Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3545596" data-attributes="member: 22779">Oh hey, look.&nbsp; I'm not saying that setting first doesn't work.&nbsp; Of course it does.&nbsp; Decades of play proves that.&nbsp; The stock method of creating the world first (from either direction) and then crafting adventures in that world is functional.&nbsp; It works.What I'm trying to suggest here is that you may not have to follow that methodology.&nbsp; Instead of doing to the standard Dungeoncraft approach to building a campaign - where you start with dino island and build up from there, why not just create dino themed adventures?&nbsp; Craft a series of adventures based on a theme and then go back and fill in the holes.Time and again I bring up examples only to have people tell me that you can look at them a different way.&nbsp; That's true.&nbsp; There's a lot of overlap between what I'm calling setting and world building.&nbsp; Since we're tossing around quotes from the DMG, how about the one from the introduction to world building?World building is defined as building your own world.&nbsp; Not just what is needed for the adventures, but, a whole world.&nbsp; When they talk about bottom up they say, Now, it's true that bottom up is less work intensive than top down.&nbsp; But that's not really what I'm talking about.&nbsp; My point is to completely ignore that part.&nbsp; Block Chapter 6 out of the book entirely.&nbsp; We have to develop adventures.&nbsp; I'm suggesting that the common method of setting first may be less efficient than adventure first.Hey, I could be wrong here.&nbsp; I admit that.&nbsp; I'm thinking that it's far more expedient to have a complete campaign first and then go back.&nbsp; But, that's pretty work intensive as well and runs all sorts of risks, like heavy handed railroading.&nbsp; I do realize that.&nbsp; And I agree with this 100%.&nbsp; I have stated repeatedly that there is a huge grey area in the middle of what is absolutely needed and what is completely irrelevant.&nbsp; Realistically, you can't really get away with doing zero world building.&nbsp; You just can't.&nbsp; You have to do some.&nbsp; What I've been very badly trying to explain is that you can approach it in a different direction.&nbsp; Let the world building elements come out of the adventure, rather than starting with them first.&nbsp; Like Star Trek or pretty much any other long lived series, let the world building elements accrete over time.&nbsp; To continue the analogy, write the Star Trek stories first and then go back and apply any world building that you feel is warranted.&nbsp; Actually, the TV or movie approach is perhaps closer to what I'm getting at.&nbsp; TV or movies don't have the time to spend on large amounts of exposition detailing the history and other world building goodies that we all love.&nbsp; So, in any given episode of Star Trek, you get snippets of world building, but, not a whole lot at once.&nbsp; In a novel, you can just add page count and go into details that aren't terribly necessary, but, lots of people seem to enjoy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3545596, member: 22779"] Oh hey, look. I'm not saying that setting first doesn't work. Of course it does. Decades of play proves that. The stock method of creating the world first (from either direction) and then crafting adventures in that world is functional. It works. What I'm trying to suggest here is that you may not have to follow that methodology. Instead of doing to the standard Dungeoncraft approach to building a campaign - where you start with dino island and build up from there, why not just create dino themed adventures? Craft a series of adventures based on a theme and then go back and fill in the holes. Time and again I bring up examples only to have people tell me that you can look at them a different way. That's true. There's a lot of overlap between what I'm calling setting and world building. Since we're tossing around quotes from the DMG, how about the one from the introduction to world building? World building is defined as building your own world. Not just what is needed for the adventures, but, a whole world. When they talk about bottom up they say, Now, it's true that bottom up is less work intensive than top down. But that's not really what I'm talking about. My point is to completely ignore that part. Block Chapter 6 out of the book entirely. We have to develop adventures. I'm suggesting that the common method of setting first may be less efficient than adventure first. Hey, I could be wrong here. I admit that. I'm thinking that it's far more expedient to have a complete campaign first and then go back. But, that's pretty work intensive as well and runs all sorts of risks, like heavy handed railroading. I do realize that. And I agree with this 100%. I have stated repeatedly that there is a huge grey area in the middle of what is absolutely needed and what is completely irrelevant. Realistically, you can't really get away with doing zero world building. You just can't. You have to do some. What I've been very badly trying to explain is that you can approach it in a different direction. Let the world building elements come out of the adventure, rather than starting with them first. Like Star Trek or pretty much any other long lived series, let the world building elements accrete over time. To continue the analogy, write the Star Trek stories first and then go back and apply any world building that you feel is warranted. Actually, the TV or movie approach is perhaps closer to what I'm getting at. TV or movies don't have the time to spend on large amounts of exposition detailing the history and other world building goodies that we all love. So, in any given episode of Star Trek, you get snippets of world building, but, not a whole lot at once. In a novel, you can just add page count and go into details that aren't terribly necessary, but, lots of people seem to enjoy. [/QUOTE]

Verification