Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 7407943" data-attributes="member: 85555">I don’t run D&amp;D much these days but I certainly make use of the ecology section in the MM if it is there. When I was running Ravenloft I often drew on the Van Richten books for my monsters. It depends.There is a large spectrum here and I feel like a lot is being cut out. Obviously I don't have to read ten novels and five supplements to run a setting. But that isn't an argument against world building, that is an argument that bloat can be a problem. When it comes to game settings I purchase, my tastes span quite a bit. I like things to be navigable, but I do like good world content (I like HARN for example, and still really enjoy the setting material from Ravenloft). For my own campaigns, I like to world build because you need that deeper layer under the earth when players start digging. It just helps breath more life and potential adventure directions. I find the benefit of good world building is more player freedom in play because I have more pointers toward what may arise if players do X or go in Y direction. That doesn't mean I have to fully commit to these things as if they are a sacred text. At the end of the day it is about what is going on at my table. So I am not advocating canon here. I am saying stuff like a monster ecology section in an MM has its place. And if doesn't for a given GM, they can always ignore it. If I am running monsters on the fly, I am not going to read that many paragraphs at the table. But I may read a deeper monster entry between sessions if I know that kind of creature is becoming important and I want inspiration.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 7407943, member: 85555"] I don’t run D&D much these days but I certainly make use of the ecology section in the MM if it is there. When I was running Ravenloft I often drew on the Van Richten books for my monsters. It depends. There is a large spectrum here and I feel like a lot is being cut out. Obviously I don't have to read ten novels and five supplements to run a setting. But that isn't an argument against world building, that is an argument that bloat can be a problem. When it comes to game settings I purchase, my tastes span quite a bit. I like things to be navigable, but I do like good world content (I like HARN for example, and still really enjoy the setting material from Ravenloft). For my own campaigns, I like to world build because you need that deeper layer under the earth when players start digging. It just helps breath more life and potential adventure directions. I find the benefit of good world building is more player freedom in play because I have more pointers toward what may arise if players do X or go in Y direction. That doesn't mean I have to fully commit to these things as if they are a sacred text. At the end of the day it is about what is going on at my table. So I am not advocating canon here. I am saying stuff like a monster ecology section in an MM has its place. And if doesn't for a given GM, they can always ignore it. If I am running monsters on the fly, I am not going to read that many paragraphs at the table. But I may read a deeper monster entry between sessions if I know that kind of creature is becoming important and I want inspiration. [/QUOTE]

Verification