Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheSword" data-source="post: 7400719" data-attributes="member: 6879661">Ah that makes sense. So by that token you are preparing only what you are likely to need because the party are likely to enter the temple of the death god and see his statue. You wouldn’t then need to plan the god of the harvest, the god of war or the god of watery depths. Then you’re adding mysterious hooks that can be dropped into the campaign later on creating the illusion of depth. Which hooks you pick up and follow can depend entirely on how you feel. I am in total agreement that’s an excellent way to prep.I don’t get the impression that is the type of world building the original article is railing against. The author objects to fantasy writers effectively writing a campaign setting guide before they start on the meat and bones of the adventure. Others are arguing for comprehensive world building first just in case the campaign goes in that direction. That’s just my impression.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheSword, post: 7400719, member: 6879661"] Ah that makes sense. So by that token you are preparing only what you are likely to need because the party are likely to enter the temple of the death god and see his statue. You wouldn’t then need to plan the god of the harvest, the god of war or the god of watery depths. Then you’re adding mysterious hooks that can be dropped into the campaign later on creating the illusion of depth. Which hooks you pick up and follow can depend entirely on how you feel. I am in total agreement that’s an excellent way to prep. I don’t get the impression that is the type of world building the original article is railing against. The author objects to fantasy writers effectively writing a campaign setting guide before they start on the meat and bones of the adventure. Others are arguing for comprehensive world building first just in case the campaign goes in that direction. That’s just my impression. [/QUOTE]

Verification