Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3544349" data-attributes="member: 22779">Guys I live on the other side of the world from you all.&nbsp; Some of us DO actually have to work from time to time.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Rounser and I have pretty much identical points of view AFAIK.&nbsp; We're both saying that setting construction beyond what is dictated by the adventure at hand is mostly unnecessary.&nbsp; If it's needed by the adventure, then by all means do it.&nbsp; If it's not, then don't bother.&nbsp; It adds a lot less to the game than you think.I think Shamus says it best <a href="http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1153" target="_blank">Here</a> when he says that &quot;Only in the context of an RPG is it possible for someone to need the Cliff Notes version of their own biography.&quot;&nbsp; Hey, I've said it many times here.&nbsp; I stand in awe of the work that goes into a site like Fargoth, or Urbis, or a number of other works out there.&nbsp; And, honestly, I like reading them.&nbsp; I do.&nbsp; I enjoy reading setting books.&nbsp; However, just because I happen to like it, doesn't make it necessary.We, as DM's, have to create adventures.&nbsp; That's part of the job.&nbsp; Without adventures, not a whole lot happens at the table.&nbsp; Even if the adventure is just a couple of random encounter tables and a map, it's still needed to run things.&nbsp; Heck, even if you're completely making it up as you go along, five seconds beforehand, you are still making an adventure.What you don't have to do is go much further than that.&nbsp; If the adventure needs square windows in the tavern, then fine, the windows are square.&nbsp; If the players are facinated in botany, then perhaps 23 types of grass are needed.&nbsp; But, without those needs, when the information is created in a vaccuum because it might be needed if the stars line just so, then we've gone a wee further than required.Again, I'm not saying that we don't need setting.&nbsp; That would be stupid.&nbsp; What we don't need is five thousand years (or 15 thousand) years of history of a nation that doesn't actually appear in the campaign.&nbsp; Yes, there will be some question about the actual necessity of a particular element, and that's something an individual DM will have to determine on his own.&nbsp; But, I really don't think there's a problem in a shift in approach from Setting leading to Adventure to Adventure leading to setting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3544349, member: 22779"] Guys I live on the other side of the world from you all. Some of us DO actually have to work from time to time. :) Rounser and I have pretty much identical points of view AFAIK. We're both saying that setting construction beyond what is dictated by the adventure at hand is mostly unnecessary. If it's needed by the adventure, then by all means do it. If it's not, then don't bother. It adds a lot less to the game than you think. I think Shamus says it best [url=http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1153]Here[/url] when he says that "Only in the context of an RPG is it possible for someone to need the Cliff Notes version of their own biography." Hey, I've said it many times here. I stand in awe of the work that goes into a site like Fargoth, or Urbis, or a number of other works out there. And, honestly, I like reading them. I do. I enjoy reading setting books. However, just because I happen to like it, doesn't make it necessary. We, as DM's, have to create adventures. That's part of the job. Without adventures, not a whole lot happens at the table. Even if the adventure is just a couple of random encounter tables and a map, it's still needed to run things. Heck, even if you're completely making it up as you go along, five seconds beforehand, you are still making an adventure. What you don't have to do is go much further than that. If the adventure needs square windows in the tavern, then fine, the windows are square. If the players are facinated in botany, then perhaps 23 types of grass are needed. But, without those needs, when the information is created in a vaccuum because it might be needed if the stars line just so, then we've gone a wee further than required. Again, I'm not saying that we don't need setting. That would be stupid. What we don't need is five thousand years (or 15 thousand) years of history of a nation that doesn't actually appear in the campaign. Yes, there will be some question about the actual necessity of a particular element, and that's something an individual DM will have to determine on his own. But, I really don't think there's a problem in a shift in approach from Setting leading to Adventure to Adventure leading to setting. [/QUOTE]

Verification