Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3557814" data-attributes="member: 22779">Sorry Imaro.&nbsp; I didn't mean to come off as being elitist.&nbsp; My point is that we've been conditioned for years to think that setting MUST BE DONE.&nbsp; The DMG talks about it, umpteen pages in Dungeon and Dragon talks about it.&nbsp; Thousands of pages of Forgotten Realms material shows it.&nbsp; Popular fantasy does it.It's not really surprising that everyone buys into this.What's funny is comments like RC's where doing only the barest amount of setting is A BAD THING.&nbsp; That if you were to focus on adventures and ignore most of the setting stuff, there would be no point in gaming at all.Heck, RC, didn't you take me to task a few pages back for saying that posters were saying EXACTLY what you just said?&nbsp; Refresh my memory, but I believe that several people told me that NO ONE said that putting setting on the back burner makes for a bad game.Yet, that's precisely what you just said.So who's being elitist?&nbsp; Me for suggesting that most of the setting work that gets done is superfluous or RC for suggesting that if you don't do a &quot;well developed setting&quot; that it just isn't worth playing?Of course, the problem now is, what is a &quot;well developed setting&quot;?&nbsp; Is the GDQ series a well developed setting?&nbsp; If I were to play through them as written, would it be a bad experience because of a decided lack of world background?Do I need to know the entire history of Greyhawk in order to run Savage Tide?&nbsp; How much can I ignore?&nbsp; Do I even have to set it in Greyhawk to make it a good experience?Does the Isle of Dread become a worse experience if you ignore the first couple of pages?If I took whiteout to the map in White Plume Mountain and crossed off Dragotha and replaced it with &quot;Here Be Dragyns&quot;, would that make for a less satisfying experience?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3557814, member: 22779"] Sorry Imaro. I didn't mean to come off as being elitist. My point is that we've been conditioned for years to think that setting MUST BE DONE. The DMG talks about it, umpteen pages in Dungeon and Dragon talks about it. Thousands of pages of Forgotten Realms material shows it. Popular fantasy does it. It's not really surprising that everyone buys into this. What's funny is comments like RC's where doing only the barest amount of setting is A BAD THING. That if you were to focus on adventures and ignore most of the setting stuff, there would be no point in gaming at all. Heck, RC, didn't you take me to task a few pages back for saying that posters were saying EXACTLY what you just said? Refresh my memory, but I believe that several people told me that NO ONE said that putting setting on the back burner makes for a bad game. Yet, that's precisely what you just said. So who's being elitist? Me for suggesting that most of the setting work that gets done is superfluous or RC for suggesting that if you don't do a "well developed setting" that it just isn't worth playing? Of course, the problem now is, what is a "well developed setting"? Is the GDQ series a well developed setting? If I were to play through them as written, would it be a bad experience because of a decided lack of world background? Do I need to know the entire history of Greyhawk in order to run Savage Tide? How much can I ignore? Do I even have to set it in Greyhawk to make it a good experience? Does the Isle of Dread become a worse experience if you ignore the first couple of pages? If I took whiteout to the map in White Plume Mountain and crossed off Dragotha and replaced it with "Here Be Dragyns", would that make for a less satisfying experience? [/QUOTE]

Verification