Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3541750" data-attributes="member: 22779">A recurring theme I see is that if you don't do world building, you automatically start creating things on the fly.&nbsp; I disagree.&nbsp; You can do a huge amount of prep without doing any world building.&nbsp; However, this does go back to the whole disagreement of what world building is.For me, if that organization/place over the hill/person is necessary for the adventure, then it's not world building.&nbsp; Earlier Celebrim said that placing all elements in a MMORPG is world building.&nbsp; I strongly disagree with this.&nbsp; SImilarly RC is claiming that world building is going from generic to specific.&nbsp; Effectively this is the same arguement.Both boil down to this:&nbsp; Unless your campaign is a flat plain of indeterminate substance, you are world building.&nbsp; If the placement of every tree in WOW is world building, then setting= world building.&nbsp; If putting a hill there is world building, then, well, that doesn't leave a whole lot for setting to do.I fully support the idea that you need setting.&nbsp; That's completely necessary.&nbsp; Setting adds all sorts of things to the game.&nbsp; Tone, feel, tactics, inspirition.&nbsp; What I'm arguing against is what I'm calling world building - not simply placing that hill just there, but explaining how glaciation caused that particular feature 40 thousand years ago.&nbsp; Putting a tree here isn't world building.&nbsp; Detailing how that particular breed of tree is actually somewhat out of place and was planted there as an experiment by a druid 100 years ago is world building.You don't need to make anything up on the fly.&nbsp; I'm absolutely pants at doing that sort of DMing.&nbsp; I LIKE being well prepared.&nbsp; But, what I've come to realize, and this is probably why I like the idea of adventure paths and campaigns in a box, is that most of the setting books are there are pretty much superfluous.&nbsp; Even running a hardcore Scarred Lands game will only use a small fraction of the books for SL.&nbsp; Unless, of course, you engineer the campaign so that you get to use all the books.But, that's precisely what I'm arguing against - placing setting ahead of adventure.Smackfish, I agree with you 100%.&nbsp; You need some background information before you can create characters.&nbsp; But, again, I call that setting.&nbsp; It's needed.&nbsp; However, having seen character background after character background lie mouldering in the back of people's character binders, I would say that the idea that you must have background is highly overrated.&nbsp; Instead, why not tell the players the theme - &quot;Guys, we're going to do a dragon hunting campaign.&nbsp; Most of the adventures are going to feature dragons in some form.&quot; and let the players create characters from that?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3541750, member: 22779"] A recurring theme I see is that if you don't do world building, you automatically start creating things on the fly. I disagree. You can do a huge amount of prep without doing any world building. However, this does go back to the whole disagreement of what world building is. For me, if that organization/place over the hill/person is necessary for the adventure, then it's not world building. Earlier Celebrim said that placing all elements in a MMORPG is world building. I strongly disagree with this. SImilarly RC is claiming that world building is going from generic to specific. Effectively this is the same arguement. Both boil down to this: Unless your campaign is a flat plain of indeterminate substance, you are world building. If the placement of every tree in WOW is world building, then setting= world building. If putting a hill there is world building, then, well, that doesn't leave a whole lot for setting to do. I fully support the idea that you need setting. That's completely necessary. Setting adds all sorts of things to the game. Tone, feel, tactics, inspirition. What I'm arguing against is what I'm calling world building - not simply placing that hill just there, but explaining how glaciation caused that particular feature 40 thousand years ago. Putting a tree here isn't world building. Detailing how that particular breed of tree is actually somewhat out of place and was planted there as an experiment by a druid 100 years ago is world building. You don't need to make anything up on the fly. I'm absolutely pants at doing that sort of DMing. I LIKE being well prepared. But, what I've come to realize, and this is probably why I like the idea of adventure paths and campaigns in a box, is that most of the setting books are there are pretty much superfluous. Even running a hardcore Scarred Lands game will only use a small fraction of the books for SL. Unless, of course, you engineer the campaign so that you get to use all the books. But, that's precisely what I'm arguing against - placing setting ahead of adventure. Smackfish, I agree with you 100%. You need some background information before you can create characters. But, again, I call that setting. It's needed. However, having seen character background after character background lie mouldering in the back of people's character binders, I would say that the idea that [u]you must have background[/u] is highly overrated. Instead, why not tell the players the theme - "Guys, we're going to do a dragon hunting campaign. Most of the adventures are going to feature dragons in some form." and let the players create characters from that? [/QUOTE]

Verification