Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Darth Shoju" data-source="post: 3560966" data-attributes="member: 11397">Just a preamble, but the point of my post was to explain how worldbuilding adds depth and verisimilitude, since that is what KM was taking exception to. I wasn't really commenting on Hussar's abilities as a DM since I don't know anything about them. The DM in my example is purely hypothetical. I also would like to point out that I thought I established that he was pretty good at running the dungeon crawl, just bad at improv. I didn't really think of him as a useless lout.RC made a valid point here. Why is it that when the DM slavishly adheres to the adventure as written (thereby restricting player interaction) it is a problem with the DM, while if the DM slavishly adheres to his setting/worldbuilding (thereby restricting player interaction) it is a problem with worldbuilding and NOT the DM? This is one of the first things I look at as a player when making a character. Ditto for most of the folks I play with (with a couple exceptions, although I suspect they would find it odd if there was no info on the world available too).While I'd appreciate the opportunity to flesh out my character's religion, it doesn't do much to develop the setting we are playing in (I still know nothing about the world I'm playing in). Of course, being a fish out of water character, that would make sense. Might be off-putting for the other players though. And for the record, I was going for a more Taoist-type priest, but that is neither here nor there.If a DM responded to me in that fashion it would be the last night I gamed in one of his sessions. Taking five minutes to give me some interaction with an NPC and flesh out the setting is not going to derail the session. If anything it can help to fill the time while other players are looking up what they are going to buy for the trip (of course, I'd only be exploring this element if I was ready to go...I'm not going to hold up things after I'm done talking to the NPC b/c I haven't even looked at supplies yet). Well I'm working on the assumption that the DM hasn't done any worldbuilding. The adventure map doesn't detail what is north and south of the forest and the DM is bad at improving. He doesn't want to try and figure out the trip around the forest and he wants the PCs to go through the encounters in the forest the adventure details. I'm trying to prove how worldbuilding brings depth vs going with "the barest threads of a setting". I'd say having options in completing your objective is indicative of depth.I'm not really seeing how that is necessarily better. If your group just wants to do a dungeon crawl and isn't interested in anything else then I'd say that is probably the best approach. If your group likes a bit of a build-up before the dungeon then I'd say you might want to flesh out the stuff provided in the adventure a bit. When I ran Forge of Fury (or started to), I knew my group preferred the actual dungeon crawling to not be terribly protracted, so I wrote up some build-up before it that involved traveling with a ranger and a stop at an inn for the night. The inn had some interesting encounters come of it (thanks to a bit of worldbuilding beforehand) and generated a side-quest to foil some local vampires (that were actually human bandits pretending to be vampires-never thought I'd get use out of Terrible Trouble at Tragidore). I was also able to put a bit more development of the legends of the dwarven hold they were traveling to throughout the lead-up. When we got to the actual dungeon, the group felt like it was a living breathing location rather than a static dungeon (important to my group of gamers). Well, if I were running this I would have done some worldbuilding beforehand and worked with the info provided in the pirate adventure (assuming it has some minimal info on the pirates themselves). I've implied that this plot hook was tossed in by the DM and isn't a feature of the next adventure as written. Since he didn't do any worldbuilding he couldn't really answer anything about the clue beyond "it leads to the next adventure". If I was putting in a hook like this, I'd know who wrote the journal (probably not detailed in the next adventure since I invented this plot hook myself), why he wrote it and a little bit about the contents of it. I'd probably put some thought into the last journal entry since it can tell a lot about the setup for the next adventure (including some clues as to why the journal was left behind). If I had the time (and this would be a low priority), I'd probably even write out some of the pertinent journal entries as the NPC to add some flavour. I'm going with this part of your quote here (emphasis mine): Now, I'll admit I am being a bit facetious here; my example is certainly an extreme one, but it is meant to illustrate how not paying heed to worldbuilding can lead to inconsistency. As far as the definition in the DMG is concerned, part of the point of worldbuilding is to ensure consistency. AFAIC, if you are ensuring your setting is consistent, then you are doing some worldbuilding. How is anything I suggested there insignificant setting trivia? I don't see how making the setting seem real is trivial-in fact it is the very definition of verisimilitude and the point I am driving at. Now if the group of players consider talking to NPCs a waste of time then I'd say it would be a bad idea to give the NPCs personality and character. But then again, I doubt I could play in that environment for long. So the party must always act in unison otherwise time is being wasted? If the players are interested in the town how is it simply exposition? And who said the cleric was looking to "hog lots of air time"? If the DM had done some worldbuilding beforehand, he could have handled a lot of what came up (since he isn't gifted at improv). I'm talking stuff like:-A quick map of the world. A brief note on the major nations and where the core races fit in. This could be done in a page (two if you count the map itself).-A more detailed map of the area where most of his adventures are going to be taking place. Assuming he is using unrelated adventures and not an AP, this will ensure consistency and allow him to know what possible ways the PCs might go to get where they need to be.-A few details of the town they start in beyond what level of cleric it has and the max sell price for magic items. What is the chief industry of the town? Let's say it has orchards. When the PC cleric asks about the agricultural challenges of the town, the NPC could say a) Not much, the apple harvest (or whatever) looks good this year. b) Not so great; we're having a lot of trouble with giant beetles. Either answer is just fine and both provide depth to the setting. The second can even be an adventure hook the party could look into. What influence does the only church have on the town? This could dictate how the NPC reacts to the PC cleric. If they are the only religion in town because they chase out all others, then he will be defensive towards the PC. If not, then he might be glad to have another nature-oriented priest around. Again, this is depth. Is it required for a dungeon crawl? Nope. Like I've said depends on what your group wants to do.Well, it was my assumption that the adventure had encounters in the forest. My bad for not making that clear up front.Well my point of my post was to explain what I meant by "depth" in the context of D&D and how it relates to worldbuilding. If you don't value depth then it doesn't really matter then does it? But again, that is matter of taste and the subjective definition of "fun". I could have fun playing tiddly winks but that speaks nothing to the point of depth. Frankly, at the end of the day, *I* care about depth (although I'm not really a FR fan for other reasons). And that isn't any less valid than someone who doesn't and is looking to kill and take stuff. "Irrelevant" is dependent on your objectives and I wouldn't go tossing it around as a universal truth.</blockquote>

Verification