Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Darth Shoju" data-source="post: 3545867" data-attributes="member: 11397">I don't know if that quote from the DMG equates to building a *whole* world. After all, they define &quot;world&quot; as simply: &quot;...a consistent environment for the campaign.&quot; Further, my impression from both approaches they recommend (Inside Out and Outside In) is that regardless of where you start, the farther away from the action you are the less detail you should create. With Inside Out you start detailed and get less so as you move farther away, with Outside In you start vague and drill-down to specifics around where the adventures occur. Neither of those sound like striving to create a *whole* world.In theory you don't have to do either. I'd agree though that you'll generally have more luck putting adventure over setting/worldbuilding. But that doesn't make worldbuilding bad or superfluous.Personally I'd rather have a bunch of low-level adventures prepared in a decent setting. That way you give the players options on where the want to go and you can develop more adventures after they have chosen a path. IMO this is the best way to avoid wasted work and potential railroading. That certainly is an effective method, but you have to have done a little world-building beforehand to establish that you are playing Star Trek adventures. You have to do enough to establish that setting. One of the issues I've had in this thread is that some people seem to think that even this is too much worldbuilding and is straight-jacketing the types of adventures you can have. I suggest that by not establishing theme or setting in the hopes of being able to do whatever adventure you want, then whatever &quot;setting&quot; results has to be pretty generic and vague by necessity. This point seems to be met with outrage and claims that you don't need worldbuilding to have depth and avoid being generic. But, again, that really hinges on the definition of worldbuilding. Bleh.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Darth Shoju, post: 3545867, member: 11397"] I don't know if that quote from the DMG equates to building a *whole* world. After all, they define "world" as simply: "...a consistent environment for the campaign." Further, my impression from both approaches they recommend (Inside Out and Outside In) is that regardless of where you start, the farther away from the action you are the less detail you should create. With Inside Out you start detailed and get less so as you move farther away, with Outside In you start vague and drill-down to specifics around where the adventures occur. Neither of those sound like striving to create a *whole* world. In theory you don't have to do either. I'd agree though that you'll [I]generally [/I]have more luck putting adventure over setting/worldbuilding. But that doesn't make worldbuilding bad or superfluous. Personally I'd rather have a bunch of low-level adventures prepared in a decent setting. That way you give the players options on where the want to go and you can develop more adventures after they have chosen a path. IMO this is the best way to avoid wasted work and potential railroading. That certainly is an effective method, but you have to have done a little world-building beforehand to establish that you are playing Star Trek adventures. You have to do enough to establish that setting. One of the issues I've had in this thread is that some people seem to think that even this is too much worldbuilding and is straight-jacketing the types of adventures you can have. I suggest that by not establishing theme or setting in the hopes of being able to do whatever adventure you want, then whatever "setting" results has to be pretty generic and vague by necessity. This point seems to be met with outrage and claims that you don't need worldbuilding to have depth and avoid being generic. But, again, that really hinges on the definition of worldbuilding. Bleh. [/QUOTE]

Verification