Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 3530308" data-attributes="member: 2067">You're right. I was merely trying to describe to the incredulous how it is possible to DM with no prep work without defying the laws of physics as if it were some superpower.If my 0 + 4 = 4, and a prep-heavy 256 page setting bible's 4 + 0 = 4, the equation remains balanced: both of us are having fun gaming our way and both of our games add up to fulfilling, enriched, action-packed, flexible campaigns. I've got no problem with those who have fun doing prep -- no problem with those who love their world porn and their great clomping nerdism. I currently game under a DM who certainly loves his setting and has prepared a lot of history for it. I can't say as I'm interested in it too much, but it's something he likes to do and as long as it doesn't get in the way, I've no problem with it. Where I take exception is when it is suggested that prep work has some inherent virtue that elevates the campaigns of those who do it to some greater level of richness and depth that no less-developed campaign can have -- that worldbuilding is something that everyone should do as much of as possible because it will make the game better. Harrison, in a rather provocative way, re-affirms that worldbuilding is not what makes a story good for anyone other than those obsessed with worldbulding minutiae. Rather, for most people, it is a good story that makes a fantasy or sci-fi world worth living in. The subtle arrogance that developing elven tea ceremonies makes your games richer and deeper and more immersive than those who do not justifies all manner of DM indulgence under the guise of improving the game. Part of my desire was to call a spade a spade and to promote discussion of how much worldbuilding actually makes a D&D game good. The thread has provided a wonderfully re-affirming answer: how much is good is how much is fun for the group (DM and players all), and that amount will vary from campaign to campagin. I'm very happy with that conclusion.But I still take issue with the subtle arrogance of those who love their setting porn claiming that it makes their games better in a way that those who do not love their setting porn can never match.A game with more worldbuilding isn't richer -- it just has more worldbuilding. Which can be fun for the players and DM alike to geek out over, but it's not a deeper or more immersive world. It's just a world with more stuff to geek out over. And since a lot of D&D fans are great clomping nerds, it can be a lot of fun geeking out over worldbuilding minutiae. And if you're DMing for someone who loves worldbuilding, you should probably spend a bit of time on it because they're going to love it, just as if you're DMing for someone who loves gnomes, you should probably have gnomes in your game. Worldbuilding doesn't add anything improv doesn't, they're just two ends of the same spectrum. Both are capable of compensating for 0's at the other side, but both are rather rare because DMs usually aren't as extremist as either Mr. "I'll think about it when the time comes." or Mr. "I've poured 10 years of my life into developing the world of Valendia!"Both of those extremists can still run some dang fine games, without any noticeable drop in any quality, but with a noticable difference in style.</blockquote>

Verification