Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Morrus" data-source="post: 4700640" data-attributes="member: 1">First, starting a thread with &quot;I know this is going to make people angry, but I'm going to post it anyway&quot; skirts so closely to the obvious intent of EN World's rules (and the boundaries of basic courtesy), that I very nearly closed this thread on sight.&nbsp; If you know something's going to upset someone, don't post it.I think that there's a basic logical fallacy inherent in this post.&nbsp; The first of the two premises (the world exists for the characters) is, indeed, an approach to running a game; it is not, however, as claimed, &quot;in order to power up&quot;, it is &quot;in order to have more fun&quot;.A game which accomodates the PCs is more fun for the players, in my opinion.&nbsp; Who needs to know what the name of the innkeeper of Tavern #724a in pre-created village #49c enjoys for breakfast in the morning?&nbsp; If the PCs happen to interact with him, then yes, that information may become relevant; otherwise it is, in my mind, (a) wasted effort on the part of the DM who could spend his time working on the things that lead to fun for the players; and (b) not really of any interest to anyone, other than a particularly self-absorbed DM.&nbsp; One that, presumably, should be writing novels not D&amp;D adventures.I'm not saying world-building is bad, per-se.&nbsp; A lot of DMs derive a great deal of pleasure from it, and it can enhance the imersion elements of a game.&nbsp; But ascribing nefarious motives to anyone who doesn't indulge in the process is plain wrong.In my own games, I detail little outside of the immediate interactive sphere of the players.&nbsp; I try to make sure they are able to enjoy their characters as much as I possible can (which, yes, means saying &quot;yes&quot; a lot).&nbsp; To me, we're here to have some fun, not to run a scientific simulation of a fantasy world.&nbsp; The stories accomodate the players' interests; why would I want to force five people to sit down and play a game contrary to their interests?&nbsp; Why would I not want to give them as much fun as I can?&nbsp; The basic fallacy in the initial post is the equating of &quot;fun&quot; with &quot;power-ups&quot;.&nbsp; Having your rogue do cool stuff is fun!&nbsp; Having your rogue count his rations is, for many people, not fun. Both approaches are equally valid, and appeal to different people.&nbsp; There is nothng inherently wrong with either.&nbsp; I enjoy the first; others may enjoy the latter.&nbsp; But nowhere do I equate fun with power-ups.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Morrus, post: 4700640, member: 1"] First, starting a thread with "I know this is going to make people angry, but I'm going to post it anyway" skirts so closely to the obvious intent of EN World's rules (and the boundaries of basic courtesy), that I very nearly closed this thread on sight. If you know something's going to upset someone, [I]don't post it[/I]. I think that there's a basic logical fallacy inherent in this post. The first of the two premises (the world exists for the characters) is, indeed, an approach to running a game; it is not, however, as claimed, "in order to power up", it is "in order to have more fun". A game which accomodates the PCs is more fun for the players, in my opinion. Who needs to know what the name of the innkeeper of Tavern #724a in pre-created village #49c enjoys for breakfast in the morning? If the PCs happen to interact with him, then yes, that information may become relevant; otherwise it is, in my mind, (a) wasted effort on the part of the DM who could spend his time working on the things that lead to fun for the players; and (b) not really of any interest to anyone, other than a particularly self-absorbed DM. One that, presumably, should be writing novels not D&D adventures. I'm not saying world-building is bad, per-se. A lot of DMs derive a great deal of pleasure from it, and it can enhance the imersion elements of a game. But ascribing nefarious motives to anyone who doesn't indulge in the process is plain wrong. In my own games, I detail little outside of the immediate interactive sphere of the players. I try to make sure they are able to enjoy their characters as much as I possible can (which, yes, means saying "yes" a lot). To me, we're here to have some fun, not to run a scientific simulation of a fantasy world. The stories accomodate the players' interests; why would I want to force five people to sit down and play a game contrary to their interests? Why would I not want to give them as much fun as I can? The basic fallacy in the initial post is the equating of "fun" with "power-ups". Having your rogue do cool stuff is fun! Having your rogue count his rations is, for many people, not fun. Both approaches are equally valid, and appeal to different people. There is nothng inherently wrong with either. I enjoy the first; others may enjoy the latter. But nowhere do I equate fun with power-ups. [/QUOTE]

Verification