Setting Design vs Adventure Prep

[Imaro]

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.

I agree with you here, but this is also one of the reasons I switched to C&C...it's way easier to create things beforehand or on the fly, especially with the type of game I like to run. I admit that it lacks the granularity of D&D but different strokes for different folks and all.

 

[Reynard]

This whole adventure prep versus setting design thing came into focus at the end of last night's game. The party had to escape the fortress of a powerful dragon, and had the opportunity to use a teleport cicle located in the former quarters of an evil wizard "diplomat". After a couple hard won battles, a thorough search and coming face to face with the demonic servant of said "diplomat", the party was able to activate the teleport circle and escape to the ruins of the (long dead) wizard's tower. All that stuff was created via "adventure design", and it worked out all right.

However, I know in my head the general location of the wizard's ruined tower and the region it is in and that region's powers. I also have a rough idea of who the wizard was. But I didn't have time to sit down and write up the wizard's background and/or the current situation in the party's new adventure locale. This had 2 negative effects: first, we had to cut a little early since I didn't know enough about the region to "just wing it" when the party left the ruins and start wandering around, and second I wasn't able to drop names and leave clues regarding the wizard's identity and position, information that would have been much more effectively provided before the players leaped headlong through the 'port.

*That* is why I say both adventure design and setting design are integrated and provide for better gaming when they are done simultaneously, in and out of play.

 

[Brazeku]

Well, there is a difference in setting elements. There is useless setting, and then there is useful setting.

Example of useless setting flavor: The lamps in Arthalia city are created from fire beetle light glands.

Example of useful setting flavor: The lamps in Arthalia city are created from fire beetle light glands. Fire beetles live in great numbers in the caves east of Arthalia, where they are herded and harvested for their glands. It is believed that in the deeper layers of the caves the beetles inhabit some type of pulsing hive, although reports are sparse due to the harsh conditions.

Harvesters make a fine penny trading the glands to the lamplighters who mind the city's lights. Were it not for the constant lights in the city, the black fog would rise up from the ocean, with results similar to the Tattered Flag campaign 40 years ago.


See? It's all about making setting elements that the players can interact with. Seeing something cool is still useful for flavor, but it's far better if you can mine it for adventure ideas and flavor simultaneously. Static history and background are useless unless they have remnants that players can touch upon.

 

[Reynard]

Static history and background are useless unless they have remnants that players can touch upon.

I don't think "useless" is the right word. Fluff and flavor, even if that is all they are, aren't useless. otherwise, i concur with your post.

 

[Brazeku]

I don't think "useless" is the right word. Fluff and flavor, even if that is all they are, aren't useless. otherwise, i concur with your post.

Yeah, I probably used too strong a word. Fluff and flavor are still good for setting tone and providing ideas for adventures. If I'm working on something for publication, though, I'm going to include an obvious hook almost all the time.

I've found the best way to write history is not to start with history and let that set up the world, but rather to put a few things where I want, and then build a history to explain them, then account for extra bits of history by adding new elements to the current setting. That way, everything is interactive, and organic. Basically, I've found my best results have been from placing myself in the perspective of the players, and just asking questions. What do I see? Why do I see it?

 

[Reynard]

I've found the best way to write history is not to start with history and let that set up the world, but rather to put a few things where I want, and then build a history to explain them, then account for extra bits of history by adding new elements to the current setting. That way, everything is interactive, and organic. Basically, I've found my best results have been from placing myself in the perspective of the players, and just asking questions. What do I see? Why do I see it?

I'm different in that, as a writer, I will sit down and churn out a few thousand words about, say, the Elves of my setting. When I am done, I will look at it and find little nuggets of gaming goodness in there -- stuff that I wrote that i didn't necessarily register as being character or adventure hooks, but are. Same goes for detailing a region or organization or whatever. Not always, of course, and sometimes I come from the game side of things -- "I want Paladins in the game. Where do they fit?" or "This campaign is gonna be lots of dungeon crawls. How do I justify lots of dungeons, then?" -- but more often than not I start on the "world builder" side and end up in a good place on the "game designer" end of things.

 

[rounser]

Example of useful setting flavor: The lamps in Arthalia city are created from fire beetle light glands. Fire beetles live in great numbers in the caves east of Arthalia <snip>

See? It's all about making setting elements that the players can interact with. Seeing something cool is still useful for flavor, but it's far better if you can mine it for adventure ideas and flavor simultaneously. Static history and background are useless unless they have remnants that players can touch upon.

But that's still useless, and the players still can't touch it - until you detail the caves east of Arthalia. So why not cut out the middle man and just go create said caves from the start? After the caves are created (and a dozen over adventure environments or non-status quo adventures), then maybe it's time to decide where the lamps came from, if you still really need to.

This is preparing for a game of D&D, not writing some history/sociology/anthropology/geopolitical/monsterology thesis.

 

[Reynard]

This is preparing for a game of D&D, not writing some history/sociology/anthropology/geopolitical/monsterology thesis.

I am not for "story" in the sense of prerendered plots and assumed actions by the party and such, but I am big on immersion and versimilitude. A setting makes that possible. I am glad you have a playstyle you enjoy, but it doesn't mean that other play styles are bad or that setting elements are "useless".

 

[Ry]

The play experience you posted about sounds more like an underprepped adventure rather than an underprepped setting.

I am big on immersion and versimilitude

What are you players big on? Because - especially as this thread goes on - it sounds like you're using your game as a forum for your fiction (not as "story" but as setting design) rather than prepping fiction becaues your game needs it.

 

[buzz]

Because - especially as this thread goes on - it sounds like you're using your game as a forum for your fiction (not as "story" but as setting design) rather than prepping fiction becaues your game needs it.

If Reynard's process works for him, cool. People find their ideas in different places, and if pounding out a few thousand words that may never see the game table is his way, then cool.

That said, I gave up on that method a while back, as I found I was spending so much time world-building that I never got around to creating a fleshed-out adventure.

Not to mention, in actual play, I've found that setting details rarely make a difference in the D&D that I've played. Not unless they are tied to a mechanic, anyway. And since pro designers tend to do a better job with that stuff than I do, I'm happy to use their work and focus on scenarios. If anything, I've found that the more I need to create on my own, the more frustrated I am as a GM. I simply do not have the time to do it well.