Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 3460935" data-attributes="member: 6777">Reminds me of <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=192538" target="_blank">a discussion many of us here had a week or two ago</a>. This is also <a href="http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=2814" target="_blank">being discussed over on Story Games</a>.I think Harrison makes a valid point applicable to both writing and RPG'ing, as demonstrated by those citing Baur and Dungeoncraft. And I definitely believe (as I remarked in the first thread above), that a certain amount of the world-detailing we've come to expect in RPGs exists less to serve play and more as a tool to sell sourcebooks. To give an example I used before, I already have more data on Eberron than I could ever conceivably use in play, much less retain in my memory in any useful way... and I haven't even looked at any of the novels yet.That said... there's definitely a subset of the gaming populace that enjoys pure world building—from both sides of the screen. I've played with people who wanted to know all the details about the masonry used in the bridge our PCs were walking over... and DMs who gladly wanted to tell them.And the whole phenomena of the setting splat is an outgrowth of hobby publishers' discovery that many gamers enjoy reading—or even simply owning—sourcebooks as much as (or more than) they do actually playing.So, as an absolute, 100% true piece of RPG advice, Harrison is obviously wrong. However, in general, I think that his sentiment is very applicable, at least in terms of DMs prioritizing their time. The players need something to do far more than they need something to look at. The amount of time and effort the latter merits will depend on what your group as a whole prioritizes in play.</blockquote>

Verification