Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7395723" data-attributes="member: 22779">That's largely how I look at it.&nbsp; Take the old Dragon Magazine articles &quot;Ecology of..&quot;.&nbsp; Now, these were a ton of fun to read.&nbsp; I really enjoyed them.&nbsp; But, from a practical standpoint, they were about as useful as a rubber hammer.&nbsp; The articles ran about 3000 words - about four to six pages or so by and large.&nbsp; Now, imagine, for a second that the &quot;Ecology of&quot; articles were written by me.The articles would have a couple of paragraphs talking about what the critter in question is.&nbsp; Fair enough, you need something to frame the game with.&nbsp; You have to define what a Throat Warbler Mangrove is before you can use it in the game.&nbsp; But, my version would then have three to four encounters set up.&nbsp; Maybe a single encounter with the critter, a lair, and then the critter with allies.&nbsp; One page each, with a small map and whatnot.&nbsp; Four page article, one page of information, and three pages of encounters.&nbsp; Now, if you're like me and you subscribed to Dragon, at the end of the year, you had 12 Ecology of articles that had lots of flavor, true, but, really didn't do much of anything to help you at the table.&nbsp; In my version, you'd have 12 monster descriptions and about 30-40 encounters that you could plug and play in your game.&nbsp; Far, far more useful IMO.This thread is predicated on the presumption that world building is good.&nbsp; It's a reaction to the common wisdom that if you are a DM, you MUST world build and anyone who doesn't do it is running a bad game.&nbsp; A game that lacks consistency, a game that lacks depth, etc.&nbsp; You can find all sorts of quotes for those points all through this thread.&nbsp; The whole REASON for having threads like this is because there is a basic presumption that if you DM, you will world build.&nbsp; Heck, the Dungeon Master Guides presume it.&nbsp; How much ink is spilled in any editions DMG detailing how you should build your game world?&nbsp; Pages upon pages upon pages.&nbsp; 2ed was replete with world building stuff, to the point where the 2e Monster Manual was written with one monster per page (or sometimes more).&nbsp; Compared to 1e where you'd get up to four monsters on a single page.I mean, good grief, look at the reactions from the first page of this thread:The world builders took over the hobby years ago.&nbsp; What's being challenged now is the unspoken presumption that this was a good thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7395723, member: 22779"] That's largely how I look at it. Take the old Dragon Magazine articles "Ecology of..". Now, these were a ton of fun to read. I really enjoyed them. But, from a practical standpoint, they were about as useful as a rubber hammer. The articles ran about 3000 words - about four to six pages or so by and large. Now, imagine, for a second that the "Ecology of" articles were written by me. The articles would have a couple of paragraphs talking about what the critter in question is. Fair enough, you need something to frame the game with. You have to define what a Throat Warbler Mangrove [i]is[/i] before you can use it in the game. But, my version would then have three to four encounters set up. Maybe a single encounter with the critter, a lair, and then the critter with allies. One page each, with a small map and whatnot. Four page article, one page of information, and three pages of encounters. Now, if you're like me and you subscribed to Dragon, at the end of the year, you had 12 Ecology of articles that had lots of flavor, true, but, really didn't do much of anything to help you at the table. In my version, you'd have 12 monster descriptions and about 30-40 encounters that you could plug and play in your game. Far, far more useful IMO. This thread is predicated on the presumption that world building is good. It's a reaction to the common wisdom that if you are a DM, you MUST world build and anyone who doesn't do it is running a bad game. A game that lacks consistency, a game that lacks depth, etc. You can find all sorts of quotes for those points all through this thread. The whole REASON for having threads like this is because there is a basic presumption that if you DM, you will world build. Heck, the Dungeon Master Guides presume it. How much ink is spilled in any editions DMG detailing how you should build your game world? Pages upon pages upon pages. 2ed was replete with world building stuff, to the point where the 2e Monster Manual was written with one monster per page (or sometimes more). Compared to 1e where you'd get up to four monsters on a single page. I mean, good grief, look at the reactions from the first page of this thread: The world builders took over the hobby years ago. What's being challenged now is the unspoken presumption that this was a good thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification