Setting Design vs Adventure Prep

[Reynard]

From my Camapign Development Thread, on the subject of setting design:

You may suggest that you're "writing the sourcebook", but I'm not sure that sourcebooks justify their own existence in terms of actually running the game. This is an extreme stance when compared to D&D's accepted wisdom, but something perhaps worth chewing over nevertheless, I think. There are, after all, only so many D&D prep hours you can spend, and I strongly suspect that the temptation to spend them on world design is simply because it's fun, rather than actually practical. That's certainly been the case with me. But I won't post offtopic further; you've got your own thing going on here.

For me, setting design is, in fact, part of adventure preparation. Whether the PCs end up learning all the background elements (which mine tend to learn a lot of), the fact that it is there helps me create better adventures. if I have an idea of what the world is like, who the powers are, what the past was like, and so on, I am more easily able to create adventures that explore the setting and invest the players/PCs in the setting. In addition, I am more capable of adapting published adventures, because -- since my setting is pretty much bog standard D&D fantasy -- I can quickly see the archetypes and iconic elements and change some names, etc...

Now, I have written a good deal about Abyscor, but I am not near done. I let the play inform the setting design as much as I let the setting inform the play. Things that come up in play, even tangentially, might get expanded when I next work on the setting. Player choices in character design and background inform the setting, as well.

I don't think either apsect of home-brew DMing is superior or more important than the other. Both help in creatinga satisfying play experience for everyone involved.

 

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) setting design is, in fact, part of adventure preparation.

I concur.

Having a breadth of knowledge regarding the setting helps a great deal when an adventuring party takes a left turn during any adventure. Most people that claim to run things on the fly, aren't really. They just did their prep a lot earlier and much more generally.

 

[Ry]

These day's I'm in the opposite boat. All I want to do is adventure prep - setting emerges, more or less, from my game. I've done the opposite, but I keep finding I'm either making things that don't hit the game, or trying to work those elements in even though my players are already engaging something else. So I try to keep my gaming and fiction-making separate.

 

[Imruphel]

My technique for many years has been to invest a lot of time into writing up a campaign background and a campaign synopsis, the latter including multiple adventure outlines, and then I find maps and prepare stat blocks for a range of encounters (and find Dungeon and other published adventures that provide inspiration).

Other than the outlines/synopses I basically "wing" my adventures but the effort put into the campaign backstory makes this easier and also ensures that there is an underlying logic/verisimilitude that the players seem to appreciate. I don't run published adventures as such: I still don't think I am a good enough DM to bring another person's vision properly to life (even after 26 years!).

One of the keys to this approach is to always have small maps and collections of stat blocks available so that if the players head off in a direction that I have not yet prepared for I can throw in a combat that will eat up enough time for me to think through the logical consequences of their choice.

 

[buzz]

I have to agree with rounser and rycanada. Extensive, detailed settings exist primarily to sell product, and/or serve as a creative, extra-play exercise for DMs. I don't really think there's many aspects of D&D that demand a setting even exist beyond the scope of the adventure at hand. The implied setting built into D&D takes care of most everything needed for play. It's only been recently that I've played in D&D campaigns that were even officially set in a given setting. In general, as long as we had a module, we were good to go. The aspects of the settings in my current games are still pretty minimal, beyond players culling feats and PrCs from the sourcebooks.

Now, I say the above despite having bought every damn Eberron book. Setting material certainly can be fun, both for reading and as inspiration for actual D&D play. I love the flavor of Eberron, and the books are filled with mechanical bits that often put a definite stamp on the game experience (e.g., Action Points, warforged, etc).

Is any of this necessary for D&D play? Not IMO. Do I really expect that anyone is ever going to hold the 1000+ pages of Eberron setting info in their mind as they run a game, much less end up using most of it over the course of a campaign? No way.

Sourcebooks are a business model, not a requisite of running the game. I know full well that I buy Eberron books primarily out of being a fan and a collector. I am under no delusions that I actually need all of them to run an Eberron game. What confuses me is people who claim they do. E.g., a setting or game is "dead" if there isn't a steady stream of 200+ page supplements.

Honestly, I'd bet that you could distill the important bits that make a game definitively "Eberron"-ic into a 64-96 page splat. I'd also bet that such a more-easily-digestible format would better serve DMs in keeping the setting's flavor than the stacks of hardcovers we see in the current model.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

These day's I'm in the opposite boat. All I want to do is adventure prep - setting emerges, more or less, from my game. I've done the opposite, but I keep finding I'm either making things that don't hit the game, or trying to work those elements in even though my players are already engaging something else. So I try to keep my gaming and fiction-making separate.

I'm in total agreement. I find that alot of the time that my players could give a crap about anything outside of their immediate scope. Also I don't want to memorize all the details of a setting, even if it's my own. Feels too much like homework and I don't play and run games to feel burdened, I play and run games for fun. If a direction comes up that I wasnt expecting during the game I wing it, make note of it and flesh it out inbetween sessions, sometimes with player input some times not.

The fascination with setting development is great if youre interested in it, but I learned a long time ago that for me it was a huge waste of time and energy that could be better used designing adventures and action set pieces for my players.

 

[Ry]

BTW, I don't want to be harsh on setting development - I've done a LOT in my day. It's just that I think it's a great creative exercise that doesn't necessarily enhance the campaign in the way that I thought it did.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I concur.

Having a breadth of knowledge regarding the setting helps a great deal when an adventuring party takes a left turn during any adventure. Most people that claim to run things on the fly, aren't really. They just did their prep a lot earlier and much more generally.

I concur as well.

 

[painandgreed]

Depends on how you want to play the game. If your players just want hack and slash dungeon dwelving and don't seek to explore the setting, then you really don't need any setting background or anything besides the adventure at hand. If your players are there to explore a world, role play with NPCs, get involved in intrigue, or become involved in setting dealing on a larger scale, then you need a setting for them to play in as well as the prep to answer their questions or be able to wing it when they ask. Your adventure may deal with court intrigue, or not involve the city they're in at all except as a spot to spend the night, but you never know when soembody will try and hunt down the theives guild, try and make allies, or otherwise act on their own desires.

 

[an_idol_mind]

I think both schools have merits. My own homebrew began with me fleshing out the setting to suit the adventure at hand. When that campaign concluded, I spent quite a bit of time building up the world, mostly because I enjoyed it. The end result is that my setting is now detailed enough to support its own adventures. A while ago, I ran what was supposed to be a simple dungeon crawl for my players. Instead of following the hook into the dungeon, the PCs went to another area entirely and dabbled with politics for four hours. The game didn't miss a beat, because the political scheme of the setting was already well-established.

Both styles have a lot of merit, and one can lead to the other. It really depends on how much work the DM feels like putting in.