Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3558182" data-attributes="member: 30001">No we haven't.&nbsp; That's ridiculous actually.&nbsp; Your position on this, as I've already pointed out, comes with a built-in narrative that allows you to dismiss arguments to the contrary based on ad-hominem statements.&nbsp; IMO this conversation is more respectful if you dispense with the fanciful speculations regarding other people's psychology.People find world-building helpful when it comes to running their games, for reasons that have already been described.&nbsp; It's not really surprising that people write in complete sentences either.&nbsp; Your logic of cause and effect is bizarre.&nbsp; The situation you're describing is indistinguishable from a &quot;good practice&quot;.&nbsp; Everyone does it, so therefore, it must be the result of brainwashing.&nbsp; For example - breathing.&nbsp; I don't agree with what you're describing here.&nbsp; Focusing on adventures and ignoring setting is just a difference of balance.&nbsp; I think for certain kinds of gaming it's probably a better way to play (tournaments for example).&nbsp; In any case, I don't think that proving that world-building is evil is logically related to whether good adventure design is part of good DMing, because I think that it is.&nbsp; Another point of basic logic - there is no &quot;either - or&quot; decision here - you are very much capable of being elitist irrespective of RCs statements.There is no particular bit of &quot;fluff&quot; that anyone can point to and say &quot;this elemental is vital to the adventure.&quot;&nbsp; I can't be there to conduct your game sessions for you.&nbsp; For example, let's say PCs capture Sir Bluto sans Pite from one of the White Plume encounter areas.&nbsp; In my experience as a player, I find it unlikely that you're going to be able to ad-lib the interrogation past a certain point where it's going to be believable.&nbsp; I would imagine the sensible approach would be to use the world-building details to flesh out the encounter.&nbsp; Say that Bluto collects potion components for Thingizzard, or expound upon the &quot;River of Blood Mass Murder Case&quot; referenced in the module.&nbsp; With out world building information, all Bluto can say is &quot;uh, I sit here at encounter area 15 and try to kill PCs&quot;.I can't point to which elements you're going to use, because that depends on the interaction with and decisions of the players as well.&nbsp; Pointing to one particular element and saying &quot;do I need this or not&quot; is missing the point.&nbsp; It's like me pointing to a carrot and asking &quot;if I eat this, will it make me healthy&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 3558182, member: 30001"] No we haven't. That's ridiculous actually. Your position on this, as I've already pointed out, comes with a built-in narrative that allows you to dismiss arguments to the contrary based on ad-hominem statements. IMO this conversation is more respectful if you dispense with the fanciful speculations regarding other people's psychology. People find world-building helpful when it comes to running their games, for reasons that have already been described. It's not really surprising that people write in complete sentences either. Your logic of cause and effect is bizarre. The situation you're describing is indistinguishable from a "good practice". Everyone does it, so therefore, it must be the result of brainwashing. For example - breathing. I don't agree with what you're describing here. Focusing on adventures and ignoring setting is just a difference of balance. I think for certain kinds of gaming it's probably a better way to play (tournaments for example). In any case, I don't think that proving that world-building is evil is logically related to whether good adventure design is part of good DMing, because I think that it is. Another point of basic logic - there is no "either - or" decision here - you are very much capable of being elitist irrespective of RCs statements. There is no particular bit of "fluff" that anyone can point to and say "this elemental is vital to the adventure." I can't be there to conduct your game sessions for you. For example, let's say PCs capture Sir Bluto sans Pite from one of the White Plume encounter areas. In my experience as a player, I find it unlikely that you're going to be able to ad-lib the interrogation past a certain point where it's going to be believable. I would imagine the sensible approach would be to use the world-building details to flesh out the encounter. Say that Bluto collects potion components for Thingizzard, or expound upon the "River of Blood Mass Murder Case" referenced in the module. With out world building information, all Bluto can say is "uh, I sit here at encounter area 15 and try to kill PCs". I can't point to which elements you're going to use, because that depends on the interaction with and decisions of the players as well. Pointing to one particular element and saying "do I need this or not" is missing the point. It's like me pointing to a carrot and asking "if I eat this, will it make me healthy". [/QUOTE]

Verification