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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Darth Shoju" data-source="post: 3544481" data-attributes="member: 11397">All of this really hinges on what your goal is in playing D&D. If your goal is to have fun (which I'm thinking is the goal of most who play), then the priority of setting over adventure or vice versa is irrelevant. "Fun" is totally dependent on the individual. As KM pointed out, he and his group have fun without preparing either settings *or* adventures. If your point is that you don't *need* to "worldbuild" to have a fun D&D campaign then I'd have to counter that you don't *need* to build adventures to have fun either. What you need to do is whatever is required for the members of the group to enjoy themselves.However, (and I've been avoiding this for fear of opening a new can of worms) it can be argued that detailing information that isn't used in the events of the adventure brings more depth to the campaign. Using the example quoted, knowing that the town was founded by a priest gives character to that settlement (although I have to admit to not being familiar with the source of your example). It can explain why there is a statue of the guy in the town square. It can explain why the townspeople only tolerate their founding religion and no others. It can explain why PC priests of that religion can claim shelter from any townsperson. These are details that make the town come alive. Will they have any bearing on the dungeon  you are about to clear out? Probably not. Could you have had *fun* just clearing the dungeon without putting any detail into the nearby town? Yup, but as I outlined above that isn't really saying anything new. Can you say that the town I just outlined has the same depth as one where all you know is what level of priest is in it and what the max sell price of magic items is? While I'd say that the latter information is important, you can also just pull that from the DMG when you need it. I'd also say that the latter example isn't as deep as the former.I guess that my point is that "what is fun" is hard (if not impossible) to quantify, while depth is a little easier to measure. However, I'd also say that depth can be fun, but fun isn't necessarily dependent on depth.</blockquote>

Verification