Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 7335676">Aside from point 3, as I'm no particular fan of participating in or running random encounters (though I understand their value when utilizing XP), we're fairly in line here, but as someone who often agrees with @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a> (at least in game design principles) I thought I should posit here for a moment.Yep same page here too.&nbsp; I think if 2B (asking for new areas) came up it sort of leads to 3C (run your own game!).&nbsp; But it's also a place where I will stop and ask the players to start contributing more.&nbsp; They've either A: outgrown what I have to offer, or B: aren't terribly interested in what I have to offer.&nbsp; In the case of B, it of course either leads to A1: Creating new areas myself.&nbsp; B1: Them creating their own game.&nbsp; In the interests of compromise, I usually will go with &quot;a little bit of both&quot;.&nbsp; If my players aren't interested in whats going on &quot;here&quot; but are enjoying my world, I will solicit ideas for what they want to see in new areas.&nbsp; If it's not terribly complicated I'll make it myself.&nbsp; The more it diverges from the campaign world I created the greater burden I will put on the players to create the material and I will simply compile and integrate it (if possible).&nbsp; For people who define worldbuilding via random tables and ticking timetables I suspect that is likely true.As I posted earlier in the thread, I see worldbuilding more as an art.&nbsp; It's part technical skill (applying rules consistently, making the world feel believable, etc..) and part creative endevour (assembling existing parts and creating new ones to create a new picture), which can then be &quot;viewed&quot; by players and altered.&nbsp; Like painting with LEGOs.&nbsp; You have pre-defined elements to work with, but the outcome is completely undefined beyond &quot;a world&quot;. Yeah at the end of the day that's probably where I stand.&nbsp; Part mechanism, part artistry.&nbsp; I can sympathize with your friend quite a bit, it's one reason regardless of what class, race, combo, build or whatever I bring to the table, the final character will always have some kind of driving motivation that pushes them to adventuring (beyond simple wanderlust).&nbsp; A desire to gain something to give them focus and a natural curiosity to explore new ways to achieve that.&nbsp; I build &quot;adventurers&quot;.&nbsp; Their reasons for adventuring all stem from my own desire to do as your friend says: explore the world the DM has created for me.But on the same token, that world must be at least a little malleable.&nbsp; I don't want to create my own whole content, but I do want to be able to affect the content available to me.&nbsp; Even in railroads, there's a difference between being in the passenger seat on the train and being in the engine.&nbsp; Just because we're on the rails doesn't mean I can't toot the horn!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 7335676"] Aside from point 3, as I'm no particular fan of participating in or running random encounters (though I understand their value when utilizing XP), we're fairly in line here, but as someone who often agrees with @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582"]pemerton[/URL][/U][/B][/I] (at least in game design principles) I thought I should posit here for a moment. Yep same page here too. I think if 2B (asking for new areas) came up it sort of leads to 3C (run your own game!). But it's also a place where I will stop and ask the players to start contributing more. They've either A: outgrown what I have to offer, or B: aren't terribly interested in what I have to offer. In the case of B, it of course either leads to A1: Creating new areas myself. B1: Them creating their own game. In the interests of compromise, I usually will go with "a little bit of both". If my players aren't interested in whats going on "here" but are enjoying my world, I will solicit ideas for what they want to see in new areas. If it's not terribly complicated I'll make it myself. The more it diverges from the campaign world I created the greater burden I will put on the players to create the material and I will simply compile and integrate it (if possible). For people who define worldbuilding via random tables and ticking timetables I suspect that is likely true. As I posted earlier in the thread, I see worldbuilding more as an art. It's part technical skill (applying rules consistently, making the world feel believable, etc..) and part creative endevour (assembling existing parts and creating new ones to create a new picture), which can then be "viewed" by players and altered. Like painting with LEGOs. You have pre-defined elements to work with, but the outcome is completely undefined beyond "a world". Yeah at the end of the day that's probably where I stand. Part mechanism, part artistry. I can sympathize with your friend quite a bit, it's one reason regardless of what class, race, combo, build or whatever I bring to the table, the final character will always have some kind of driving motivation that pushes them to adventuring (beyond simple wanderlust). A desire to gain something to give them focus and a natural curiosity to explore new ways to achieve that. I build "adventurers". Their reasons for adventuring all stem from my own desire to do as your friend says: explore the world the DM has created for me. But on the same token, that world must be at least a little malleable. I don't want to create my own whole content, but I do want to be able to affect the content available to me. Even in railroads, there's a difference between being in the passenger seat on the train and being in the engine. Just because we're on the rails doesn't mean I can't toot the horn! [/QUOTE]

Verification