Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3544328" data-attributes="member: 22779">Ok, going to repeat myself yet again.((If I knew the right php code to make this bigger I would use that one too))For the rest of this conversation, can we PLEASE restrict the definition of world building to what is included in the 3rd Edition DMG?Of course, if we did that, we would have to admit that most of what you guys call world building isn't included in the section on world building, but rather, included in the section on adventure creation.  But, hey, who cares?  You'll just continue to pick and choose quotes and ignore anything that contradicts you.I am not being inconsistent here.  How you get to the Isle of Dread isn't included in the adventure, that is correct.  However, it also doesn't matter within the context of the adventure as well.  Very little, if anything actually changes if the party teleports to the island, sails a ship or arrives upon the backs of rocs.  The adventure doesn't change.  You can run the module in identical ways in any case.However, in order to make the Five Shires relavent to the adventure, you have to change the adventure.And that's my point in a nutshell.  If an element requires you to change the module in order to make it relevant then it stands to reason that that element wasn't relevant beforehand.  As Isle of Dread stands, as written, there is no chance of the Five Shires appearing anywhere in the module.  The people, culture and geography of the Five Shires isn't going to come into play without some major rewriting.  It is superfluous.However, the geography of the island is not.  It is very important within the context of the adventure.  Note, most people don't define adventures as only what happens during a game session.  I've seen most people say that they create an adventure before a game session.  I know for a fact that RC has done so on these boards.  So, it's pretty strange to start defining adventure as solely what occurs during play.Anyway, within the context of the adventure, the geography of the island is very important.  A major element of the adventure is exploring the island.  However, it's also true that you likely won't cover the whole island.  Fair enough.  However, it is possible to do so, so detailing the island beforehand isn't a terribly bad thing.Sure, some of that work will be wasted.  That's true.  I've said that repeatedly that in RPG's we need to do more setting work than what is needed in a novel.  But, again, it's a question of scale.  RC brings up the example of the Dawn Council members in Sasserine.  Never mind that that information isn't actually contained within the module, but is placed in a nice little world building package after the module.Even the writers of the adventure pretty much know that the Dawn Council isn't needed for the adventures.  But, they also want to sell magazines and not including that information would see people like the posters here frothing at the mouth, insensed that such information is not included.  But, it is pretty much superfluous.  Borderline perhaps, if you follow my spectrum line of thought.  RC is right that it is within the realm of possibility that it might come up.  Personally, I think it's pretty unlikely, but, hey, I'm willing to think I'm wrong.My point is, and will continue to be, that you can pretty much skip Chapter 6 in the DMG and have a good campaign.  That you can build a complete campaign without dealing with most of the world building elements detailed in Chapter 6.  Heck, Dungeon does it every single month.  Every month we get modules (or adventures) that have little or no world building.  They are, to use RC's definition, so generic that we can't call them world building.  Random town faces humanoid threat and turns to the nameless heroes to save them is a pretty darn common adventure.You could take a couple of dozen of these adventures and build one heck of a campaign.  All without dealing with the extraneous bits that fill so many setting books.</blockquote>

Verification