one is quite likely to improve the other.

I don't agree - at least, with the "quite likely" bit. One CAN improve the other, but focusing on setting can also pull resources away from making the game fun for the people at the table. This is all IME, of course, and YMMV.

 

[Ry]

I mean, I used to be a DM who treted that assertion as true, but I later realized that I was using that assertion as fuel for the argument that I should make a deeper setting, rather than making a deeper setting, seeing good results, and coming to that assertion.

 

[Desdichado]

I find that in D&D that I can only do so much "off the cuff" stuff, especially as levels go up. If you don't have some idea of your antagonists' capabilities and whatnot, you can find that combats are very difficult to run well.

Curiously, I don't have this problem much with other systems, or even other d20 games. I think it may be the complexity of mucho magic items, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, spells, etc. that throws combat off as levels go up.

So, for D&D at least, I like to do some preparation in terms of figuring out what it's likely the PCs will fight in a given session and go over the capabilities and strategies I want to use with the antagonists.

But again; that's not setting preparation either; that's system preparation.

 

[Imaro]

I think the whole setting/adventure prep is intertwined to the point that prepping one is actually prepping the other, this is under the assumption that there is a certain amount of consistency to the campaign. If a DM decides there is a town callesd Havenfort where X, Y and Z can be found he has prepped both setting(created a concrete place in his campaign world) and adventure hooks(X,Y & Z). The extent to which he adds flavor or not is a purely individualistic thing. Some DM's might describe Havenfort as an average little town and leave it at that, others may decide it's architecture is gothc and crumbling, a miasma of ash hangs over it, etc. I think this can be largely a part of what interests your players as well.

My players are not big dungeon-crawl fans, they find it repetitious and a little boring if it's continuous. They enjoy interacting with PC's, creating a place in the world for themselves, battling monsters and antagonists for a purpose beyond looting their bodies, subplots and a selection of storylines to explore. In order to facilitate this type of play(for me) setting is vital. How can the PC's find a place in the world and affect the world on a grand scale if it doesn't exist? I guess they are more the type to find their own adventures and motivations to do things rather than have me direct them towards what the "problem-of-the-week" is. YMMV

In previous posts me and rycanada have disagreed on including encounters beyond problem, threat, resource and reward. For my games the characters find these things on their own and usually don't require me to prep much if the immediate setting is layed out before them. I would argue in fact that in designing the setting a DM is hopefully seeding these thing within his campaign world while giving the PC's the opportunity to explore the ones that interest them. I find my job is to facilitate and run a place where the adventures they want to be involved in can take place. I also find setting is great for invoking mood, themes I or my players may wish to explore and for a basis of context for them to act upon.

IMHO adventure prep is a natural follow up to what decisions the PC's have made in the game, while setting is the place where they make these decisions.

 

[buzz]

I love those indie games too, but D&D can do this too...

Sure. I was more expressing appreciation for games that explicitly encourage player input, i.e, "creating their own fun."

 

[buzz]

I find that in D&D that I can only do so much "off the cuff" stuff, especially as levels go up. If you don't have some idea of your antagonists' capabilities and whatnot, you can find that combats are very difficult to run well.

I agree 100%.

D&D thrives on challenge. Given the tactical intricacy of D&D, a good encounter requires some design effort in order to provide that challenge. This is why D&D thrives in the dungeon. A dungeon is essentially a flowchart; it provides enough player autonomy while still limiting the outcomes (i.e., encounters) to a reasonable number that the DM can prepare in advance.

Remove that framework and try to do too much spontaneously, and I think you risk a lot of uninteresting encounters unless you're really, really, really experienced with the system, not to mention good with tactics. And uninteresting encounters = boring, pointless D&D, IMO.

This is pretty much why I no longer have any disdain for published settings and adventures like I did when I was a kid with tons of free time. I'm happy to let a publisher do a bunch of the heavy lifting in setting and encounter design. Because, really, having something fun for the players to do come game night is way more important to me than stroking my inner Tolkien.

Nowadays, setting design is something I'd much rather do with my players rather than on my own, and preferably with a system that encourages it.