Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3475413" data-attributes="member: 22779">Yet, how many people complain about how published settings are so over detailed that they cannot fit their own ideas into them?  How many people refuse to buy anything from a given setting for exactly that reason?  Why do generic modules sell far better than setting modules?  If detailed setting made for better gaming, wouldn't everyone be on board with published settings?  Wouldn't generic modules, or gaming books in general take a back seat to setting dependent ones?But, that's not what he's saying.  Again, adding details to a character isn't world building.  Those details are used immedietely in the game.  Or in the book. People are getting all bent out of shape because they think that Harrison is saying that setting should never be developed.  That's not it at all.  He's taking a fairly stock line, "Too much setting is bad", rephrasing it in a very antagonistic way and people are jumping all over it.  It's perfectly fine to give your elf a bit of backstory.  But, if you write up a six page back story to your elf and then NEVER refer to it in game, that's completely wasted effort.  I've seen that from player after player.  They come to me with backstories and then expect me, as DM, to make the rest of the party care about it.  Sorry, not going to happen.  If your backstory involves you rescuing your kidnapped sister, then you better start bringing it up in game.  The player should be the one to make his backstory relavent, not the DM.  If the player can't be bothered to refer to his backstory, then I certainly can't.And, it works both ways.  If the DM details out a six page treatise on Elven tea ceremonies and we never meet an elf, that's wasted effort.  Or rather, I, as the player, couldn't care less.  Yes, it's a pretty obvious point.  Don't do more work than you have to.  It's been stated many times by better designers than me.  I refuse to buy setting books anymore for the simple fact that setting books mean more work for me as the DM and, IME, the players couldn't care less.  Right now, I'm playing in an Eberron campaign.  It's fun.  But, it's not fun because of the setting, it's fun because the adventures are exciting, the DM is great and the other players are good.  The DM is good about bringing up enough backstory to lend verisimilitude, but hasn't been bashing our brains out with it.One complaint I have about the Savage Tide AP, is how much Greyhawk stuff is in it.  I know next to nothing about the setting, yet, major elements of the modules assume a certain level of setting knowledge, such as background on the Scarlet Brotherhood.  I couldn't care less about them.  They don't really feature directly in the modules and they are only really there as an easter egg to Greyhawk fans as far as I can tell.  So, I ejected the details and carried on.Once upon a time, when gaming, our games had almost no setting.  Look at Keep on the Borderlands.  There's a mini-setting that's skeletal, yet is one of the most enduring modules ever published.  Isle of Dread fits in too.  Although IoD does present a fair bit about Mystara as well, the actual module doesn't really tie into that at all.  Other than some very bare bones details about the natives, that's it.  Is Harrison saying that every story should be like Waiting for Godot?  No, of course not.  That woudl be stupid.  But, every story, and I believe every campaign, should put plot (or adventure if you prefer) far ahead of setting.  Introduce enough setting to set your campaign in a place that is "not here", but, don't presume that your players will care about Elven tea ceremonies.</blockquote>

Verification