# Why the World Exists



## Jack7 (Mar 8, 2009)

*ESSAYS ON GAME DESIGN

Essay Six: Why the World Exists*


This will undoubtedly make some people angry. That is not my intent, but rather it is to express my observations and opinion about something I felt was implied in another thread. If it makes you angry then I am sorry, but my opinion still remains the same. Some will undoubtedly agree with me, some will disagree. C’est la vie.

I forked this thread from *How Do you Distribute Treasure?*

It occurred to me from reading that thread that within the game (considering this particular issue) you basically have two ways of looking at the World and milieu in which the characters operate.


*1. The World Exists for the sake of the Characters* – therefore the players present “Wish Lists” to the DM/GM, and he makes sure that the treasure they receive, assuming magical items are included in such troves, is fit for their desires and “wishes.” I imagine by extension that such a wish list can or maybe will eventually incorporate other aspects of milieu-management, such as arranging events, dungeons, political situations, and a whole host of “goodies” for the benefit of the characters. The point of existing in such a world, I suspect? – to level up of course. To become more, or maybe far more, of what you already are. The point of the game is to a large extent the mechanics of the game. By getting what you want you become what you wish and what you wish is to be stronger, bigger, badder, and more powerful as a game-character. That is to say the point of the game is the nature of the game, the world exists to service the game-character as an expression of “gamism.” In short the various accoutrements and devices and badges of heroism are distributed and “given out” as a tangible reward based upon the wishes and desires of the player. If you want the implements of heroism, those things that will assist you in being heroic, then it is the duty of the world, through the agency of the DM, to give you those things as a reward for the idea that you want to be an imaginary hero. Which leads me to the second basic way of viewing the World in an imaginary gaming universe.

*2. The Characters Exist for the sake of the World* – therefore the players get whatever they happen to discover and it is up to them to make the best possible use of whatever resources they encounter and can gain in order to earn their heroism. They cannot petition the World, through the agency of the DM to get whatever they “wish for” in order to facilitate their further actions. On the contrary they must gain what they gain, either intentionally, or by accident, being in effect limited to what is, not to what is wished for. This way of looking at the world is far less like a video game full of self-imposed (auto-programmed) Easter Eggs and far more like the real world. Yes, you can create things at your own expense, but there is no Santa-Clause DM/GM to whom one can avail oneself for that special, bright, shiny toy one so desperately longs for in his secret heart of hearts. (And this toy may be an item, object, device, situation, ability, or power – anything that encompasses a possession of some kind.) Because of this the world does not exist for the characters but rather the characters exist for the world, they must make use of what is offered, and they come by that due to the logical demands of what is possible from the environment around them rather than from the environment they wish to exist. This creates an entirely different dynamic of both “heroism” and “power.” Heroism is not something made evident through the “goodies” you possess or even through the power they convey upon you, but rather what you possess is “empowered” by the cleverness by which you employ it. You cannot demand the world give you things or service your needs, so therefore you must service the world in order to make best use of what you can get. The world and the DM will not bow to your demands (though the world and the DM may consider your efforts to achieve some given end or object as noble, worthy, or even of deserving assistance of some kind) and wishes so therefore you must “earn what is possible” given the particular circumstances in which you and your comrades find yourselves. 


I find this a fascinating contrast in both gaming theory and in the implications of such theories.

As a personal matter I should say I find the first method and worldview immensely fascinating and even seductively alluring. I also find it, personally speaking, as a way of approaching the game, any game, or of viewing the world, any world, ugly, repulsive, petty, doomed to eventual self-absorption, and very likely to generate little else in the end than utter apathy. I can find nothing heroic in it as an ideal at all, other than the rather atrophic and shortsighted view that heroism as a game ideal is best created through raw accumulation of power. That is to say the more power you have the more potentially heroic you must naturally become because after all it is power (in the sense of raw force) which is the true measure of heroism. (_And there is something at the margins to warrant a serious examination of this assumption_, without power it is simply not possible to be heroic, unless of course powerlessness is a form of power, and I suspect very much that given the right conditions that statement is also very, very true. Sometimes powerlessness is the greatest form of power.)

Nevertheless the idea of the game-world existing to service the character is as repugnant to me as the idea that the real world exists to service Paris Hilton. As a matter of fact I would call this way of looking at the game as the *"Modern Entertainer" *View of Heroism. I am a Hero when things go the way I wish and when I get the things I want in order to assure that heroism is worth my while. It is a sort of acting out of heroism, not as an actual thing, but as a sort of stage play in which the actor becomes a shadow or mask (a persona) of the man he is supposed to be truly representing. If on the other hand heroism makes real demands on me, such as that I serve the needs of the World, rather than the other way around, well, that’s either too tough, too demanding, not profitable, or gets in the way of my fun. Or put more simply, “Fun is the point of Heroism, and so Heroism must serve my needs and wishes to be ‘gainful.’”

I personally find that an extremely shallow view of the idea of fun, heroism, gain, or profit. To be perfectly honest all I have ever seen of real heroism makes me suspect it is in fact hard, dangerous, demanding, thrilling (at times - being deadly boring at others), patience-testing, taxing, excruciating, and exhausting work. Yes, it can be fun, it can also be incredibly disgusting, disheartening, heart-breaking, lonely, back-breaking, and yet the gains and profits of it are almost immeasurable in comparison to the dearth of “goodies” you ever really receive from your _“wish list,”_ which is usually little more than, “_God I hope I survive this_,” or “God, _*I hope they survive this*_.” (Which to be perfectly honest is why I fully understand the allure of the first World View - who hasn’t been in a really tight or lethal spot and thought to themselves, _“if only I had what I really needed I could have saved them,”_ or _“if only I had the power to have prevented this I could have saved them.”_ That is a common condition when faced with servicing the world while facing the reality of doing so with a lack of sufficient resources and/or power.)

Nevertheless you do what you can with what you have and I’ve often wondered that if I possessed every degree of power I demanded or wished in order to solve any problem I faced, if I had every resource I desired to right any wrong or injustice, would then my actions under such conditions be heroic at all? Or those of a man who by being able to bend the world to my will through a wealth of whatever I wanted or wished, more akin to King Midas. Everything I desire turns to gold, but there is no more blood to warm my future, for everything has become through contact with me the more inanimate the more I accumulate. 

I know why the world exists and it is certainly not for my sake. It is hard for me to imagine a world that exists for the sake of the hero. It is also extremely hard for me to imagine a Hero who asks that the world exists for him.

There are men who ask that the world exist for them, who make ceaseless demands upon it, and who seek to have their various wishes fulfilled for their own benefit, but you don’t call such men heroes. They have another name. Another name entirely.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Mar 8, 2009)

I think this whole screed assumes some principles which aren't necessarily even remotely relevant.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 8, 2009)

I think you need to replace world with game.


----------



## Moon_Goddess (Mar 8, 2009)

I'm gonna say that in general I agree with you, 

But unfortuinatly contrary to my own personal beliefs I've found that the game works better if the world exists for the players, note, not the heroes, but the players.   So the heroes exist for the sake of the world, and the world exists for the sake of the players.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Mar 8, 2009)

The ideas you present in this post are so repugnant to me that I can't even really find the words... You ascribe terribly insulting motives to large groups of people simply because they play the game differently than you. You even manage to throw in a cheap "video game" quip that doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense (what kind of videogame even works like that?), so you have already hit on some of my biggest pet peeves.

Anyways, you are so wrapped up in personal distaste that logic pretty much fails to apply to anything you are saying. It is all one big strawman full of linking together completely unrelated concepts with a twisted false dichotomy between "gamism" and "heroism". Certainly, the point where you claim that certain ways of playing the game are _morally wrong_, you cross all boundaries of making terrible and horribly flawed statements. Shame on you.

Anyways, yes, the game world of D&D exists for the sake of the characters. This is not some horribly evil choice on my part, _this is a fundamental part of how the game works_. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the better a DM is, the more the game world is suited to the characters. The story of the game is the character's story. Their adventures are the story of the world. The world doesn't exist unless they visit it. This is no different than the how any other game or story works. The world of Middle Earth exists solely to tell the stories of Bilbo Baggins and Frodo. The world of Azeroth solely exists to be the setting for the Warcrat games. These stories and games are _better_ for the fact that the worlds themselves are portrayed very differently in each series of books or each new game in order to facilitate a better experience.

This doesn't mean that players should write up wishlists of everything they want in the game that they know they are going to get, but they have every right to expect that the game revolves around them. It is their right as players to have a fun game, after all, and fun games are ones that put the players in the spotlight and let them be a an important part of the evolution of the game.

Really, bringing up abstract ideas of "what is more heroic" is totally absurd. The only thing anyone should ever expect out of D&D is a fun time. It is a game, after all. If the DM doing something to encourage the players to "be heroic" is not fun for the players, then the DM made a mistake.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 8, 2009)

Heh. As soon as D&D becomes a simulation, be sure and get back to me.


----------



## EATherrian (Mar 8, 2009)

A wizard did it.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 8, 2009)

The game world doesn't actually exist.

That's the biggest thing that always bugs me about this debate.  By definition, the first option is true.  It is the One Truth, and all others must bow before it.

The second option is a lie.  Because, you know, the game world _doesn't actually exist._  There really _is_ a dungeon master.  There really _is_ a game.  And the game really _does_ exist to be fun, whatever that means.

The second option, were it ever to be stated honestly by its proponents, ought to be more as follows: The game world exists for the players, but it is best to pretend that it does not.  I have no doubt that a decent defense could be made of that proposition.  Perhaps someday someone shall.

It doesn't matter how much you want option 2 as currently stated,_ you can't have it_.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 8, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> This is no different than the how any other game or story works. The world of Middle Earth exists solely to tell the stories of Bilbo Baggins and Frodo. The world of Azeroth solely exists to be the setting for the Warcraft games. These stories and games are _better_ for the fact that the worlds themselves are portrayed very differently in each series of books or each new game in order to facilitate a better experience.




Two crimes were committed here. First, and the less egregious one, is that you said "Middle-earth exists solely to tell the stories of [hobbits]". Ack! I hear J.R.R. Tolkien muttering in his tomb. Actually, _The Hobbit_ was a serial bed-time story that Tolkien told his kids that happened to be set in Middle-earth, the world of a much larger epic he had been working on for decades; the LotR started as a sequel to _The Hobbit_, requested by the publisher, but became something much larger, "more serious and dark," as JRRT said. But the core of Tolkien's work was not The Hobbit or LotR but _The Silmarillion_, which focuses on the history of the elves and, to a lesser degree, humans. In other words, Tolkien did NOT create Middle-earth as a setting to write The Hobbit and LotR in; those stories grew out of it. I think this is one of the main reasons that the setting is so...alive. There is never the feeling of the "cardboard set" that you get in a lot of novels and RPG worlds: As if all that exists is what is needed to portray the scene at hand. The Hobbit and LotR have a sense of deep history, of myth and legend--because Tolkien had spent decades detailing that world's myth and history and languages.

Certainly not every writer (or DM, for that matter) can put the same care and time into their world as Tolkien, but that is the ideal; second best would be to really disguise those cardboard set pieces well so that they don't feel like cardboard set pieces. It is hard to do.

The second crime, you wonder? It is the worst: You mention Middle-earth and World of Warcraft in the same breath! Alas, alas! May the Great Eagles carry me away to distant Valinor, where only her golden woods may heal my blighted soul!


----------



## gizmo33 (Mar 8, 2009)

The whole basis of what the OP appears to be saying is that killing things and looting their bodies is only heroic when the loot is randomly generated.  Oh - and the treasure wish-list suddenly turns DnD into a power-gamer's game.  As if there was something stopping you before from being a power gamer.

I actually don't like treasure wish-lists but I disagree with pretty much every bit of moralizing and reasoning in the OP.  The people I've played DnD with that would have like the treasure wish-list the most were thespians, not power gamers.  Power gamers are fine with looting dead bodies and saving up money and trying find or steal their desired magic items.  They'll poison people and sell their fellow PCs into slavery for a vorpal blade.  Selling your fellow PCs into slavery to buy a vorpal blade is heroic, I think, according to the OP because I'm using the world to get my power.  (I wouldn't ask my fellow PCs their opinion.)

On the other hand, thespians, as I've observed, find this kind of loot garnering and XP farming to be distasteful, and would rather be handed items from the DM because they're cool - and not necessarily powerful, but fit into their 100 page back-stories.  

I think the OP should really reconsider the generalizations he makes about these gaming styles and the morality behind them.  If you want to play with people whose highest aspiration in the game is to save kittens, or walk old dwarves across the street, or kill a whole tribe of orcs and loot their bodies for random treasure, then that's cool but I don't see the treasure wish list as having any bearing on their morals that the whole rest of the game doesn't already establish.  You can still save kittens whether or not the DM hands you a vorpal blade for doing it.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Mar 8, 2009)

Hey Jack7.

Look, I kinda get where you're coming from for the game styles. 

One where, at its extreme, the game world (GM) bends over and gives the PCs everything they want merely because they want it. There's never  any challenge and everything rings hollow. Gets kinda dull. At the other end there's theone where the world (GM) does it's damnedest to shaft the PCs at every turn. Also gets kinda dull.

Both of these examples of extremes strike me as games I wouldn't enjoy much. But there is a huge amount of middle ground between the two. For example:

I'm about to start a new Champions campaign. And at the moment I'm asking the players what they want to see in it. I've asked questions about the game world, the moral tone, all that, and their characters and they're giving me answers. We're all contributing to the game from the the start. Yes, at the end of the day it will be up to me as the GM to create specfic plot devices, NPCs, organisations, challenges etc. Hopefully I will be able to provide the sort of challenges the players want to see. Also I want to provide them with the opportunity to let their characters do their stuff/show off their cool powers, it _is_ a supers game after all.

So I'd say the fun pay off comes from various sources. Overcoming great challenges, looking good while you do so, getting shiny stuff, getting more points. And many more I'm sure. The emphasis on which of them is more important depends on the individual player. ANd some people do want a game where they always win easily and there's always just the right shiny thing in the orc's chest. I put it to you that the people playing the game this way are getting much more substantial rewards than mere in game stuff. They're hanging out with friends, enjoying company, sharing food and bad jokes. The game itself is just one part of a wider social event.

ACtually, the game is always going to be just a part of a wider social event. Don't read too much into it.

cheers mate,
Glen


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Mar 8, 2009)

> Gizmo33 wrote:
> You can still save kittens whether or not the DM hands you a vorpal blade for doing




Never juggle vorpal blades and kittens together.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 8, 2009)

I was gonna make a long post but Twin Bahamut sums up my view basically entirely. The world exists for the players/characters because without them there is no world. The world exists (and not even a whole world it really is just what is presently visible/knowable to the PCs) as part of the medium to tell stories and go through adventures and to have fun!

This idea that a world is created just so the players accumulate power is ridiculous. It really isn't at all connected to creating a world for the players. You base the world around them so that the adventures, stories, characters, etc. that they meet is engaging and relevant to what is going on in THEIR STORY and part of THEIR WORLD.


----------



## Kzach (Mar 8, 2009)

I think what, if anything, the "DM'ing is a skill, not an art" thread shows is that there are gazillions of ways of representing and playing the game. I feel I fall into neither category presented in this thread, and, in fact, part of my problem with the skill/art thread was that there are so many fine points of DM'ing style and play-style that you really can't create categories that suit everyone.

A little from column A, a little from column B, a little from Column C sub-section 3...


----------



## FireLance (Mar 8, 2009)

Let me throw out a third possibility:

*The World Exists For The Sake Of Challenging The Players* - There is, naturally, a certain amount of fantasy wish-fulfillment going on. For some, that is part of the attraction of playing a fantasy role-playing game. However, the players have to _earn_ their characters' rewards by displaying minimum levels of intelligence, tactics, planning, co-operation, courage, honor, luck, etc. (actual levels of intelligence, tactics, planning, co-operation, courage, honor, luck, etc. required will vary from DM to DM and from campaign to campaign). Under this approach, wish lists are not demands which players make of their DMs out of some sense of entitlement, but a communication tool to help the DM understand what the players want so that he can reward them appropriately based on what he thinks they deserve.

If as the DM you have already decided that you going to give the characters a reward for overcoming a particular challenge, I fail to see why allowing the players to choose which reward their characters get (within reasonable limits, of course) is a repugnant idea, or how it could reduce the heroism of the characters in any way.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Mar 8, 2009)

All I can think to say is this:

Some people will never choose to be heroes, no matter how necessary it is, if they do not believe they have to power to accomplish the task.  Being fictional does not make a difference.  For these people a game must give them at least the illusion of power if it wants them to bother being heroes.


----------



## Jack7 (Mar 8, 2009)

> I'm gonna say that in general I agree with you,
> 
> But unfortuinatly contrary to my own personal beliefs I've found that the game works better if the world exists for the players, note, not the heroes, but the players. So the heroes exist for the sake of the world, and the world exists for the sake of the players.




_I am not saying that the game does not exist for the sake of the players_, it obviously does. (After all, it, as a gaming device must have a pragmatic function. And that function is as a setting for imaginary action of the players through the agency of their character.) I am saying it does not exist for the sake of the characters, as in, _it does not exist to service the wishes of the characters._

If the characters are supposed to be heroes, then to be brutally honest, heroes don't run around saying, _"I want this, or I demand that."_ Heroes say I'll sacrifice for this and I'll risk for that. And just because they find the world not to their liking, doesn't mean they start demanding it had better become the way they want in order for them to do their job.

Now heroes, like anyone, have needs. They need certain things to operate effectively. But when they don't get exactly what they want that is never an obstacle to action. Nor is not getting your wish list in any way reflective of being a hero. But I can see the opposite as being suppressive of heroism. Getting what you want all of the time does not make you heroic, it can make you a lot of things, spoiled, self-absorbed, entitled, dependent, lazy. But I've never seen getting what you want all of the time make anyone heroic. Heroism is the opposite of being given things. It is earning things, and sacrificing things. You cannot encourage the idea of "getting what you want when and how you want it" and the idea of heroism simultaneously. One idea becomes more alluring than the other, or one idea becomes more important than the other.




> I think what, if anything, the "DM'ing is a skill, not an art" thread shows is that there are gazillions of ways of representing and playing the game. I feel I fall into neither category presented in this thread, and, in fact, part of my problem with the skill/art thread was that there are so many fine points of DM'ing style and play-style that you really can't create categories that suit everyone.
> 
> A little from column A, a little from column B, a little from Column C sub-section 3...





I completely agree. I made this observation (the thread) as a philosophical point about a function of game theory, especially as regards the theory of "heroic fantasy" games. I cannot say how or to what degree the idea of "give it to me" in any given game or world setting may function. (Indeed I have given my players and their characters their wishes, never at their request, but I have given them what they wanted or thought would make them more effective - I am not arguing for denial, I am arguing against entitltlement.) But if you take the idea of give it to me to its natural, logical, and eventual extreme then that leaves almost no room in that world for real heroism to function. Or even appear. As an ideal, and as a mechanic, the idea (give me what I wish because I have done such and such a thing, therefore I deserve the reward I most desire) of obtaining your desires simply because you desire them (through whatever actual means) is not I suspect going to lead to heroism of any kind. 

Now this is not to say that heroes should not make demands, should not wish for things, should not even say things like, "if only I had a Holy Avenger sword, think of how effective I would have been against that demon and of how many of the lives of the villagers I could have saved."  Or that the DM shouldn't pay attention to such observations. 

But saying you want something, some device, article, or piece of equipment to make yourself more effective is far different from earning it, and from saying, "next time I go out I want, wish, or deserve this."

Anywho, although I haven't had the time to read everyone's response yet, I'm in kind of a rush right now getting the family ready for church. I'll try to respond to other points later on, and thanks for the responses thus far even if I don't agree with ya.

I was trying not so much to stimulate an emotional argument, as a philosophical one. But of someone wants to argue from their emotional response feel free to do so. I hope no one will hammer another if their emotions get riled up though.

You don't have to worry about me. I don't take things said to me on the internet personally, it's just an argument as far as I'm concerned. But I hope nobody goes plum wild and gets the thread shut down.

I wanna see what others think about the connection between entitlement and heroism.

See ya, and carry on ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 8, 2009)

Hyperbole notwithstanding, I agree with Jack7 on the basic premise that, generally speaking, there are two polar views on the interaction between _setting_ and _ characters_ in your typical D&D campaign.  One end of the spectrum is that the setting does indeed exist to serve the player characters, that it should be designed at all levels to support the preferences of the players. The other end of the spectrum is that the world is defined, it exists as it does and the player characters meet the world and interact with it on its terms, dealing with its challenges and rewards.  But as a continuum rather than merely two options, most campaigns, I think, exists somewhere between the two.

Also, while I think that any edition can be played anywhere along the continuum as a matter of agreement between the players and the DM, edition matters in regards to the _assumed_ location along the continuum.  Earlier editions, with random treasure tables and encounter tables based on environment, lean toward the "world side". Later editions with concepts of Level Appropriate and Wish lists lean toward the "PC side".  But even so, where the campaign sits has far more to do with what happens at the table than what is found in the rulebooks.

As to the relationship between heroism and entitlement (in general, not as a commentary on editions) is that the more "freebies" the DM gives the PCs, the less heroic they are.  heroism (to me) is defined as the struggle against adversity, and the reduction of that adversity by fudging dice or providing all the right/best items or arranging events so the PCs are always on the "right track" reduces adversity and therefore reduces heroism (and cheapens victories).

I tend toward the "here's the world, it's a dangerous place, go master it!" school of DMing. As such, it is incumbant upon me, as DM, to allow PCs the freedom to interact with the "uncaring" world on their own terms, and provide the players with the information necessary to make meaningful choices and execute the world's response to their actions to the best of my ability.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 8, 2009)

Reynard said:


> As to the relationship between heroism and entitlement (in general, not as a commentary on editions) is that the more "freebies" the DM gives the PCs, the less heroic they are. heroism (to me) is defined as the struggle against adversity, and the reduction of that adversity by fudging dice or providing all the right/best items or arranging events so the PCs are always on the "right track" reduces adversity and therefore reduces heroism (and cheapens victories).



Fancy logic, but you're taking theoretical extremes and then extrapolating back to apply your reasoning to the completely benign.  If I've got a player who's vision for that character is, amongst other things like personality and physical appearance, a desert dervish wielding two flaming scimitars, I'm not "reducing adversity" if I provide him a means to actually obtain said scimitars.  

At most I'm altering and bypassing a genre convention that states that magic weaponry and equipment is to be found at random by scavenging amongst the dead, in contrast to the genre conventions of other styles of fantasy (such as comic books) where magic items are intrinsic to the wielder.


----------



## Fenes (Mar 8, 2009)

I think it may come as a shock, but there's nothing heroic in _playing _D&D. Characters maybe heroic, players are not. A character doesn't know whether the sword he found was placed there after a wishlist, or by random rolls on a table. Neither makes his recovery of the sword more or less heroic. I consider the difference only relevant for metagaming, not for roleplaying.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> At most I'm altering and bypassing a genre convention that states that magic weaponry and equipment is to be found at random by scavenging amongst the dead, in contrast to the genre conventions of other styles of fantasy (such as comic books) where magic items are intrinsic to the wielder.




Absolutely true, but neither style of play or meta-genre is superior to the other. To me, though, the "super hero fantasy" meta-genre is less fun and will therefore obviously color my opinions on such matters. I for one don't think "carries two flaming scimitars" is a viable aspect of "character concept" in the same way that "desert dervish" is.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 8, 2009)

Fenes said:


> I consider the difference only relevant for metagaming, not for roleplaying.




Metagaming and roleplaying are not opposites; both exist in any given example or aspect of play. In fact, I'd go so far to say that they cannot be separated, nor can one exist without the other. Character sheets, dice, miniatures: these are all metagaming conventions. Descriptive "text", NPC interactions, funny voices: these are all roleplaying conventions.  RPGs are a game genre that mixes the two -- not always in equal measure, but never* one without the other.

*At least, I have never seen an RPG that doesn't include both that still qualifies as an RPG, as opposed to a "wargame" or a "group storytelling activity".


----------



## FireLance (Mar 8, 2009)

Jack7 said:


> _I am not saying that the game does not exist for the sake of the players_, it obviously does. (After all, it, as a gaming device must have a pragmatic function. And that function is as a setting for imaginary action of the players through the agency of their character.) I am saying it does not exist for the sake of the characters, as in, _it does not exist to service the wishes of the characters._



I'm glad that you're making a distinction between the player and the character, because wish lists are entirely a player issue. There is no realistic, in-game way for a character to make demands on the universe short of wishes and other similar magic. A character may voice a desire for a specific magic item, but from the character's perspective, it would be no different from me telling my wife that I would like to have a million dollars.


> If the characters are supposed to be heroes, then to be brutally honest, heroes don't run around saying, _"I want this, or I demand that."_ Heroes say I'll sacrifice for this and I'll risk for that. And just because they find the world not to their liking, doesn't mean they start demanding it had better become the way they want in order for them to do their job.



Again, the characters can't demand anything of the world. The players might make requests of the DM, but short of very specific in-game scenarios, e.g. the characters know that a certain temple has a magic item that will help them on their quest and issue an ultimatum that they will not embark on the mission if it is not given to them, this will not be played out within the game.


> Now heroes, like anyone, have needs. They need certain things to operate effectively. But when they don't get exactly what they want that is never an obstacle to action. Nor is not getting your wish list in any way reflective of being a hero. But I can see the opposite as being suppressive of heroism. Getting what you want all of the time does not make you heroic, it can make you a lot of things, spoiled, self-absorbed, entitled, dependent, lazy. But I've never seen getting what you want all of the time make anyone heroic. Heroism is the opposite of being given things. It is earning things, and sacrificing things. You cannot encourage the idea of "getting what you want when and how you want it" and the idea of heroism simultaneously. One idea becomes more alluring than the other, or one idea becomes more important than the other.



So make your players earn the items on their wish lists before you give them to their characters. It isn't that difficult, you know.


----------



## Fenes (Mar 8, 2009)

Well, let me clarify: Someone who can't play a character that fears death even though he knows that the character won't die is not someone I'll play a roleplaying game with. That's where I draw the metagaming line.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 8, 2009)

Reynard said:


> I for one don't think "carries two flaming scimitars" is a viable aspect of "character concept" in the same way that "desert dervish" is.



Bilbo and Frodo had Sting.  Aragorn had Anduril, Flame of the West.  Elric had Stormbringer.  I could go on.

Wolverine has claws, Ichigo has Zangetsu, Li-Mu Bai had the Green Destiny Sword...

I'm sure these characters would have been just as thematic if Bilbo and Frodo had to deal with Stormbringer, Aragorn had triple claws that went *SNICKT*, Elric had Sting, Wolverine had Anduril, Flame of the West, Ichigo had the Green Destiny Sword, and Li-Mu Bai had Zangetsu.


----------



## Dragon Snack (Mar 8, 2009)

It looks like everyone can agree with this statement...



Jack7 said:


> This will undoubtedly make some people angry.



I almost didn't read your post because it started with this disclaimer, but I'm glad I did.  While I could never subscribe completely to the latter ideas in a game world, I realize you're using absolutes in both cases.

I think it highlights something that had been bugging me about D&D (or maybe just my former group) for a few years.  And an honest assessment shows that I was guilty of it myself as a player (although 'heroic fantasy' isn't as much of a draw for me as just 'fantasy').

I subscribe to FireLance's ideals, but something in me thinks that was your point after all...

Of course, I could be completely wrong.



(I really hate 'reputation' points on message boards, but +1 rep anyway)


----------



## FireLance (Mar 8, 2009)

Fenes said:


> Well, let me clarify: Someone who can't play a character that fears death even though he knows that the character won't die is not someone I'll play a roleplaying game with. That's where I draw the metagaming line.



Actually, I think a much better way to frame this discussion would have been to ask whether certain game conventions, e.g. wish lists and the presumption that the characters would be facing "balanced" encounters, serve to increase the difference between the player's mental state and that of the character's, whether this could cause the character's in-game actions to seem artificial and contrived, and if so, what can be done to counter it.

It is arguable that when a novice player, who is himself unsure whether his 1st-level character could defeat the enemies his party is facing, says that his character stays and fights, the action seems more heroic than when the same 1st-level character is played by an experienced player who knows that his PC has a good chance of winning the fight.

To take another example, if a character finds a magic item similar to, but less powerful than, one on the player's wish list, would the player's feelings of disappointment that he did not get the item he wanted color the character's presumed excitement at finding a magic item in the first place?

Assuming you agree with the design goals of more balanced encounters and wish lists in the first place, what can be done to make the player's mental state closer to the character's mental state, and presumably, make the character's reactions seem more realistic?

EDIT: Actually, I've forked this post off into another thread here, if anyone is interested in addressing these issues specifically.


----------



## Hellzon (Mar 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> I'm sure these characters would have been just as thematic if Bilbo and Frodo had to deal with Stormbringer, Aragorn had triple claws that went *SNICKT*, Elric had Sting, Wolverine had Anduril, Flame of the West, Ichigo had the Green Destiny Sword, and Li-Mu Bai had Zangetsu.




Well, it's an interesting start of a campaign at least.
(But yes, give Frodo Stormbringer, taking it away from Elric, and you have two vastly different concepts indeed.)


----------



## Mallus (Mar 8, 2009)

Where did this whole "wish list" meme come from all of a sudden? (My guess is the Isle of the Straw Men...)


----------



## Reynard (Mar 8, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Where did this whole "wish list" meme come from all of a sudden? (My guess is the Isle of the Straw Men...)




The 4E DMG.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Bilbo and Frodo had Sting.  Aragorn had Anduril, Flame of the West.  Elric had Stormbringer.  I could go on.
> 
> Wolverine has claws, Ichigo has Zangetsu, Li-Mu Bai had the Green Destiny Sword...
> 
> I'm sure these characters would have been just as thematic if Bilbo and Frodo had to deal with Stormbringer, Aragorn had triple claws that went *SNICKT*, Elric had Sting, Wolverine had Anduril, Flame of the West, Ichigo had the Green Destiny Sword, and Li-Mu Bai had Zangetsu.




There's a difference, I think between building a character concept that starts with an integral weapon, for example, and a character concept that requires somewhere along the way for the character to gain this item. But more importantly, it is something that I wouldn't want in the games I run, at least insofar as having a player say "I want twin flaming scimitars" but in game a pair of flaming scimitars showing up in the next level appropriate horde.  If the player (and his character) really want a pair of twin flaming scimitars, I'm more than happy to provide them in the context of the setting (the great dervish demon slayer of the past used them and now they are buried with him in his grand tomb, or whatever). But it is up to the player to go get them (and convince the rest of the group that it will be worth their while to accompany him).

To be honest, I am far less a fan of the setting being "level responsive" to the PCs than I am to accomodating players in achieving certain goals or even finding certain items. If Jade Jaws the green dragon that lives in the Big Wood is an ancient wyrm, he's an ancient wyrm whether the PCs go pester him at 20th level or 1st. If the King of Long-goninia had a Vorbal Hackmaster +12, that's what's to be found in his tomb, regardless of whether the item is "too powerful" for the PCs when they find it.  Relatedly, if the random treasure table comes up with a +1 scimitar when the group's fighter is specialized in the long sword, it remains a +1 scimitar. If the fighter wants a magic longsword, he'll have to go find one or wait for the dice to favor his character generation choice.

(As a quick aside, i always thought this was a good balancing mechanic for the exotic and often superior weapons -- they were less likely to show up on the random magic item chart.)


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2009)

First, starting a thread with "I know this is going to make people angry, but I'm going to post it anyway" skirts so closely to the obvious intent of EN World's rules (and the boundaries of basic courtesy), that I very nearly closed this thread on sight.  If you know something's going to upset someone, _don't post it_.

I think that there's a basic logical fallacy inherent in this post.  The first of the two premises (the world exists for the characters) is, indeed, an approach to running a game; it is not, however, as claimed, "in order to power up", it is "in order to have more fun".

A game which accomodates the PCs is more fun for the players, in my opinion.  Who needs to know what the name of the innkeeper of Tavern #724a in pre-created village #49c enjoys for breakfast in the morning?  If the PCs happen to interact with him, then yes, that information may become relevant; otherwise it is, in my mind, (a) wasted effort on the part of the DM who could spend his time working on the things that lead to fun for the players; and (b) not really of any interest to anyone, other than a particularly self-absorbed DM.  One that, presumably, should be writing novels not D&D adventures.

I'm not saying world-building is bad, per-se.  A lot of DMs derive a great deal of pleasure from it, and it can enhance the imersion elements of a game.  But ascribing nefarious motives to anyone who doesn't indulge in the process is plain wrong.

In my own games, I detail little outside of the immediate interactive sphere of the players.  I try to make sure they are able to enjoy their characters as much as I possible can (which, yes, means saying "yes" a lot).  To me, we're here to have some fun, not to run a scientific simulation of a fantasy world.  

The stories accomodate the players' interests; why would I want to force five people to sit down and play a game contrary to their interests?  Why would I not want to give them as much fun as I can?  

The basic fallacy in the initial post is the equating of "fun" with "power-ups".  Having your rogue do cool stuff is fun!  Having your rogue count his rations is, for many people, not fun. 

Both approaches are equally valid, and appeal to different people.  There is nothng inherently wrong with either.  I enjoy the first; others may enjoy the latter.  But nowhere do I equate fun with power-ups.


----------



## Moon_Goddess (Mar 8, 2009)

Jack7 said:


> _I am not saying that the game does not exist for the sake of the players_, it obviously does. (After all, it, as a gaming device must have a pragmatic function. And that function is as a setting for imaginary action of the players through the agency of their character.) I am saying it does not exist for the sake of the characters, as in, _it does not exist to service the wishes of the characters._
> 
> If the characters are supposed to be heroes, then to be brutally honest, heroes don't run around saying, _"I want this, or I demand that."_ Heroes say I'll sacrifice for this and I'll risk for that. And just because they find the world not to their liking, doesn't mean they start demanding it had better become the way they want in order for them to do their job.
> 
> Now heroes, like anyone, have needs. They need certain things to operate effectively. But when they don't get exactly what they want that is never an obstacle to action. Nor is not getting your wish list in any way reflective of being a hero. But I can see the opposite as being suppressive of heroism. Getting what you want all of the time does not make you heroic, it can make you a lot of things, spoiled, self-absorbed, entitled, dependent, lazy. But I've never seen getting what you want all of the time make anyone heroic. Heroism is the opposite of being given things. It is earning things, and sacrificing things. You cannot encourage the idea of "getting what you want when and how you want it" and the idea of heroism simultaneously. One idea becomes more alluring than the other, or one idea becomes more important than the other.





It seems like you read my post, but you didn't truely grok what I was saying.

Your tying player and character too close together.   I am not Saraz, she is not me,  I am not Larinza, either.

The game, the world of the game, exists for my enjoyment.    Saraz doesn't demand anything, she doesn't believe there is a DM guiding her world and she doesn't actually believe in gods either so she'd never presume to ask for certain things to come to her.     Now I, I am not Saraz, me asking for her to get a new orb does not make her less heroic.

My own hardships and it's relationship to my heroism, is beyond the scope of this thread, but I will never believe that me getting an imaginary orb for my character will affect my personal heroism quotient in any noticeable way.   Saraz however has no idea that I asked for her to get that orb.    In her point of veiw the orb is no different to her than the dagger that was randomly rolled, she finds them both in the same loot pile.


Do you get what I'm saying?


----------



## FourthBear (Mar 8, 2009)

Reynard said:


> The 4E DMG.



Wish lists were specifically mentioned on page 125 of the 4e DMG.  It should be noted that they are not proscribed as the necessary way of doing things, they are recommended as an easy and straightforward way of finding out the kind of magic items a player is interested in.  I've read  WotC adventures that have made the assumption that the reading DM has taken this advice as a default, however.

The Treasure section of the 4e DMG does also recommend tailoring magic items found in adventuring to the group, even if wish lists aren't used.  This is explicitly intended to increase the chances that finding a magic item that the players will be excited by, rather than putting in a pile to be sold or disenchanted.  

Like much of the 4e DMG, I think this is good advice for beginning DMs, who might not have the time, experience or inclination to simply look over the PCs and figure out what items would be most complementary.  The wish list method recruits the players into figuring out the magic item lists, which I believe can be confusing in their size and variety.  

Does tailored treasure result in rather coincidental events?  Certainly.  However, I'd rather deal with that than having to have more frequent sessions around the selling, bartering and disenchanting of high level magic items that no player has an interest in.  It may be more "realistic", but I find it a time wasting nuisance.  Unless you remove the ability to enchant, disenchant or purchase magic items, it's more often a speed bump until the players get what they actually wanted, a few levels later.  I see wish lists less as a nefarious method to create spoiled players and more of a tool of convenience for the table.  Much like how convenient items frequently show up in the fantasy story source material.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 8, 2009)

Reynard said:


> There's a difference, I think between building a character concept that starts with an integral weapon, for example, and a character concept that requires somewhere along the way for the character to gain this item.



Of COURSE there's a difference. The difference is that D&D doesn't let you start with Stormbringer at level 1. 

Hence the need to skirt genre conventions by discussing matters with your DM.


> But more importantly, it is something that I wouldn't want in the games I run, at least insofar as having a player say "I want twin flaming scimitars" but in game a pair of flaming scimitars showing up in the next level appropriate horde. If the player (and his character) really want a pair of twin flaming scimitars, I'm more than happy to provide them in the context of the setting (the great dervish demon slayer of the past used them and now they are buried with him in his grand tomb, or whatever). But it is up to the player to go get them (and convince the rest of the group that it will be worth their while to accompany him).



Translation: Reynard :hearts: wishlists.

If you insist on visualizing wishlists as some sort of ridiculous characature of gaming in which a PC says, "I need a flaming vorpal greataxe +3, my +2 is too weak now," and the DM says something like, "Oh, ok, well, you see one in the gelatinous cube up ahead," then I'm not surprised you don't like them. But the way they tend to work tends to be more like what you described above, except that your example seems to suggest that sort of thing should only be done as sidequests. I'm not sure if you intended that, but of course there's no reason it has to be sidequest material only. If I know that one of my PCs has armor that's kind of obsolete for his level, and if I'm statting up a couple of NPC bad guys, its not THAT hard to make sure that one of them has good armor for the PC in question. Surely that doesn't break verisimilitude. He needed some kind of armor, and that one's as good as anything else.


> To be honest, I am far less a fan of the setting being "level responsive" to the PCs than I am to accomodating players in achieving certain goals or even finding certain items. If Jade Jaws the green dragon that lives in the Big Wood is an ancient wyrm, he's an ancient wyrm whether the PCs go pester him at 20th level or 1st.



This brings up yet again the point I made in my first post. _Jade Jaws ain't real._ He lives wherever you, as the DM, say. He's whatever level you, as the DM, say. Your argument only makes sense if Jade Jaws has objective traits external to your decisions, which obviously he doesn't. You can't use the objective nature of the game world to justify your decisions about how to design the game world because prior to your designing it the game world has no traits at all, much less objective ones.

Now that isn't to say that there isn't sometimes reason to have Jade Jaws the ancient wyrm who lives in the Big Wood nearby, even though the players are first level. And if the players have enough information to make meaningful decisions (very key, this point), I suppose that if they decide to go suicide themselves in a futile battle of level 1 PCs versus Jade Jaws the ancient green dragon wyrm, then I guess that's what happens. 

Though I generally find that players don't intentionally suicide the whole party fighting ancient wyrms they know they can't beat, so if they DO attack Jade Jaws at level 1, that suggests that they weren't as clued in to the whole "ancient wyrm in the Big Wood will kill you DEAD" thing as the DM probably thought.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 8, 2009)

There is nothing wrong with players expecting opportunities to be heroic, but I agree with the OP's general point that the game world shouldn't be there to simply service their characters. Actually I noticed this problem emerge about 5-6 years ago in my own game. Prior to that I had never had players come to me with "Wish lists". People would occassionally tell me what they liked, would hope to see or encounter, and what they wanted; but they didn't have literal wish lists. Then I noticed players bringing me long lists of what they wanted in the game. Though I am a fan of 3E, I have to pin the blame on 3rd edition for this. The wish lists seemed to be a product of character builds, which were so essential to 3E. Players needed access to specific magic items, storylines, and experiences in order to make the character they had built via the multiclass/prestige class system of 3E.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 8, 2009)

Hmmm... I tend to prefer to look at this as, "The DM doesn't exist for the players."

Now, when I say it that way, the first thing that is going to happen is that someone is going to rightfully jump me, and say, "Of course the DM exists for the players."

And they'll be right.

But, in the same way that they are right that the DM does exist for the players, the players also exist for the DM.   There is a mutual obligation between the players and the DM to create 'the fun'.  However, neither the player nor the DM is the mere servant of the other.  Thus, neither the players nor the DM fully exist for the other one either.

There is a mutuality - a back and forth, a give and take, a communion - between the players and the DM, and between the characters and the world.

The players aren't simply toys for the DM's amusement, and _the DM isn't simply a toy for the players amusement_.  Everyone has a stake at the table, and frankly no one has put a bigger stake in to the game than the DM.   To paraphrase the old saying about mother's, "If the DM isn't happy, then nobody is happy."  The existance of the table depends on the DM more than any one player.  If the DM loses interest in the game, then the campaign collapses and as often as not (in my experience) the group collapses. 

From my perspective, if a player were to hand me a list of goodies that he wanted, I would find it inherently antagonistic.  I find it to be the same quality of anti-social play inherent in a DM that changes the adventure because the players are winning too easily.  I find it to be the same quality of antagonistic play as a DM who invents strings of unavoidable zany traps to show off, or who has pet NPC's that are effectively his all power, immortal player characters.

A player that demanded of me that they be given something, that the world conform to their wishes for power and influence and 'the win', is basically saying to me, "I don't trust you.  I think you are just out to screw me (like all DM's) and so I demand authority over your world.  I'm going to set the terms of the game that you must abide by, and you exist merely to provide me with validation of my awesomeness.  Moreover, if you don't, then I'm going to throw a temper tantrum."  Maybe that isn't how it is intended.  Maybe the player has very good reasons to distrust DM's and think that they are just going to screw him.  But whatever the cause of the demand, it would seem highly antogonistic to me.  It would seem to me as a DM much the same that a DM turning to me and saying, "No, your character doesn't want to do that.", would seem to me as a player.  

Basically, for me, the DM never tries to play the player's character for him, and the player never tries to run the world for the DM.  The player is free, and the DM is free.  Neither is the slave of the other.  The DM's responcibility is to the player, but not to grant them any particular preconcieved notions about how the world should work, what they should find, or anything else.  The player's responcibility is to the DM, but not to act out scripted parts, to be puppets in the DM's preimagined narrative, or to do exactly what the DM would do in the same situation.

When I see critics of the OP's post, almost always they seem to have this idea that either the DM is the player's whipping boy, or else he's this tyrant that is out to screw them.  I'm not out to screw them.  If anything, the player's are enjoying amazing plot protection, huge destinies, and advantages that are virtually incomparable compared to 99.99% of NPC's in the world.  I want the players to win, to succeed, to become famous, to become powerful, because a story that involves growth and change is more interesting than one that doesn't.  I want the players to have fun.  That's what keeps the game going, and excited involved players are far more entertaining to me than players that are just going through the motions.

But none of that implies to me that I have to give the players exactly what they want down to the particular magic item.  A player that feels that they can't have fun without getting precisely that 'perfect' magic item is to me no different than a DM who feels that they can't have fun unless the players are helplessly toiling against the DM's all powerful traps and NPC's with no chance of success except what the DM stoops to give them.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Fancy logic, but you're taking theoretical extremes and then extrapolating back to apply your reasoning to the completely benign.  If I've got a player who's vision for that character is, amongst other things like personality and physical appearance, a desert dervish wielding two flaming scimitars, I'm not "reducing adversity" if I provide him a means to actually obtain said scimitars.




Part of the issue comes from how the DM provides that means. Do you look at a player's wish list and concept and draw from that list when building the treasure parcels that the PCs will encounter wherever they go? Or do you provide a means for the PC with a particular hankering for an item to research ancient legends and find a likely place for said item to be?

I think there's a real difference in those two methods.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 8, 2009)

Long ago in a magazine called Dragon they presented the First Rule of Dungeoncraft: 



			
				Dungeoncraft said:
			
		

> Never force yourself to create more than you must




Its a simple rule to force DMs to remember who is the PROTAGONIST of the story, the PCs. (Note: not hero, not most important, but whose eyes the story will be seen). 

The first example Jack7 laid out was just that: Focus the story (and thus the game) around them. Bob the fighter will find a magic bastard sword because, well, he's specialized in bastard sword, not halbred. There is no point to rolling up a staff of the Wilderness for a druidless party. If no one can wear heavy armor, that +5 Plate is just so much GP (or residuum in 4e). 

Still, it extends beyond that. Things happen simply because the PCs are there. Why are bandits attacking the town of Restenford? Because the PCs just entered the town or Restenford. Or they are from Restenford, heard about the attacks, and decide to defend their home. Etc. No one cares of Restenford has a bandit problem unless it involves the PCs somehow. Few DMs would bother to create a bandit problem in Restenford unless it was supposed to involve the PCs. While sometimes grander plots exist beyond the scope of what the PCs are doing (Oh noes! the King is really a vampire!) Events that happen when the PCs aren't involved are wasted thought.

The trick is to make Restenford's bandit problem LOOK like a natural, random occurrence WHILE actually making it about the PCs. That is the key to good DMing. However, it doesn't make the world a simulation, it still only matters because the PCs are going to get involved in it.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 8, 2009)

The above poster makes some good points. Something people often overlook. Players enjoy the game less, if the DM just says yes to all their requests. As a player, if I get everything I want, there its like finding a cheat on a video game. It gets boring really fast. If the setting always bends to my will, there really is no challenge. It is reverse railroading.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 8, 2009)

Reynard said:


> Hyperbole notwithstanding, I agree with Jack7 on the basic premise that, generally speaking, there are two polar views on the interaction between _setting_ and _ characters_ in your typical D&D campaign.  One end of the spectrum is that the setting does indeed exist to serve the player characters, that it should be designed at all levels to support the preferences of the players. The other end of the spectrum is that the world is defined, it exists as it does and the player characters meet the world and interact with it on its terms, dealing with its challenges and rewards.  But as a continuum rather than merely two options, most campaigns, I think, exists somewhere between the two.
> 
> Also, while I think that any edition can be played anywhere along the continuum as a matter of agreement between the players and the DM, edition matters in regards to the _assumed_ location along the continuum.  Earlier editions, with random treasure tables and encounter tables based on environment, lean toward the "world side". Later editions with concepts of Level Appropriate and Wish lists lean toward the "PC side".  But even so, where the campaign sits has far more to do with what happens at the table than what is found in the rulebooks.
> 
> ...





This.

I could not have put it better.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Ichigo has Zangetsu




Nice! Mad props for the Bleach reference!


----------



## Ourph (Mar 8, 2009)

Reynard said:


> Earlier editions, with random treasure tables and encounter tables based on environment, lean toward the "world side". Later editions with concepts of Level Appropriate and Wish lists lean toward the "PC side".



Earlier editions also suggested that the monsters in a dungeon arrange themselves by level, with mostly Level 1 monsters on Level 1 (the level that the 1st level PCs would encounter first), Level 2 monsters on the next floor down and etc., so that players knew that the "deeper" they went into a dungeon the more dangeorus it would get. That doesn't strike me as being particularly on the side of "the world exists irrespective of the PCs".


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 8, 2009)

Morrus said:


> If you know something's going to upset someone, _don't post it_.




If everyone followed this advice we'd have a pretty sparse forum. Obviously there are degrees of potential offensiveness, but let's face it: Just about every "something" is going to offend "someone", and for whatever reason RPGers, as a bunch, tend to take offense relatively quick-and-easily, especially when they think that--erroneously or not--Someone Else is telling them how to play RPGs. The worst offense of all! 

See, I probably just offended someone with Something I wrote.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 8, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Bob the fighter will find a magic bastard sword because, well, he's specialized in bastard sword, not halbred. There is no point to rolling up a staff of the Wilderness for a druidless party. If no one can wear heavy armor, that +5 Plate is just so much GP (or residuum in 4e).




There are limits to that though.  If Druids exist in the world, then they exist somewhere.  I may imagine for the sake of making the campaign world interesting, that in a copse outside of town in an ancient stone ring, a group of druids meet to examine the stars and determine in their wisdom how best to shape the course of events so as to maintain harmony in the realm.  Perhaps these druids become important to the campaign.  Perhaps I just intend them as a temporary obstacle in the path of the players.  Whatever purpose I had in creating them, they are there, and the answer to whether or not they have magic items isn't, "Well, do the PC's have a druid in the party?"  Because if the answer to that question depends on anything about the player party, then I really am screwing the players.

I don't decide, "The Grand Druid has a +5 staff of the wilderness because he's supposed to be the awesome, and if the player's mess with him - look out."  I don't decide, "I can give the Grand Druid a +5 staff of wilderness because none of the players in the party can use it, and I can always say when they take it, that it doesn't have many charges left and so isn't very valuable."   And likewise, I don't generally decide, "I'm going to give the Grand Druid a +5 staff of wilderness, because there is a druid in the party."

If the Grand Druid has a +5 staff of the wilderness, it's because it seems logical that if anyone has one it should be the Grand Druid.  If there are magical bastard swords out there, it isn't because the player choose one.  There are rings of elemental control out there too, but they probably aren't just lying around as easy pickings.

It is very different to assume that the bandits show up in Resterford because the PC's are there, than it is to assume that the bandits only show up because the PC's are there.  If bandits really do show in Resterford solely because the PC's are there, the PC's aren't heroes but jinxs, and they'll probably start feeling liked jinxs rather than heroes after not too long.  Generally, from the perspective of the player's, either the players should show up in Resterford because the bandits or there, or else the poor people 20 miles away in Offstageville have run out money (because the PC's weren't there), and so now the bandits have taken there act to Resterford.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 8, 2009)

I am surprised that no one seems to have yet posted the position that I would hold, namely, the world exists for the sake of the DM, who is the author of the world.  Part of the joy of DMing is then in presenting this world to others for their enjoyment.  It is very similar, IMO, to the actions of an author who creates a world and then gives it to readers for what he hopes is their approval.

As a player, when I get to play, the enjoyment comes from exploring someone elses world.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 8, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> If the setting always bends to my will, there really is no challenge. It is reverse railroading.




Fortunately, it's very rare that anyone (4e DMs included) always does anything. "It's a good idea to find out what your players want from the game" =/= "Always give the players everything they ask for".


----------



## Kishin (Mar 8, 2009)

Mercurius said:


> The second crime, you wonder? It is the worst: You mention Middle-earth and World of Warcraft in the same breath! Alas, alas! May the Great Eagles carry me away to distant Valinor, where only her golden woods may heal my blighted soul!




This is actually not too hard to do, considering how shamelessly both worlds rip from Norse mythology.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Of COURSE there's a difference. The difference is that D&D doesn't let you start with Stormbringer at level 1.
> 
> Hence the need to skirt genre conventions by discussing matters with your DM.




I think that idea is ultimately irrelevant to Reynard's point about eventually getting ahold of a particular device vs the concept. I don't believe Sting is an integral part of either Bilbo's or Frodo's character concept. It's a convenient tool for a few points of action, but tangential to the main point or primary action of the characters. 
For Elric and Aragorn, their swords are part of their character concepts. But both must take pains to actually get them and, as D&D characters, would have significant life before achieving that character+sword concept. Elric contacts Arioch and goes specifically to find the blade. Viewed as a D&D PC, his search is entirely PC initiated. Aragorn totes around a broken sword for decades before being ready, proving his readiness, and before world events determine the time is ripe.


----------



## Kichwas (Mar 8, 2009)

First approach: setting exists for the characters.
Second approach: characters exist for the setting.

The first approach assumes a gamist approach. You are there for the game experience, and the setting and story are secondary or tertiary (in varying orders and degrees of importance).

The second approach assumes a simulationist approach. You are there for the roleplay, either based around story creation or setting simulation, and gamist concerns are tertiary.

(There's a third model in here somewhere obviously - as story driven and simulation driven are very different, but neither fits your first model. Rather your second model is the 'more or less fit' for them.)

Good roleplay can happen in the first approach, but its not the key driving force. The first approach is better suited to a group who's driving concern is the game. The setting is a backdrop, but they're really there to experience the mechanics of the game engine. If that's your group, you want the first approach. If that's not your group, you should avoid the first approach.

If your group is there for the story, or the setting (and setting groups are not so common as GM egos like to pretend they are), you want some version of the second approach. This is the group that, in its extreme form, could just as well go diceless or systemless. They want to engage in spinning a yarn, experiencing drama, story, romance and tension.

It might seem like you want the setting to be made for the characters in that second group... to meet their every demand... but that's actually the opposite of what you want. The setting needs to be there, and uncaring, because the tension they desire is the tension of fitting into it, of becoming 'real people in a world' and living the lives of those people. The setting, not the game engine, becomes the challenge. Giving them a setting that exist to serve their characters would be like giving a group of gamists a game engine that always rolled the die result that led to success. It defeats the challenge they are there for.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 8, 2009)

At my table, the game exists so that 6 guys can sit around a table together, have fun and laughs and do some roleplaying.  The game exists for the players, the campaign world exists for the PCs.

How that plays out in-game will vary from adventure to adventure.  I ask for wishlists.  Not because I think everyone should get exactly what they want, but because it helps me understand what the player wants out of the PC he/she wants to play.  I use the lists to build stories that match the kind of PC they want to develop.  At the same time, the players don't purposefully to willy-nilly off in a direction that I haven't prepared or planned out because they want me to tell a story that match the kind of PC they want to develop.  These thigns aren't mutually exclusive and they are part of the assumed gaming contract we make when the campaign starts.

I build what the players want, the players go in places that I am prepared for.  NONE of this has to do with the PCs nor the campaign setting.  These things are metagame topics that, while threaded in with the in-game situations and circumstances, don't reflect the PC wants or actions, nor does it reflect the actual make-up of my campaign world.  

Just because I am not prepared for the PCs to go far to the west doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.  But the players will not try to find out what is in the far west because the game is more enjoyable by all if they play in a region where the DM is prepared to tell stories.

As others have stated, the PCs don't provide wishlists, the players do.  The PCs don't exist for the gameworld, because, well the whole of the gameworld isn't detailed out yet.  The world shapes itself by the actions of the PCs.   (I don't mean the physical landscape.... obviously I mean the adventures, plots, stories, interesting NPCs, magic items, etc....)

I hope some of that rambling mess made sense....


----------



## FourthBear (Mar 8, 2009)

I don't think any of this issue has much to do with the quality or quantity of roleplaying around the table.  You can justify requesting magic item lists from players from both a gamist and roleplaying perspective.  You can also condemn requesting magic item lists from both a gamist and roleplaying perspective.

Gamist Pro: Allowing players to choose magic items allows them to customize their PCs abilities to meet challenges as they choose.  Part of the game is choosing the right equipment for the challenge.

Gamist Con: Allow players to choose magic items removes the challenge of dealing with random treasure and/or DM placed treasure.  Part of the game is making the most of what random tables, prepublished adventures and the DM grant you.

Roleplaying Pro: Allowing players to choose magic items allows them to customize their characters as they wish and get such issues out of the way in a quick, efficient fashion.  Not allowing this just throws in a gamist challenge in addition that results in time spent on selling, bartering and seeking magic items.  By making them less easily available, you make them more important.   The stories that inspire D&D frequently have such convenient insertion of useful items.

Roleplaying Con: Allowing players to choose magic items results in contrivance and player expectations.  Obtaining and dealing with unexpected magic items can represent a significant role playing challenge and help establish world verisimilitude.  The contrivance of finding well suited magic items breaks immersion.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2009)

Mercurius said:


> If everyone followed this advice we'd have a pretty sparse forum. Obviously there are degrees of potential offensiveness, but let's face it: Just about every "something" is going to offend "someone", and for whatever reason RPGers, as a bunch, tend to take offense relatively quick-and-easily, especially when they think that--erroneously or not--Someone Else is telling them how to play RPGs. The worst offense of all!




That wasn't advice: them's the rules here, whether or not you personally agree with their effectiveness.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 8, 2009)

FourthBear said:


> Roleplaying Pro: Allowing players to choose magic items allows them to customize their characters...




Except, that's not a roleplaying concern.  I don't set down to the table as a player going, "I need to have a +4 shield."  I set down thinking things like, "How is my cleric going to see this meeting as an oppurtunity to further understanding and community spirit."   The fact that I have or don't have a +4 shield is utterly incidental to my character and even less important to my characterization.  The only way the shield has any meaning to me as a player _at all_ is if it is the 'Aegis of St. Glanvent', which makes my character have some distinction like 'the bearer of the Aegis of St. Glanvent'.  Otherwise, it's just a shield.  I don't really care that the Aegis of St. Glanvent is a +4 shield except to the extent that its intrinsic magic worth demonstrates the importance of being 'the bearer of the Aegis of St. Glanvent'.  

So do you see how even from my perspective as a player, how a 'wish list' inherently conflicts with my needs and desires as a player?  The very fact that some other player at the table is handing in a list that reads, "+4 cloak of resistance, +3 ghosttouch bastard sword", or some other crap like that _is cramping my fun_ because from my perspective that player doesn't even have his mind on the game.  He's busy playing Diablo or some such, rather than a PnP rpg.



> ...Not allowing this just throws in a gamist challenge in addition that results in time spent on selling, bartering and seeking magic items.  By making them less easily available, you make them more important.   The stories that inspire D&D frequently have such convenient insertion of useful items.




I'm not even sure I understand what this means.  However, the 'stories that inspire D&D' generally don't have convenient insertions of useful items.  Those items are generally meaningful for some reason other than the fact that they are 'useful', and often as not, the item is decidedly not 'convenient' in the sense of being the sort of item a PC would wish for.  'Stormbringer' is not 'convenient'.  'The One Ring' is not 'convenient'.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 8, 2009)

Mercurius said:


> If everyone followed this advice we'd have a pretty sparse forum. Obviously there are degrees of potential offensiveness, but let's face it: Just about every "something" is going to offend "someone", and for whatever reason RPGers, as a bunch, tend to take offense relatively quick-and-easily, especially when they think that--erroneously or not--Someone Else is telling them how to play RPGs. The worst offense of all!
> 
> See, I probably just offended someone with Something I wrote.




How dare you assume your post offended someone. I am someone, and I was not in any way offended by your post. It was a reasonable statement of fact, and I am outraged you so quickly conclude I don't agree.  Implying that I am somehow unable to follow your line of thought, because I once got an A- instead of an A+ on my Socratic Logic exam. I cannot believe you treat people who got A minuses as inferiors. You should be ashamed of yourself. Just because I got one A-, that doesn't mean I don't understand philosophy!


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 8, 2009)

billd91 said:


> I think that idea is ultimately irrelevant to Reynard's point about eventually getting ahold of a particular device vs the concept. I don't believe Sting is an integral part of either Bilbo's or Frodo's character concept. It's a convenient tool for a few points of action, but tangential to the main point or primary action of the characters.
> For Elric and Aragorn, their swords are part of their character concepts. But both must take pains to actually get them and, as D&D characters, would have significant life before achieving that character+sword concept. Elric contacts Arioch and goes specifically to find the blade. Viewed as a D&D PC, his search is entirely PC initiated. Aragorn totes around a broken sword for decades before being ready, proving his readiness, and before world events determine the time is ripe.



Using wishlists doesn't mean that you get random free magic items that fall from the sky.  You still have to go out and get them somehow.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 8, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Earlier editions also suggested that the monsters in a dungeon arrange themselves by level, with mostly Level 1 monsters on Level 1 (the level that the 1st level PCs would encounter first), Level 2 monsters on the next floor down and etc., so that players knew that the "deeper" they went into a dungeon the more dangeorus it would get. That doesn't strike me as being particularly on the side of "the world exists irrespective of the PCs".




It is a genre convention in older D&D that more dangerous things exist on deeper dungeon levels. But if the 1st level PCs find the stairs down (and they often did because there tended to be multiple points of entry to each level) and they hit level 2, the creatures on that level don't suddenly change "CR" to accomodate the PCs' level.  More to the point, the dungeon exists in its state, with weaker monsters up top and more powerful ones deeper down and the PCs have the freedom to (attempt to) move about those levels as they wish.  Even adventures designed for a specific level spread often included encounters -- whether on the random encounter chart or preplanned -- that did not match up to that adventure's target level.

Of course, as usual there's something of a contradiction in AD&D.  Dungeon random encounters were indeed "levelled" while wilderness encounters were not (based on terrain, instead, with entries ranging from 0 level bandits to elder dragons).  That itself is a curious thing and worthy of discussion (but another time).


----------



## Reynard (Mar 8, 2009)

Cadfan re: Jade Jaws--

It isn't a binary choice. If Jade Jaws is known to live in the Big Wood, the only options aren't "avoid the big wood" and "frontal assault against Jade Jaws".  What if the PCs have to get somewhere and their choices are to spend more time going around the Big Wood or taking a "shortcut" through and have a possibility of being dragon snack.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 8, 2009)

Reynard said:


> Cadfan re: Jade Jaws--
> 
> It isn't a binary choice. If Jade Jaws is known to live in the Big Wood, the only options aren't "avoid the big wood" and "frontal assault against Jade Jaws". What if the PCs have to get somewhere and their choices are to spend more time going around the Big Wood or taking a "shortcut" through and have a possibility of being dragon snack.



I cannot, for the life of me, see how that affects anything I said.


----------



## FourthBear (Mar 8, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> So do you see how even from my perspective as a player, how a 'wish list' inherently conflicts with my needs and desires as a player?



Inherently?  No, I don't see that at all.  I can see how you, as a particular player, may have needs and desires that are in conflict with wish lists.  In which case, I recommend you do not participate.    I think there are other players who have different needs and desires.  I do not see that there is any *inherent* conflict at all between players (including DMs) and wish lists.   If you don't want to use them, don't feel you have to.  It's the tone of moral and ethical disapproval towards wish lists that seems ridiculous to me.



Celebrim said:


> I'm not even sure I understand what this means.  However, the 'stories that inspire D&D' generally don't have convenient insertions of useful items.  Those items are generally meaningful for some reason other than the fact that they are 'useful', and often as not, the item is decidedly not 'convenient' in the sense of being the sort of item a PC would wish for.  'Stormbringer' is not 'convenient'.  'The One Ring' is not 'convenient'.




Such items were introduced, developed and placed in the story for the writer's convenience, not the characters.   The One Ring was an extremely convenient item when first introduced in The Hobbit and it played an extremely convenient role in allowing Bilbo, a character of somewhat dubious adventuring skills, to play an important role in the story.   There's no need to use scare quotes.  The One Ring *was* a highly convenient item that also was developed into a central element of a larger story.  The two concepts are not in any kind of conflict.

Are you seriously contesting that magic items introduced in fantasy stories are not frequently done so by authors as a convenient way to further the story?  Note that, again, we are speaking of the convenience of the author, not the characters.   The items aren't being generated by a random item table for the writer to respond to.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 8, 2009)

Reynard said:


> It is a genre convention in older D&D that more dangerous things exist on deeper dungeon levels.



It's not a genre convention, it's a nod to playability and ensuring that characters have a good chance of facing level-appropriate challenges. It BECAME a genre convention because, after being used for a while, people realized it worked really well.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> But if the 1st level PCs find the stairs down (and they often did because there tended to be multiple points of entry to each level) and they hit level 2, the creatures on that level don't suddenly change "CR" to accomodate the PCs' level.  More to the point, the dungeon exists in its state, with weaker monsters up top and more powerful ones deeper down and the PCs have the freedom to (attempt to) move about those levels as they wish.



And I would argue this is a perfect example of the world conforming itself to the needs of the characters/players rather than the world conforming itself to the imperatives of the world. While the tougher, bottom-level monsters didn't change their nature if lower-level PCs encountered them on their level, they also didn't roam around, changing levels in the dungeon so that 1st level PCs met the Balor that usually lived on the bottom level of the dungeon while he was upstairs on level 1 looking for a tasty Kobold snack. Are you honestly proposing that every dungeon in the game world having a top-weakest/bottom-toughest hierarchy was a "natural" design choice rather than an articifial construct based on accomodating the ability's of the characters?


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 8, 2009)

Ourph said:


> It's not a genre convention, it's a nod to playability and ensuring that characters have a good chance of facing level-appropriate challenges. It BECAME a genre convention because, after being used for a while, people realized it worked really well.




Doesn't that make it a Genre Convention?

And it didn't work very well. It was done becuase it had been done for so long no one questioned it. But toward the late 80s we all started to question its believability. It was very contrived, and required serious suspension of disbelief.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 8, 2009)

FourthBear said:


> Inherently?  No, I don't see that at all.  I can see how you, as a particular player, may have needs and desires that are in conflict with wish lists.




Err... hmmm.... 

Indeed.  I thought I just said that.



> I do not see that there is any *inherent* conflict at all between players (including DMs) and wish lists.   If you don't want to use them, don't feel you have to.  It's the tone of moral and ethical disapproval towards wish lists that seems ridiculous to me.




I very much think you are going to see what ever you want to see.  For example...



> Such items were introduced, developed and placed in the story for the writer's convenience, not the characters.




Sure.  And if you go off on a completely different topic than the one that has been under discussion, then you will find it very easy to disagree with things I haven't even addressed as long and as loudly as you like.



> Are you seriously contesting that magic items introduced in fantasy stories are not frequently done so by authors as a convenient way to further the story?  Note that, again, we are speaking of the convenience of the author, not the characters.




Are we really?  When did that happen?


----------



## Dragon Snack (Mar 8, 2009)

Reynard said:


> What if the PCs have to get somewhere and their choices are to spend more time going around the Big Wood or taking a "shortcut" through and have a possibility of being dragon snack.



Your PCs can't be me, I'm a beautiful and UNIQUE snowflake!


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 8, 2009)

Dragon Snack said:


> Your PCs can't be me, I'm a beautiful and UNIQUE snowflake!




Hey, we're all beautiful and unique snowflakes. My 7th grade Social Studies teacher said so.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 8, 2009)

Reynard said:


> The 4E DMG.



I totally missed that. Learn something new every day...

Wish lists aren't used in our campaign. The idea seems odd to me, but that could just be last gasp of my inner old-school viking hat DM. I mean, there's nothing inherently wrong with a player having some say in what treasure items defeated foes have. 

Or from the other side, what's inherently _right_ about the DM choosing the contents of treasure parcels? (or using a chart)? DM's frequently dole out items with specific characters in mind. Why guess what your players might be interested in when you can simply _ask_?

It's really just an extra level of character customization.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 8, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Doesn't that make it a Genre Convention?
> 
> And it didn't work very well. It was done becuase it had been done for so long no one questioned it. But toward the late 80s we all started to question its believability. It was very contrived, and required serious suspension of disbelief.




Very contrived? Maybe. But if you work from the assumption that the situation gets wilder and the risks grow greater the farther you radiate from a core (like, say, the farther you get from tilled and regularly patrolled fields), then it's not so hard to believe. In this case, the default core is the ground level.

Of course, it's also worth pointing out that the assumption that less dangerous stuff was at the top of a multi-layered dungeon is merely a tendency. There are limits, but also variability. You can still end up with pretty tough stuff up there by the old random encounter tables.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 8, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Are you honestly proposing that every dungeon in the game world having a top-weakest/bottom-toughest hierarchy was a "natural" design choice rather than an articifial construct based on accomodating the ability's of the characters?




No.  I don't even know how you got there, to be honest with you.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 8, 2009)

Mallus said:


> It's really just an extra level of character customization.




I think this is my problem with it, to be honest. I just plain don't like the concept of defining a character by a "signature" item -- especially at creation (an emergence defining item can be interesting, mostly because its emergent).  One of the really big issues here is that if a player incorporates a piece of equipment into the core of their character design, issues may arise when that item gets lost, stolen, broken or whatever. I use Sunder. I use item saving throws. I use Disarm. I use thieves in the night. A character's tools are just that, tools.  We aren't playing HERO (a game I love, btw) where you spent "points" on the item.  it's a shiny sword.  if it gets melted by a red dragon's fiery breath, find another one and count yourself lucky you didn't also get equally slagged.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> I cannot, for the life of me, see how that affects anything I said.




This:



> Now that isn't to say that there isn't sometimes reason to have Jade Jaws the ancient wyrm who lives in the Big Wood nearby, even though the players are first level. And if the players have enough information to make meaningful decisions (very key, this point), I suppose that if they decide to go suicide themselves in a futile battle of level 1 PCs versus Jade Jaws the ancient green dragon wyrm, then I guess that's what happens.
> 
> Though I generally find that players don't intentionally suicide the whole party fighting ancient wyrms they know they can't beat, so if they DO attack Jade Jaws at level 1, that suggests that they weren't as clued in to the whole "ancient wyrm in the Big Wood will kill you DEAD" thing as the DM probably thought.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 8, 2009)

Reynard said:


> This:



You're still not making sense.

If I had to guess, I'd say you mean this: That the PCs might encounter the ancient wyrm for legitimate reasons instead of just due to a failure of information.

Which is true, but misses the point, which isn't about the proper home of ancient wyrms but rather about the degree to which the world should be designed so that the players have a good time and don't all lose characters due to random ancient wyrms that pop out of unexpected places and kill them.

When people argue that an ancient wyrm shouldn't be living next door to the town as a sort of trap for the PCs to stumble into and die, the issue isn't the wyrm itself, its the dangerousness of the encounters the PCs are likely to get into due to the wyrm.  

If you:

1. Put the ancient wyrm next to the town, 
2. Inform the PCs of its presence and make sure they're adequately aware of the guarantee of death if they fight it, and
3. Engineer it so that if or when they have to go into the wyrm's territory they don't have to actually fight it if they play things right,

Then you've done basically the same thing as the guy who didn't put the wyrm there in the first place due to a desire not to screw over low level PCs who can't fight the wyrm.

Both of you are designing the game world such that the PCs will encounter level appropriate fights.  You're just including the risk of a level inappropriate fight if the PCs so choose, and then telling the PCs not to so choose.  Both worlds are equally engineered and the outcome is the same.

Of course, this could be completely non responsive, because I'm just guessing the meaning of your cryptic writings.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 8, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> It was very contrived, and required serious suspension of disbelief.



I see we agree. The rules obviously weren't there to help make a believable world, they were there to help make that world more play-friendly for the PCs.


----------



## Jack7 (Mar 8, 2009)

I want to thank everyone who has handed me out experience points for this thread. I appreciate it. It was generous. I also wanted to hand out some experience points but for some of you I have to wait apparently. So I'll catch ya later on that.

I also appreciate the interesting discussion that has erupted as a result of this thread. I had hoped for that.

I've read some really interesting comments I hope to respond to later but today has been much busier than planned. And so I don't have the time right now. Later though, as I get the chance.

Otherwise, carry on.
I'm finding many of the observations and opinions kinda fascinating.

Jack.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 8, 2009)

Reynard said:


> I think this is my problem with it, to be honest. I just plain don't like the concept of defining a character by a "signature" item -- especially at creation (an emergence defining item can be interesting, mostly because its emergent). One of the really big issues here is that if a player incorporates a piece of equipment into the core of their character design, issues may arise when that item gets lost, stolen, broken or whatever. I use Sunder. I use item saving throws. I use Disarm. I use thieves in the night. A character's tools are just that, tools. We aren't playing HERO (a game I love, btw) where you spent "points" on the item. it's a shiny sword. if it gets melted by a red dragon's fiery breath, find another one and count yourself lucky you didn't also get equally slagged.



1. Then you should have said that instead of writing the OP that you did.

2. This is no different than any other sort of characterization that relies on matters that are somewhat within DM control.  For example, having a family.  I know people who WILL NOT create a character with living, named family members because they've been burned by a DM who immediately used that opportunity to murder/rape/torture/zombify that character's every relatve.  Characters with possessions to which they're attached are no different.  Making them fun to play requires a bit of cooperation from the DM, yes.  But that doesn't rise to the level of turning the game into some sort of farce where you ask and receive whatever you want from the DM.  It just requires either not smashing your desert dervish PC's twin Scimitars of the Scorching Wind, or, if you do, giving him some quest to reforge them, ideally better than before and ready to taste the blood of the NPC who shattered them.

3. Personally, I really, really like trademark items.  I find them much more interesting than generic items that you use for a while and then throw away when you find something better.  I spend a lot of effort making sure every magic item has at least some small, unique detail that makes it more memorable.  This has the side effect of making those items more personal and more desired by the players, meaning that they'd often prefer magically enhancing the broach they wear that contains a lock of unicorn hair (amulet of resistance +2 with cosmetic adjustment) to hawking it and replacing it with something else, even if it costs them extra money.

Not that you have to play that way.  But playing my way doesn't make the game some sort of entitlement-fest, nor does playing your way make the game into a Diablo style hunt for l00t that's incrementally better than your current enormous collection of l00t.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 8, 2009)

Ourph said:


> I see we agree. The rules obviously weren't there to help make a believable world, they were there to help make that world more play-friendly for the PCs.




I don't know if we do or not. My position is that going too much in the direction of making it "play-friendly" ruins my experience of the game. If I want that kind of playability I will play X-box or warcraft. For D&D, I need the setting to make sense. Having multi-level dungeons that correspond perfectly to player level, somehow don't work for me.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 8, 2009)

Wicht said:


> I am surprised that no one seems to have yet posted the position that I would hold, namely, the world exists for the sake of the DM, who is the author of the world.  Part of the joy of DMing is then in presenting this world to others for their enjoyment.  It is very similar, IMO, to the actions of an author who creates a world and then gives it to readers for what he hopes is their approval.
> 
> As a player, when I get to play, the enjoyment comes from exploring someone elses world.




There is a fine line here: a world that solely exists for the entertainment of the DM (and not necessarily the PCs enjoyment) can create some of the biggest hobgoblins in our hobby; railroading (my plot must not be disturbed), God-NPCs (lucky My NPC protagonist was here to save the day), PC dis-empowerment (The bartender does 57 points of damage to the thief; did I mention he's a retired 15th level fighter?) and DM "self-pleasuring" (It doesn't matter if my PCs are having fun, as long as I am. Now save vs. death). 

While not always true, there is a slippery slope between putting the DMs fun before (and not equal to) the other players and becoming a DM Tyrant whose game topples over the Chasm of Badwrongfun. 

However, there is nothing wrong with creating a world for the enjoyment of others and receiving enjoyment at the process (and results) of it. That is the joy of DMing.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 8, 2009)

billd91 said:


> Very contrived? Maybe. But if you work from the assumption that the situation gets wilder and the risks grow greater the farther you radiate from a core (like, say, the farther you get from tilled and regularly patrolled fields), then it's not so hard to believe. In this case, the default core is the ground level.
> 
> .




I don't see how this is easy to swallow. This was always one of the things that jumped out at me with the older editions. The dungeons always seem to have been engineered for the purpose of exploration, without considering their original use. And the monsters settled into strange hierarchy, with the weak ones at the lower levels and the harder ones up top. To be fair, 3E went too far in the other direction. With a call for dungeon ecology, that was not only pedantic, but absurd. I guess I like something more in the middle.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 8, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> I don't see how this is easy to swallow. This was always one of the things that jumped out at me with the older editions. The dungeons always seem to have been engineered for the purpose of exploration, without considering their original use. And the monsters settled into strange hierarchy, with the weak ones at the lower levels and the harder ones up top. To be fair, 3E went too far in the other direction. With a call for dungeon ecology, that was not only pedantic, but absurd. I guess I like something more in the middle.




See, in the end D&D is an absurd notion. A group of complete strangers, often of different species (with different outlooks and lifespans) and of wildly different vocations (a clergy member, a soldier, a cutpurse, and a scholar) meet in a local drinking establishment, decide to trust each other with their lives, and set out to find locally-located lost ruins full of dangerous monsters, hazardous traps, and mysterious magic all in the hopes of finding gold coins, magical trinkets, and improving (somehow) in their chosen profession.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 8, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> See, in the end D&D is an absurd notion. A group of complete strangers, often of different species (with different outlooks and lifespans) and of wildly different vocations (a clergy member, a soldier, a cutpurse, and a scholar) meet in a local drinking establishment, decide to trust each other with their lives, and set out to find locally-located lost ruins full of dangerous monsters, hazardous traps, and mysterious magic all in the hopes of finding gold coins, magical trinkets, and improving (somehow) in their chosen profession.




I was calling the 3E call for realistic ecologies absurd, largely for the reasons you laid out. But I also think, given how fantastic D&D is, you have to have some level of believability. For me, where this used to break down, was the multi-level dungeons that got progressively more difficult as you worked your way from level to level. I don't need to know what the rats are eating to stay alive, to enjoy a dungeon; but I do want it to resemble a real life structure and not a video game.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Mar 8, 2009)

FireLance said:


> Let me throw out a third possibility:
> 
> *The World Exists For The Sake Of Challenging The Players* - There is, naturally, a certain amount of fantasy wish-fulfillment going on. For some, that is part of the attraction of playing a fantasy role-playing game. However, the players have to _earn_ their characters' rewards by displaying minimum levels of intelligence, tactics, planning, co-operation, courage, honor, luck, etc. (actual levels of intelligence, tactics, planning, co-operation, courage, honor, luck, etc. required will vary from DM to DM and from campaign to campaign).



I understand the appeal of this, but frankly I can't think of anything more boring than this sort of "competitive", challenge-the-players gameplay. I don't really like most competitive, "prove yourself" sorts of games - and, especially when it comes to roleplaying, what I want from the game is much more about the story of the characters' lives in the fictional setting than it is about the challenges faced by the players along the way to producing that story.

But then, I also don't really care about "wish-fulfilment" or identification with the character or any of that either. I don't even have to like my PCs to enjoy playing them and seeing what happens when their goals and desires run up against the rocks of the world.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Mar 8, 2009)

Wow, this thread is exploding in size so quickly that I can hardly keep up... Anyways, may as well respond to this regardless.



Mercurius said:


> Two crimes were committed here. First, and the less egregious one, is that you said "Middle-earth exists solely to tell the stories of [hobbits]". Ack! I hear J.R.R. Tolkien muttering in his tomb. Actually, _The Hobbit_ was a serial bed-time story that Tolkien told his kids that happened to be set in Middle-earth, the world of a much larger epic he had been working on for decades; the LotR started as a sequel to _The Hobbit_, requested by the publisher, but became something much larger, "more serious and dark," as JRRT said. But the core of Tolkien's work was not The Hobbit or LotR but _The Silmarillion_, which focuses on the history of the elves and, to a lesser degree, humans. In other words, Tolkien did NOT create Middle-earth as a setting to write The Hobbit and LotR in; those stories grew out of it. I think this is one of the main reasons that the setting is so...alive. There is never the feeling of the "cardboard set" that you get in a lot of novels and RPG worlds: As if all that exists is what is needed to portray the scene at hand. The Hobbit and LotR have a sense of deep history, of myth and legend--because Tolkien had spent decades detailing that world's myth and history and languages.



Honestly, you are putting Tolkien's setting too much on a pedestal. The world itself isn't really all that unique or fleshed out in the greater scheme of things.

Besides, the real focus of my point was that, in a sense, Middle-Earth really isn't a static setting that is identical between all of its different incarnations. I think it can be argued that Middle-Earth itself is portrayed very differently between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. In a sense, The Lord of the Rings ret-cons many aspects of the setting in order to better tell its own story. More importantly, it is quite clear that Tolkien created the characters and core story and events of his stories _first_, and created the specific details of the setting to match his story afterwards. Which do you think existed first: Bilbo and the Thirteen Dwarves or the den of giant spiders they are attacked by? Was Thurin created first or was Orcrist? It is not like Tolkien created the entirety of Middle-Earth down to the last detail first and then decided to tell a story using a few bits and pieces he created. This is even clearer in the story of the _Silmarillion_, really.



> The second crime, you wonder? It is the worst: You mention Middle-earth and World of Warcraft in the same breath! Alas, alas! May the Great Eagles carry me away to distant Valinor, where only her golden woods may heal my blighted soul!



Both are settings for MMORPGs, so they can't be _that_ different. 

Besides, I said Azeroth, the setting for the Warcraft series, not World of Warcraft. There is a slight difference, which gets to the heart of the whole "setting is reinvisioned for each new version" thing I mentioned above.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Then you've done basically the same thing as the guy who didn't put the wyrm there in the first place due to a desire not to screw over low level PCs who can't fight the wyrm.
> 
> Both of you are designing the game world such that the PCs will encounter level appropriate fights.  You're just including the risk of a level inappropriate fight if the PCs so choose, and then telling the PCs not to so choose.  Both worlds are equally engineered and the outcome is the same.




I disagree entirely.  They aren't the same thing at all. The fact that it is there, that it exists in the world, that its presence has an impact on the context of the PCs choices, matters. By merely *being* it enhances the setting and play.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 8, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> There is a fine line here: a world that solely exists for the entertainment of the DM (and not necessarily the PCs enjoyment) can create some of the biggest hobgoblins in our hobby; railroading (my plot must not be disturbed), God-NPCs (lucky My NPC protagonist was here to save the day), PC dis-empowerment (The bartender does 57 points of damage to the thief; did I mention he's a retired 15th level fighter?) and DM "self-pleasuring" (It doesn't matter if my PCs are having fun, as long as I am. Now save vs. death).
> 
> While not always true, there is a slippery slope between putting the DMs fun before (and not equal to) the other players and becoming a DM Tyrant whose game topples over the Chasm of Badwrongfun.
> 
> However, there is nothing wrong with creating a world for the enjoyment of others and receiving enjoyment at the process (and results) of it. That is the joy of DMing.





Assuming the world exists for the enjoyment of the DM is not the same as saying that the purpose of the game is to stroke the DM's ego.  

But the fact is, the PCs never experience the world.  They experience only parts of it.  The DM is the one who gets to know the whole of the world.  Campaign supplements are seldom marketable to players but many DMs buy them for the sheer joy of reading them.  The same is true of adventures.  How many of us DMs have bought adventures we will never run simply to read them.  

Ergo, the world exists for the DM.

PCs exist for the sake of adventuring and in some ways the adventure exists for the PCs.  However the question posed was, "why does the world exist," not, "why do we write adventures?"       It has been my experience, in 26 years of DMing, adventures seldom encompass all of the world I envision.

Edit:  More on topic, let me add, that as the world exists for me the DM, the reason I place things within the world is because it seems right to me to do so.  As I write adventures, I will keep in mind the level and goals of the PCs but in the end, the adventure must conform to the world that I envision first and foremost.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 9, 2009)

Wicht said:


> Assuming the world exists for the enjoyment of the DM is not the same as saying that the purpose of the game is to stroke the DM's ego.




Hence the term, "fine-line". As I said, a world created for the enjoyment of the DM is fine. A world created SOLELY for the enjoyment of the DM is dangerous.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 9, 2009)

Reynard said:


> I disagree entirely. They aren't the same thing at all. The fact that it is there, that it exists in the world, that its presence has an impact on the context of the PCs choices, matters. By merely *being* it enhances the setting and play.



You've done nothing different in the context of the specific conversation and this thread.

Obviously its different, there's either a dragon or there isn't.  But for you to sit back and self congratulatorily toss out the obligatory video game references regarding people who don't put level inappropriate fights near low level PCs while also not putting low level fights near low level PCs is ridiculous.  You, also, do not put level inappropriate fights near low level PCs.  You just avoid it in a slightly different way.  Both of you have engineered your game world to fit the players, you just pretend you didn't.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 9, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> You've done nothing different in the context of the specific conversation and this thread.
> 
> Obviously its different, there's either a dragon or there isn't.  But for you to sit back and self congratulatorily toss out the obligatory video game references regarding people who don't put level inappropriate fights near low level PCs while also not putting low level fights near low level PCs is ridiculous.  You, also, do not put level inappropriate fights near low level PCs.  You just avoid it in a slightly different way.  Both of you have engineered your game world to fit the players, you just pretend you didn't.




In essence, its just a justified form of "gotcha." If the PCs make a bad choice (ignore a warning, wander down too many levels) then the DM can throw a high level foe at the PCs and whack them, arguing "You ignored the warnings".


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 9, 2009)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> You just avoid it in a slightly different way. Both of you have engineered your game world to fit the players, you just pretend you didn't.




Here's the thing:

Creating a world to fit the characters [because a PC is a dragonborn, dragonborn are important to the world]

Creating a world to fit the players [because one player likes dragonborn, dragonborn are important to the world, even if none of the characters are.]

Creating a game to fit the characters [because one PC is a dragonborn, the dragonborn are central in the sessions you have]

Creating a game to fit the players [because one player likes dragonborn, the dragonborn in the sessions you have, even if none of the PC's are dragonborn]

Replace "dragonborn" with any game element. 

Generally, creating a game to fit the players is a positive thing: because your sessions mostly involve things that your players are interested in. 

Creating a world to fit the players breaks the suspension of disbelief a little harder. It doesn't matter if dragonborn are important in the world, really -- just if they're important to the game. 

Creating a game to fit the characters is what 3e relied on.  It means that if your characters have skills, you challenge those skills with what they face.

Creating a world to fit the characters is narm-worthy often. Because your characters are level X, all challenges are level X? Really?

They didn't engineer their world to fit the players.

They engineered the game to fit the characters. 

Just like players are not characters, your game is not your world, and just as players and characters have different needs at the table, so do worlds and games.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 9, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Just like players are not characters, your game is not your world, and just as players and characters have different needs at the table, so do worlds and games.




Well said.  I've given out too much XP today, but this post is XP-worthy.


RC


----------



## subrosas (Mar 9, 2009)

*Mixes up two different ideas*

I think its useful to separate two ideas:

How realistic a setting is as a sandbox

Who's fun comes first? Player or game master

They are really completely independent from one another, and both are continuums. Bad or pathological game experiences can emerge from sandboxes as easily as from railroads. Groups where players have no fun, or where the game master can't have fun - probably won't play together for very long.

Some people hate customized treasure ("hey look! ANOTHER magical military pick! and our fighter is specialized in military picks! What are the chances?"), and some hate finding useless treasure ("Hey! After I found that magic military pick six levels ago I spent four feats specializing in it, but all we ever find are magical spears. What the hell am I supposed to do with a magical spear?"). 

Probably a happy answer is somewhere in the middle ("hey! when we were in town the retired knight we were helping out saw that I used a military pick, and told me that way back when the Burning Lord also wielded a magical military pick, and that it was buried with him in the Ash Crypt. Mind if we make a side-trek out to the Ash Crypt  and see if we can find it next week? It'd be perfect for my fighter.").

Versimilitude doesn't have to suck, and saying yes to the players doesn't make it Christmas.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 9, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Here's the thing:
> 
> Creating a world to fit the characters [because a PC is a dragonborn, dragonborn are important to the world]
> 
> ...



This makes a huge and (in my case) erroneous assumption: that any of these are known during the design phase.

I designed my current world - at least in broad-brush ways - long, long before I invited anyone to play in it, and longer still before I knew any of said invitations would be accepted, or by who.  I created a world to fit - well, itself, really - and to give me something I could mine for stories.

As for ongoing game design, while that's a bit more malleable for the DM to tweak to player preference, it's also in large part up to the players.  For example, Hobbits are quite rare in the area where my current game has been set thus far,  but if the players really like Hobbits and want to see some they know full well the Hobbit lands are far to the north, right where they've always been...

Lanefan


----------



## Rel (Mar 9, 2009)

In the interest of going in a slightly different direction regarding the "wish list" thing I thought I'd share an extremely unoriginal idea that I'm using in my current campaign:  Spontaneous enchantment.

Over the course of the campaign some items will be found, some will possibly be manufactured.  But some will just...happen.  Once in a while when the hero is smiting some bad guy with his sword something causes that sword to become enchanted.  And its enchantment can increase or change over time as it is used more.  Same goes for any type of item.

I don't plan to do this all the time or anything.  But once in a while it has the dual benefit of giving the player the item that they want (or at least one that's pretty handy in the moment) as well as having some story element to it.  After all, Bjorn may think it is cool to wield the Sword of Halgrund.  But how much cooler is it if Bjorn suddenly finds himself wielding the Sword of Bjorn?  Once in a while I think that is pretty cool.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 9, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> In essence, its just a justified form of "gotcha." If the PCs make a bad choice (ignore a warning, wander down too many levels) then the DM can throw a high level foe at the PCs and whack them, arguing "You ignored the warnings".




You act like I need permission.

I don't need permission to put anything I wish anywhere.    Likewise, players don't need my permission to walk down any path of their choosing.

A dragon rumored to be up in the mountains but which is only encountered if the players seek it out is hardly thrown at anyone.  You act as if the DM is secretly gleeful at such a turn of affairs, when probably the DM sees it as a disaster.

If the PC's make bad choices, naturally, they will come to bad ends in all probability despite my best efforts to save them from themselves.  But ultimately, the player is in charge of his character.  I can't force them not to do something stupid.  I can't take away their responcibility for their actions, because to do that is to completely take away their freedom.  If their actions always lead to the same ends no matter what I do, then they are truly just my puppets and the whole thing is a sham.

If the PC's make good choice, naturally, they will probably overcome everything and come to good ends despite me playing NPC's with all the cunning and ruthless I can manage.  Players are usually pretty cunning, and when you stack the deck in their favor ever so slightly, they generally prevail.  Heck, they sometimes prevail when you think the odds are against them.  What am I to do, take away their well earned rewards?  If I can take away their bad ends and call it fair, then surely I can take away their good ends and call it fair?

What course would you really suggest a DM take?  Put up impenatrable forests and uncrossable mountains around every path, so as to perfectly guide the PC's to the places that you think that they ought to go?  Shift every obstacle out of the way of the PC's, and shuffle in its place something you prefer?  Erect invisible barriers in the campaign world that cannot be crossed until you reach level 15?


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 9, 2009)

Well, either I'm an idiot, or you guys aren't making sense.  I guess either way I'll leave it here.

I can't figure out the difference between:

1. Engineering the game world to fit the challenge level appropriate to the PCs by declining to place a huge dragon in a nearby forest, or

2. Engineering the game world to fit the challenge level appropriate to the PCs by putting a huge dragon in a nearby forest, and then ensuring that the PCs know not to go there, and if they do have to go there making sure they do so by encountering a level appropriate "sneak by the dragon" challenge instead of a level inappropriate "fight the dragon and get eaten" death scene.

I mean, obviously there's a difference because one version has a huge dragon and the other doesn't, as Reynard pointed out.  And that's a big difference!  After all, we just stipulated that the dragon was _huge._

But I'm pretty sure that's a distinction without a difference.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 9, 2009)

As an aside, after reading several of *Jack7*'s editorials, I think the OP consistently suffers from a stilted and contrived sense of the 'heroic' and the (mistaken, in my experience) assumption that the adventurers intend to be heroes.

With that out of the way, any player who comes to me with a wish list had also better be prepared to explain in some detail how she plans to come by these items. Consult with a sage or seek a divination to learn the whereabouts? Complete a quest on behalf of a powerful spellcaster in exchange for crafting it? Sneak into the guarded and warded armory of the king to steal it?


----------



## Reynard (Mar 9, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> You've done nothing different in the context of the specific conversation and this thread.
> 
> Obviously its different, there's either a dragon or there isn't.  But for you to sit back and self congratulatorily toss out the obligatory video game references regarding people who don't put level inappropriate fights near low level PCs while also not putting low level fights near low level PCs is ridiculous.  You, also, do not put level inappropriate fights near low level PCs.  You just avoid it in a slightly different way.  Both of you have engineered your game world to fit the players, you just pretend you didn't.




I think you're misreading me, at least insofar as "video game references" go. I haven't made any that I'm aware of.

Also, it seems disingenuous to suggest that not having a "level inappropriate" thing at all and having a "level inappropriate" thing but not making it mandatory are the same exact thing.  They aren't, not in the least.  if it doesn't exist, it does not factor into player freedom (the most important aspect of the rpg, the one that separates it from other kinds of games) at all, simply because it isn't there.  IF it exists, even if it is rare or unusual or out of the way, it does impact player freedom, simply by virtue of its inclusion. 

Part of the disconnect here may be deeper than talking about mere setting issues and move into the territory of adventure design and how that relates to "level appropriateness". I do my best *not* to design adventures. Rather, i try and create locations and situations and set the PCs loose.  I do my best to not engage in the "this is what you guys are doing this week" mentality, which I feel is an inhibitor to play, and work toward a "Here's the situation? What do you do?" That is, I do that kind of thing until a campaign theme or adventure emerges from play and then I spend more time and effort creating something truly appropriate for the PCs.

One of the reasons that I disdain the "adventure path" mentality is that I can't imagine knowing where the campaign's going to be three sessions down the line, let alone 20 or 30. Players do funny things. They engage the setting and its elements in unexpected ways. Planning adventures is far more a "waste" of time to me than doing setting development, because at least setting development allows me to be consistent while responding on the fly to what the PCs are doing. (It also has the advantage of allowing the campaign and setting to survive the occasional TPK; particular subplots may be lost but the setting and its situations remain even if the party disappears forever in the Tomb of Absolute Deathness.)

As it relates to level appropriateness I'll put it this way: you know what's awesome? Watching a 10th level party go back to the 5th level bad guy who sent them running with their tails between their legs when they were 3rd level and not just killing him but razing his fortress and slaughtering his minions to the man/monster. If the world remains apart from the PCs from the level perspective, yet exists no matter what level they are, the PCs have the opportunity to interact with the same elements in different ways at different times.  If the BBEG is always 3 levels higher than the PCs so it will be a "hard" encounter, the losers will always be the PCs -- not matter what they do, no matter how hard they strive, they will never reach a point where they can deal with that villain on their own terms.  This goes for any setting element.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 9, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> With that out of the way, any player who comes to me with a wish list had also better be prepared to explain in some detail how she plans to come by these items. Consult with a sage or seek a divination to learn the whereabouts? Complete a quest on behalf of a powerful spellcaster in exchange for crafting it? Sneak into the guarded and warded armory of the king to steal it?




In so doing, though, the issue of "wish list" is obviated.  it's no longer a wish list -- it's a player character goal. To which I say  "Huzzah! Go and get it!"

Just don't expect it to be free and don't expect it to be easy.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 9, 2009)

Morrus said:


> That wasn't advice: them's the rules here, whether or not you personally agree with their effectiveness.




I think you missed the point I was trying to make, which is that for just about anything said or done, someone will be offended. A lot of the more interesting, dare I say "juicy", material on forums like this tend to have some degree of potential offensivosity. I think the key is to not go overboard, to avoid the usual triggers, and try to be respectful. However, I think that if we tried not to offend everyone with everything we said--which is what you seemed to be saying--things would get awfully stale real quickly.




ProfessorPain said:


> How dare you assume your post offended someone. I am someone, and I was not in any way offended by your post. It was a reasonable statement of fact, and I am outraged you so quickly conclude I don't agree. Implying that I am somehow unable to follow your line of thought, because I once got an A- instead of an A+ on my Socratic Logic exam. I cannot believe you treat people who got A minuses as inferiors. You should be ashamed of yourself. Just because I got one A-, that doesn't mean I don't understand philosophy!




Well, I am deeply offended by your offendedness! 



TwinBahamut said:


> Honestly, you are putting Tolkien's setting too much on a pedestal. The world itself isn't really all that unique or fleshed out in the greater scheme of things.




?!DF&#%#!*!$#!$!#&!!!!!





TwinBahamut said:


> Besides, the real focus of my point was that, in a sense, Middle-Earth really isn't a static setting that is identical between all of its different incarnations. I think it can be argued that Middle-Earth itself is portrayed very differently between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. In a sense, The Lord of the Rings ret-cons many aspects of the setting in order to better tell its own story. More importantly, it is quite clear that Tolkien created the characters and core story and events of his stories _first_, and created the specific details of the setting to match his story afterwards. Which do you think existed first: Bilbo and the Thirteen Dwarves or the den of giant spiders they are attacked by? Was Thurin created first or was Orcrist? It is not like Tolkien created the entirety of Middle-Earth down to the last detail first and then decided to tell a story using a few bits and pieces he created. This is even clearer in the story of the _Silmarillion_, really.




Okay, I gotcha. Having attempted (and still attempting) to write a Gynormous Epic, I understand that there is constant tinkering with details back and forth throughout the narrative (and if only details, you're pretty lucky). Not to mention that some of the best stuff comes out spontaneously in the writing. This happens with DMing, as well.

The way I would describe what you are getting at is that the world and the characters are symbiotic--there is a living, dynamic relationship between them. (For me this whole argument is rather doomed to begin with, because it implies an either/or duality when, I feel at least, the truth is both/neither and more )



TwinBahamut said:


> Both are settings for MMORPGs, so they can't be _that_ different.




?!@F#*U(#$C)ki#$#nghe#$ll!!!!


----------



## Reynard (Mar 9, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Well, either I'm an idiot, or you guys aren't making sense.  I guess either way I'll leave it here.
> 
> I can't figure out the difference between:
> 
> ...




I think you're reading in something that isn't there, at least from my point of view.

Let's say it's a CR 18 dragon. It's lair is in the heart of the forest. It's presence is known well enough to allow an interested group of PCs to find its lair, or give it a wide berth -- regardless of their level. However, the dragon is also found on the forest's random encounter chart (it does occasionally go out and hunt or survey its domain or whatever), again, regardless of the level of the PCs. With this information in hand, the players/PCs are able to make an informaed choice about taking a shortcut (or whatever) through the forest, versus going around (or whatever).

Nothing in this suggests that lower level PCs are only set against a lower level challenge of some sort or another should the dragon be otherwise "encountered".


----------



## Ourph (Mar 9, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> Honestly, you are putting Tolkien's setting too much on a pedestal. The world itself isn't really all that unique or fleshed out in the greater scheme of things.



There are a dozen plus books compiled from his notes on the history, geography and people of Middle Earth that would beg to differ.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 9, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Well, either I'm an idiot, or you guys aren't making sense.  I guess either way I'll leave it here.




I'm not the one that brought it up, but I'll make a stab at it.



> 1. Engineering the game world to fit the challenge level appropriate to the PCs by declining to place a huge dragon in a nearby forest, or




That doesn't go nearly far enough.  If you truly wish to make your world have padded walls and appropriately safe chopped up rubber floors, you must decline to put any level inappropriate challenges in the game world at all.  Afterall, if a player truly wishes to go 'fight a dragon and take its gold', so long as there are any dragon's anywhere, the PC might be able to discover this and take off on his quest.  Of course, you can always argue with the player that his activities are to no avail, and place every obstacle in his way, and see to it that all sorts of things happen on the way to the dragon so that by the time he reaches it he's certain to be able to dispatch it.  

But this is a distinction with no difference.  Either way, the dragon doesn't exist until such time as you deemed it appropriate, and the PC is sure to figure out eventually that everything he does or chooses is pointless because there is no real connection between causes and effects.  It's all your story, and none of it his.



> I mean, obviously there's a difference because one version has a huge dragon and the other doesn't, as Reynard pointed out.  And that's a big difference!  After all, we just stipulated that the dragon was _huge._
> 
> But I'm pretty sure that's a distinction without a difference.




I think you are quite wrong.  Quite unlike the circumstance I just outlined, there is a distinction there.  If I write a play in which there is a pistol on the mantle in scene one, then the audience of the play will know that at some point that pistol is very likely to be fired and when it is fired it will seem a perfectly reasonable thing to have occured.   But if I write a play in which there is no pistol on the mantle, and in scene 5 suddenly a character goes to the mantle pulls a pistol off and fire it, the audience is likely to go, "Huh, where did that pistol come from, it wasn't there before."  The experience is quite different for the audience, because, among other things in the former case the audience is likely to think the story about the characters, but in the latter case the audience is likely to think the story is, "Where did the pistol come from?", and waste lots of time and effort on that question.  And generally speaking, if the history of literature is any evidence, the audience is very likely to find the latter play lacking in merit compared to the first one.

But we are talking of RPG's, and in them the audience of the play also takes the role of the lead actors within it, and so the matter for them is far more acute.  For if the pistol is pulled off the mantel when it wasn't there before, its they that it will be pointed at and they that must act the scene.  But if the pistol has been there all along, then they will surely say, "I saw this coming; it's time for the pistol to be fired." or even better, "Ahh... so this is the time for the pistol to be fired; what a clever twist." or perhaps, "Great Scott! Why didn't I see it before!  The pistol!!!"

And I speak here with experience as a player, that to experience a 'play' where the pistol has been there all along is far more sublime and enjoyable than one where it wasn't.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 9, 2009)

When I create a world for my game, it exists to

1. provide a place to adventure and explore
2. Set the overall tone (e.g, post apocalyptic, arabaian adventures, gothic horror, wuxia) and magic level. 
3. Set the ground rules for character creation 
a) the PC races that exist
b) the cultures and the classes and/or class variants found within them
c) the deities and their domains
d) how magic will work (i.e, classes and magic system used)

4.  Help me to provide individual players with information based on their character's cultural and, if any, organizational ties (including information not avaialbe to other PCs). This information can be useful in-game and, should the player choose, when creating  backgrounds and is intended to help further ground the character into the setting .  
a) cultural characteristics 
b. local important  NPCs (which may serve as mentors)
c) non-secret socieities  and organizations (e.g, guilds, wizard colleges, ) including prestige class based organizations
d) some recent and historical events of interest, rumors, and places (including "legendary" or unique creatures known to be inhabitng them)
e) the reduction or waiving  of certain Knowledge check DCs in a given region, city, etc.

5. (Edit): Make it easier to wing it when the players do the unexpected and change their mind at the last minute about where they are going to go.


----------



## The Ghost (Mar 9, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> I can't figure out the difference between:
> 
> 1. Engineering the game world to fit the challenge level appropriate to the PCs by declining to place a huge dragon in a nearby forest, or
> 
> 2. Engineering the game world to fit the challenge level appropriate to the PCs by putting a huge dragon in a nearby forest, and then ensuring that the PCs know not to go there, and if they do have to go there making sure they do so by encountering a level appropriate "sneak by the dragon" challenge instead of a level inappropriate "fight the dragon and get eaten" death scene.




I think that you have set this up to fail. (Not intentionally, but by the nature of being the one to define the sides of the argument.) You have not accounted for two things. One, challenge level appropriate may not be the design goal. Two, and more importantly, there are more reasons to use a dragon (insert any high-level challenge) than just to fight or sneak by. Story and plot come to mind.


----------



## Thasmodious (Mar 9, 2009)

I don't know where several of the posters have gotten their conception of the 'wish list' in 4e from.  Is this some internet myth that has risen and been spread by people who haven't actually read the books?

There is no Wish List system, no Wish List section.  There is nothing about giving players exactly what they want for free (which more than one poster, including the OP, has claimed in this thread).  On page 125, under the section about Awarding Treasure, there is this paragraph:



> A great way to make sure you give players magic items they’ll be excited about is to ask them for wish lists. At the start of each level, have each player write down a list of three to five items that they are intrigued by that are no more than four levels above their own level. You can choose treasure from those lists (making sure to place an item from a different character’s list each time), crossing the items off as the characters find them. If characters don’t find things on their lists, they can purchase or enchant them when they reach sufficient level.




That's it.  It's not a system, its a suggestion to give the DM some guidance in coming up with treasure awards centered around the idea that since magic shops are a thing of the past, items tailored to the party are certainly more useful than random items that will just have to be disenchanted.  It is not a list of demands, Fed-EX does not deliver the items to the characters at the local inn.  It's simply a suggestion for coming up with useful items the PCs will be excited to get to fill up the magic item part of the treasure parcels.

I don't use wish lists myself.  My players are not the book reading types, they haven't poured over the PHB items, and certainly not the AV items.  I listen and they discuss things they want and are looking for.  Sometimes, I have asked them to write me a brief list of short term goals the character is pursuing during downtime.  I've been doing this for years, and those background bits, which are sometimes "trying to find a flaming sword", often turn up as sidequests, adventure seeds, and such.


----------



## Rel (Mar 9, 2009)

After a good bit of thought I think that the Silmarillion would have been a lot better with some Tauren Death Knights.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 9, 2009)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Also, it seems disingenuous to suggest that not having a "level inappropriate" thing at all and having a "level inappropriate" thing but not making it mandatory are the same exact thing. They aren't, not in the least. if it doesn't exist, it does not factor into player freedom (the most important aspect of the rpg, the one that separates it from other kinds of games) at all, simply because it isn't there. IF it exists, even if it is rare or unusual or out of the way, it does impact player freedom, simply by virtue of its inclusion.



1. I got you confused with someone else for a moment.  Sorry about the video game reference comment.

2. The above quote is true in only the most trivial and unimportant sense.  Obviously the inclusion of a thing increases player freedom in the sense that the players can now choose how to interact with that thing.  This would also be true of whatever else a DM might place in the forest instead of the dragon.

3. They are the exact same thing in that you engineered the game in both circumstances in order to accomodate player character level, placing you squarely in the OPs camp A, "The World Exists for the Sake of the Characters," and clearly exemplifying a "level responsive" setting.  It is level responsive both to decline to include a level inappropriate dragon, _and_ to include said dragon while giving the PCs information and options sufficient to make that dragon a plot device that they do not have to face in a level inappropriate manner.


			
				The Ghost said:
			
		

> I think that you have set this up to fail. (Not intentionally, but by the nature of being the one to define the sides of the argument.) You have not accounted for two things. One, challenge level appropriate may not be the design goal. Two, and more importantly, there are more reasons to use a dragon (insert any high-level challenge) than just to fight or sneak by. Story and plot come to mind.



These things are true, but they are not relevant to whether or not the game world is being engineered by the DM to better serve the players by ensuring that they do not wander or get led into level inappropriate encounters.

Obviously a story with dragons in it is different from a story with, I dunno, fish people.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 9, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> There is no Wish List system, no Wish List section.  There is nothing about giving players exactly what they want for free (which more than one poster, including the OP, has claimed in this thread).  On page 125, under the section about Awarding Treasure, there is this paragraph:




And as with PrCs in the 3.0 DMG, certain players will think they are entitled to it. Oh, wait! I have already seen this in at least one thread on the WOTC boards where players talk about going through the Adventurer's Vault and choosing magic items and how DMs should not waste players time by placing things that the PCs cannot use.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 9, 2009)

Reynard said:


> In so doing, though, the issue of "wish list" is obviated.  it's no longer a wish list -- it's a player character goal. To which I say  "Huzzah! Go and get it!"
> 
> Just don't expect it to be free and don't expect it to be easy.



*_Psst!_* _Reynard? That was my point exactly. But don't tell anyone, 'kay? Let 'em figure it out on their own._


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 9, 2009)

Rel said:


> After a good bit of thought I think that the Silmarillion would have been a lot better with some Tauren Death Knights.



Or zeppelin mechas.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Mar 9, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> 3. They are the exact same thing in that you engineered the game in both circumstances in order to accomodate player character level, placing you squarely in the OPs camp A, "The World Exists for the Sake of the Characters," and clearly exemplifying a "level responsive" setting. It is level responsive both to decline to include a level inappropriate dragon, _and_ to include said dragon while giving the PCs information and options sufficient to make that dragon a plot device that they do not have to face in a level inappropriate manner.



It's not "level responsive" to include a dragon *where a dragon would be,* and to provide the players with information about the dragon *that their characters would reasonably have,* because neither of those decisions (1, placement of the dragon, and 2, availability of information about the dragon) are being made *in response* to the PCs' level.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 9, 2009)

It is true that almost without exception, PC's start off in places where survival is fairly easy.  Typically, they start in some corner of civilization where level inappropriate challenges are rare.  Typically, they start off as members of this civilization and thus what level inappropriate encounters are available are generally with characters that are nominally on 'the same side' as the characters, and thus not hostile.  And typically, because it is a civilized area, what level inappropriate foes that are about are generally not interested in casual murder of strangers, because - this being civilized - they are afraid of running afoul of the law.

So yes, by starting the characters there, I'm engineering good odds on the character's survival and engineering it such that most encounters will be with something that low level characters could defend themselves against. 

But on the other hand, if I didn't do this, it would raise a paradox.  If in fact the PC's find themselves in a place where low level characters probably couldn't survive, how did they get there in the first place?  Why aren't they dead?  Why isn't everyone else dead?  Sure, I could randomly drop them on the haunted continent of Sethia, where a horde of wraiths is an ordinary encounter and where broken epic level artifacts await as death traps to the unwary mortal and that would surely engineer their speedy demise, but there are no living inhabitants of Sethia and even the gods avoid the place.  What the heck justification would I have for dropping starting characters there?

Similarly, if I have a dragon living near civilization unless it showed up exactly when the PC's arrived (which would be a rather extraordinary coincidence), if I don't have a wide zone around it where everyone knows you don't go (even if no one knows exactly why), then it raises another internal contridiction in the setting.  How is it that all these people are wandering into the dark forest and dying, and no one has noticed it?  Won't someone eventually learn the rule, "Don't go into the dark forest.", even if only through natural selection? 

But let's suppose that I have some level inappropriate thing around that isn't well known?  It's easy to imagine such a thing.  Perhaps, buried in the side of a hill somewhere nearby is a hidden vault containing a demi-lich.  But once again, we find that if this is a living world, that if such a vault is not known at all and thus the PC's are likely to walk into it with no warning of the hazards inside, then it must also be the case that the vault is very hard to find.  If it is not hard to find, someone other than the PC's would have probably found it and hense it would be known about, and it would be well known 'Don't go near those standing stones on such and such hill'.  And if it is hard to find, then the PC's are not at all likely to stumble on it by accident either.  

Hense we find that it is very difficult to construct logical situations for low level characters where there would be hostile and insanely 'level inappropriate' encounters near by which a character might easily stumble into.  There might be a 10th level Paladin or a garison of the King's soldiers, but neither are necessarily hostile (initially).  There might be such a dangerous dragon no one dared go near, but everyone would likely know the general location of the lair.  There might be well hidden and concealed dangers generally not known about, but the PC's would be generally safe from such dangers by the combination of their ignorance and the passivity of the dangers.

In other words, the fact that a starting location is 'engineered to ensure the PC's are unlikely to wander into level inappropriate encounters' is pretty much indistinguishable from randomly selecting a location where 1st level characters are generally found, for anywhere that 1st level characters are generally found it is logically unlikely that you'll wander into level inappropriate encounters.  As a DM, I might be doing everything necessary to give the PC's a fair chance at survival, but the PC's survival might not necessarily be my overriding motivation - and given how I've responded thus far, may I suggest that it probably isn't.

It is therefore a very weak prejudice on a DM's part in favor of the PC's, and if anything, because it represents far and away the statistically most likely scenario, engineering anything but that situation would seem to me to be evidence of far stronger bias or at least much stronger 'rail roading' of a particular plot or story.

Now, is there bias on the part of the DM?  Sure, he let's the players play characters with exceptional attributes, relatively high amounts of starting wealth, who have relatively uncommon and highly useful survival skills, and who otherwise have many advantages stacked in their favor.  Also, the DM is motivated to fudge consequences in the PC's favor as much as he thinks can be swallowed, if things go badly or might go badly, simply because a TPK represents a lot of hassle and extra work for himself and possibly the end of a hitherto enjoyable story.  But as tempting as this may be, the plot protection can never be absolute or too repetitive.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Mar 9, 2009)

Ourph said:


> There are a dozen plus books compiled from his notes on the history, geography and people of Middle Earth that would beg to differ.



And how many books are there out that detail setting information for the Forgotten Realms? Or even Eberron, for that matter?

And, keep in mind, many of those Middle Earth setting books exist solely as an attempt by various people after Tolkien's death to go into Tolkien's setting notes and pull out as much as they can in order to fill a desire by various people to see more stories set in Middle Earth. How many books do you think could be created from unused setting detail created by any other author? Probably as much as a dozen books, I bet.

Because The Lord of the Rings is a book trilogy, it has certain inherent setting detail needs that are very different than other forms of entertainment. It needs less detail than a series of books much longer than a trilogy (can you really write a whole other trilogy of novels in the setting of Middle Earth as it exists now?), and it certainly requires less detail than something like an MMORPG (which literally needs hundreds or thousands of individual characters and dozens of highly detailed locations, all within a strong thematic framework). All told, I am quite certain that Middle earth is very far from being the most detailed setting ever devised. If nothing else, overblown abominations like the DC multiverse and Marvel universe are far more extensive and detailed, simply because so many more stories have been told in them. Even the fact that Tolkien created his own language for the setting is nothing unique anymore.

Truthfully, Middle Earth and The Lord of the Rings have been imitated and used as the model for countless stories and settings since (and quite rightfully so), so there really isn't anything really unique about them anymore other than historical role and quality. Well, I suppose few have dared to copy Tolkien's elaborate writing style, but that isn't really an aspect of the setting.

The greatness of Tolkien's writing has nothing to do with setting detail, and everything to do with Tolkien's own skill in crafting those stories. If anything, I consider the constant inside references to far more obscure works contained within those books to be one of the few _flaws_ of those novels, not one of their assets. Frodo or Aragon invoking the names of Beren and Luthien is something that is meaningless to a reader who hasn't read the Silmarillion, and thus it is something that is just as easily ignored as anything else.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 9, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> 3. They are the exact same thing in that you engineered the game in both circumstances in order to accomodate player character level, placing you squarely in the OPs camp A, "The World Exists for the Sake of the Characters," and clearly exemplifying a "level responsive" setting.  It is level responsive both to decline to include a level inappropriate dragon, _and_ to include said dragon while giving the PCs information and options sufficient to make that dragon a plot device that they do not have to face in a level inappropriate manner.




If this is really your perspective on the matter, I'm not sure I can explain it to you in any way that will make you see that they aren't the same thing at all. I might be wrong, so forgive me, but it seems like you are leaning toward a very linear, railroad style view, that the DM is responsible for the events of play (not least what encounters occur, level appropriate or otherwise).  I don't subscribe to that view.  The DM is responsible for framing the situation but the players are responsible for what actually happens in play by making choices. So, you see, the dragon in this example isn't just a set piece, it is an actual option.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 9, 2009)

Reynard said:


> I think this is my problem with it, to be honest. I just plain don't like the concept of defining a character by a "signature" item -- especially at creation (an emergence defining item can be interesting, mostly because its emergent).  One of the really big issues here is that if a player incorporates a piece of equipment into the core of their character design, issues may arise when that item gets lost, stolen, broken or whatever. I use Sunder. I use item saving throws. I use Disarm. I use thieves in the night. A character's tools are just that, tools.  We aren't playing HERO (a game I love, btw) where you spent "points" on the item.  it's a shiny sword.  if it gets melted by a red dragon's fiery breath, find another one and count yourself lucky you didn't also get equally slagged.




Seen through the lense of 3E and now 4E - yes, we spent "points" on these items. We call them gold pieces, which we have according to roughly the value of "Magical Item Wealth by level" (at least in 3E). 

It's also seems one of the reasons how "wish lists" came into being in 4E. A lot of 3E games assumed something like magic item shop and selling unsuitable magical items and crafting or buying the ones you desire. 

So 4E offers to cut the middle man - you don't need to sell your items, because you already get what fits your character.

And I think that is a fitting approach to games if you look at it from the view that they create a "story". Most literary stories don't introduce items that the characters don't use. They might not always want them, but they will use them, and it will propel the story. We don't get to hear the story where they found an item and never used it, often they even become cruicial to the story.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 9, 2009)

Mercurius said:


> I think you missed the point I was trying to make, which is that for just about anything said or done, someone will be offended. A lot of the more interesting, dare I say "juicy", material on forums like this tend to have some degree of potential offensivosity. I think the key is to not go overboard, to avoid the usual triggers, and try to be respectful. However, I think that if we tried not to offend everyone with everything we said--which is what you seemed to be saying--things would get awfully stale real quickly.




I understand your point completely; while the fact that I disagree with your conclusion is irrelevant, the rule remains, notwithstanding the point.  Obviously, by implication, a "reasonable man" test applies to all posts; but one which begins with "I know I'm about to anger some people" automatically fails that reasonable man test.  It's served us well for nearly 9 years, and will continue to do so.

Anyway, that's enough of discussing board moderation here.  That's another rule, anyway! Back to the thread!


----------



## Mallus (Mar 9, 2009)

Rel said:


> After a good bit of thought I think that the Silmarillion would have been a lot better with some Tauren Death Knights.



Or if it were an actual novel.

(hey, put those pitchforks down, I liked the Silmarillion for what is was, but I would have preferred it to be something else)


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 9, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> You act like I need permission.
> 
> I don't need permission to put anything I wish anywhere.    Likewise, players don't need my permission to walk down any path of their choosing.
> 
> ...




I think we're arguing opposite sides of the same coin. (and it goes back to my, and largely Cadfan's, point).

If I'm designing an adventure for low-level PCs, I use orcs, not giants. If I want a dragon, I make it young-to-adult, not a great wyrm. I don't put an epic-level lich's crypt near the PC's home town. If I'm putting powerful monsters in the world, they are in remote locations (far away, lost locales of wonder) not the local goblin-warrens.

That is not to say that a PC can't wander from the goblin-warrens to find an ogre's den. They won't wander into a hill-giant's steading though unless they go seeking the darkest, most remote areas of my world though. 

The point Cadfan was arguing (if I'm not incorrect) is that in the infamous "20-level dungeon" scenario, we put the level 1 monsters on level 1 and don't have the level 20 monsters wander up to borrow a cup of sugar, no matter how "realistic" it is. If you're running said dungeon and the PCs open the door expecting kobolds but find a balor, you've just played "gotcha", not matter how much brimstone the PCs smell in the hallway in front of them.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 9, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Seen through the lense of 3E and now 4E - yes, we spent "points" on these items. We call them gold pieces, which we have according to roughly the value of "Magical Item Wealth by level" (at least in 3E).




I do not agree that the gold pieces characters are expected to be able to have at their command, on average, is really a de facto points system. I will agree that 3e tended to blur the issue by putting out a guideline because players began to look at those wealth levels as if they were entitled to every gp on the table. They're not, but they think they are.


----------



## The Ghost (Mar 9, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> These things are true, but they are not relevant to whether or not the game world is being engineered by the DM to better serve the players by ensuring that they do not wander or get led into level inappropriate encounters.




They are relevant in that they challenge the initial assumption that the dragon (lich, whatever) only exists to be killed. That is hardly the case. The dragon (etc.) is an option, nothing more, something that the PCs can use how they wish. My job is only to provide them the options, it is the PC's job to value those options.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 9, 2009)

Rel said:


> After a good bit of thought I think that the Silmarillion would have been a lot better with some Tauren Death Knights.




Aside from the fact that I don't know what Tauren Death Knights are (edit: I just googled and saw they are part of WoW, which I have never played), I don't think you need them--or anything, really--when you have...

GOTHMOG.

(the original from the Silmarillion, not the ugly dude in the LotR movies).


----------



## Thasmodious (Mar 9, 2009)

I'm a Gothmog, part goth-man, part dog.  I'm my own depressed, vampire obsessed, best friend.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 9, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> They are relevant in that they challenge the initial assumption that the dragon (lich, whatever) only exists to be killed. That is hardly the case. The dragon (etc.) is an option, nothing more, something that the PCs can use how they wish. My job is only to provide them the options, it is the PC's job to value those options.



Again, not relevant to the presence or absence of level responsive game-world design.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 9, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Again, not relevant to the presence or absence of level responsive game-world design.




It amazes me that you are unable to see the distinction, although I think I "know" you well enough to believe that you are sincere.

In one paradigm, the world exists, and the players determine what sort of challenge they are capable of facing.  In general, the players need to determine what level of challenge any given in-world location or object represents, based upon information and hints that are presented in the context of the world itself.  I.e., if everyone is afraid of Bad Bart, it may be that Bad Bart is indeed powerful, or it may be that Bad Bart bluffs well.  

In the other paradigm, the player characters exist, and the DM determines what sort of challenge they are capable of facing.  In general, the players need not worry about what level of challenge any in-world location or object represents.  I.e., if they are opposed by it, it is automatically of a challenge level that they are capable of defeating.  Should the encounter result in a TPK, it is the fault of the DM for not adjudicating the encounter level properly.  I.e., if everyone is afraid of Bad Bart, but Bad Bart has something the PCs what/need, the players know that they can "take" Bad Bart.


RC


----------



## The Ghost (Mar 9, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Again, not relevant to the presence or absence of level responsive game-world design.




It matters in that the PCs determine what level their challenges are, not me. I just provide them the opportunity to be challenged. By virtue of its' existence, the PCs become the determining factor in whether or not they wish to face this particular challenge, and when. Without its' existence, they do not have that choice.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 9, 2009)

Well, going back to the wishlist thing. I go for a pure meta-game approach. I just tell the players you find an item of level X, decide which one of you gets it and go pick it out of the PHB, or AV.

The reason I do this is because it convenient and unless its a signature item or artifact, what items people find in loot are something I want to de-emphasize in play. My game is about the players being part of a cool story which I set the framework for as DM, but which they ultimately control the course of.

I don't want my players bogged down haggling over the buying and selling of magic items whenever they come into town. If they do have items they have outgrown, they can buy and sell them at cost. And if they want to have a signature item that is intrinsic to their character, then I'll allow them to level up their item as appropriate in lieu of getting a new item.

The notion that killing things and taking randomly rolled stuff is somehow more heroic than killing things and taking stuff the players have chosen is just ridiculous.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 9, 2009)

Cadfan, I think the Ghost and Raven Crowking seem to explain the difference - it is who gets to decide whether something might be appropriate or not.

With half-way clever players and DM, either choice will probably lead to the same game experience, so the question might be - is it really that important in practice or more a philosophical question? I don't know.

In the end, in either scenario the world exists to make for an entertaining and "fun" game for the players and the DM. People have different ways of being entertained or having fun, so I think the OP makes one crucial mistake: Assuming there is a right and a wrong way. There isn't. 

I prefer stuff like adventure paths, tailored encounters, and plot hooks and material that fits the players desires (as they explicitly express them as well as implicitly provide them by their character abilities and actions.) I don't trust the "emergent" fun of a different approach. I am obviously not alone with this preference, but there are enough people that find this approach unsatisfying. 

I tend to think that most systems can be used for either approach, though one approach might be made easier by a system.
For example, a system that doesn't come with a few random encounter tables might require the DM to make them up, a system that doesn't come with a measurement for character power vs monster power (Challenge Rating, monster levels etc.pp.) requires the DM to figure the power out themselves.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 9, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> It amazes me that you are unable to see the distinction, although I think I "know" you well enough to believe that you are sincere.
> 
> In one paradigm, the world exists, and the players determine what sort of challenge they are capable of facing. In general, the players need to determine what level of challenge any given in-world location or object represents, based upon information and hints that are presented in the context of the world itself. I.e., if everyone is afraid of Bad Bart, it may be that Bad Bart is indeed powerful, or it may be that Bad Bart bluffs well.
> 
> ...



Except you left out the key aspect that makes it the same (for the purposes of level responsive design, I don't want to get into another argument about how dragons are different from wyverns).

In the first example, the DM (at least the one I'm talking to, also good DMs in general who don't trap the party into TPKs and then blame them for unavoidable mistakes) also makes sure that the players know enough information to make meaningful choices.  Reasonable choices by the PCs still lead to level appropriate challenges.  If combat with a particular foe would lead to inevitable death, warning signs are carefully erected so that combat with that foe does not occur.  If that foe is otherwise encountered, the context (such as the "sneak past the dragon" scenario discussed above) is one of a level appropriate encounter.

I don't see a major difference between 

1. "there's no enormous dragon next to the town because I didn't want the PCs to blunder into it and die at level 1" and 

2. "ok, there IS an enormous dragon next to the town, but I don't want the PCs to blunder into it and die at level 1, so I'm making sure they know the dragon will inevitably eat them if they fight it, and I'm making sure that any DM instigated encounters with the dragons are non combat scenes where the PCs sneak past or hide from or flee the dragon.  Technically the PCs could decide to do something moronic and end up eaten by the dragon, but only if they ignore the clear and obvious warning signs."

Its technically true that the second option offers the PCs a choice that wasn't available in the first option (its also true that whatever else the first DM uses instead of a dragon would offer new choices), but the second option takes extra care to make sure that the "choice" it offers is really a non-choice.  The cards are all on the table.  There is a dragon, and it will eat you dead.  Do you want to be eaten dead by the dragon?  Y/N.  Obviously no.

So... yeah.  There's two big ways that the second option represents level responsive game design.  First, all of this effort is done to accomplish precisely the same task- to engineer the world to be suited for adventure by players of low level characters.  Second, if the engineering works, the additional choices offered have only one practical outcome- level appropriate challenges are encountered (although the challenges are sometimes "hide from the big bad monster" instead of "kill the big bad monster").

As this forum's perhaps foremost advocate of illusionism, I'm hardly going to criticize the offering of a false choice to the PCs.  

I just don't think that DMs should start believing in their own illusions.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 9, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Except you left out the key aspect that makes it the same (for the purposes of level responsive design, I don't want to get into another argument about how dragons are different from wyverns).
> 
> In the first example, the DM (at least the one I'm talking to, also good DMs in general who don't trap the party into TPKs and then blame them for unavoidable mistakes) also makes sure that the players know enough information to make meaningful choices.  Reasonable choices by the PCs still lead to level appropriate challenges.  If combat with a particular foe would lead to inevitable death, warning signs are carefully erected so that combat with that foe does not occur.  If that foe is otherwise encountered, the context (such as the "sneak past the dragon" scenario discussed above) is one of a level appropriate encounter.
> 
> ...




I think one difference I see is that your extreme doesn't have to be true. 

Look at random encounter tables. If there is a 5 % chance that the 1st level PCs encounter the Ancient Wyrm when traveling through the forest, they might know that - but does that mean they will never ever dare to enter the forest until they are of sufficient level? 

Or can we assume that the DM will engineer the scenario in a way to give the PCs some warning signs ("You hear a terrible roar - it must be the Dragon! What do you do!" - "We run in the opposite direction and hide!")? 

Of course, if I was the DM, that's what I would do, and I'd turn it into a "level appropriate" challenge. Because otherwise it still seems unfair and not conductive to my enjoyment of the game. Because there was nothing the PCs really could have done except not using the forest to avoid that problem - after all, they don't control the outcome of my d% on the random encounter table! 

It seems like "Save or Die" to me. Of course every PC death and every TPK hinges on one final roll, but as usual my problem is that there is no way to really "predict" it happening or providing an opportunity to turn things around. The only way this works for me is
1) A threat appears
2) I can make a choice on how to deal with it
3) My decision meaningful affects whether the the threat is realized (bad things happen) or not.

(And note in this example: The threat does - not in my "mental model" of the game world - appear when I choose to enter the forest. It appears when the DM rolls that the Dragon appears. Before this decision, the threat did not appear. It was a threat like "I might have a heart stroke today" or "a tree could fall down on me". Yes, it is a possibility, but the threat hasn't really appeared.)


----------



## The Ghost (Mar 9, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> 2. "Ok, there IS an enormous dragon next to the town, but I don't want the PCs to blunder into it and die at level 1, so I'm making sure they know the dragon will inevitably eat them if they fight it, and I'm making sure that any DM instigated encounters with the dragons are non combat scenes where the PCs sneak past or hide from or flee the dragon.  Technically the PCs could decide to do something moronic and end up eaten by the dragon, but only if they ignore the clear and obvious warning signs."




This is not the case.



Cadfan said:


> 2. "Ok, there IS an enormous dragon next to the town."




This is.

It is the PCs decision to make the choice. Not mine. I let the players determine if the risk is worth the reward.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 9, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Cadfan, I think the Ghost and Raven Crowking seem to explain the difference - it is who gets to decide whether something might be appropriate or not.
> 
> With half-way clever players and DM, either choice will probably lead to the same game experience, so the question might be - is it really that important in practice or more a philosophical question? I don't know.




As a player, knowing that these things are out there, and that I can choose to interact with them _*even if I do not*_ significantly enhances the game experience, if not the actual sequence of effects.  Much the difference in type (though not degree) between going to work knowing that you could seek another job, or being enslaved by your current employer.  You might still do the same things on a daily basis, but I dare say that your experience would be monumentally different.



Cadfan said:


> Except you left out the key aspect that makes it the same (for the purposes of level responsive design, I don't want to get into another argument about how dragons are different from wyverns).
> 
> In the first example, the DM (at least the one I'm talking to, also good DMs in general who don't trap the party into TPKs and then blame them for unavoidable mistakes) also makes sure that the players know enough information to make meaningful choices.  Reasonable choices by the PCs still lead to level appropriate challenges.  If combat with a particular foe would lead to inevitable death, warning signs are carefully erected so that combat with that foe does not occur.  If that foe is otherwise encountered, the context (such as the "sneak past the dragon" scenario discussed above) is one of a level appropriate encounter.
> 
> ...




Except that, in my real gaming experience, players don't always take the hint.  Moreover, they might think of things that surprise the DM.  They might, for example, think that it is worth the risk to try to moniter the dragon's movements, and then creep into its lair when it is out, so as to gain a bit of its treasure.  They might try to serve the dragon, or try to get the dragon to act against a mutual enemy.  They might wish to pay tribute to the dragon in order to get it to perform certain actions for them, ala _The Godfather_.  They might even come up with a brilliant scheme by which they pretend to be agents of the dragon, and scam some local village or orc tribe to give up sacrifices to "their master".

Once the dragon is put into the world, what the players decide to do with it is out of his or her hands.  Until the DM puts the dragon into the world, that decision is always in his or her hands.  Sometimes this is because the DM thinks "I know what's best for my players", sometimes because the DM thinks "dragons are only for fighting or avoiding anyway, so there's no real difference whether the dragon is there yet or not", and sometimes the DM hasn't really given it any thought.

But, here's the thing:  In a world where that dragon exists, the players get to decide what challenges to face.  They not only get to decide if "fight the dragon" is a challenge they can face, they get to decide if "talk to the dragon", "serve the dragon", "convince the dragon", and "use the dragon as basis of scams" are challenges they can face.  They can make an illusion of a dragon that is credible to NPCs because the NPCs know there is a dragon.  They can, frankly, come up with thousands of other, better, ideas than the ones I have outlined here.

(This is not so different, BTW, than traps.  The only use of a trap is not to have the PCs blunder into it.  Sometimes the PCs can arrange to have their enemies blunder into it.  Just as they might manage to somehow convince a powerful foe that his real enemy is that pesky dragon, in hopes that they will soon be one powerful foe less.)

It is the _*players*_, not the DM, who decide if the dragon represents "The cards are all on the table. There is a dragon, and it will eat you dead. Do you want to be eaten dead by the dragon? Y/N. Obviously no." or not.  

I have had low-level players seek out monsters they knew would probably eat them, because they saw it as a reasonable risk to gain some benefit they desired.  Sometimes they were successful; sometimes they were eaten.  

Player choices are not (or should not be) as black-and-white as you seem to think.


RC


----------



## Imaro (Mar 9, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Except you left out the key aspect that makes it the same (for the purposes of level responsive design, I don't want to get into another argument about how dragons are different from wyverns).
> 
> In the first example, the DM (at least the one I'm talking to, also good DMs in general who don't trap the party into TPKs and then blame them for unavoidable mistakes) also makes sure that the players know enough information to make meaningful choices. Reasonable choices by the PCs still lead to level appropriate challenges. If combat with a particular foe would lead to inevitable death, warning signs are carefully erected so that combat with that foe does not occur. If that foe is otherwise encountered, the context (such as the "sneak past the dragon" scenario discussed above) is one of a level appropriate encounter.
> 
> ...





Ok, Cadfan I have just one question... what if the PC's find a way to defeat the dragon? Seriously what if they are ingenuous enough to pull it off without going head to head with the creature...does it change your position? Or what if the player's believe they are, even after all their research... how does it become a non-choice?

Some people wil take the big gamble, especially if they think they can pull it off. In the example with the dragon the DM is saying...hey if you want to bet against the house and bet it all, to win big...go ahead, you have that option.

In the non-dragon example, you don't get the chance to ever bet everything against the house. All of those "win or loose it all" tables are off-limits until the DM feels you are capable of betting on them regardless of whether you as a player do or don't.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 9, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> It is the PCs decision to make the choice. Not mine. I let the players determine if the risk is worth the reward.






Raven Crowking said:


> But, here's the thing:  In a world where that dragon exists, the players get to decide what challenges to face.  They not only get to decide if "fight the dragon" is a challenge they can face, they get to decide if "talk to the dragon", "serve the dragon", "convince the dragon", and "use the dragon as basis of scams" are challenges they can face.  They can make an illusion of a dragon that is credible to NPCs because the NPCs know there is a dragon.  They can, frankly, come up with thousands of other, better, ideas than the ones I have outlined here.






Imaro said:


> Ok, Cadfan I have just one question... what if the PC's find a way to defeat the dragon? Seriously what if they are ingenuous enough to pull it off without going head to head with the creature...does it change your position? Or what if the player's believe they are, even after all their research... how does it become a non-choice?




Wow. I don't know if its generational, editional, or something they put in the water up here, but I don't know a single player (and I've played with countless at this point) who, knowing that the dragon between towns was powerful (and via metagaming would equate that to beyond their scope to handle) would even bother to touch it, let alone attack it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 9, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Wow. I don't know if its generational, editional, or something they put in the water up here, but I don't know a single player (and I've played with countless at this point) who, knowing that the dragon between towns was powerful (and via metagaming would equate that to beyond their scope to handle) would even bother to touch it, let alone attack it.




Unless the players have the option to do as they will -- and unless they are allowed to define the challenges -- the game narrows to combat encounters interspersed with role-playing.  Give the players their head, and allow them to decide what kind of encounters they seek, and suddenly not only do a plethora of options for the "action" of the game become viable, but a plethora of character types (including many non-optimazed for combat types) become viable as well.

One shouldn't expect players used to cages to suddenly act differently once they are free (or more free), but given time, I bet those same players might surprise you.

It requires some experience of wide-open expanses to see how different (and limiting) those narrow adventure paths are, I guess.


RC


----------



## Imaro (Mar 9, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Wow. I don't know if its generational, editional, or something they put in the water up here, but I don't know a single player (and I've played with countless at this point) who, knowing that the dragon between towns was powerful (and via metagaming would equate that to beyond their scope to handle) would even bother to touch it, let alone attack it.




Well I most certainly have played with PC's who came up with pretty creative ways to defeat creatures more powerful than them and even some that got through on pure luck. I do think that when you make sure that everything a group of PC's runs into is killable by them, in direct combat... they tend to start to only think in that direction...just saying.

But I think... a better question is if you don't give your players the ability to choose what they are willing to take on and how much risk they are willing to deal with, how do you know what they can or cannot do?  YMMV of course.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Well I most certainly have played with PC's who came up with pretty creative ways to defeat creatures more powerful than them and even some that got through on pure luck. I do think that when you make sure that everything a group of PC's runs into is killable by them, in direct combat... they tend to start to only think in that direction...just saying.
> 
> But I think... a better question is if you don't give your players the ability to choose what they are willing to take on and how much risk they are willing to deal with, how do you know what they can or cannot do?  YMMV of course.




Exactly.

It is often said, "If your only tool is a hammer, pretty soon everything begins to look like a nail".

Flipped over, "If all you are ever presented with are nails, pretty soon all you ever reach for is a hammer."

It may also be said, "If your only tool is a hammer, it shouldn't be odd that you never considered tightening the bolts."



RC


----------



## The Ghost (Mar 9, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Wow. I don't know if its generational, editional, or something they put in the water up here, but I don't know a single player (and I've played with countless at this point) who, knowing that the dragon between towns was powerful (and via metagaming would equate that to beyond their scope to handle) would even bother to touch it, let alone attack it.




Added to what RC and Imaro said above... All I can do is give them the opportunity to do great things.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 9, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> In one paradigm, the world exists, and the players determine what sort of challenge they are capable of facing.



With the help of the DM, who places those challenges on the map, makes sure a few of them are level-appropriate, and then places reasonably legible signposts up that convey the level-appropriateness of each challenge (more or less).  



> In general, the players need to determine what level of challenge any given in-world location or object represents, based upon information and hints that are presented in the context of the world itself.



In other words, based on the information the DM makes available to them so they don't blunder into level-inappropriate challenges unless the player are determined to be stupid. 

It seems to me that these two paradigms are functionally pretty similar. Both take steps to ensure the level-appropriateness of in-game challenges faced, but use different methodologies. 

Under one, the DM tightly controls the encounters, ummm, encountered. In the other, DM makes good intelligence available to players so they can make informed choices about the dangers they take on, in addition to setting the play environment up so that appropriate challenges exist nearby.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 9, 2009)

Mallus said:


> With the help of the DM, who places those challenges on the map, makes sure a few of them are level-appropriate, and then places reasonably legible signposts up that convey the level-appropriateness of each challenge (more or less).
> 
> 
> In other words, based on the information the DM makes available to them so they don't blunder into level-inappropriate challenges unless the player are determined to be stupid.
> ...




It seems to me that in order to support your reasoning you are assigning motivation without any evidence to back it up.  Why is a player "stupid" if they seek out a level inappropriate challenge.  First, ignoring the fact that the XP budgets/CR are guesstimations anyway (and it is actually possible for a well played and/or lucky party to defeat challenges that are "inappropriate" according to the book)... if you feel you can defeat a challenge why not go for it?  It's a game and for some people part of the fun is in how big of a challenge they can overcome or outsmart, and hey they don't really mind if they might loose a character to do it.

I would argue that the DM makes good intelligence available to the characters so that they can make an informed decision (which is not the same as ensuring "... the level-appropriateness of in-game challenges faced" since nothing is *ensured*) ... however, what decision the PC's make isn't decided by the DM but instead by the actual players and dependant upon their motivations, goals, sense of what is fun, etc. 

How can you not see the difference between these two situations... In one you still have a choice (regardless of what information you recieve you can still choose)... in the other you don't have a choice.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 9, 2009)

Still, is it or is it not the DMs job to consider the "balanced" encounter paragrim?

For example, I (as DM) decide that the next adventure will deal with a group of marauding monsters terrorizing local farming communities. My group is (lets say) 5th level. 

As a DM I have two choices.

a.) Go with some monsters that are level appropriate (orcs, lizardmen, etc). 
b.) Go with something that seems "natural" but might not be an appropriate challenge (kobolds, hill giants).

Both sides have merits. If the world is a natural ecology that doesn't take into account the relative level of the PCs (that is, the world exists for the PCs to make their way in irregardless of thier personal power) then using something wildly underpowered (kobolds) or overpowered (hill giants) are as equally valid as using something level appropriate (orcs). However, we can all agree the game runs better when the PCs relative power is taken into account (the world conforms to the PCs) so that the game isn't a cakewalk or a TPK. 

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? The PCs or the World?

It seems one side arguing the world comes first and if its appropriate for the town to be attacked by hill giants the by-gods here come the rain of boulders, it doesn't matter if the PCs are powerful enough to face them in combat, they'll think of something or chalk it up to another lost town. 

The other side is saying "but if the DM is going through the trouble of putting something there, then it makes sense the PCs should be able to handle it." There is no point in wasting time statting up monsters the PCs won't fight or creating scenarios that will either bore or crush their characters. 

While I DO agree powerful things should exist independent of PC levels (its not like giants magically move downriver and kick the orcs out now that the PCs are 10th level) you have to agree that by-and-large PCs should face appropriate level encounters and receive appropriate level rewards, otherwise its OK to use Hill giants as a challenge for 5th level PCs.


----------



## Xyxox (Mar 9, 2009)

The answer is "Kender".

The world exists for the entertainment of Kender, whether or not Kender are native to the world.

*Xyxox Law:* Any world, given enough time, will be discoverd by Kender.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 9, 2009)

Xyxox said:


> The answer is "Kender".
> 
> The world exists for the entertainment of Kender, whether or not Kender are native to the world.
> 
> *Xyxox Law:* Any world, given enough time, will be discovered by Kender.




I wish I could disagree with you, but every DM I've ever played with (myself included) has used the annoying SoB's at least once as a PC, NPC, or "monster". Not one of them has been running Dragonlance at the time.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Why is a player "stupid" if they seek out a level inappropriate challenge.



The players are stupid if they deliberately take on a challenge they cannot possibly defeat nor escape from if they engage it (hello obvious my old friend!). Every edition of D&D provides many of these lopsided match ups.  



> It's a game and for some people part of the fun is in how big of a challenge they can overcome or outsmart, and hey they don't really mind if they might loose a character to do it.



This doesn't alter the fact that the rules dictate some challenges are _insurmountable_ to the players if they're not high enough in level, and that at any given time during the campaign a good DM has to populate the environment with _surmountable_ challenges, in addition to providing ample information/hints as to which ones are not. 

Which means the DM is actively taking steps to ensure level-appropriate challenges exist. 



> I would argue that the DM makes good intelligence available to the characters so that they can make an informed decision...



Which is what I wrote. 



> ... (which is not the same as ensuring "... the level-appropriateness of in-game challenges faced" since nothing is *ensured*)



I didn't say they were the same, one method affords more player choice. Both have the same goal: make sure level-appropriate challenges exist for the players to take on. Both methods contrive the _world_ into a place the _game_ can take place. 

Both also restrict the number of level-inappropriate challenges the players face, one directly through outright control of the encounters themselves, and the other indirectly through reliable information and use of 'invisible walls (ie, the CR 18 dragon on Mt. Fang that hunts in the Forest of Perishables never decides to torch the village of Starting Hamlet, at least while the low-level PC's are there shopping for 10' poles and flaming oil).


----------



## Reynard (Mar 9, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> For example, I (as DM) decide that the next adventure will deal with a group of marauding monsters terrorizing local farming communities. My group is (lets say) 5th level.
> 
> As a DM I have two choices.
> 
> ...




Here's the thing: we're not talking about _adventure_ design, we are talking about _setting_ design. I don't think Imaro, RC or any of us are suggesting that the DM designs a 10th level adventure for a 2nd level party. Rather, that the setting includes elements that cut across the spectrum of the "level spread" and that those things exist, as they are, regardless of the level of the PCs at the time the PCs might encounter them. That Jade Jaws lives within a few days travel of the PCs home village (he likes to occasionally snack on the goat herds and sometimes a traveler or two) doesn't mean that Jade Jaws is the target of the first, or in fact any, of the PCs' adventures.  He's a setting element, one with which the PCs may or may not interact with based on their choices and perhaps (un)luck.

"Adventures" are a whole different situation.  If the DM is going to put an adventure in front of the PCs and essentially force them into it, then I think it's necessary for it to be generally "level appropriate".  This is why I try and stay away from "adventures" and go for "situations" and "locations" and let the PCs decide what to do.  Of course, this doesn't work for every group, sometimes because the players aren't particularly self motivated  and sometimes because the preference of the group leans toward discreet adventures and "adventure paths" (personal aside: blech). And that's fine. Not every DM is a good fit for every group.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 9, 2009)

Mallus said:


> In other words, based on the information the DM makes available to them so they don't blunder into level-inappropriate challenges unless the player are determined to be stupid.




No.

The DM is obligated to make the world make sense, in that (say) the goblins know that there is a lich down below that they don't bother, but it is incumbant upon the players, not the DM, to make use of whatever means exist to obtain information about the world.  Thus, taking prisoners and talking to captives is often as important...and, ultimately, as fun...as outright slaughter.

The DM makes some information about the world available because the PCs would know it.  The DM makes some other information about the world available because it is contextually "correct" to do so (i.e., discussing their plans to go through the Wood of Great Peril near a friendly local provokes said friendly local to tell them what he believes the Great Peril to be.....and he may very well be wrong).  The players must choose to seek information if they want more than this.  Or stumble into it.  The choice is theirs.



> It seems to me that these two paradigms are functionally pretty similar. Both take steps to ensure the level-appropriateness of in-game challenges faced, but use different methodologies.
> 
> Under one, the DM tightly controls the encounters, ummm, encountered. In the other, DM makes good intelligence available to players so they can make informed choices about the dangers they take on, in addition to setting the play environment up so that appropriate challenges exist nearby.




Again, you conveniently ignore in your summary all the points previously made, including the examples of *what is possible* -- of what has happened in real games run by real people -- when the DM does not tightly control the encounters, ummmm, encountered.

I can respect that, given options X (expansive) or Y (narrow), one might prefer option Y.  However, claiming that, because one prefers option Y, that option X is also option Y seems to me, at best, self-deluding.


RC


----------



## Imaro (Mar 9, 2009)

Mallus said:


> The players are stupid if they deliberately take on a challenge they cannot possibly defeat nor escape from if they engage it (hello obvious my old friend!). Every edition of D&D provides many of these lopsided match ups.).




Eh, so you say... but if you are clever enough there are ways to defeat the supposedly "undefeatable". Can't a dragon drown, suffocate, be buried alive, tricked etc.?  I also noticed now you've added "or escape from..." that's a pretty big conditional there, and I don't think most PC's walk into even what they think are easy or moderate challenges without some way out.




Mallus said:


> This doesn't alter the fact that the rules dictate some challenges are _insurmountable_ to the players if they're not high enough in level, and that at any given time during the campaign a good DM has to populate the environment with _surmountable_ challenges, in addition to providing ample information/hints as to which ones are not..).




Insurmountable if they charge in guns a blazin or plain insurmountable no matter what they do? You know defeating a challenge =/= killing it...right? 

Also no one has said you shouldn't populate the campaign with "direct combat" surmountable challenges. If you used all "direct combat" insurrmountable challenges it would be just as lopsided and unnatural as using only "direct combat" challenges that are always surrmountable. 



Mallus said:


> Which means the DM is actively taking steps to ensure level-appropriate challenges exist.




Yeah, he is, but I love the way you are trying to twist this... I repeat...*No one said there shouldn't be any level-appropriate challenges... what we are ascerting is that there shouldn't only be level appropriate challenges for certain (sandbox) types of games otherwise you are limiting and restricting the choices (and possibly the creativity) of your players.* 



Mallus said:


> Which is what I wrote.




If you say so...



Mallus said:


> I didn't say they were the same, one method affords more player choice. Both have the same goal: make sure level-appropriate challenges exist for the players to take on. Both methods contrive the _world_ into a place the _game_ can take place.




No, they don't have the same goal and that's where you're not understanding. The I only create level appropriate combat challenges DM has that goal... in fact with this method it's the only possible goal he could have. And the player doesn't have a choice plain and simple the DM accomplishes this goal no matter what...

The DM who uses level appropriate as well as non-level appropriate combat challenges can actually have various goals such as... you decide your own fate, destiny, risk and reward... and it is accomplished because the PC's actually have to choose.



Mallus said:


> Both also restrict the number of level-inappropriate challenges the players face, one directly through outright control of the encounters themselves, and the other indirectly through reliable information and use of 'invisible walls (ie, the CR 18 dragon on Mt. Fang that hunts in the Forest of Perishables never decides to torch the village of Starting Hamlet, at least while the low-level PC's are there shopping for 10' poles and flaming oil).




Wrong, one eliminates the number of level-inappropriate challenges the players face...the other, depending on how the world is constructed could possibly create the result of restricting the number of level-inappropriate challenges the players face... or it may not. As an example what if I just have a wandering monster chart based entirely on environment as opposed to based on level, how does this in anyway restrict level-innappropriate challenges?

You assume alot and you really shouldn't. If I roll the CR 18 dragon on the wandering monster table in the village of Starting Hamlet... then the PC's will deal with it. Of course since the villagers are scared, giving the dragon tribute and doing whatever it wants, I gotta ask... why would it attack an insignificant village and destroy everything it's getting from the villagers? 

(logically there's probably like a 1% chance of this happening unless something major changes the situation... would be the reason it isn't likely happening in my campaign...YMMV of course).


----------



## Mallus (Mar 9, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> The DM is obligated to make the world make sense...



Within the larger context of making the game playable. This is true no matter how many layers of rationalization you layer on top. 



> The DM makes some information about the world available because the PCs would know it.  The DM makes some other information about the world available because it is contextually "correct" to do so.



Again, within the larger context of making the game playable. If the DM _doesn't_ make enough information available, then informed choices and, consequently, 'smart play' become impossible. 



> Again, you conveniently ignore in your summary all the points previously made, including the examples of *what is possible* -- of what has happened in real games run by real people -- when the DM does not tightly control the encounters, ummmm, encountered.



I think you're misunderstanding me RC. I didn't say DM needed to control encounters. I said that's one way of addressing level appropriateness and sandbox games use other methods. 

Heh... I didn't even claim one approach was _better]/i]._


----------



## The Ghost (Mar 9, 2009)

Mallus said:


> It seems to me that these two paradigms are functionally pretty similar. Both take steps to ensure the level-appropriateness of in-game challenges faced, but use different methodologies.




Partly true. While they can, and, often times do, produce similar outcomes, they will often produce dissimilar outcomes as well. My feeling is, I would rather have the PCs make that determination.



Remathilis said:


> Still, is it or is it not the DMs job to consider the "balanced" encounter paragrim?
> 
> For example, I (as DM) decide that the next adventure will deal with a group of marauding monsters terrorizing local farming communities. My group is (lets say) 5th level.
> 
> ...




To start, I do not plan out adventures, I just create opportunities for my players to find adventures. The world is what it is and it rewards the PCs based on the level of risk they wish to pursue. Not the level of risk I choose to give them. Part of the fun is in overcoming situations that should be well beyond our capabilities. We prefer playing knowing that the next encounter could be a cakewalk or a TPK. We don't know. We can guess. We can figure probabilities, strategies, and tactics. After that, it is just left to the roll of the dice, but we made that choice as players. We took the risk and that was the result. 

As a player, I cannot find joy in success unless I can also fail. In fact, I love when my character fails, it motivates me as a player. My friends play the same way. I'll paraphrase ABC's Wide World of Sports - It's about the thrill of victory AND the agony of defeat. I give my players the opportunity to take a chance and experience both, if that's what they choose and that's the way the dice fall.

As to level appropriate, well, what is level appropriate? That is on the players to determine. They know better than me what powers, spells, items, skills, abilities, strategies, tactics, etc. they have. Regardless of edition, with all the information that is available to players, they can better determine what an appropriate level challenge is to them than I can. I just give them the opportunities and react to their decisions.

I do agree with you that there is merits to both sides of this argument. I am just trying to explain why I do what I do. And we all should do what is best for our individual groups. This just happens to be how my players and I enjoy the game.


----------



## RefinedBean (Mar 9, 2009)

Either way of designing one's game is fine, so long as people are having fun.

I would like to point out that if a group of level 1 adventurers goes out and defeats a level 10 dragon, that dragon must have been having one heck of an off-day.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 9, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> Either way of designing one's game is fine, so long as people are having fun.
> 
> I would like to point out that if a group of level 1 adventurers goes out and defeats a level 10 dragon, that dragon must have been having one heck of an off-day.




Not if they beat it through the new eratta'd skill challenges...


----------



## RefinedBean (Mar 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Not if they beat it through the new eratta'd skill challenges...




I suppose I could picture some long-winded Bard talking a White Dragon to death.

If the DM decides to let a group of level 1 adventurers defeat a level 10 dragon through some skill challenges, that's all fine and dandy.  But that's still "designing the setting/scenario around the PCs," or else the skill challenges wouldn't be in place and the dragon would just chortle a bit before eating them.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 9, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> I suppose I could picture some long-winded Bard talking a White Dragon to death.
> 
> If the DM decides to let a group of level 1 adventurers defeat a level 10 dragon through some skill challenges, that's all fine and dandy. But that's still "designing the setting/scenario around the PCs," or else the skill challenges wouldn't be in place and the dragon would just chortle a bit before eating them.




What do you mean the skill challenges wouldn't be in place?  I would think the PC's would come up with a plan and execute it through skill challenges.  Using a level 10 challenge level for the skill challenges a 1st level PC is still pretty capable of succeeding.  And again, defeating a challenge doesn't mean murderizing it...


----------



## Ourph (Mar 9, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> I suppose I could picture some long-winded Bard talking a White Dragon to death.



I suspect the Bard and Cleric got into an edition wars argument and the White Dragon offed itself rather than listen any longer.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 9, 2009)

Ourph said:


> I suspect the Bard and Cleric got into an edition wars argument and the White Dragon offed itself rather than listen any longer.




Hardly necessary as the bard already had 6 levels of fighter and some thief levels.  The white dragon never stood a chance.


----------



## nightwyrm (Mar 9, 2009)

Reynard said:


> Hardly necessary as the bard already had 6 levels of fighter and some thief levels. The white dragon never stood a chance.




So the white dragon laughed himself to death?


----------



## Jack7 (Mar 9, 2009)

> So the white dragon laughed himself to death?





You know the old saying, "A bard is a poet who dreams of comedy."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 9, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Within the larger context of making the game playable. This is true no matter how many layers of rationalization you layer on top.




Sure, so long as you accept that one approach creates a very different game than the other.....i.e., there is a real difference.

Otherwise, this is just a straw man.  No one is disputing that RPG worlds are created as vehicles for which games are played, at least not so far as I can tell.  


RC


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 10, 2009)

tl;dr:

The world exists to solely facilitate play and entertain the group.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 10, 2009)

Wormwood said:


> The world exists to solely facilitate play and entertain the group.



I'd be surprised if anyone in the thread disagrees with that.

However, there are different ways to play, different ways the world can facilitate play, and different ideas of what's entertaining. Thus . . .







Remathilis said:


> Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? The PCs or the World?
> 
> It seems one side arguing the world comes first and if its appropriate for the town to be attacked by hill giants the by-gods here come the rain of boulders, it doesn't matter if the PCs are powerful enough to face them in combat, they'll think of something or chalk it up to another lost town.



It doesn't matter if the adventurers are powerful enough to face them in combat if the encounter isn't about combat.

In this instance, the encounter may be about simple survival. Or about rescuing the villagers. Or saving a holy relic from the local temple. Or all of the above.

It may be about negotiating with the giants, offering them something they want in exchange for sparing the town. It may be about outwitting the hill giants, luring them off, misdirecting them, not facing them down. And it may be setting the stage for the adventurers' return to drive off the giants later.

In my experience, if the response to everything in the game is swords and spells, the game gets stale very fast.







			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> The other side is saying "but if the DM is going through the trouble of putting something there, then it makes sense the PCs should be able to handle it." There is no point in wasting time statting up monsters the PCs won't fight or creating scenarios that will either bore or crush their characters.



It's only a waste of time if you expect the only reason for creating encounters is combat..







			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> While I DO agree powerful things should exist independent of PC levels (its not like giants magically move downriver and kick the orcs out now that the PCs are 10th level) . . .



That would actually make a perfectly valid motivation for the hill giants to in fact move downriver: the hill giants hear of the adventurers and decide to capture the adventurers, take their treasure, and ransom them to the king. Monsters can be proactive, too, and their intelligence can be as faulty as that of the adventurers.







Remathilis said:


> . . . you have to agree that by-and-large PCs should face appropriate level encounters and receive appropriate level rewards, otherwise its OK to use Hill giants as a challenge for 5th level PCs.



I really don't have to agree to any such thing.

It's up to the adventurers to decide what's appropriate and what isn't. They need to be alert and use the resources available to them, magical and mundane, to survive. Sometimes they'll be confronted with opponents more powerful than they are; sometimes they get to tee off on some opponent that is laughably far below them. This is the nature of the world in which they live, and these are the consequences of the choices they make.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 10, 2009)

Deleted for more snarkiness than I intended.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Mar 10, 2009)

All the bits about dragons that the PC's may or may not encounter seems a bit odd to me. If you dont intend the PC's to EVER encounter the dragon, why bother mentioning it to begin with? Someone earlier mentioned the old Dungeon rule of 'Dont do more work then you have too'.  This harken back to Chehkov's Gun.  If you mention something, it should be important later on, else you shouldnt waste time on mentioning it as it doesnt matter.  

As to the Treasure wish lists thing.  Eh.  I dont like wish lists, but I'll tailor the treasure to something the PC's can actually use...if just because otherwise you'll end up with a session of the PC's doing nothing but tracking down stuff they actually want or can use.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 10, 2009)

Reynard said:


> Here's the thing: we're not talking about _adventure_ design, we are talking about _setting_ design. I don't think Imaro, RC or any of us are suggesting that the DM designs a 10th level adventure for a 2nd level party. Rather, that the setting includes elements that cut across the spectrum of the "level spread" and that those things exist, as they are, regardless of the level of the PCs at the time the PCs might encounter them. That Jade Jaws lives within a few days travel of the PCs home village (he likes to occasionally snack on the goat herds and sometimes a traveler or two) doesn't mean that Jade Jaws is the target of the first, or in fact any, of the PCs' adventures.  He's a setting element, one with which the PCs may or may not interact with based on their choices and perhaps (un)luck




Of course the setting contains higher level or "inappropriate" threats. If that's what you want to "hear", yeah, of course that's the approach you will take when generating a new setting or campaign background.

Whether I will have them flashed out and populate random encounter tables is a different matter. I will not put much thought into any 15th level challenges while the PCs are 1st level when I design my setting. Unless I do it by accident ("there are Mind Flayers around,or whatever other monster is in that level range these days"  )


----------



## Imaro (Mar 10, 2009)

D.Shaffer said:


> All the bits about dragons that the PC's may or may not encounter seems a bit odd to me. If you dont intend the PC's to EVER encounter the dragon, why bother mentioning it to begin with? Someone earlier mentioned the old Dungeon rule of 'Dont do more work then you have too'. This harken back to Chehkov's Gun. If you mention something, it should be important later on, else you shouldnt waste time on mentioning it as it doesnt matter.




Are you talking about a sandbox campaign here? If so the DM doesn't decide when, how or why the PC's interact with something... he only determines what is there to interact with and where it is. Now there are two types of DM's who create a sandbox, the first will put up arbitrary restrictions and contrivances to make sure you only encounter level-appropriate encounters (honestly this isn't really a sandbox IMO but is more the illusionism Cadfan speaks of earlier)... the second type will allow his players to explore whatever they want but won't arbitrarily try and stop the PC's from biting off more than they may be able to chew (though if they put the effort forward he will inform them about the challenges they are seeking out). 

Think of it like an amusement park where, you have various rides that one can experience. With the first type of DM running the amusement park there are guards at each ride and if you don't meet the age/height/etc. requirements you are not allowed on that ride...period. How, when and why you get on a particular ride is up to you, you're just extremely limited in what rides are available. 

With the second type of DM running the game, There might be signs by the rides telling you the recommended height/age/etc. but no guard is going to forcibly remove you or block it. You can make what some might consider a bad choice (get on a ride that is more than you can handle and end up throwing up) or a relatively safe choice (hey look the merry-go-round) you could even be the type that risks the supposed "bad choice" and walks away with nothing more than a grin and an adrenaline rush. 

Finally you also get rewarded foir each ride you take, the scarier the more you get... only in the first DM's amusement park you get a good average but no high or low prizes... while in the second if you are willing ot take bigger risks you can garner bigger rewards.


----------



## wedgeski (Mar 10, 2009)

I've fully embraced the gamist elements of the latest version of the game and we're having a blast with it... which is why I have absolutely no problem with wish lists, and we use them pretty much as the DMG suggests. The justification is easy: part of heroism is being in the right place at the right time: the Paladin who finds the Holy Avenger or the mage who stumbles upon the Staff of Wizardry. These are people who want to change the world around them and suddenly have the means to do it... of *course* they're going to be the ones who have an epic destiny and whose names will be remembered. It's their story you're building over the course of 30 levels, not the story of the sorcerer who only ever found plate mail or the rogue who always rolled a 1 on Stealth checks. History will forget those guys.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 10, 2009)

wedgeski said:


> I've fully embraced the gamist elements of the latest version of the game and we're having a blast with it... which is why I have absolutely no problem with wish lists, and we use them pretty much as the DMG suggests. The justification is easy: part of heroism is being in the right place at the right time: the Paladin who finds the Holy Avenger or the mage who stumbles upon the Staff of Wizardry. These are people who want to change the world around them and suddenly have the means to do it... of *course* they're going to be the ones who have an epic destiny and whose names will be remembered. It's their story you're building over the course of 30 levels, not the story of the sorcerer who only ever found plate mail or the rogue who always rolled a 1 on Stealth checks. History will forget those guys.




No PC is preordained for greatness.  None have a destiny thrust upon them. PCs must make their own destiny, and it is through their deeds that they are remembered.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 10, 2009)

wedgeski said:


> I've fully embraced the gamist elements of the latest version of the game and we're having a blast with it... which is why I have absolutely no problem with wish lists, and we use them pretty much as the DMG suggests. The justification is easy: part of heroism is being in the right place at the right time: the Paladin who finds the Holy Avenger or the mage who stumbles upon the Staff of Wizardry. These are people who want to change the world around them and suddenly have the means to do it... of *course* they're going to be the ones who have an epic destiny and whose names will be remembered. It's their story you're building over the course of 30 levels, not the story of the sorcerer who only ever found plate mail or the rogue who always rolled a 1 on Stealth checks. History will forget those guys.





I'm just curious, do you allow PC's to die in your games or is it something like a death flag game?


----------



## billd91 (Mar 10, 2009)

D.Shaffer said:


> All the bits about dragons that the PC's may or may not encounter seems a bit odd to me. If you dont intend the PC's to EVER encounter the dragon, why bother mentioning it to begin with? Someone earlier mentioned the old Dungeon rule of 'Dont do more work then you have too'.  This harken back to Chehkov's Gun.  If you mention something, it should be important later on, else you shouldnt waste time on mentioning it as it doesnt matter.




Even in a more plotted, less sandbox game, there may be time for PC-driven side-treks. How are they going to have the freedom to choose any if none are introduced?
Plus, don't overuse Chekhov's gun. He was referring to a monologue in a play... a work of art in which the audience does not actively participate. A campaign world is different in the sense the the audience (players) is also a participant and can determine for itself whether Chekhov's gun will (or will not) be fired.


----------



## wedgeski (Mar 10, 2009)

Reynard said:


> No PC is preordained for greatness.  None have a destiny thrust upon them. PCs must make their own destiny, and it is through their deeds that they are remembered.



That is contrary to one of the central conceits of 4th Edition, which is the game I play, so I can't say as I agree with that.



Imaro said:


> I'm just curious, do you allow PC's to die in your games or is it something like a death flag game?



Yes they can die, but it's no secret to my players that I don't like doing it. Besides, the thrust of your question suggests I didn't make myself clear. All I'm saying is that justifying the fulfilment of a PC wish-list is simply a matter of divorcing player aspiration from PC aspiration; your player knows just how awesome this or that item will be for his character, but your PC may not even know what it is, let alone where to find it. It falls into his hands anyway. Fate, luck, destiny, call it what you want. We already know we're dealing with people for whom history has set aside a spot on the mantlepiece.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 10, 2009)

wedgeski said:


> I've fully embraced the gamist elements of the latest version of the game and we're having a blast with it... which is why I have absolutely no problem with wish lists, and we use them pretty much as the DMG suggests. The justification is easy: part of heroism is being in the right place at the right time: the Paladin who finds the Holy Avenger or the mage who stumbles upon the Staff of Wizardry. These are people who want to change the world around them and suddenly have the means to do it... of *course* they're going to be the ones who have an epic destiny and whose names will be remembered. It's their story you're building over the course of 30 levels, not the story of the sorcerer who only ever found plate mail or the rogue who always rolled a 1 on Stealth checks. History will forget those guys.



That's one approach.







Reynard said:


> No PC is preordained for greatness.  None have a destiny thrust upon them. PCs must make their own destiny, and it is through their deeds that they are remembered.



And that's another.

Personally, I'd choose *Reynard*'s game. But that's just me.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 10, 2009)

I just wanted to say (because it isn't said enough of forums, IMO) that despite differences of opinion, I think we are having a really good, productive discussion and I'm enjoying the hell out of it.


----------



## The Ghost (Mar 10, 2009)

Reynard said:


> I just wanted to say (because it isn't said enough of forums, IMO) that despite differences of opinion, I think we are having a really good, productive discussion and I'm enjoying the hell out of it.




Agreed!



wedgeski said:


> I've fully embraced the gamist elements of the latest version of the game and we're having a blast with it... which is why I have absolutely no problem with wish lists, and we use them pretty much as the DMG suggests. The justification is easy: part of heroism is being in the right place at the right time: the Paladin who finds the Holy Avenger or the mage who stumbles upon the Staff of Wizardry. These are people who want to change the world around them and suddenly have the means to do it... of *course* they're going to be the ones who have an epic destiny and whose names will be remembered. It's their story you're building over the course of 30 levels, not the story of the sorcerer who only ever found plate mail or the rogue who always rolled a 1 on Stealth checks. History will forget those guys.




There is a problem that I have with this concept, and perhaps you can explain it to me. Setting aside strategy and tactics for a moment, outcomes in this game are determined by a roll of the die. As we all know, and as we all have probably experienced, dice in this game will run hot and cold. There will be times when you never roll under a 15, and there will be times when you never roll above a 5. If I state from the beginning of the game that my character is a hero, then how do I rationalize those times when the dice runs cold and the result is a character death, or worse, a TPK? Can I consider those characters to be heroes? I don't know. What did they do that was heroic? Is just being an adventurer enough to make one a hero? I guess, I have a hard time with that concept.

Case in point, I play in a monthly campaign that, last night, ended in a near TPK. My character was the only one left standing. For ten rounds of combat I never rolled above a six. The rest of the group was not much better. Do I consider this character a hero? Maybe. He still has a story left to tell. Can I consider his companions heroes? No. They never did anything heroic, IMHO. We had the opportunity to become heroes, but the dice (destiny?) did not allow it. So long as there is an element of chance built into the game, how do I accept from the beginning that my character is special?


----------



## Reynard (Mar 10, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> So long as there is an element of chance built into the game, how do I accept from the beginning that my character is special?




This is probably the pre-eminent aspect that makes my playstyle what it is and informs my poreferences.  The first time ever to sit down and play D&D, I was 10 years old with my 2 brothers playing and my dad running the introductory adventure in the "Red Box". I died the first time 10 minutes in, killed by the carrion crawler under the old rotted gate -- partly because of dice and partly because of decisions I made. And you know what? It was AWESOME!

So while I understand and respect that other people play differently than me and have their own preferences, the simple fact is that for me, as a player or a DM, the game is more fun when chance and choice have equal weight in the outcome, and when a character is as likely to become a smear on the bottom of a spiked pit as a legendary hero.


----------



## wedgeski (Mar 10, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> So long as there is an element of chance built into the game, how do I accept from the beginning that my character is special?



Well, if we're talking 4E, there is an argument that says you have accepted him as special by virtue of the fact that you rolled him up at all. He's 1st Level. He has already mastered his chosen discipline to a degree that puts him head and shoulders above mundanes. His ability scores are, on average, way better than his neighbour's. The dice always come up for this guy. There's something interesting about him... he's gonna do big things. I know I've said that about a couple of people I've met in real life.

But some of those guys drop by the wayside. Some destinies are greater than others... or maybe he has achieved what fate had in store for him already, and doesn't even know it, or maybe a better hero came along. Maybe the forces that earmarked him for an epic future were frustrated by equally powerful forces that just played a better game. He was a potential hero, but it just wasn't to be.

For me it's just a matter of perspective, like the question of why the narrator of a novel, or the viewport on a movie just happens to be following the life of a simple family man before the apocalypse hits and he has to save the world. They were following him because he was where the story was, and that's exactly the same reason why the 4E paradigm suits my campaign style.

I'm not interested in the life of a farm-boy who ascends to mediocrity and is then killed by the carrion crawler under the gate... I'm interested in the farm boy who sees adventurers pass by his window on a weekly basis on their way to plunder the local dungeon, or who has dragon-blood six generations down his family line which chooses to manifest for the first time in him. Just a different preference.

When he discovers those player wish-list items, they are maybe great strokes of luck. But when he fulfils his Epic Destiny and looks back on his life, he will see small pieces of the larger tapestry that got him to 30th level and perhaps wonder what would have been if the dice had turned against him at the wrong moment.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 10, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> However, there are different ways to play, different ways the world can facilitate play, and different ideas of what's entertaining. Thus . . .It doesn't matter if the adventurers are powerful enough to face them in combat if the encounter isn't about combat.




So its Ok if the PCs encounter Asmodeus at first level as long as they try talking to him, not attacking him. Ok...



The Shaman said:


> In this instance, the encounter may be about simple survival. Or about rescuing the villagers. Or saving a holy relic from the local temple. Or all of the above.




No. the encounter I laid out involves the next village the PCs enter getting sacked by monsters. The PCs can try to fight, flee, sneak around and cause mischief to the foe's flank, make a deal with them, or join in the carnage. 

My question is, is it fair to send monsters so high of level than many of those options are not viable (combat, sneaking, etc)?



The Shaman said:


> It may be about negotiating with the giants, offering them something they want in exchange for sparing the town. It may be about outwitting the hill giants, luring them off, misdirecting them, not facing them down. And it may be setting the stage for the adventurers' return to drive off the giants later.




Still, if I'm using giants, am I not effectively (or subliminally) telling my players "You can't win by fighting", a message that DOESN'T come from using orcs, which opens such options to the table?



The Shaman said:


> In my experience, if the response to everything in the game is swords and spells, the game gets stale very fast.It's only a waste of time if you expect the only reason for creating encounters is combat..That would actually make a perfectly valid motivation for the hill giants to in fact move downriver: the hill giants hear of the adventurers and decide to capture the adventurers, take their treasure, and ransom them to the king. Monsters can be proactive, too, and their intelligence can be as faulty as that of the adventurers.I really don't have to agree to any such thing.




And thanks for validating my point; those giants move downriver to challenge higher-level PCs. Justify it all you want in game, you're using higher level monsters to challenge higher levels PCs because, well, its more fun than having the PCs grind the native orc population to dust. Like it or not, the DM is making a conscious choice to have a much more balanced fight there. He's making the opposite choice if they move downriver to challenge far weaker PCs. Either way, the DM is deciding the challenge the PCs should face based on both the details of his world AND the relative power of the PCs he's challenging.



The Shaman said:


> It's up to the adventurers to decide what's appropriate and what isn't. They need to be alert and use the resources available to them, magical and mundane, to survive. Sometimes they'll be confronted with opponents more powerful than they are; sometimes they get to tee off on some opponent that is laughably far below them. This is the nature of the world in which they live, and these are the consequences of the choices they make.




So its cool to use hill giants as foes for 5th level PCs as long as you don't expect them to fight them. 

Got it.


----------



## Carpe DM (Mar 10, 2009)

The characters, the world, the mat, the beer, and the pretzels, all are there for the sake of the story and of having a good time with friends.

cheers,

Carpe


----------



## Vegepygmy (Mar 10, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> My question is, is it fair to send monsters so high of level than many of those options are not viable (combat, sneaking, etc)?



Life isn't fair.  I like my game to feel more like "life" than "a game."  There are some people who like their game to feel like a game.  That's all there is to it.



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> Still, if I'm using giants, am I not effectively (or subliminally) telling my players "You can't win by fighting", a message that DOESN'T come from using orcs, which opens such options to the table?



If you use a fire elemental, aren't you effectively telling your players: "You can't win by throwing _fireballs_"?  So what?



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> Either way, the DM is deciding the challenge the PCs should face based on both the details of his world AND the relative power of the PCs he's challenging.



I don't think anyone has argued that those should _never_ be considerations.  The issue is whether PCs should _only_ ever encounter "level-appropriate" challenges.



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> So its cool to use hill giants as foes for 5th level PCs as long as you don't expect them to fight them.



I think you're missing the point that some DMs don't make decisions based on what they _expect_ to happen.  They prefer to sit back and watch whatever _does_ happen.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Mar 10, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> So its Ok if the PCs encounter Asmodeus at first level as long as they try talking to him, not attacking him. Ok...



On this point: I played in a campaign once where our just-starting-out 1st-level characters were exploring a mysterious cave.  At the back of the cave was a magic vault that had been sealed for eons.  One of the PCs (for reasons we never discovered) was able to open it, though no one else could.  Inside the vault was something that we suspected could eventually bring phenomenal power to the possessors.

At this point, the DM had a much higher-level (and evil) NPC show up.  His idea was that the NPC would take over control of the vault from us, and that the rest of the campaign would focus on us trying to stop the evil NPC and his allies from using the power obtained from the vault.  He dropped all sorts of hints that this NPC was beyond our pitiful 1st-level powers to resist, and that it would be crazy for us to do anything other than submit to his demands.

All of the players were following this "script," until the DM foolishly had the NPC enter the vault to examine its contents...at which point one player decided to slam the door shut, trapping the NPC inside.

This was a possibility the DM had never considered: that even though the NPC was a wholly level-inappropriate challenge, and even though we knew the NPC had allies in the world who would look into his disappearance, almost certainly find him (and us), and would exact horrible revenge on us for daring to thwart him, *we would do it anyway.*

The campaign's story then became "we're running and hiding from enemies vastly more powerful than ourselves, and trying to find a way out of this mess we created," rather than what the DM *expected* the campaign to be: "stop the bad guys from taking over the world" (or whatever it was supposed to be).

That campaign was incredibly fun for all of us; much more fun, I have no doubt, than it would have been if the DM hadn't thrown a "level-inappropriate" encounter our way, and if we hadn't handled it so differently than he expected us to.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 10, 2009)

Vegepygmy said:


> On this point: I played in a campaign once where our just-starting-out 1st-level characters were exploring a mysterious cave.  At the back of the cave was a magic vault that had been sealed for eons.  One of the PCs (for reasons we never discovered) was able to open it, though no one else could.  Inside the vault was something that we suspected could eventually bring phenomenal power to the possessors.
> 
> At this point, the DM had a much higher-level (and evil) NPC show up.  His idea was that the NPC would take over control of the vault from us, and that the rest of the campaign would focus on us trying to stop the evil NPC and his allies from using the power obtained from the vault.  He dropped all sorts of hints that this NPC was beyond our pitiful 1st-level powers to resist, and that it would be crazy for us to do anything other than submit to his demands.
> 
> ...





Emphasis mine: This had me dying laughing... PRICELESS...This is the type of creativity that can catch a DM off guard especially when all their focused on is CR or XP levels..


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 10, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> So its Ok if the PCs encounter Asmodeus at first level as long as they try talking to him, not attacking him. Ok...



If the adventurers are someplace where it makes sense that they might encounter Asmodeus, such as a powerful wizard's summoning chamber, or on the far side of a portal to the Nine Hells, then yes, it's okay if they encounter an archdevil at first level.







			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> No. the encounter I laid out involves the next village the PCs enter getting sacked by monsters. The PCs can try to fight, flee, sneak around and cause mischief to the foe's flank, make a deal with them, or join in the carnage.



Those are some of the options. Put the scenario in front of ten groups of players, you'll probably find fifteen different solutions proposed.







			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> My question is, is it fair to send monsters so high of level than many of those options are not viable (combat, sneaking, etc)?



First, eliminate the concept of "fair." In the kind of setting that myself and others are describing, "fair" doesn't enter into it. The world is what it is, and it's incumbent on the adventurers to use all the resources at their disposal to find their way in it.

Second, how is "sneaking" not an option? Arguably some players could figure out ways for their characters to engage in combat against the giants (a giant, at the very least), so nothing is necessarily off the table except as determined by the players. The encounter is what it is, and the players decide how their characters will respond.







			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> Still, if I'm using giants, am I not effectively (or subliminally) telling my players "You can't win by fighting", a message that DOESN'T come from using orcs, which opens such options to the table?



You're making a critical(ly wrong) assumption here: combat only takes place head-to-head, swords-and-spells against the whole lot of hill giants.

In my experience, smart adventurers will use the ground and creative tactics and weapons, if a fight is what they're looking for.







			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> And thanks for validating my point; those giants move downriver to challenge higher-level PCs. Justify it all you want in game, you're using higher level monsters to challenge higher levels PCs because, well, its more fun than having the PCs grind the native orc population to dust. Like it or not, the DM is making a conscious choice to have a much more balanced fight there. He's making the opposite choice if they move downriver to challenge far weaker PCs. Either way, the DM is deciding the challenge the PCs should face based on both the details of his world AND the relative power of the PCs he's challenging.



Wow, you completely got that wrong.

I'm proposing that the giants go after the adventurers 'cause it makes sense for them to do so in the context of the game-world. Whether the encounter is "level appropriate" or not doesn't enter into it.







			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> So its cool to use hill giants as foes for 5th level PCs as long as you don't expect them to fight them.
> 
> Got it.



No, I really don't think you do.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 10, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> So its Ok if the PCs encounter Asmodeus at first level as long as they try talking to him, not attacking him. Ok...




Yep.
As long as it makes sense for the situation they are in. Keep in mind that guys like Asmodeus don't mind sitting and chatting with people, offering them immense power, just for a certain consideration down the line once you shuffle off your mortal coil...




Remathilis said:


> So its cool to use hill giants as foes for 5th level PCs as long as you don't expect them to fight them.




Psst. It's fair even if you think they might take a shot at fighting them. As long as they fight smart and don't just try to just go toe to toe.  Hill giants are CR 7, well within a party of 5th level PCs' reach if they're smart about it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 10, 2009)

billd91 said:


> Psst. It's fair even if you think they might take a shot at fighting them. As long as they fight smart and don't just try to just go toe to toe.  Hill giants are CR 7, well within a party of 5th level PCs' reach if they're smart about it.





It's fair even if you think they are liable to try to take the hill giants on head-on, or they are liable to challenge Asmodeus to a duel of honour.

What is not fair is the DM deciding aforehand how the players will handle any encounter.


RC


----------



## Mallus (Mar 10, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> In the kind of setting that myself and others are describing, "fair" doesn't enter into it.



Sure it does, in the form of relatively reliable information about the challenges around them. The information that makes informed choices/'smart play' possible. This is all but a requirement of the _game_ part of the game. 

I've said this before, haven't I? 

In a truly unfair world, one that merely 'was what it was', such reliable information wouldn't _necessarily_ exist. PC's could stumble into certain death despite their best and most diligent efforts, occasionally random, inescapable dooms would sweep, tsunami-like, across these dangerous worlds --be they in the form of a horde of undead, rampaging giants, an elder wyrm having a bad day and an uncharacteristic fit of pique, or even an actually tsunamis, if the PC's are on the coast. 

The setting is neccessarily contrived, to a certain extent, in order to make playing the game possible. It's not fair in that it's skewed slightly towards the players.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 10, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Sure it does, in the form of relatively reliable information about the challenges around them. The information that makes informed choices/'smart play' possible. This is all but a requirement of the _game_ part of the game.
> 
> I've said this before, haven't I?
> 
> ...




Again... assumptions are dangerous things...especially when broadly applied.


----------



## kitsune9 (Mar 10, 2009)

I would say that the world existed for the players.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 10, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Again... assumptions are dangerous things...especially when broadly applied.



What I am assuming? I mean, other than 'DM's take various steps to make the game playable'.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 10, 2009)

Mallus said:


> In a truly unfair world....PC's could stumble into certain death despite their best and most diligent efforts






> It's not fair in that it's skewed slightly towards the players.




Which is unfair, being able to stumble on certain death, or being unable to stumble on certain death?

Right now, your argument is "If A, then X" and "If not-A, then X".

And, yes, you did make that sort of argument before.  


RC


----------



## The Ghost (Mar 10, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Sure it does, in the form of relatively reliable information about the challenges around them. The information that makes informed choices/'smart play' possible. This is all but a requirement of the _game_ part of the game.




Are you referencing information about game mechanics, story descriptions, or both?

I would say giving out mechanical information about what the encounter is is not necessary, giving out a description of what it is, is.

If, for example, I say there is a 7th level orc barbarian wandering the fields - my 1st level party will actively avoid. However, if it is described as a large muscular orc with a red cloak, who the farmers say fought off a whole band of soldiers/goblins/dragons/whatever, then I have given them information that hints at the creature's power. And they can make decision accordingly. Maybe its head out to fight it, maybe its sneak by it, maybe its observe it to learn more.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 10, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> Are you referencing information about game mechanics, story descriptions, or both?



Just story descriptions.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 10, 2009)

Mallus said:


> What I am assuming? I mean, other than 'DM's take various steps to make the game playable'.




You are absolutely right in saying that the GM determines what exists in the world -- whether through creation if it's a homebrew, or exclusion/inclusion if it is not, or some combination thereof -- and by doing so make the world subjective.

However, I think the argument is less that the GM makes the game playable and more that the players make the game playable. That is to say, if the players wander hither and yon without any effort to understand the settings, or rush headlong into every fight with the assumption that they are all "level appropriate" or otherwise behave in a way that shows they don't acknowledge or believe that the world can kill them, they make the game unplayable (and then blame the GM). But if they do treat the world as a dangerous, wonderous place and do investigate and assess and respond, the game becomes playable.

I don't knopw any GMs that actively seek to inundate the player characters with insurmountable challenges and unsurvivable encounters that have players. I know too many, however, that are afraid to include those things at all because the "new school" of adventure paths and PC entitlement rules (wealth by level, frex) train players to expect victory regardless of the choices they make.  Consequences, it seems, have fallen by the wayside.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 10, 2009)

Mallus said:


> In a truly unfair world, one that merely 'was what it was', such reliable information wouldn't _necessarily_ exist. PC's could stumble into certain death despite their best and most diligent efforts, occasionally random, inescapable dooms would sweep, tsunami-like, across these dangerous worlds --be they in the form of a horde of undead, rampaging giants, an elder wyrm having a bad day and an uncharacteristic fit of pique, or even an actually tsunamis, if the PC's are on the coast.




I've always thought something of the sort would be a great way to start a campaign.  It is a far more realistic beginning to a campaign than, "You all meet in a bar, and decide to trust each other with your lives despite your different backgrounds, then immediately decide to follow up on a rumor of a dangerous dungeon containing a treasure."  Instead, the party would be thrown together as strangers by larger circumstances, and like so often happens on such occassions, would find themselves relying on strangers for their very survival.

If you look at real world disasters, they almost are never invariably lethal.  Most real world disasters, even the most dramatic and large scale ones, might just kill 10% or 30% of the population.  Not everyone died at Pompeii.  Some of them said, "That looks bad, I'm getting out of town."  Not everyone died when Krakataoa blew its top.  Some of them made it to high ground.  I would have no particular problem starting a campaign with a tsunami, an attack by an elder wyrm, or a horde of rampaging giants.  That would be a very fun start to a campaign I think.  It would provide the sort of immediate action that helps jump start a campaign and get everyone's attention.  It would be a very nice hook.  And, because it would be occurring first thing, the players almost certainly wouldn't be confused into thinking that the event is personal to them and requires dramatic on their part other than surviving.

There would to me be nothing particularly unfair about such a campaign start, because I've already stacked the deck in the PC's favor by allowing them to play a character with greater than average starting resources and abilities.  If the event is going to kill say, 30% of the population, then they are very likely to be in the 70% of survivors.   What would be unfair is staging such an event and having it be all about the PC's, as if they were the center of the universe and everything revolved around them.  Sure, if the elder wyrm decided to target the PC's specifically, out of a population of 10,000 city dwellers, they wouldn't stand much of a chance.  Similarly, if the tsunamii had been aimed by some hostile power (like the DM) specifically to drown the PC's, then they probably wouldn't stand a chance.  But, if I treat them as mere average members of the city, then the elder wyrm will probably pay them no particular heed and the challenge the PC's will face will be much closer to the challenge most everyone else in the city faces - a challenge most of them will succeed at too.  

If I ran such a game, I would probably ask everyone to start with two characters, just to ensure that no one would get put out of play in the first few minutes and be forced to watch (unfortunates that lost both characters could take one from someone with two), but since I've done that before, it wouldn't represent a dramatic departure from my normal low level play at least in that regard.

Sure, it's not possible for me to be perfectly unbiased in running such a scenario.  I'm human.  I don't have the ability or desire to run a simulation of 10,000 fleeing NPC's, so what the NPC's do is going to in fact be scripted rather than simulated.  Not so for the PC's.  I won't really have the slightest idea what they'll decide to do, and I'll probably only have some vague ideas about what they'll actually do to survive.  They'll probably end up surprising me by doing something I never really considered.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 10, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Right now, your argument is "If A, then X" and "If not-A, then X".



My argument is really that there isn't _that_ big a difference between sandbox games and non-sandbox games. 

In neither is the world just the world, it's first and foremost a stage for play. In both PC's tend to face level-appropriate challenges, either by fiat or choice (and, as I've shown, that choice is itself enabled by an act of fiat). In both PC's start facing easy opponents, which rise in difficulty as the PC's increase in power. 

Scaling difficulty is one the default assumptions of the system (any edition). There lots of ways to implement it, disguise it, rationalize it, wriggle around in its grasp, but it' basically inescapable.


----------



## The Ghost (Mar 10, 2009)

Mallus said:


> My argument is really that there isn't _that_ big a difference between sandbox games and non-sandbox games.




I don't know. I consider me making the choice versus my players making the choice to be a big difference.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 10, 2009)

Mallus said:


> What I am assuming? I mean, other than 'DM's take various steps to make the game playable'.




Certainly, let's look at your actual post though, shall we...



Mallus said:


> Sure it does, in the form of relatively reliable information about the challenges around them. The information that makes informed choices/'smart play' possible. This is all but a requirement of the _game_ part of the game.




The problem with this assumption is that it relies on there to always be 
1. Information available before encountering the challenge. 
2. Said information to be reliable once it is made available.

Yet neither of these is guaranteed.  You see I play in mostly S&S themed games where there aren't hordes of monsters running about, monsters in this world are really monsters.  A peasant could easily describe a kobold as a scaly imp with razor fangs and the heads of a dragon... especially if they were scared when they saw it.  Now it is up to the PC's whether to believe said information, talk to others or do a little recon themselves and find out what's lurking in the caves.  

Is this fair??  Not sure but it makes the game more interesting and enthralling for my players... I guess you could say more playable.



Mallus said:


> I've said this before, haven't I?



Yes, and yet you can't get past your own assumptions about how others play.



Mallus said:


> In a truly unfair world, one that merely 'was what it was', such reliable information wouldn't _necessarily_ exist. PC's could stumble into certain death despite their best and most diligent efforts, occasionally random, inescapable dooms would sweep, tsunami-like, across these dangerous worlds --be they in the form of a horde of undead, rampaging giants, an elder wyrm having a bad day and an uncharacteristic fit of pique, or even an actually tsunamis, if the PC's are on the coast.




And all it takes is a bad roll or two for a totally random death to occur anyway, I fail to see your point here.  Don't the dice create the randomness factor of the game when the PC's react to any of the situations listed above?  Can't they still die a totally random death instead of being remembered a hero... or are you assuming that there is some protection against the roll of the dice or even death in all games.



Mallus said:


> The setting is neccessarily contrived, to a certain extent, in order to make playing the game possible. It's not fair in that it's skewed slightly towards the players.




Your idea of "playing the game" may not be other people's idea of "playing the game".  So have we now reached the point where "skewed slightly towards the players" and "only encountering level-appropriate challenges" are one and the same... because that's what the discussion was originally  about.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 10, 2009)

You don't stock the 1st level of the dungeon with a random assortment of every creature from the MM.  You put the easiest monsters there, with some outliers.  Those outliers (maybe a wraith or something; thinking 1E here) you'd probably take some time so that observant players, through smart play, could realize there's something dangerous there.

Then again, you'll probably want to put something dangerous in the wandering monster table, just so that players know that hanging around in the dungeon too long will get them killed.

This isn't _so_ different from having the DM craft the difficulty of the encounter based on the PC's levels.


I think where the big difference lies is that, in one mode of play, the players are choosing the encounter difficulties ("There's a wraith in there; let's stock up on some holy water and see if we can't kill it"), and in the other the DM is ("I'll put a wraith in here now that the PCs are 4th level").

(The style of game where the players pick the difficulty - let's call it strategic - is what I'm trying to shoot for in my 4E game now that we've finished off a couple modules.  We'll see how it works.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 10, 2009)

Imaro said:


> The problem with this assumption is that it relies on there to always be
> 1. Information available before encountering the challenge.
> 2. Said information to be reliable once it is made available.




Would you create a scenario where the PCs cannot find a clue that they are entering a certain death trap unless they enter it and die in it?


----------



## Imaro (Mar 10, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Would you create a scenario where the PCs cannot find a clue that they are entering a certain death trap unless they enter it and die in it?




First... what is a "certain death trap?"  The only way I can even fathom a situation where there is zero probability of anything but dying is I as DM fiat'ing it into that.  Which is not a "here is how the world is" game either.  So first please define this as there have been numerous examples of dealing with a higher CR/XP level encounter... or am I just saying auto-no to anything the PC's think up?  I don't think that's how a sandbox works.

EDIT: Honestly with raise dead and resurrection magic... why not, That could be an interesting storyline, the PC's don't know what to expect until they face it, but have made precautions to have themselves brought back if it does kill them.  I mean in D&D 4e after a certain level death is a minor irritant at best.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 10, 2009)

Mallus said:


> My argument is really that there isn't _that_ big a difference between sandbox games and non-sandbox games.




I don't agree with that at all.  I find non-sandbox games enjoyable.  I don't disapprove of that style of play, and have even run sessions with a non-sandbox approach where I put the characters on a railroad for the purposes of achieving some high concept or story event. 

But the two games are extremely different.

To begin with, let's just look at the evidence of this thread.  On the one side, one group is saying that dragons should be placed far far away (or not at all) until such time that the characters are ready to face them.  On the other side, you have people like me saying, "You know I think it would be cool if an angry Elder Wyrm was the starting point of a low level campaign."  One the one hand you have people saying, "I think a stedding of hill giants should be located in a far away remote place."  And on the other hand, you have people like me who have started play with a stedding of hill giants located basically an overnight journey away.  In short, there is a very different style of game world being created by the two different groups based on how they tend to approach design.    

Based on my own experience both as a DM and a player, sandbox play is more conducive to having RP be the focus of the game, because right from the start you immediately throw out the assumption that every single encounter can probably be overcome by combat.  In non-sandbox play, like say an adventure path, the purpose of monsters in the game is to be combat obstacles for the PC's.  Players raised in non-sandbox play are going to see everything ugly as something to fight, and will probably lay ambushes and roll initiative versus everything despite the DM's intentions - forcing the DM to go to cut scenes to try to keep PC's on the railroad.   Players raised in the sandbox are going to be much much more likely to parley with anything ugly to see if they can get it to agree to leave them alone, because they are never really sure whether they can handle anything that they meet.

Based on my own experience as a DM and a player, non-sandbox high level plays often sucks.  It's one thing to be dragged down the railroad through tricks and traps and combat encounters when your player doesn't yet really have a stake in the game world, and combat is simple, and when you aren't yet emotionally invested in the character, and when you can always roll up a new one.  It's quite another thing to be dragged through a whole series of 'level appropriate encounters' when combat becomes a bloody complicated series of spell explosions and itterative attacks, with characters that you are emotionally invested in, who already have things that they care about and ideas of their own, and when creating a new character can take hours.  Equally, its annoying as you level up to notice that you are making no progress because every freaking thing you meet has leveled up at the same time.  The more that happens, the more you wonder, "Why in Hades do we keep using bigger numbers and making the math more complicated, just so we can keep playing in the same damn we played when we were 1st or 3rd level?"  I mean, if the world is filled with level appropriate encounters, for crying out loud, forget about the damn leveling up process, use the same stats for everything, and use flavor to tell it apart.


----------



## monboesen (Mar 10, 2009)

> Yes, and yet you can't get past your own assumptions about how others play.




I have to say that to me the tone of your posts suggests that he is not the only one who falls into this trap.




In my games characters rarely die and generally face encounters they will be able to defeat. For some time I have felt that they got through fights pretty easily and without taking much damage. That was my perception as the DM.

I made a comment about this after a game night and was met by blank disbelieving stares. Turns out that the players perceptions was just the opposite. They feel that every fight is damn hard and that they often think its a lost cause at some point during the fight.

Point being. Maybe there doesn't really have to be actual level inappropiate encounters and lots of character death: It is possible to instill the perception of danger and consequence in players without it. That being said few of my players are rules savy and that definately contributes to the perception of danger.


Anyhow. I would be interested in knowing how often characters die in your sandbox games. So Imaro, Raven Crowking, Reynard and others. How many characters die in your games? And how many die due to level inappropiate encounters?


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 10, 2009)

Reynard said:


> I don't knopw any GMs that actively seek to inundate the player characters with insurmountable challenges and unsurvivable encounters that have players.



In my experience the internal logic of the game-world itself acts as a limiting factor on the number of monstrous-things-that-can-kill-you-before-breakfast.

To use an example from another game, pirates exist in my corner of _Traveller_'s Third Imperium, but they are not evenly distributed among star systems The frequency of pirate encounters increases with distance from trade routes, naval bases, and main worlds. The plausibility and verisimilitude of the setting quickly breaks down if this isn't the case.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 10, 2009)

monboesen said:


> I have to say that to me the tone of your posts suggests that he is not the only one who falls into this trap.




Yeah, because I'm the one who keeps claiming there's no difference between sandbox and tailored campaigns?? And telling the sandbox DM's really what you think you're doing... you aren't really doing.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 10, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Yeah, because I'm the one who keeps claiming there's no difference between sandbox and tailored campaigns??



Find me where I said there was no difference. 

I seem to recall saying the difference isn't as great as some people made it out to be, particularly when you look at outcomes --ie, most PC's tend to get into/seek out level-appropriate encounters if they have the choice-- and I conceded that the sandbox approach _does_ afford players greater choice.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 10, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> In my experience the internal logic of the game-world itself acts as a limiting factor on the number of monstrous-things-that-can-kill-you-before-breakfast.



What internal logic prevents a great big dragon from flying a hundred miles and burning the PC's starting hamlet to the ground --and them along with it-- in a fit of pique,oOther than the fact the internal logic of the setting is ultimately in the service of creating a playable game?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 10, 2009)

Mallus said:


> What internal logic prevents a great big dragon from flying a hundred miles and burning the PC's starting hamlet to the ground --and them along with it-- in a fit of pique,oOther than the fact the internal logic of the setting is ultimately in the service of creating a playable game?




Nothing prevents it.

Whatever makes you think it cannot happen in the game?


RC


----------



## Vegepygmy (Mar 10, 2009)

monboesen said:


> I would be interested in knowing how often characters die in your sandbox games. So Imaro, Raven Crowking, Reynard and others. How many characters die in your games? And how many die due to level inappropiate encounters?



I don't have any statistics or anything, but I'm currently running a weekly online game with 4 players.  They started at 1st level and are just about to make 3rd.

When they were 1st level, they botched a "stealthy incursion" into the lair of a kobold tribe and 2 PCs bought it.  I'd call it a level-inappropriate encounter because they wound up fighting about two dozen kobolds at once.

No one else has died yet (in part, I think, because that encounter woke them up to the reality that I don't pull punches, and if they bite off more than they can chew, they're going to choke).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 11, 2009)

monboesen said:


> Anyhow. I would be interested in knowing how often characters die in your sandbox games. So Imaro, Raven Crowking, Reynard and others. How many characters die in your games? And how many die due to level inappropiate encounters?




Well, I started chronicling one 3e game on EN World, which allows any interested party to check.  I believe that the link is still in my .sig.  Some groups have more PC deaths than others, depending upon the players.  Certainly, PC deaths have occurred, and TPKs have occurred.

3e has more of a "level appropriate" meme than earlier editions, so there is definitely no way to make that determination in 1e and 2e games.  But in all cases, I would say that players have chosen to encounter -- and more often than I would expect, have managed to survive -- tougher things that I thought they would.  Sometimes, though, they've died.....individually, or nearly all the party.


RC


----------



## Imaro (Mar 11, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Find me where I said there was no difference.
> 
> I seem to recall saying the difference isn't as great as some people made it out to be, particularly when you look at outcomes --ie, most PC's tend to get into/seek out level-appropriate encounters if they have the choice-- and I conceded that the sandbox approach _does_ afford players greater choice.




Ok, I'll play the semantics game... there is still a difference in outcome, regardless of how many times you claim it equals out to the same thing... in a level-appropriate campaign you will never have those big wins (that are possible through clever play) or crushing defeats (from impulsive play) in a sandbox that is not level-appropriate... is that or is that not a difference in the outcomes?


----------



## Mallus (Mar 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Nothing prevents it.
> 
> Whatever makes you think it cannot happen in the game?



I don't think we're on the same page here, RC. I'm asking the (deliberately loaded) question, "What prevents the DM from inflicting an unavoidable, not to mention winged and fiery, TPK on a low-level party, caught unaware?"

Do you still want to ask me why I think that can't happen during a campaign?


----------



## Mallus (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> ... there is still a difference in outcome...



The outcome in question was that parties tending to encounter level-appropriate challenges.



> ... in a level-appropriate campaign you will never have those big wins or crushing defeats that are possible through clever play in a sandbox that is not level-appropriate... is that or is that not a difference in the outcomes?



The existence of outliers doesn't change the tendency to encounter level-appropriate challenges.

Besides, 'level-appropriate' doesn't mean precisely the same level. It implies a range. Big wins and crushing defeats are certainly possible. Hell, even if you're playing 4e .


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Nothing prevents it.
> 
> Whatever makes you think it cannot happen in the game?
> 
> ...




There is nothing that prevents the DM from roll a d100 every day and there being a 1% chance the moon will crash down on whatever building the PCs happen to be in at the time, but I don't know too many players who would call it "fair."


----------



## Imaro (Mar 11, 2009)

Mallus said:


> The outcome in question was that parties tending to encounter level-appropriate challenges..




I disagree... parties where the DM sets only level appropriate encounters available will without fail have a 100% level appropriate encounter game...

A DM who sets both appropriate and inappropriate encounters, and allows the PC's the freedom to choose from any of them doesn't have a set percentage of level appropriate enciunters vs. non-level appropriate encounters... it's the whole point of giving the PC's a choice, it's a surprise to the DM and players.




Mallus said:


> The existence of outliers doesn't change the tendency to encounter level-appropriate challenges.
> 
> Besides, 'level-appropriate' doesn't mean precisely the same level. It implies a range. Big wins and crushing defeats are certainly possible. Hell, even if you're playing 4e .




First 100% does not equal a tendency to encounter level-appropriate encounters. The two approaches foster totally different ways of thinking in players and how they approach the game.

No one is arguing level-appropriate= same level... As far as big wins and crushing defeats... All I'm going to say is that there's levels and both players and DM's recognize this.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Ok, I'll play the semantics game... there is still a difference in outcome, regardless of how many times you claim it equals out to the same thing... in a level-appropriate campaign you will never have those big wins (that are possible through clever play) or crushing defeats (from impulsive play) in a sandbox that is not level-appropriate... is that or is that not a difference in the outcomes?




How often do those big wins or crushing defeats happen? Every session? Every other? Once a month, year, decade of play? How often DO PCs face something non-level appropriate? Once a session? Once a year? 

It reminds me of the argument for rolling hp vs. static hp/level. Lots of people claim the ability to roll a 10 on a d10 outweighs the risk of rolling a 1. Still, most people through the course of 20 levels end up with hp close to the average, barring an odd string of good luck or bad luck. At the end of the day though, hp seems to average out to around where the static amount would be anyway.

Is a level-appropriate tailored campaign where most PCs face level appropriate challenge (+/- 4) really all that different than a game where you sometimes fight kobolds, sometimes fight hill giants, but mostly end up fighting level-appropriate challenges? In the end of the day, aren't you more likely to face a level-approprate challenge than not?


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 11, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I don't think we're on the same page here, RC. I'm asking the (deliberately loaded) question, "What prevents the DM from inflicting an unavoidable, not to mention winged and fiery, TPK on a low-level party, caught unaware?"




I don't believe this is the same question.

In theory, nothing prevents the DM from doing it.  In practice, it doesn't happen because it isn't a particularly interesting story nor is it a particularly believable story.  

The original question though wasn't, "Why doesn't the DM just come up with an excuse to kill the players?", it was this:



> What internal logic prevents a great big dragon from flying a hundred miles and burning the PC's starting hamlet to the ground --and them along with it-- in a fit of pique




Let's look at the internal logic of a sandbox setting.

Let's suppose the dragon lairs on the edge of inhabited territory.  Then, within a 100 miles of the dragons lair, there are probably a couple hundred villages and towns.  That number was probably chosen as representative of the population density supportable by ancient or medieval agricultural practice.  Why did the dragon pick this town in particular from the many hundreds of towns to choose from?  Wouldn't it be more reasonable that the first at least nine or ten villages and hamlets that the dragon burns down be ones the PC's aren't in?  And again, a dragon attack on a village of 200 or so probably doesn't mean the death of everyone in the village.  Many might escape by scattering into the surrounding woods and fields, more than the dragon would likely feel like hunting down.  Why of the 30 or so buildings in the village and the 200 or so inhabitants, would the dragon single out the PC's particularly?  Why wouldn't the dragon start with say, eating a few cows or mules, or at least, roasting someone else's cottage first.  You are describing an event that has pretty long odds.

And we still haven't said much about the ecology of dragons.  If 1st level commoners live in farming communities, dragon attacks can't be too common or all the communties would be driven away.  Likewise, any dragon that actively provokes nearby communities too much risks drawing the ire of powerful humans with nasty spells and wickedly pointed magic swords.  The more a dragon provokes human communities, the shorter its career is likely to be.  So, the attack on the PC's would have to be rather perfectly timed to the beginning of such a spurt of attacks, otherwise the conflict would have reached a head by now, with one side or the other emerging triumphant or at least it settling back to an uneasy peace.  

Big long lived dragons get that way by not provoking encounters with heroes very often.  Besides, big dragons eat alot, and probably spend alot of their time in a semi-torpid state to avoid burning calories.  Otherwise, such a large predator is simply unsustainable in the ecology.  The canonical dragon for me is Smaug.  He lived barely more than a days hike from a rather large settlement of humans - most of whom had nonetheless never seen him.  He appears to have spent most of his time sleeping on a bed of gold, until provoked by a certain Bilbo Baggins.  At that time, the dragon became more active, until in a fit of pique it decided to avenge itself on the nearby human settlement.  This turned out to be a very bad life choice.  Although noone - not the dwarves, not Bilbo, not the inhabitants of the human settlement, and certainly not the dragon - thought the humans stood much of a chance versus the dragon, the dragon had not been counting on a hero with an arrow of dragon slaying rolling a natural 20.  

So it is with other dragons.  They live very long lives, but odds are that if they are going to die, its going to be some hero that does it, so a smart dragon avoids attracting too much attention to itself.  If it beats 90% of mercenaries that come to slay it and take it's treasure, its never going to be an adult much less a great wyrm if it provokes even 10 encounters a century.  Even 10 encounters in a millenium is probably too much.  Most dragons wisely stick to themselves, and most humans wisely do the same.

So in other words, according to the internal logic of the setting which was derived with no thought about 'level appropriate encounters', the odds of what you describe happening are like a million to one.  I don't bother rolling all the million to one things that might happen on each day.  It would be boring, and likely unfair because my list would be biased, incomplete, and probably inaccurate.  If I pulled such an encounter out of the air and threw it at the PC's, it just wouldn't make sense and would probably be an indication of bias against the PC's.

Again, a sandbox world is not a world where everything kills everything else on sight, or where everything fights to the death.  It doesn't happen in reality, and there is no reason to believe that sort of thing is sustainable in a fantasy world either.  Pretty soon, the whole world would be depopulated of either dragons or humans.  

(As a semi-aside, one of the things I disliked about many 1st edition published settings is that I couldn't figure out why creatures like hobgoblins weren't long since extinct, since they always seemed to be provoking humans who had champions who could each slaughter them by the hundreds single handedily.  It didn't make sense to me in terms of sustainable ecology.)


----------



## Imaro (Mar 11, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> How often do those big wins or crushing defeats happen? Every session? Every other? Once a month, year, decade of play? How often DO PCs face something non-level appropriate? Once a session? Once a year?
> 
> It reminds me of the argument for rolling hp vs. static hp/level. Lots of people claim the ability to roll a 10 on a d10 outweighs the risk of rolling a 1. Still, most people through the course of 20 levels end up with hp close to the average, barring an odd string of good luck or bad luck. At the end of the day though, hp seems to average out to around where the static amount would be anyway.
> 
> Is a level-appropriate tailored campaign where most PCs face level appropriate challenge (+/- 4) really all that different than a game where you sometimes fight kobolds, sometimes fight hill giants, but mostly end up fighting level-appropriate challenges? In the end of the day, aren't you more likely to face a level-approprate challenge than not?




Let me answer your question like this... all it takes is one amazing win or accomplishment to have a story for life... literally, players will talk about this type of win forever. Of course if they're never given the oportunity to at least try it if they want to.... Not to mention, IMO, it gives the world a more realistic feel...YMMV of course.

Basically I feel like you're trying to numerically codify something that can't really be codified that way, at least not for those who enjoy this type of thing.

EDIT: And in the end, how often is totally up to the PC's to decide, not me as the DM.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 11, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> Let's look at the internal logic of a sandbox setting.




But if the dragon is suffering from "a fit of pique", that changes things somewhat...

My question for the sandbox DMs (since I'm trying to learn how to do this): Do you put a big ol' Red Dragon on the wandering monster list?  If so, do you leave hints about his presence to the PCs?  Does he attack on sight?  Does the level of the PCs have any bearing on how you have him act?

I've got a dragon lairing in my campaign.  The PCs have a chance to encounter him and he will attack on sight (unless the PCs seem _too high level_, in which case he might just observe).  If they talk to some of the other creatures in the area, including local farmers, they'll hear about the dragon.

It happens that he's not too difficult for the PCs to beat now, but it wouldn't make sense if he was more powerful.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 11, 2009)

Addressing the original topic of getting desired magical treasures:

In my game, the appropriate course of action is for the player to make inquiries _in character_.

Is there such a thing as Item X? If so, then where might it found? If not, then how might it be made?

To me, it's not a question of deep metaphysical or moral philosophy; it is simply how one _plays the game_.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 11, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> My question for the sandbox DMs (since I'm trying to learn how to do this): Do you put a big ol' Red Dragon on the wandering monster list?  If so, do you leave hints about his presence to the PCs?  Does he attack on sight?  Does the level of the PCs have any bearing on how you have him act?




Depends on the dragon.

IMC, there are twelve dragons in the entire setting, so I don't know if I can really speak to this specific example. But in a more general sense, for big things like dragons or liches and whatnot, you'd try to have an idea of what the creature is like. Is it an angry dragon? Is it a stealthy dragon? Is it talkative, etc etc. His initial reaction the PCs would probably also take into account the PC's actions upon meeting.

Level is irrelevant.



> I've got a dragon lairing in my campaign.  The PCs have a chance to encounter him and he will attack on sight (unless the PCs seem _too high level_, in which case he might just observe).  If they talk to some of the other creatures in the area, including local farmers, they'll hear about the dragon.
> 
> It happens that he's not too difficult for the PCs to beat now, but it wouldn't make sense if he was more powerful.




How would what not make sense if he were more powerful?


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Let me answer your question like this... all it takes is one amazing win or accomplishment to have a story for life... literally, players will talk about this type of win forever. Of course if they're never given the opportunity to at least try it if they want to.... Not to mention, IMO, it gives the world a more realistic feel...YMMV of course.
> 
> Basically I feel like you're trying to numerically codify something that can't really be codified that way, at least not for those who enjoy this type of thing.
> 
> EDIT: And in the end, how often is totally up to the PC's to decide, not me as the DM.




Here's the fallacy: I didn't say the players could never meet a powerful foe way above their power level and, by guile and luck, defeat them. If the PCs at 5th level WANT to go hill-giant hunting, they really can.

I just would never design an encounter or adventure with that in mind.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 11, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I don't think we're on the same page here, RC. I'm asking the (deliberately loaded) question, "What prevents the DM from inflicting an unavoidable, not to mention winged and fiery, TPK on a low-level party, caught unaware?"
> 
> Do you still want to ask me why I think that can't happen during a campaign?




In addition to the wonderful answer Imaro gave, you keep imagining that it is the DM, not the players, who are choosing the encounters out of the available options.

But let us imagine that a peasant steals a golden cup from the dragon's lair, and the dragon tracks it back to the hamlet through its keen sense of smell.  Whysoever would that wyrm target the PCs in particular?



Remathilis said:


> There is nothing that prevents the DM from roll a d100 every day and there being a 1% chance the moon will crash down on whatever building the PCs happen to be in at the time, but I don't know too many players who would call it "fair."




As the man said earlier, fair doesn't enter into it.  

However, I wouldn't call that "good design" either.  Again, (1) why is the moon crashing, and (2) why does it target the PCs?  If the PCs perform a ritual that calls the moon, and that's why it crashes on them, that't their own look out.


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 11, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> How would what not make sense if he were more powerful?




Just some campaign specific stuff.  The PCs would have heard of him already, he'd be more established, and he wouldn't have to worry about orc tribes and cultists of Orcus running around in his mountains.  (Which he does - he's the obvious threat but the cult is the real one.)


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 11, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> There is nothing that prevents the DM from roll a d100 every day and there being a 1% chance the moon will crash down on whatever building the PCs happen to be in at the time, but I don't know too many players who would call it "fair."




I don't know about 'fair', it seems perfectly fair. 

But I wouldn't call it a very interesting story.

If there really is a 1% chance of the moon crashing on the PC's, then we must presume that we are in a setting where the moon bashes into the planet(?) all the time, destroying 1% of all life every evening.

Naturally, this raises the question of how the PC's managed to get there in the first place and why there is anyone left alive if this has been going on for a considerable period of time.  It also raises questions about the event itself.  Who is calling the moon down from the sky?  Why are the doing it?  Why aren't the powers that be doing something about it?  If the powers that be can't do anything about it, then its not a very interesting story oppurtunity because deities and other trans-epic beings can't do anything about it, it doesn't seem likely that the PC's will be able to do anything about it either.  The moon crashing down on the planet is something that would involve every being on the planet - every great wrym, every archmage, every high level being on the planet would immediately become involved.  The problem this presents is we are gauranteeing that this story we are telling is about the NPC's, and not about the PC's.  That strikes me as a bad campaign design.  The campaign ought to always be about the PC's, and the story always ought to be centered on the PC's.  A story that involves the PC's, but to which they can contribute nothing really, isn't very interesting for either the DM or the PC's.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 11, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> But if the dragon is suffering from "a fit of pique", that changes things somewhat...




(1)  Why is the dragon in a "fit of pique"?

(2)  What is the most likely action of the dragon under those circumstances?



> My question for the sandbox DMs (since I'm trying to learn how to do this): Do you put a big ol' Red Dragon on the wandering monster list?  If so, do you leave hints about his presence to the PCs?  Does he attack on sight?  Does the level of the PCs have any bearing on how you have him act?




(1)  Possibly, depending upon the nature of the dragon.

(2)  Yes.  Some encounters with the dragon may just be from the creature passing over, or scorch marks on bison bones, etc.

(3)  Possibly, depending upon the nature of the dragon.  If he attacks on sight, you can be sure the locals know of this!

(4)  No.



> I've got a dragon lairing in my campaign.  The PCs have a chance to encounter him and he will attack on sight (unless the PCs seem _too high level_, in which case he might just observe).  If they talk to some of the other creatures in the area, including local farmers, they'll hear about the dragon.
> 
> It happens that he's not too difficult for the PCs to beat now, but it wouldn't make sense if he was more powerful.




Dragons are smart enough, in general (IMHO) to gather intelligence prior to attacking.  And, again IMHO, most dragons bully before using force.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 11, 2009)

*Do you put a big ol' Red Dragon on the wandering monster list?*
Yes, within the territory that dragon wanders.

*If so, do you leave hints about his presence to the PCs?*
There are signs as a consequence of his passage. Whether the PCs are ever in a position to notice them is largely up to the players. In a broader context, that region is infamous as the dragon's domain.

*Does he attack on sight?*
That depends upon his inclination at the time, which may depend on events in play (being otherwise established by dice-roll).

*Does the level of the PCs have any bearing on how you have him act?*
Not directly, for he knows nothing of PC levels per se. What he perceives of what and perhaps who the characters are can be influential, especially if indicative of the kinds of power the dragon respects.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 11, 2009)

I think another important, but often not discussed, aspect of a good sandbox is understanding and fleshing out your major NPC's, major organizations and major monsters.  They should have motivations, plans, goals, etc. that shape and inform their actions within the setting in a logical and consistent way.  I think this is something that has always drawn me to WoD games,  and I think it has in turn informed my D&D games.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 11, 2009)

Indeed, Imaro!

I find few things so helpful in creating interesting situations.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 11, 2009)

May I add, too, that the same rules apply to wolves as dragons:  Encounters might be with indications that wolves are in the area, hearing wolves howl in the distance, seeing a wolf observing the PCs, etc., in addition to wolf attacks.  And, in general, the wolves are keen to observe the PCs prior to attacking, as any act of predation carries with it a real risk -- injured predators tend to end their contributions to the gene pool.  

Thinking predators want to succeed, and success requires observation.  Watch footage of real-world predation, and you'll see what I mean.

Also (say) orcs may mark their territories with cairns of enemy skulls, etc.  Whenever the DM adds an element to the world, he ought to consider the "footprint" it leaves around it.


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 11, 2009)

Thanks for the answers.  

I might not have the dragon attack on sight now, I'll probably have him try to spy on the PCs and send some of his "tendon cutters" to take prisoners.  Yeah, that could be very cool...


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 11, 2009)

As I am reading through this thread, it seems to me that a common underlying difficulty is this:

There are long-established conventions by which we can meaningfully distinguish games from other things; role-playing games from other games; and Dungeons & Dragons from other role-playing games.

Probably THE fundamental cause of "edition wars" is a definition of "edition" to suit the purposes of a marketing department. Rhetorically, it begs the question of whether "_n_th edition" of X is in fact X by any more objective criteria. Practically, the latest thing is offered as a replacement for something previously known as X.

That was not exactly the case 30 years ago, when the "Original Collectors Edition" of D&D remained in print alongside Advanced D&D -- and designer Gary Gygax made a point of asserting that they were _different_ games.

Had 3E remained WotC's "D&D" and 4E been given some other name (and you can push that "what if" back to any previous step), some issues would be truly moot. I think that many others would be easier to handle as well.

As matters stand, there are interests commercial and emotional in defining some terms -- especially "prestigious" ones -- in certain ways. Those run the gamut from the particular "D&D" right up to the generic "game."

That warping of language can make it very difficult to discuss things in a more objective context. Terms have been made effectively synonymous with "right" and "wrong," in artfully convoluted ways.


----------



## Stoat (Mar 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> In addition to the wonderful answer Imaro gave, you keep imagining that it is the DM, not the players, who are choosing the encounters out of the available options.




This, and similar posts in this thread, give me the impression of a very static campaign world.  A world where dragons sleep always, until the players choose to disturb them.

And I don't think that's how you guys run your games.  I think the focus on "level appropriate challenges" just makes it sound that way.

Surely the dragon gets hungry and goes hunting.  Surely vile cultists kidnap the mayor's daughter for unspeakable purposes.  Surely rich nobles seek to fund expeditions into the hostile wilderness.  And in every case, the DM decides (through whatever process) when these creatures act and the manner in which they act.

By what means does the sandbox DM make those decisions?


----------



## Thasmodious (Mar 11, 2009)

When I do sandbox, I craft the setting with a lot of level-appropriateness built in.  Imaro seems to be saying that in his sandbox, if its written that the Emo Caves are full of lvl 2 goblin cutters, then that's set in stone.  If the PCs visit the caves at 1st level or 10th level, that's what they find.  

I don't generally set up my sandbox like that.  Sure, the home of the lich sending forth legions of undead to harry the common folk is going to be a very powerful locale, one that doesn't change much.  If the PCs go there at 2nd level, they would likely die.  Same for trying to challenge the great dragon that lives at the other end of the valley.  Maybe they get ambitious and try to steal from its hoard, though.  

But many of the locations aren't built with set in stone mechanical numbers in mind, and those numbers are certainly not required.  Why do the Emo Caves have to have lvl 2 goblins?  Why not lvl 4 or 6 goblins, depending on when the PCs go there.  Or some tough bugbears and hobgoblins?  This is where level appropriate design fits.  Many of the locales I design, I write notes about the story of the place, hooks as to why the PCs would seek it out (treasures, rumors, whatever), and notes on what monsterous challenges are faced there depending on what level the PCs visit that locale, within a reasonable range that makes sense, of course.  If the PCs seek out a tribe of Forest Giants at 1st level, they aren't going to find weak, lvl 2 giant kids everywhere.  (Although, a lord of the flies variation done with giant kids could be crazy...idea file)  But I will have notes on that giant tribe on how to modify the challenges based on when the PCs visit.  The numbers of the system are meant to gel in a game that works.  

The Tower of the Mad Wizard?  Well Archie is mad, and a major league NPC regardless, but I don't have to have stats set in stone.  If the PCs become involved in his shenanigans, its needs to be a challenge when they go after him once and for all.  The Caves of Despair?  Well there are things that can cause despair to 1st level nubblets and 18th level badasses.  Where the monstrous humanoids live?  There are enough types of monstrous humanoids, that I can fit about any level of play in such a locale.  

Now, I've done sandbox this way for years, but I love the ease of which 4e adjusts to this style of sandbox game.  Memorize two short formulas (+/-1 AC, defenses, attacks / lvl; +1 damage / 2lvls) and the location of the hp by role table and you can easily adjust monsters in a location on the fly by +/- 5 levels.  So if the PCs tackle the troll warrens at 6th level, drop the basic troll by a couple levels and take out the wartroll chieftan.  If they go there "late" at mid paragon, level up the basic trolls, use more wartrolls and make the chieftan a felltroll.  Those are all just numbers to provide the challenge to the game, they are really irrelevant in the scheme of things.  The locale didn't change, the PCs make their choices, a good challenge was had by all.


----------



## The Ghost (Mar 11, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> How often do those big wins or crushing defeats happen? Every session? Every other? Once a month, year, decade of play? How often DO PCs face something non-level appropriate? Once a session? Once a year?




We just finished a three-and-a-half year campaign that took the party from level one to level sixteen. From level one to about level six, the party avoided, evaded, or negotiated with about eighty percent of all encounters. From level seven to the end of the campaign the percentage of avoid, evade, or negotiate fell to about half of all encounters. Throughout the course of the game, the majority of all encounters would be considered level-inappropriate. Typically, those were the times when our strategy was run and hide. There were seven times over the course of the campaign where we chose to fight the level-inappropriate encounter.

Now, some may say "Ah ha! The vast majority of the time your encounters resulted in level-appropriate challenges." To that, I agree. However, all those times we spent running and hiding from those level-inappropriate encounters enhanced the overall feel of the game. It helped us feel like we were actually in a gritty, dangerous world. More so than just telling us about how dangerous the world is could do. And those seven times that we did choose to fight the level-inappropriate challenges are the biggest memories we have from the game. Those were the choices we, the players, made. And it was AWESOME!


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 11, 2009)

Actually, my interest is in _avoiding_ the contrived situation in which Darkon the Dark Lord simply sits in Room #33 of his Dark Tower until "level-appropriate" PCs come along and kill him!

If one imagines the game-world (as one might a world of fiction) vividly enough that its internal consistency is clear, then the _process_ is in place to yield all sorts of data. It really does not make too much difference whether one is dealing with Los Angeles or Lankhmar.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 11, 2009)

The equipment of the Happy Valley P.D. SWAT team does not include an AFV. However, the nearby National Guard Engineer Battalion has several -- and an armory of fairly heavy firepower.

That's the facts, ma'am, regardless of how bad-ass some PC may be.

What forces get turned out to deal with said PC depends on such factors as what he's up to and how much the proper authorities have their stuff in one sock.

(And on what's not available because it's been deployed overseas, natch.)

It's NOT a milieu in which revolvers get traded in for assault rifles _just because_ PCs get tougher -- much less go back automatically when PCs get less deadly.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 11, 2009)

monboesen said:


> Anyhow. I would be interested in knowing how often characters die in your sandbox games. So Imaro, Raven Crowking, Reynard and others. How many characters die in your games? And how many die due to level inappropiate encounters?



In my game, they drop like flies.

But it's the level-appropriate encounters that kill 'em, or the ones that on paper are relatively easy.  The over-the-top encounters that they really should run from, they clean up!

Take Keep on the Shadowfell, which I recently ran modified for 1e.  That one's a somewhat typical dungeon design where things get tougher as you go deeper in.  My crew lost a bunch of characters on the supposedly-easier upper level, and against the Hobgoblins downstairs; but in the last 5 encounters on the lower decks - the cube-and-undead, the statues-and-traps, the room full of zombies and ghouls, the minor priest and friends, and Kalarel et al - which are each rather nasty set-pieces, they only lost two.  One of those, even, was very preventable (the party hung a disliked member out to dry); the other was truly heroic (a fighter held the line solo against the minor priest's buddies for long enough that the party could deal with their own problems first and not get surrounded).

Do I chuck in occasional random encounters that the party really ought to run from?  Hell, yeh!  

And all the parties do is win.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 11, 2009)

Celebrim, if "a strange land" is anywhere near Victoria BC, I want in to your game. 

Lanefan


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 11, 2009)

The notion that either the referee's or the character-player's role ought to be directly analogous to a novelist's was (in my experience) pretty ludicrous for at least the first half of the hobby's existence.

I remember cooking up a game based on literary/dramatic assumptions and getting the response that the fundamentally different concept was "cool, but too hard for any but the most advanced gamers to get." (That's a paraphrase, but all these years later perhaps the irony is clear enough.)

The field of "story-telling" games seems to have come rebelliously into its own even as conformity became a virtue among D&Ders. It is the mode that dare not name itself.

Character Concept (Old Style): Woodwind _has ambitions to become_ a Wizard who rides a dragon and wields a Staff of Wizardry, leading the Zebra Riders to recovery of the ancient frontiers of the Silver Empire.

Character Concept (New Style): Woodwind _*shall* become_ ...

Ditto Cadfan's ... solipsism? How does it matter whether Tobruk or Minas Tirith is put in hex 1350? *Once* it is placed, and established as not teleporting, that is the lay of the land. That this can be so hard to grasp suggests a gulf of fundamentally different conception.


----------



## monboesen (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Yeah, because I'm the one who keeps claiming there's no difference between sandbox and tailored campaigns?? And telling the sandbox DM's really what you think you're doing... you aren't really doing.




No, but because you seemingly harbor the notion that players will never run into inappropiate encounters in a tailored campaign. 

I can of course only speak of my own games, as player and DM, and they fall more into the tailored category.

But lets say the players decide to aggravate/attack powerful people/monsters in the campaign, well then they may easily end up dead. The kings bodyguard doesn't magically transform from 10th to 1st level warriors when low level PC's insult the king and defecate on his throne. Even without hard numbers I would still speculate that most DM's run games that way.

The tailored part means that as long as the players behave reasonably intelligent they wont face overwhelming enemies.


Net effect: Smart players face appropiate encounters (some hard, some easy), stupid and antagonistic players may easily end up dead from picking fights they really shouldn't. But they don't risk random encounters that will flat out kill them. Like huge dragons on random encounter lists.


And regarding the question of player magic item wish lists. Great idea! But I don't consider it more than a tool for better understanding what the player would like for his character. It is in no way a stone tablet that determines that from now on all magic items found must comply to the list. 

I view along the lines of other player contributions to the campaign. A player may write a page about the culture of the tribal people his character comes from. But that doesn't mean I have to accept it at face value. It means I will read and consider it and likely use some or all of it. I'm still the DM and still the final decision maker. Of cultures, magic items and encounter levels


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 11, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Ditto Cadfan's ... solipsism? How does it matter whether Tobruk or Minas Tirith is put in hex 1350? *Once* it is placed, and established as not teleporting, that is the lay of the land. That this can be so hard to grasp suggests a gulf of fundamentally different conception.



Heh, its not solipsism if the world really ain't real.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> First... what is a "certain death trap?"  The only way I can even fathom a situation where there is zero probability of anything but dying is I as DM fiat'ing it into that.  Which is not a "here is how the world is" game either.  So first please define this as there have been numerous examples of dealing with a higher CR/XP level encounter... or am I just saying auto-no to anything the PC's think up?  I don't e think that's how a sandbox works.



Scenario: 
PCs are in a dungeon. They have searched it through and didn't find yet what they were looking for. But they found a chamber that's apparantly a teleportation device. They can't find any clues (because there are none) where it leads to, and eventually, they decide to risk it. The first character enters, and one after another, each of them decides to risk it. 
I've seen this scenario in actual play and encounters. The reason why the entire party eventually risks is is because we know that it'S a game and we're the protagonists. Whatever happens will propel the story, even if it's tough.

Or so we believe. In fact, this teleportation chamber teleports the PCs directly above a pool of lava. THey all die.




> EDIT: Honestly with raise dead and resurrection magic... why not, That could be an interesting storyline, the PC's don't know what to expect until they face it, but have made precautions to haves themselves brought back if it does kill them.  I mean in D&D 4e after a certain level death is a minor irritant at best.



I would say this fails the qualification for "real death trap". 
Who is raising them? And isn't the reason why you get the party raised not just because it makes "sense" from a purely verisimilitude perspective, but because the "show must go on"? 
But even if you do it, wouldn't it feel a little... shallow to the players? "We only survived because the DM said we should, and we only died in the first place because the DM said we would. No amount of "smart play" would have saved us or created our way out." (Smart Play it might be if the PCs ensured they have an ally that would raise them, or that have a "raise dead insurance" or a contingency spell cast on them. But is that something possible in every game world at every level?)


----------



## Imaro (Mar 11, 2009)

Stoat said:


> This, and similar posts in this thread, give me the impression of a very static campaign world. A world where dragons sleep always, until the players choose to disturb them.
> 
> And I don't think that's how you guys run your games. I think the focus on "level appropriate challenges" just makes it sound that way.
> 
> ...




Well there are a couple of methods I use to determine such things...

1. Reaction: The NPC reacts to an event caused by the PC's and/or other events in the campaign.

2. Motivations and goals: If Ugor the Ogre chieftain from the North is leading his tribe south into new lands and it will take hm 3 months to enter the Southlands... well in 3 months game time a new force of Ogre's will appear and they will attack and take from the weak along their path.  Of course the PC's may discover this is happening and stop them before they reach the Southlands.

3. Relationship maps: Something I picked up from the Unknown Armies rpg.  It is a chart that  shows the major types of connection or feelings between groups/NPC's/Etc that have interacted with each other.

4. Chance, if all else fails create charts to simulate chance...base the percentage chance on how likely PC's are to encounter the things within an area (I use this method mainly for wildlife,  rarely for NPC's or major monsters that can think at human or above level.)


----------



## Imaro (Mar 11, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> When I do sandbox, I craft the setting with a lot of level-appropriateness built in. *Imaro seems to be saying that in his sandbox, if its written that the Emo Caves are full of lvl 2 goblin cutters, then that's set in stone. If the PCs visit the caves at 1st level or 10th level, that's what they find.*




Emphasis mine: Not exactly... if nothing else in the world changes or affects the goblins until the PC's arrive... then yes the Emo Caves will be full of lvl 2 goblin cutters when the PC's arrive (it will not be level-dependant though)... of course the longer it takes for them to visit the less likely this is as the campaign setting changes and evolves.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 11, 2009)

Stoat said:


> This, and similar posts in this thread, give me the impression of a very static campaign world.  A world where dragons sleep always, until the players choose to disturb them.
> 
> And I don't think that's how you guys run your games.  I think the focus on "level appropriate challenges" just makes it sound that way.
> 
> ...





The world is not static; but neither is the world pointed toward the PCs.  When a dragon goes on a hungry rampage, it isn't doing so for the players' convenience.  It might hit their village; it might not.  If it does, they might be there; and they might not.

Mallus' "What if the DM sends an unavoidable TPK *after the PCs*" is a very different animal than "What if the PCs encounter a dragon".  In the first case, the DM determines what the encounter is (a TPK), and the players have nothing to do (except die).  In the second case, the encounter is with a dragon, but _*what the encounter is*_ is responsive to how the players react to the situation their characters are in.  Is it an encounter where the PCs die heroically (or not so heroically)?  Is it an encounter where they speak to the dragon?  Where they run and hide?  Where they buy him off?  The DM doesn't know when the encounter begins.

(This doesn't mean that the DM doesn't have a proposed sketch of the encounter aforehand, merely that this sketch isn't set in stone......The DM extrapolates from it in response to the players.)

Moreover, while a dragon may encounter the PCs as a result of a wandering encounter, or as the logical result of the campaign world's progression, what does not happen is the DM deciding that he wants the PCs to encounter Smaug, therefore they will encounter Smaug.

From other discussions, I have the impression that most of the sandbox-type DMs here are non-fudgers when it comes to the dice.  After all, fudging the dice to determine what happens invalidates the point of allow the players to make choices.

I also have the impression that most of the "There's no difference" folks here are fudgers when it comes to the dice.  After all, not fudging the dice to determine what happens invalidates the way they planned the encounters to go.

And that is, perhaps, a good encapsulation of the difference:  Whose choices does the DM empower?  His, or his players'?


RC


----------



## Imaro (Mar 11, 2009)

monboesen said:


> *No, but because you seemingly harbor the notion that players will never run into inappropiate encounters in a tailored campaign.*
> 
> I can of course only speak of my own games, as player and DM, and they fall more into the tailored category.
> 
> ...




Emphasis mine: Perhaps because this is what the actual discussion was originally about (a setting of level-appropriate challenges vs. a setting of level-independant challenges.  Now if you do things different...great, but that wasn't what I was discussing.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 11, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Scenario:
> PCs are in a dungeon. They have searched it through and didn't find yet what they were looking for. But they found a chamber that's apparantly a teleportation device. They can't find any clues (because there are none) where it leads to, *and eventually, they decide to risk it.* The first character enters, and one after another, each of them decides to risk it.
> I've seen this scenario in actual play and encounters. The reason why the entire party eventually risks is is because we know that it'S a game and we're the protagonists. Whatever happens will propel the story, even if it's tough.
> 
> Or so we believe. In fact, this teleportation chamber teleports the PCs directly above a pool of lava. THey all die.




So then it wasn't an inescapable death trap, it was a choice to take a potentially dangerous action without knowing anything about it's consequences or effects... yeah they die if that's what I originally designed the device to do (though I have to ask...why does this thing teleport over a pool of lava, this just seems arbitrary.). 

Honestly, unless you agree to change this fact beforehand...It's a game where one of the assumptions is that one can "loose" by dying,, thus that should always be considered a possible consequence of one's actions.





Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I would say this fails the qualification for "real death trap".
> Who is raising them? And isn't the reason why you get the party raised not just because it makes "sense" from a purely verisimilitude perspective, but because the "show must go on"?
> But even if you do it, wouldn't it feel a little... shallow to the players? "We only survived because the DM said we should, and we only died in the first place because the DM said we would. No amount of "smart play" would have saved us or created our way out." (Smart Play it might be if the PCs ensured they have an ally that would raise them, or that have a "raise dead insurance" or a contingency spell cast on them. But is that something possible in every game world at every level?)




Uhm, notice I said if they take the precautions to make sure they get raised again the impetus is on the PC's to make sure they get raised... not me as the DM. And if this isn't possible, perhaps the PC's shouldn't be diving into devices they know nothing about and have no clue where they lead... at least until they can do some actual research on it. You see it's not inescapable, they can easily walk away... and the funny thing is only a player who is used to things always being tailored to them would think like you have described. Thus why I said earlier that the different styles do foster a different mentality in players and DM's.


----------



## monboesen (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Perhaps because this is what the actual discussion was originally about (a setting of level-appropriate challenges vs. a setting of level-independant challenges.




The point I'm trying to make is that I personally don't know or have participated in any roleplaying game that adheres to either of those categories. And my claim is that the vast majority of other roleplayers haven't either. Most actual games are a blend of the two, where characters usually meet appropiate challenges, unless they really mess up.

IMO you are discussing a completely theoretical and somewhat contrived scenario.

Anyway I don't see the rules of 4ed (or 3ed) state anywhere that you should design your game one way or another. The rules advice that most combats should be within certain limits, not that the entire world constantly reshapes itself according to character capabilty.

Incidently that advice is sound advice for the inexperienced DM's for whom the DM 1 4ed is clearly written.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Honestly, unless you agree to change this fact beforehand...It's a game where one of the assumptions is that one can "loose" by dying,, thus that should always be considered a possible consequence of one's actions.




Indeed, this lever trap has come up before, and my mind about it has not been changed -- such a trap is perfectly acceptable, so long as the means to create teleport traps exist within the game world.


RC


----------



## Imaro (Mar 11, 2009)

monboesen said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that I personally don't know or have participated in any roleplaying game that adheres to either of those categories. And my claim is that the vast majority of other roleplayers haven't either. Most actual games are a blend of the two, where characters usually meet appropiate challenges, unless they really mess up..




Huh? Really huh? You don't think there are DM's who only create level-appropriate challenges (again not the same as same-level encounters) and then contrive to make sure the PC's only encounter them, or as Thasmodius has stated, he does, adjust them on the fly. I'm not saying anything is wrong with this style, but honestly to claim it doesn't exist is absurd.

Also please excuse me if I don't put much stock in unsupported claims of "what most players and/or DM's do". Give me some evidence (besides anecdotal) and maybe I'll take your claims a little more seriously.



monboesen said:


> IMO you are discussing a completely theoretical and somewhat contrived scenario..




Uhm ok, if that's what you believe... again that's great for you, but what exactly are you arguing then, since it's only "theoretical" *for you*.



monboesen said:


> Anyway I don't see the rules of 4ed (or 3ed) state anywhere that you should design your game one way or another. The rules advice that most combats should be within certain limits, not that the entire world constantly reshapes itself according to character capabilty..





Who said anything about what 3e or 4e state in their rulebooks? what does this have to do with editions, it's about playstyles, so why are you even bringing this up?



monboesen said:


> Incidently that advice is sound advice for the inexperienced DM's for whom the DM 1 4ed is clearly written.




Ok, I agree... but what does the 4th ed. DMG have to do with this discussion? Whatr exactly are you arguing here?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Indeed, this lever trap has come up before, and my mind about it has not been changed -- such a trap is perfectly acceptable, so long as the means to create teleport traps exist within the game world.
> 
> 
> RC




So, where does "smart play" enter with such a threat?


----------



## monboesen (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Huh? Really huh? You don't think there are DM's who only create level-appropriate challenges




Yes I do. I just think the numbers of people doing entirely tailored games AND the number of people doing only non-tailored games are both small enough to make the discussion pointless. 



Imaro said:


> Also please excuse me if I don't put much stock in unsupported claims of "what most players and/or DM's do". Give me some evidence (besides anecdotal) and maybe I'll take your claims a little more seriously.




And can you provide me the numbers for the number of DM's doing it either entirely the tailored or non-tailored way?

The best I can do numbersvise is direct you to this split off thread that at least for time being have a majority of DM's stating they do a mix of the two styles. Remarkbly close to my experiences as player and DM.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...res-v-situations-forked-why-world-exists.html



Imaro said:


> Who said anything about what 3e or 4e state in their rulebooks? what does this have to do with editions, it's about playstyles, so why are you even bringing this up?
> 
> Ok, I agree... but what does the 4th ed. DMG have to do with this discussion? Whatr exactly are you arguing here?




This entire thread spawned partly from a discussion about the nature of campaigns with player magic item wish lists and a world of player entitlement that put the blame more or less on newer editions of the game. That is why I found it relevant. Thread is found here.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/251812-how-do-you-distribute-treasure.html


----------



## Imaro (Mar 11, 2009)

monboesen said:


> Yes I do. I just think the numbers of people doing entirely tailored games AND the number of people doing only non-tailored games are both small enough to make the discussion pointless.




If you feel it's pointless, by all means don't participate... However others apparently feel different and thus are choosing to discuss it.



monboesen said:


> And can you provide me the numbers for the number of DM's doing it either entirely the tailored or non-tailored way?




I don't have to provide any numbers since I'm not making any claims about the majority of players and their styles, I'm discussing a particular style I have used... that is all. 



monboesen said:


> The best I can do numbersvise is direct you to this split off thread that at least for time being have a majority of DM's stating they do a mix of the two styles. Remarkbly close to my experiences as player and DM.
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/252118-adventures-v-situations-forked-why-world-exists.html




A thread (not even a poll) is your evidence which as of this posting has about 3 to 4 people total claiming your "majority" style is what they do. Besides EnWorld is not representative of gamers as a whole... so again all you have for your claims is anecdotal evidence. Perhaps it would be better if you just didn't make unfounded claims and instead just discussed your playstyle.



monboesen said:


> This entire thread spawned partly from a discussion about the nature of campaigns with player magic item wish lists and a world of player entitlement that put the blame more or less on newer editions of the game. That is why I found it relevant. Thread is found here.
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/251812-how-do-you-distribute-treasure.html




And yet this discussion, about playstyles, is beyond that, as no one here (with the exception of you) has brought up editions having anything to do with it. It would seem that makes you the odd man out as far as whether edition has anything to do with it or not. I mean are you looking for a reason to make it about editions?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 11, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So, where does "smart play" enter with such a threat?




As an obvious example, casting _augury_?

The game has always allowed, since at least 1e, for players to have the means to know if some individual choice was good or bad.  Smart play includes having these resources, saving them when they are not needed, and using them when they are.


RC


----------



## The Ghost (Mar 11, 2009)

monboesen said:


> IMO you are discussing a completely theoretical and somewhat contrived scenario.






monboesen said:


> Yes I do. I just think the numbers of people doing entirely tailored games AND the number of people doing only non-tailored games are both small enough to make the discussion pointless.




As I said in the other thread, I do not feel that the point of these discussions is to place people into two distinct camps. Rather, I find this to be an interesting debate over methodology. The fact that various methods can, and do produce similar results does not change the fact those methods are quite different. I feel that too many people are looking at this discussion and saying "Your game produced result A, and my game produced result A, therefore, your game and my game are the same." To that I say, what happens when my game produces result B and your game produces result C? Are they still the same? Can your game even produce result B? Can my game even produce result C?


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> As an obvious example, casting _augury_?
> 
> The game has always allowed, since at least 1e, for players to have the means to know if some individual choice was good or bad.  Smart play includes having these resources, saving them when they are not needed, and using them when they are.
> 
> RC




Do they cast divinations at every door, level, and staircase? It seems like it'd be dreadfully slow going through a dungeon. Heck, our level-approp dungeons seem slow going due to PC prudence, and they know there are no CR 20 dragons behind those doors...


----------



## Stoat (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Well there are a couple of methods I use to determine such things...
> 
> 1. Reaction: The NPC reacts to an event caused by the PC's and/or other events in the campaign.
> 
> ...




To what extent, if any, do you consider the level of the PC's when you employ these means?  

Ugor the Ogre Chieftan could be a regular ogre with max hit points and +1 Greatclub or he could have 10 levels of barbarian and the Sword of Kas.  The DM decides, just as the DM decides how big Ugor's tribe is, what their history is, why they're migrating and any other factors that would explain/justify Ugor's level.  Do the player levels factor into that decision at all?

Also: Tell me more about Relationship Maps.  I haven't heard of them before, and I'm intrigued.  How do they work?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 11, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Do they cast divinations at every door, level, and staircase? It seems like it'd be dreadfully slow going through a dungeon. Heck, our level-approp dungeons seem slow going due to PC prudence, and they know there are no CR 20 dragons behind those doors...




Obviously not.  Again, if the world exists "as is", then there should be good reasons why traps exist where they do, and there should be good reasons why certain areas are not trapped.

A world that makes sense...to the degree in which it is possible in an RPG...perforce contains _patterns_, and the elements in that world leave "footprints" on other parts of the world.  If the orcs trap corridor A, and use only corridor B as a result, corridor A shows signs of being disused, but probably has a visible "lure" to make outsiders choose corridor A first.

The lever that teleports you to a hot magma bath?  Probably hasn't been touched in a long, long time.  Also, the mooks (if any) probably know not to touch it.  Smart play includes letting a mook or two live in exchange for information, possibly with _detect lie_ or _zone of truth_, if you've got it.  This lever, now dusty, disused, and growing cobwebs, is something that almost any player in an "as is" game should quickly learn to distrust.


RC


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 11, 2009)

The problems I have with the Raven Crowking / Imaro approach:

You all keep talking about how the game world changes as a result of effects in the game world, not as a result of the DM changing the game world to accomodate the player's need for an adventure. 

1. But the game world isn't real. When Imaro decides that the Emo Caves no longer have level 2 goblins because of some external event (not because the PCs are level 5, of course), Imaro ALSO was the one who decided that the external event happened. His choice may not be 100% unbounded (prior in game events might force his hand), but his choice is very close to free.

2. Unfortunately he's wed himself to a design paradigm in which he cannot decide which external events occur based on a desire to create good gameplay. But what other criteria is he going to use?

3. If he uses "realism" or "what really happened," which I'm going to count as standing in for "some objective criteria other than a desire to match player level to challenge difficulty," then logically he should occasionally have things happen which wreck his game. In real life, sometimes people catch terminal diseases, totally unavoidably, and die. In real life, sometimes people go places that logically should be safe, and are murdered in ways they could not avoid. Lots of things like this happen. And yet they don't generally happen in sandbox campaigns.

4. The underlying issue is: If you're not adjusting the setting to fit the PCs, why is it that game-appropriate scenarios keep playing out? Isn't it awfully coincidental that your game world, allegedly built upon a premise of realism and objectivity, just coincidentally happens to create good game outcomes? Real life doesn't do this. Its almost like your game world is controlled by some semi-benevolent hegemon who tailors reality to the needs of a few specific inhabitants. If that's not the case, why does it look so much like that is the case?

5. But no one addresses that underlying issue. Instead, they debate hypotheticals instead of debating the question raised by the hypothetical.

6. So we get treated to lengthy essays (almost as lengthy as mine) that basically read like classic psychological texts on blaming victims. See Blaming the Victim and Just World Hypothesis. Every time someone asks, "if you do things based on realism, why doesn't this thing, which is realistic but really unfair to players, ever happen?" the response isn't to actually answer, but rather to come up with more and more elaborate and tenuous ways to claim that player behavior "chose" the allegedly unfair outcome. The player *knew* that Doug the Dangerous was a scary person, so its his fault when he intervenes when Doug the Dangerous is mugging someone, and gets butchered by a level 20 rogue. The player *knew* the forests were dangerous, so its his fault when he enters them and the DM rolls a 100 on the wandering monster percentile chart and devours the level 1 party with a trio of Purple Worms. The player *knew* that he didn't know which direction to go in the dungeon, so its his fault that he didn't cast divination and avoid the unescapable deathtrap of doom.

6a. The first problem with this is that its just avoiding the real question. Lets say you really did successfully defeat the hypothetical. Fine, imagine a different hypothetical. In real life, unfair things happen. Do they happen in your game? Sometimes real life unfair things end you, permanently. Does that happen in your game? If not, why not?

6b. The second problem is that it starts to get absurd. There's a reason that my back and forth earlier in the thread kept discussing the information a player "reasonably" requires to avoid blundering into unfair situations and dying. The tact taken here seems to be that IF the unfair situation could have been avoided, THEN whatever precautions would have avoided it are per se reasonable and the PCs should have used them. But come on. This is just classic victim blaming. The fact that someone _could_ have performed some unusually cautious act doesn't mean that any consequences they suffer as a result of not performing it are their fault. 

6c. And lets say that your victim blaming is true, _and reasonable_. Everything really was in the control of the PCs. They really did have precautions they could have reasonably taken, and they really do have precautions they can take at every step of the game. How did that happen? Real life isn't like that. Sounds to me like someone's engineering the game again to match player needs for fairness.

I also have a problem with distinctions without a difference ("You can't say that X and Y are the same in terms of player freedom! X is totally different than Y! Its blue!"), but I don't think that's getting anywhere as a discussion.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 11, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> The problems I have with the Raven Crowking / Imaro approach:
> 
> You all keep talking about how the game world changes as a result of effects in the game world, not as a result of the DM changing the game world to accomodate the player's need for an adventure.
> 
> 1. But the game world isn't real. When Imaro decides that the Emo Caves no longer have level 2 goblins because of some external event (not because the PCs are level 5, of course), Imaro ALSO was the one who decided that the external event happened. His choice may not be 100% unbounded (prior in game events might force his hand), but his choice is very close to free.



Randomizers.

One of the things that I like about _Traveller_ is that the game includes random tables for just about everything. Random encounters, random reactions, random patrons, random rumors, random events, random news bulletins, a displacement ton of tables that allow me to generate the action on the fly.

I add flesh to the barebones setting details, then use the random tables to create the situations which confront the adventurers. My knowledge of the setting details allows me to add chrome to the random results and integrate them into the setting in a way that maintains verisimilitude.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 11, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> The problems I have with the Raven Crowking / Imaro approach:
> 
> You all keep talking about how the game world changes as a result of effects in the game world, not as a result of the DM changing the game world to accomodate the player's need for an adventure.




Do you find it impossible for PC's to seek out their own adventure? I guess in a world of nothingness a PC could find himself with nothing to do, but in a world populated with things how is this possible?



Cadfan said:


> 1. But the game world isn't real. When Imaro decides that the Emo Caves no longer have level 2 goblins because of some external event (not because the PCs are level 5, of course), Imaro ALSO was the one who decided that the external event happened. His choice may not be 100% unbounded (prior in game events might force his hand), but his choice is very close to free..




Yes and that is why much of the setup is created before the characters enter it. There has to be a baseline. In the Ogre example there are two ways to handle this. Either the migration is planned before the game starts and takes place 3 months from the start of the game (in other words it is in motion already and part of the campaign setting)... or there is a percentage chance it happens and takes place once rolled (random occurence to simulate a change out of the hands of the PC's). Either way it isn't guaranteed to happen when the PC's are an appropriate level to handle it in combat.



Cadfan said:


> 2. Unfortunately he's wed himself to a design paradigm in which he cannot decide which external events occur based on a desire to create good gameplay. But what other criteria is he going to use?




"Unfortunately...Good gameplay"... Now that's just a wee bit patronizing don't you think?  I'm sorry I ascribe to the thought that when given free reign my players will create good gameplay through the choices they make... but I'm curious how is "good gameplay" (and I don't mean Cadfan's good gameplay) hindered in any way with a sandbox approach. you see it's broad statements like this that reek of Wrongbadfunism that I don't like. the funny thing is I haven't made any judgements about the quality of gameplay created when everything is able to be approached with direct combat.



Cadfan said:


> 3. If he uses "realism" or "what really happened," which I'm going to count as standing in for "some objective criteria other than a desire to match player level to challenge difficulty," then logically he should occasionally have things happen which wreck his game. In real life, sometimes people catch terminal diseases, totally unavoidably, and die. In real life, sometimes people go places that logically should be safe, and are murdered in ways they could not avoid. Lots of things like this happen. And yet they don't generally happen in sandbox campaigns




Uhm they do... that is what chance (rolling the dice) is for, that is why you can stumble into a higher level challenge than is approproiate, or a trap you weren't prepared for and is higher level than you....am I right or wrong. what you seem to want is for the DM to come down from on high and without so much as a saving throw, skill check, luck, cleverness or even the rules of the game giving the PC a chance to survive the DM should strike the characters down. I'm sorry that isn't realistic... in life choices lead to consequences (whether it's an informed choice or not is irrelevant to this discussion)... and sometimes people (who are able to roll high enough, plan well enough,etc.) walk away unscathed. However I have never seen an unknown force swoop down and destroy a person regardless of the choices they have made in life (again whether informed or not is irrelevant)...nothing in the world is 100% certain.



Cadfan said:


> 4. The underlying issue is: If you're not adjusting the setting to fit the PCs, why is it that game-appropriate scenarios keep playing out? Isn't it awfully coincidental that your game world, allegedly built upon a premise of realism and objectivity, just coincidentally happens to create good game outcomes? Real life doesn't do this. Its almost like your game world is controlled by some semi-benevolent hegemon who tailors reality to the needs of a few specific inhabitants. If that's not the case, why does it look so much like that is the case?




Why don't most people in the real world, with the numerous possible ways to be injured or get killed die at a young age? Are you telling me the majority of people in the world walk into situations that they thought were safe and then suddenly and inexplicably die? What you are describing is, IMO, absurd...with the PC's as the cream of the crop adventurers.. it seems an average peasant, commoner, etc. couldn't possibly survive in your world. That, my friend, is more unrealistic than highly trained, highly skilled and powerful characters surviving against dangerous odds.



Cadfan said:


> 5. But no one addresses that underlying issue. Instead, they debate hypotheticals instead of debating the question raised by the hypothetical.




I think my friend, you are perhaps ignoring the answers.



Cadfan said:


> 6. So we get treated to lengthy essays (almost as lengthy as mine) that basically read like classic psychological texts on blaming victims. See Blaming the Victim and Just World Hypothesis. Every time someone asks, "if you do things based on realism, why doesn't this thing, which is realistic but really unfair to players, ever happen?" the response isn't to actually answer, but rather to come up with more and more elaborate and tenuous ways to claim that player behavior "chose" the allegedly unfair outcome. The player *knew* that Doug the Dangerous was a scary person, so its his fault when he intervenes when Doug the Dangerous is mugging someone, and gets butchered by a level 20 rogue. The player *knew* the forests were dangerous, so its his fault when he enters them and the DM rolls a 100 on the wandering monster percentile chart and devours the level 1 party with a trio of Purple Worms. The player *knew* that he didn't know which direction to go in the dungeon, so its his fault that he didn't cast divination and avoid the unescapable deathtrap of doom.
> 
> 6a. The first problem with this is that its just avoiding the real question. Lets say you really did successfully defeat the hypothetical. Fine, imagine a different hypothetical. In real life, unfair things happen. Do they happen in your game? Sometimes real life unfair things end you, permanently. Does that happen in your game? If not, why not?
> 
> ...




First I think everyone answered your question when Mustrum proposed the trap and many said they would let their PC's die if they made that choice...are you just ignoring these answers? 

Second, the game mechanics create the random chance of you surviving bad things, right? Thus there are plenty of chances for a character to stumble into a bad situation (as well as a good situation) and die a random death (or walk away wit a great reward). That said it is not up to me as DM to decide if he can survive it... it's up to the players ingenuity and the mechanics of the game (along with a roll of the dice or two) to decide, you seem to have a large problem accepting that.

Finally, you can prepare for alot of things in life if you think ahead, have patience and are intelligent...all things? Nope and sometimes you have to make a split second decision without any knowledge at all to help you... so what was your point again about how sandboxes play out?
I don't even understand your final example so I will leave it alone.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I disagree... parties where the DM sets only level appropriate encounters available will without fail have a 100% level appropriate encounter game...



Remember that even tailored, level-appropriate encounters imply a range of difficulty; some at-level, some easy, some damn hard. 

And few DM's who tailor encounters --say like me-- actively _prevent_ determined PC's from challenging opponents/taking on challenges that are outside their current ability to handle, if that's what the players _really_ want to do.

Debates like these too often get bogged down in hypotheticals and extreme examples. I'm (trying) to talk about play at the table, as I've experienced it.



> A DM who sets both appropriate and inappropriate encounters, and allows the PC's the freedom to choose from any of them doesn't have a set percentage of level appropriate enciunters vs. non-level appropriate encounters... it's the whole point of giving the PC's a choice, it's a surprise to the DM and players.



All I'm saying is that I've observed that players tend to choose level-appropriate encounters the majority of the time, when given that choice. That's simply a product of the system. Easy challenges offer too few rewards (be they XP, treasure, or that more unquantifiable quality, fun), and difficult challenges pose too much risk. 

It's a simple cost-benefit analysis.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 11, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> In practice, it doesn't happen because it isn't a particularly interesting story nor is it a particularly believable story.



I believe the first part of that sentence is more important than the second. Before you can begin to talk about the internal logic of a setting, you need to recognize that internal logic must ultimately be in service of an interesting story, which is to say a good, playable gaming experience. 

I'm not criticizing attempts to make the game world logical or consistent. I'm not knocking simulationism. But I'm wary, well, critical of statements that suggest it's somehow logical that game environment protects PC's from random deaths. That's a metagame requirement. 



> Let's look at the internal logic of a sandbox setting.
> 
> Let's suppose the dragon lairs on the edge of inhabited territory.... snip



Cel, that fact that you can skillfully create a logical in-game explanation for it doesn't alter the fact you're addressing a metagame need (ie playability). I'll go so far as to say that reasoning like this is at the heart of a good setting, but it's still a form of rationalizing the game conventions into something plausible inside the narrative of the game. 



> (As a semi-aside, one of the things I disliked about many 1st edition published settings is that I couldn't figure out why creatures like hobgoblins weren't long since extinct, since they always seemed to be provoking humans who had champions who could each slaughter them by the hundreds single handedily.  It didn't make sense to me in terms of sustainable ecology.)



And we both know _why_ goblins aren't extinct in those settings. Low-level PC's need goblins, or something similar, to smack around. To paraphrase Spock, the needs of the _game_ outweigh the needs of the _simulation_ (at least when it comes to mass-market published supplements).


----------



## Mallus (Mar 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> (1)  Why is the dragon in a "fit of pique"?



Initially, because *I* said it was. It was my example, after all. Do you really want me to make a list of plausible reasons? I'm fairly imaginative, you know. Conceivably the list could be quite long... 



> (2)  What is the most likely action of the dragon under those circumstances?



What interests me is that actions it _cannot_ take, such as raining unavoidable fiery destruction upon a helpless band of low-level PC's.

And why can't it? Simple, it would be bad for the campaign. The needs of the game outweigh the needs of the simulation.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 11, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> 1. But the game world isn't real. When Imaro decides that the Emo Caves no longer have level 2 goblins because of some external event (not because the PCs are level 5, of course), Imaro ALSO was the one who decided that the external event happened. His choice may not be 100% unbounded (prior in game events might force his hand), but his choice is very close to free.




Urm.....Let us assume, for a moment, that the Emo Caves might have Level 1 goblins when the PCs are level 5 as the result of campaign events, or level 10 giants.  Change occurs, but the only changes that "map" to the PCs in any form are those that they are either catalysts to or engineer (intentionally or not).  

And, unless the PCs make an effort to make it so, these changes will map to PC-related criteria other than their level.....such as bounty hunters seeking the fighter who burned down the inn.

If the inn offers little bounty (i.e., is a poor inn), the hunters may well be inept in comparison to the PCs.  If the inn is owned by someone very wealthy, the hunters may well exceed the PCs "level appropriate" threshold.



> 2. Unfortunately he's wed himself to a design paradigm in which he cannot decide which external events occur based on a desire to create good gameplay. But what other criteria is he going to use?




Good game world.



> 3. If he uses "realism" or "what really happened," which I'm going to count as standing in for "some objective criteria other than a desire to match player level to challenge difficulty," then logically he should occasionally have things happen which wreck his game. In real life, sometimes people catch terminal diseases, totally unavoidably, and die. In real life, sometimes people go places that logically should be safe, and are murdered in ways they could not avoid. Lots of things like this happen. And yet they don't generally happen in sandbox campaigns.




Sure they do.  At least, they do to the extent that they do in the real world, although the PCs often have better resources than we do in the real world to deal with those problems.

I have had PCs get cholera.

I have had PCs die in prison.

I have had PCs die because they were unable to escape natural disasters, or because they went down the wrong alley at the wrong time.

I have had PCs die in these sorts of ways both as DM and as player, and I have no interest in a game where, should my choices lead me in that direction, that sort of thing doesn't happen.



> 4. The underlying issue is: If you're not adjusting the setting to fit the PCs, why is it that game-appropriate scenarios keep playing out? Isn't it awfully coincidental that your game world, allegedly built upon a premise of realism and objectivity, just coincidentally happens to create good game outcomes? Real life doesn't do this.




Really?  How many insta-kills have _*you*_ encountered lately?  There is at least  one excellent thread on EN World about real people whose lives really did play out like adventure yarns.

As another aside, consider the following:

For every CR 20 threat in the world, there are 10 CR 19 threats.

For every CR 19 threat in the world, there are 10 CR 18 threats.

Etc., right down the line.

Now add the obvious:  Bigger challenges tend to leave bigger "footprints" on the world.  I.e., most anyone in the world knows what a lion or a polar bear is, but few of us know what a pine martin is.  Hence, it is easier to prepare for/avoid polar bears than it is to do the same with pine martins.

All-level play encounters proportionally more low-level threats than high-level threats.  As PCs make a name for themselves, they come to the attention of the movers and shakers of the world/region/whatever.  I.e., they cease to be pine martins and become closer to polar bears.  People start taking them into account in their plans.  This is why, prior to 3e, high-level play tended to mean more politics and fortress-building than orc hunting.

Of course, more powerful characters also have better resources to seek out more powerful threats.  But more powerful threats might mean (1) taking on the Vampire King, (2) trying to carve out a kingdom, (3) trying to end poverty, (4) etc.  The pieces on the board haven't really changed as much as they've changed position.

In one AD&D campaign, for example, play began with a known vampire as a power broker in a gigantic city.  As play continued, by about 3rd-5th level, the PCs began to want things that they knew the vampire could provide.  They entered a business relationship with him, and actually "sold" him a few levels in order to gain his support against other factions.  The vampire became, essentially, the setting's "Godfather".....and one who would eventually seek to eliminate the PCs when they were becoming too powerful for him to control.



> Its almost like your game world is controlled by some semi-benevolent hegemon who tailors reality to the needs of a few specific inhabitants. If that's not the case, why does it look so much like that is the case?




Obviously, you are talking about your game world, or someone else's game world.



> 5. But no one addresses that underlying issue. Instead, they debate hypotheticals instead of debating the question raised by the hypothetical.




Obviously, you are ignoring every concrete, really-from-a-game example, as well as many responses in this thread.



> 6. So we get treated to lengthy essays (almost as lengthy as mine) that basically read like classic psychological texts on blaming victims.




I find it somewhat interesting that, as soon as it is suggested that the players determine what challenges they face, they become "victims".  Perhaps, from some wonky angle, you could rationally consider the (not real) PCs as "victims", but the players are not.



> I also have a problem with distinctions without a difference ("You can't say that X and Y are the same in terms of player freedom! X is totally different than Y! Its blue!"), but I don't think that's getting anywhere as a discussion.




And yet, when that distinction was made (I assume you are referring to my X/Y analysis of Mallus' post some ways back), not only was the question raised never answered, but it was never addressed.  Indeed, you are doing nothing more than raising a straw man here to claim that previous terms to demonstrate a distinction are as phony as what you are presenting.



Imaro said:


> I think my friend, you are perhaps ignoring the answers.




Indeed.  

Would I be right, Cadfan, in believing that you advocate the occasional fudged die roll?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 11, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I'll go so far as to say that reasoning like this is at the heart of a good setting, but it's still a form of rationalizing the game conventions into something plausible inside the narrative of the game.




Determining the requirements of the game world is a metagaming concept that is going to go on throughout the life of the game.  However, the metagaming requirements of a sandbox include the chance for the PCs to die a gruesome random death, whereas the metagaming requirements for an adventure path require that the PCs are protected from said gruesome random death.  

Yes, in the sandbox game, the players will take pains to eliminate that chance as much as possible, but it is always there.  It is the chute that deposits you three levels deeper in the dungeon when you're already low on hit points.  It is the earthquake that happens, and that may kill you despite your best efforts.  It is the random chance for disease (see the 1e DMG) that strikes down the strongest, the failed saving throw that you needed to make, the dice running cold one night when you can't get over a 5 on your d20 to (literally) save your (PC's) life.

And, frankly, for those who like this style of game, _*this is what is desired*_.

Which is why you will seldom hear a sandbox DM talk about fudging die rolls....and you often hear of adventure path DMs talk about doing so.

"[T]he needs of the _game_" may "outweigh the needs of the _simulation_", but the needs of the two paradigms are different.



Mallus said:


> Initially, because *I* said it was. It was my example, after all. Do you really want me to make a list of plausible reasons? I'm fairly imaginative, you know. Conceivably the list could be quite long...




You miss (intentionally?) the point.

I cannot answer what the dragon is likely to do without first knowing why it is in a fit of pique.  I don't need a list; I just need one good reason to answer the question intelligently.

And, yes, sometimes the intelligent answer *is* "raining  fiery destruction upon a helpless band of low-level PC's".  And, despite your protests to the contrary, the fact that this sometimes is the intelligent answer....and what happens...._*is good for the game*_.

It is also, obviously, possible to abuse this sort of thing.  The game is never "DM vs. Players" because the DM would always win.  And, I note, your use of the word "unavoidable" (which I cut) is, I think, they key thing you keep coming back to.  Only if the DM has decided what will happen before the players' input is presented, and the dice are rolled, is anything "unavoidable".

"X is unavoidable" is adventure path, not sandbox.


RC


----------



## Imaro (Mar 11, 2009)

Mallus said:


> What interests me is that actions it _cannot_ take, such as raining unavoidable fiery destruction upon a helpless band of low-level PC's.
> 
> And why can't it? Simple, it would be bad for the campaign. The needs of the game outweigh the needs of the simulation.




No one said the dragon couldn't (though looking at the dragons in the 4e MM, even a 1st level character has a chance to survive most if not all of their breath weapons so it wouldn't necessarily be instant death. I mean you are taking into consideration the rules of the actual game...right?).

However if you're going to argue against simulationism or sandbox play (especially without consideration that for some people gameplay in an rpg sucks without simulationism), then it's important that the constraints of simulationism be addressed as well. In this context it is definitely important to establish the dragons, how, when, why and where and make sure it is consistent as it pertains to the gameworld, otherwise you are not ascribing to sandbox play or simulationism and are not being a fair referee or arbitrater (and this would be true no matter if your concerns were simulationism/narrativism or gamism).

If it makes no sense for the PC's to be attacked by the dragon it's not really simulationist or close to realistic...is it? It is DM Fiat which is not what we are discussing. In a simulationist game the PC's often have the chance, because their is consistency and logic, to make choices that rely on... in-gameworld logic, trickery, cunning, etc. to get out of situations that approaching with direct combat would probably result in their death. Is this good gameplay? Certainly for those who enjoy matching their wits and cunning against the gameworld as opposed to the mechanics. But it is not achieved in the same manner you seem to insinuate good gameplay takes place in (level-appropriate challenges)

And again I want to point out that your example avoids any application of the actual game rules. If the dragon rolls a series of ones on it's breath attack... the PC survives because the Dragon didn't kill him, so no the DM doesn't have the right to still make him die. If the PC's are in a cave to small and too far underground for the dragon to attack them, then no the DM cannot (if he is doing sandbox play) auto-rule the PC's still died.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 11, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Before you can begin to talk about the internal logic of a setting, you need to recognize that internal logic must ultimately be in service of an interesting story, which is to say a good, playable gaming experience.



I'm leery of equating a "good, playable gaming experience" with "in the service of an interesting story."

For me, there is no "story" until the "good, playable gaming experience" takes place. I don't have a story in mind when I create encounters. The only story is the recounting of those encounters after the game is played.


----------



## Thasmodious (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine: Not exactly... if nothing else in the world changes or affects the goblins until the PC's arrive... then yes the Emo Caves will be full of lvl 2 goblin cutters when the PC's arrive (it will not be level-dependant though)... of course the longer it takes for them to visit the less likely this is as the campaign setting changes and evolves.




Ah, but that's my central question.  First, I should have included "unless campaign events change this", but then it should also be obvious that I mean "unless campaign events change this".  

The question is, why does "lvl 2" have to be written in stone?  

I want the PCs to have the option of visiting the fabled Emo Caves.  In my design notes, its obviously a low level challenge and hooks will get seeded into NPC interaction from the game start, maybe a PC even starts with a map to or of an area of the Emo Caves (especially, in a sandbox game, I like to start the game with the PCs knowing certain things about the setting).  

Lvl 2 is just an arbitrary meta-game number.  In my sandbox settings, its not part of the information for the locale.  This is because, if it is part of the information, the Emo Caves become a very limited option for the PCs.  Caves full of lvl 2 creatures will only be fun and challenging for a narrow range of PC levels (say 1-3), then it becomes a cakewalk and not worth their time for the entire life of the game (unless those completely random and in no way influenced by the PCs (or their levels) campaign situations arise, of course).  This seems limiting, not freeing like the playstyle is meant to be.  When I design the setting, the Emo Caves will be written about - story, hooks, history, and it will say "goblins live in these caves."  But that can mean a lot of things.  It could be nothing stronger than lvl 2 cutters and a hexer chieftan.  It could include bugbears and hobgoblins and ogres or leveled goblins, with templates.  There are a lot of game tools in several editions of the game to give a lot of range and variety to your monsters.  I like to use those to keep the game interesting and the sandbox open.  Unless the PCs have risen well beyond the challenges of the Emo Caves (epic levels, say), I have a lot of room to make the Caves exciting and challenging for as large a range of the game as possible.

In a sandbox game, the DM has a lot of freedom, too.  He's the one designing the playground, after all.  I think it is limiting and restrictive to divide the whole setting up into predetermined zones where the PCs have to figure out where they can go and where they can't.  This would be like playing through the world of an MMO.  I don't mean this in an insulting way, but that is exactly what games like WoW do.  The PC can go anywhere, but the mechanics of everything in a certain zone is set in stone.  If the PC goes there at lvl 4 or lvl 80, the monsters in it are still all lvl 55 and for most of the gameplay that locale is either near instant death or a cakewalk.  This divides up the world too much for my taste, and its limiting, not freeing, which is the idea of a sandbox setting.

This is true of even bigger things like major NPC villains and monsters.  The evil baron, why do I need to stat him before the PCs are set directly onto his path?  He influences the setting, but what "level" does he really need to be to do this?  I may know the level of some of his servants before then, the agents of his oppression, but there is no level that says "must be this high to be an evil baron".  So a range of challenges is useful there as well.  That marauding dragon?  Well, clearly he can't be a baby wyrmling, but is there a reason I have to settle on his numbers long before the PCs believe they have risen in power enough to go after him?  They can go visit him at 1st level if they want, aware that he is "big and burns whole villages and all who have come after him have died".  It's their short-lived characters.  But, if the PCs at 15th decide to go after him, maybe they have a chance, if they're very smart.  They wouldn't if I had simply set in stone that he was a lvl 30 dragon.  But, using an elder instead of an ancient, and shaving a couple levels, they'd have a shot, an incredibly difficult shot, but a shot nonetheless.  Otoh, if he's been a terror for the whole campaign, but I set his stats in the beginning as a lvl 22 elder instead of the lvl 30 ancient, and the PCs go after him at 24th level, he will be very easy.  The scourge of the campaign, a breeze, just because the PCs leveled enough.   

In summary, I don't like to let the arbitrary numbers of the meta-game system limit and restrict my sandbox.  I like to use the tools on hand to leave the setting as open as I possibly can, so the players really do have freedom of choice and fun.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 11, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> Ah, but that's my central question. First, I should have included "unless campaign events change this", but then it should also be obvious that I mean "unless campaign events change this".
> 
> The question is, why does "lvl 2" have to be written in stone?
> 
> ...




If everything I run into is suddenly "adapted" to my level how does this in anyway give me freedom of choice, it becomes an illusion at this point.  Fun again is dependent upon what the PC's want out of a game so I won't argue with you on that point.  And I'm sorry but life is full of arbitrary "numbers" when it comes to the challenges one can face... but it's also this uncertainty and challenge that makes life and the game fun for certain players.  YMMV of course.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> However, the metagaming requirements of a sandbox include the chance for the PCs to die a gruesome random death, whereas the metagaming requirements for an adventure path require that the PCs are protected from said gruesome random death.



Can I get you to send an email to the guy who ran our _Rise of the Runelords_ game.  I don't think he got the memo that protecting my (numerous, very, very dead) PCs from a gruesome, random death is a requirement for running adventure paths.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 11, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> I'm leery of equating a "good, playable gaming experience" with "in the service of an interesting story."
> 
> For me, there is no "story" until the "good, playable gaming experience" takes place. I don't have a story in mind when I create encounters. The only story is the recounting of those encounters after the game is played.



You do realize, do you not, that you say you are leery of equating a "good, playable gaming experience" with "an interesting story" and then you proceed to do exactly that in your next sentence (underlined in the above quote).


----------



## Mallus (Mar 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> And, frankly, for those who like this style of game, _*this is what is desired*_.



I've honestly never met a D&D player whose preferred style of play included having their PC's eradicated by an unbeatable foe (for example, a CR18 red dragon vs. a party of 2nd level characters) which attacked them without warning while they were out shopping.  



> "[T]he needs of the _game_" may "outweigh the needs of the _simulation_", but the needs of the two paradigms are different.



Agreed! 



> I cannot answer what the dragon is likely to do without first knowing why it is in a fit of pique.



Here's the scenario more fully described: the ancient red dragon was in a fit of pique because its lair was just raided by a party of talented adventurers while it was out hunting near the Forest of Perishables. The adventures beat the dragon's security measures, looted the joint, then teleported away. Unthinkingly angry, the dragon flew off, far outside it's normal hunting range, burning villages as it went. Unfortunately, this included the village the party of 2nd level PC's were currently resupplying in. The attack was brutal, without warning, and fatal to PC's of that level.

Events like this simply don't occur in any of the campaigns I've seen run, sandbox or not. My *point* --lest we forget what I was trying to illustrate-- was that the reason this does not occur isn't matter of in-game logic. It's metagaming (the desirable kind). That no matter how sandbox-y your sandbox is, there are simply events that the DM takes off the table. Because they would be detrimental to the play experience, not because they are impossible under the internal logic of the setting.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 11, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> For me, there is no "story" until the "good, playable gaming experience" takes place.



I use the terms interchangeably. 

Tangent: I think D&D play resembles a story that is in the act of being told collaboratively, without a predetermined outcome. I don't think 'recounting after the fact' is the key defining trait of a 'story'. The presence of fictional characters acting in a fictional setting is.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> NI mean you are taking into consideration the rules of the actual game...right?



The game rules aren't relevant to the point I was making. But, since you asked, the dragon I was referring to was a 3e CR18 red dragon. And yes, I _know_ the rules, 1e-4e, though, admittedly, my 1e & 2e is a little rusty. Been a decade since I ran either. 



> If it makes no sense for the PC's to be attacked by the dragon it's not really simulationist or close to realistic...is it?



Demonstrate how it's illogical for an angry dragon to torch a village. For extra credit, demonstrate how it's illogical for tornado to obliterate a town in the Midwest when the proper atmospheric conditions are present.  



> It is DM Fiat which is not what we are discussing.



In-game logic *is* DM Fiat. Or, rather, in-game logic is a system created by DM Fiat. Which amounts to the same thing.



> In a simulationist game the PC's often have the chance, because their is consistency and logic, to make choices that rely on... in-gameworld logic, trickery, cunning, etc. to get out of situations that approaching with direct combat would probably result in their death.



Sure. But rarely, if ever, are PC's visited with the equivalent of a pop-up tornado and killed at random. Which shows that simulationist games are rigged too, just not to the extent of tailored games. 



> And again I want to point out that your example avoids any application of the actual game rules.



Because they're irrelevant.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> If everything I run into is suddenly "adapted" to my level how does this in anyway give me freedom of choice, it becomes an illusion at this point.  Fun again is dependent upon what the PC's want out of a game so I won't argue with you on that point.  And I'm sorry but life is full of arbitrary "numbers" when it comes to the challenges one can face... but it's also this uncertainty and challenge that makes life and the game fun for certain players.  YMMV of course.




MMDV indeed. The choices of the PCs can still have meaning even if I "tailor" everything.

For me, the "essence" of the sandbox seems to be the presence of multiple plot hooks that are all equally valid for the PC to follow - and that these plot hooks are "living".

The evil necromancer is doing his evil thing and planning world domination via undead armies. The dungeon is sitting there and whatever might happen there happens (maybe the Goblins organize themselves). The evil baron is continuing assembling an army and attacking independent villages and cities. 

The PCs might decide to enter the goblin caves, and afterwards are off to chase some pirates. In the mean-time, the evil necromancer has started to invade some cities with his undeads. The Baron is encountering resistance by the undead army and an alliance of independent states. 

The PCs come back, and the plot hooks that were there changed or have gone. But if they now decide to investigate the necromancer, they will still find just as level-appropriate enemies as they would have done before. If they had decided to tacke the necromancer and ignored the goblins, they might have launched their own attacks and if the PCs investigate it, they might find high level Goblins with Hobgoblin, Bugbear or Ogre allies as appropriate for their level. 

The sandbox "lives", and it just happens that the plots that the PCs investigate will always fit their level - but that doesn't mean their choices are irrelevant. It makes a big difference whether your home-town is destroyed by undead or whether another city has been taken over by the evil baron.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 11, 2009)

Do you guys really not see what you're doing?

You're constantly justifying things by explaining that they're what's "realistic," and saying that what's "realistic" should happen even if its not pleasant from the perspective of the players.

When people point out that this could lead to unfair results, you come up with all kinds of reasons why the players could have avoided the unfun results if they'd tried harder.

When people point out that not every realistic and unfun thing is actually avoidable, you attack the hypothetical and argue that it really IS avoidable, or if you can't win that fight, you argue that its the allegedly realistic and unfun thing is actually unrealistic.

That's why Mallus shouldn't give you an explanation for why his dragon is killing the low level PCs.  It doesn't matter why.  Giving you an actual explanation is just giving you a crack to wiggle through on an unrelated objection.

As long as one hypothetical realistic explanation exists for why low level PCs might be killed by a high level dragon, you guys are stuck.  Because when your only justification for why things are the way they are in your game world is "because that's how they really are" or "because that's realistic," then you can't explain how you choose between multiple realistic possibilities.

Personally, I suspect you do it exactly the same way everyone else does, you just say you don't.


----------



## Thasmodious (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> If everything I run into is suddenly "adapted" to my level how does this in anyway give me freedom of choice, it becomes an illusion at this point.  Fun again is dependent upon what the PC's want out of a game so I won't argue with you on that point.  And I'm sorry but life is full of arbitrary "numbers" when it comes to the challenges one can face... but it's also this uncertainty and challenge that makes life and the game fun for certain players.  YMMV of course.




First, suddenly is poor word choice.  Its not suddenly for the players at all.  The players are not aware of any kind of "sudden" adjustment.  They heard rumors that the caves were full of goblins, they go check it out, and find it is full of goblins.  This remains true, no story elements change at all, whether those goblins are lvl 1, lvl 4 or lvl 8, or a healthy mix of many different types.  

Second, I've repeatedly said "not everything".  Range of challenge is informed by the nature of the locale.  A cave filled with goblins has a lot of possible ranges, but still an appropriate limit.  A powerful monster isn't going to level adjust to low level PCs.  In a sandbox, freedom is ALWAYS an illusion (yes, in yours too).  You can't freely explore something that isn't there.  If the DM doesn't place it in the box, its not an option.  If the DM hasn't placed a marauding dragon in the setting, never had villages attacked or even a rumor of such a powerful foe nearby, then the players suddenly deciding they want to find and kill one is not something the setting can reasonably do.  Unless, that is, you are willing to adjust your setting for the PCs.  If you aren't, then freedom is certainly an illusion.  If you are, then, well, what are we really arguing about?

I like my, and my players, freedom.  I run sandbox games specifically so the PCs can find the game they want to play and when they do, it will be challenging.  If the PCs want to do something that I haven't accounted for in the sandbox at all, I like to have the freedom to work that into the setting, even though it wasn't there.  I like to have the freedom to challenge them appropriately when they decide to spend their time and resources on something.  The freedom in such a setting is always an illusion, the game is an illusion itself, that's the nature of the beast.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 11, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Can I get you to send an email to the guy who ran our _Rise of the Runelords_ game.  I don't think he got the memo that protecting my (numerous, very, very dead) PCs from a gruesome, random death is a requirement for running adventure paths.




Just buy him a copy of the 2nd Ed DMG.  The "fantastic" advice in that book nearly destroyed the game for me.

YMMV.

EDIT:  I hope, for your sake, that you are not suddenly innundated with people who claim that (1) your experiences did not happen, (2) your experiences cannot happen because having them happen doesn't serve the game, and (3) even if your experiences did happen, it is exactly the same as if they did not.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 11, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Here's the scenario more fully described: the ancient red dragon was in a fit of pique because its lair was just raided by a party of talented adventurers while it was out hunting near the Forest of Perishables. The adventures beat the dragon's security measures, looted the joint, then teleported away. Unthinkingly angry, the dragon flew off, far outside it's normal hunting range, burning villages as it went. Unfortunately, this included the village the party of 2nd level PC's were currently resupplying in. The attack was brutal, without warning, and fatal to PC's of that level.
> 
> Events like this simply don't occur in any of the campaigns I've seen run, sandbox or not. My *point* --lest we forget what I was trying to illustrate-- was that the reason this does not occur isn't matter of in-game logic. It's metagaming (the desirable kind). That no matter how sandbox-y your sandbox is, there are simply events that the DM takes off the table. Because they would be detrimental to the play experience, not because they are impossible under the internal logic of the setting.




Unless the village is the village closest to the dragon, once the dragon starts marauding, I don't believe that there would be no warning.  And if it is the village closest to the dragon, that might well equate to some warning already.

Your example doesn't not occur because of metagaming; it doesn't occur because _*it could only occur*_ through metagaming of a particularly nasty and vindictive kind.

That said, I have had PCs in towns razed by dragons, while at low level, both as player and DM.  In talented hands, it has been very fun from both sides of the screen.


RC


----------



## nightwyrm (Mar 11, 2009)

I think the basis of the objection to a world that doesn't respond to character levels is that what is realistic doesn't necessarily make for a good game, and a lot of people who plays an RPG wants to play a game.

An underwater earthquake that sets off a tsunami and wipes out hundreds of thousands of people is sudden, tragic and very, very realistic.

An underwater earthquake that sets off a tsunami and wipes out hundreds of thousands of people which included the party of lv 2 PCs is a crappy game. 

While one might object that the DM hitting his game world with an unforseen natural disaster is different from the PC deciding to go visit the Caves of Doom or the Fort of Cannonfodders, the truth is that everything that exists or happens in the game world is put there by the DM. The idea that the world runs independently of the DM is itself an illusion.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Unless the village is the village closest to the dragon, once the dragon starts marauding, I don't believe that there would be no warning.



I see you're making some convenient assumptions about the speed at which information travels.



> Your example doesn't not occur because of metagaming; it doesn't occur because _*it could only occur*_ through metagaming of a particularly nasty and vindictive kind.



You're basically stating it's _always_ logical for there to be ample warning. That's nonsense --actually Cadfan describes this well in his last post. 



> In talented hands, it has been very fun from both sides of the screen.



Agreed. But that's not relevant to my example either.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 11, 2009)

Mallus said:


> The game rules aren't relevant to the point I was making. But, since you asked, the dragon I was referring to was a 3e CR18 red dragon. And yes, I _know_ the rules, 1e-4e, though, admittedly, my 1e & 2e is a little rusty. Been a decade since I ran either.




So then you know this dragons breath weapon (and I'm assuming red since we are talking about fire) is only 50" by 50" cone... how can this instantly incinerate an entire village of 400 to 900 people? Not to mention it has to recharge once used..right?




Mallus said:


> Demonstrate how it's illogical for an angry dragon to torch a village. For extra credit, demonstrate how it's illogical for tornado to obliterate a town in the Midwest when the proper atmospheric conditions are present. .




It's illogical according to the rules for it to happen instantaneously, and if the PC's are inside shopping they are shielded from a direct hit from the dragon's breath weapon,etc., etc.  you see there are so many variables that can take place that I fail to see this as an instant death scenario for the PC's.




Mallus said:


> In-game logic *is* DM Fiat. Or, rather, in-game logic is a system created by DM Fiat. Which amounts to the same thing.




No a created and adhered to system for determining things is not the same as creating events and things whilly nilly from moment to moment. It's the difference between cops and robbers with no rules except the ones made up while you play and an rpg with rules people adhere to.



Mallus said:


> Sure. But rarely, if ever, are PC's visited with the equivalent of a pop-up tornado and killed at random. Which shows that simulationist games are rigged too, *just not to the extent of tailored games*.




See in my game the PC's would be visited with a pop-up tornado (in fact while playing Dragon Warriors my group ran into a sandstorm that appeared out of nowhere), but people don't die instantly from bein in or near a tornado... they die from the actions that take place while they are in or near a tornado... big difference is that tornado in no sense of realism = instant death.  People have survived natural disasters and thius in being realistic the PC's also have a chance to survive one.

This is also where I become confused by your arguement in the second part... with you Mallus the above is like you're saying gray is the same as black... just less so since it is mixed with white... No, it's a totally different color that has elements of black in it but is still something different.



Mallus said:


> Because they're irrelevant.




No they're really not in a smulationist world.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 11, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Do you guys really not see what you're doing?
> 
> You're constantly justifying things by explaining that they're what's "realistic," and saying that what's "realistic" should happen even if its not pleasant from the perspective of the players.
> 
> ...





Do you see what you're doing here?  Totally ignoring the question about the portalover the lava where we all said we'd let our players die if they just decided to jump through it.

Our problem is like the example above it really has to be a situation that results in death with no chance of another outcome you step out of space and into lava at level one by the rules, you are dead... a dragon attacking a village, make good rolls, hide well, whatever and you might survive.  the same with a mugging by bandits or an attack by wolves... there are too many variables in these situations for us to just kill all the characters.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Your example doesn't not occur because of metagaming; it doesn't occur because _*it could only occur*_ through metagaming of a particularly nasty and vindictive kind.



Funny, I never thought of Professor Tolkien as being particularly metagamey, let alone vindictive. 

On a more serious note, you're right that simply deciding that this happens is both metagamey and a real pooper of a thing to do.  But on the other hand, not even considering that it happens is equally metagamey, but in a benevolent way.

In a setting where both red dragons and adventurers (other than the PCs) exist, there is some chance that the outlined scenario happens. In a 100% sandboxy campaign (a hypothetical construct to be sure), the DM should be assigning a percentage chance to this scenario happening and rolling for it. If that's not happening, if the scenario never even makes its way onto a table of random events (i.e. the possibility doesn't exist that the scenario could happen), the DM has exercised just as much metagame fiat as if he simply decided that the scenario does happen.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 11, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Do you guys really not see what you're doing?
> 
> You're constantly justifying things by explaining that they're what's "realistic," and saying that what's "realistic" should happen even if its not pleasant from the perspective of the players.
> 
> When people point out that this could lead to unfair results, you come up with all kinds of reasons why the players could have avoided the unfun results if they'd tried harder.




Full stop.

(1)  What's "realistic" should happen even if its not pleasant from the perspective of the *player characters*.  Please note the distinction.

(2)  What's "realistic" nearly always includes events that are not level-appropriate (what you herein refer to as "unfair").  Getting hit by a car is "unfair", as is getting mauled by a polar bear, or getting an incurable disease.

(3)  What's "realistic" refers to the "reality" of the game world, wherein some things are possible that are not possible in the real world, such as (a) curing an incurable disease, and (b) knowing absolutely whether or not pulling a lever is a good idea.

(4)  In both the game world and the real world, what's "realistic" is that, despite the potential for a lot of "unfair" outcomes, some level of prudence can strongly modify the actual potential for said outcomes to occur.  It is unlikely that I will get mauled by a polar bear in Florida, for example, and looking both ways before crossing the road (rather than, say, throwing myself in front of cars) modifies the chances of getting an "unfair" outcome.

(5)  It is therefore both true that (a) "unfair" events can (and should) happen in a "realistic" game world, and (b) people (PCs included) can (and should) have opportunities to modify the chance and/or outcome of these "unfair" events.   Which might mean jumping out the way of a car instead of fighting it.

(6)  Within this context, no matter how you try to conflate the terms, what you call "unfair" =/= "unfun".

(7)  While claims that "not every realistic thing is actually avoidable" are true, the method by which you then extrapolate to Mallus' dragon (and similar) does not follow.  While "not every realistic thing is actually avoidable", it does not therefore follow that "every realistic thing is actually unavoidable".  The chances of running into a realistic, unavoidable thing within the game world _*which also cannot be modified after being encountered*_ is smaller for the PCs than for you or I simply because the PC's world includes magical means to modify the results of said thing that do not exist IRL.



> As long as one hypothetical realistic explanation exists for why low level PCs might be killed by a high level dragon, you guys are stuck.  Because when your only justification for why things are the way they are in your game world is "because that's how they really are" or "because that's realistic," then you can't explain how you choose between multiple realistic possibilities.




I have yet to hear one realistic possibility.

But, to answer your question:  If there are eight villages roughly equidistant from the dragon's lair, and the PCs are in one, I would roll 1d8, with the PCs' village being "1" and the other villages radiating clockwise from the lair to determine which is attacked first.

Which, I believe, Celebrim and Imaro have said in other words several times before.


RC


----------



## Imaro (Mar 11, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> First, suddenly is poor word choice. Its not suddenly for the players at all. The players are not aware of any kind of "sudden" adjustment. They heard rumors that the caves were full of goblins, they go check it out, and find it is full of goblins. This remains true, no story elements change at all, whether those goblins are lvl 1, lvl 4 or lvl 8, or a healthy mix of many different types.
> 
> Second, I've repeatedly said "not everything". Range of challenge is informed by the nature of the locale. A cave filled with goblins has a lot of possible ranges, but still an appropriate limit. A powerful monster isn't going to level adjust to low level PCs. In a sandbox, freedom is ALWAYS an illusion (yes, in yours too). You can't freely explore something that isn't there. If the DM doesn't place it in the box, its not an option. If the DM hasn't placed a marauding dragon in the setting, never had villages attacked or even a rumor of such a powerful foe nearby, then the players suddenly deciding they want to find and kill one is not something the setting can reasonably do. Unless, that is, you are willing to adjust your setting for the PCs. If you aren't, then freedom is certainly an illusion. If you are, then, well, what are we really arguing about?
> 
> I like my, and my players, freedom. I run sandbox games specifically so the PCs can find the game they want to play and when they do, it will be challenging. If the PCs want to do something that I haven't accounted for in the sandbox at all, I like to have the freedom to work that into the setting, even though it wasn't there. I like to have the freedom to challenge them appropriately when they decide to spend their time and resources on something. The freedom in such a setting is always an illusion, the game is an illusion itself, that's the nature of the beast.




If I haven't placed a marauding Dragon in my setting my PC's are welcome to go look for one but they won't find it.  Freedom doesn't mean having everything you want given to you it's making choices from your options that have meaning and consequences in the game.  Perhaps if I roll a dragon on the wandering monsters chart, then one is sighted and appears but if not oh, well people spent their lives searchingfor the fountain of youth and never found it...doesn't mean the journey won't be interesting.

All I'm saying is that my players have enjoyed the feeling of having to run from an enemy, only to return for that enemy when they've gained in power and pay him back.  If I adjust the challenges this is way less likely to happen, and this is just one example of why I like to set the levels at different points and keep them there... besides after 20/30 levels of always running into something we can clober well it starts to feel contrived.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 11, 2009)

Ourph said:


> You do realize, do you not, that you say you are leery of equating a "good, playable gaming experience" with "an interesting story" and then you proceed to do exactly that in your next sentence (underlined in the above quote).



You didn't read that sentence carefully, *Ourph*. The passage I quoted said "in the service of a good story." I don't see the game as the vehicle for creating a story, which is what I interpreted the passge to mean. In my experience that results in fudging dice, plot immunity, and a bunch of other stuff that takes away from the enjoyment I get from roleplaying games.

Recounting the events of actual play and crafting adventures to tell a story are not the same thing to me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 11, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I see you're making some convenient assumptions about the speed at which information travels.
> 
> You're basically stating it's _always_ logical for there to be ample warning. That's nonsense --actually Cadfan describes this well in his last post.




In your dragon example?  How can there not be ample warning in a simulationist world where the dragon follows the simulation, rather than the "story" of what the DM wants to have happen?



Ourph said:


> Funny, I never thought of Professor Tolkien as being particularly metagamey, let alone vindictive.




Good example.

In the case of the first attack on the Lonely Mountain, we are told specifically that it was too late to stop the dragon, but not too late for some to escape and survive.  Certainly, when the dragon attacked Dale, the dwarves should have heard the ringing bells and prepared better......not to mention that they should have actually used those lookout posts on the Mountain, and seen the dragon coming.

In the case of the attack on Esgaroth, the townsmen had seen the lights on the Mountain for a couple of days, saw the dragon reflected in the lake as it sped down the river, and were able to douse roofs/cut bridges/mount a defense that not only saved most of their lives, but killed the dragon as well.

So, if Tolkein is the example we should go by, please tell me where what he demonstrates differs from what I am saying?

Perhaps we should go by the tsunami example, which is certainly more likely to offer less warning, is certainly possible in any game world I've ever run (I've had PCs experience the sinking of my world's Atlantis first hand), and certainly could kill (but not _*will*_ or _*must*_ kill) even high-level PCs.  In my world, this could happen.  Heck, I had a town the PCs were in collapse in the Lakelands; that might have killed them, too.

And, guess what?  *That chance enhances the fun of the game.*


RC


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 11, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Do you guys really not see what you're doing?
> 
> You're constantly justifying things by explaining that they're what's "realistic," and saying that what's "realistic" should happen even if its not pleasant from the perspective of the players.
> 
> ...




Exactly.

In the real world, people randomly walk into convenience stores in the middle of a robbery and get shot in the head. Or two drug dealer have a shoot out in the street and a stray bullet flies into their window and kills them. There is no warning. There is no "clever play". Perhaps the person walking into a mugging saw the events through the 7-11 window and decided to be a hero. Perhaps they were on their cell phone and never saw it. But just as likely they walked in with no knowledge, no rhyme, no reason. 

If the game world is a simulation of a "realistic" world, that makes the DM the "God" of that world. Either he has a reason to put that mugger in the store with a gun at the exact time the hapless shopper went for a Slurpee, or the universe is indeed random and "God" rolled a random encounter far above the shoppers ability. There is no other option. If there is, then the guy walking into the store had ample "Warning" there was a problem and the player foolishly ignored it. 

Cept again, that's not how it works in a real world, right?

So you end up with three potential situations.

1.) A Scripted World where the DM puts everything there for a reason (the "God has a plan for us" DM)
2.) A Semi-Scripted World where Random stuff happens, but there is usually some forewarning or alternative (The "God sent warnings to me" DM)
3.) A truly random world where sometimes there is warnings, but sometimes you just walk into a room and die, with no warning, notice, etc. (The "There is no God, the universe is chaos" DM).

Because unless your world is truly "chaotic" a DM is scripting events for his PCs. The first is much more proactive, the second is more reactive. The third is letting the chips fall where they may.

EDIT: The term "God" in this case does not mean any particular god of any particular religion, but is shorthand for some being that has power to manipulate the world and the beings in it. It should not be taken for a real-world argument on the presence or absence of a real world divine power.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 11, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Funny, I never thought of Professor Tolkien as being particularly metagamey, let alone vindictive.
> 
> On a more serious note, you're right that simply deciding that this happens is both metagamey and a real pooper of a thing to do. But on the other hand, not even considering that it happens is equally metagamey, but in a benevolent way.
> 
> In a setting where both red dragons and adventurers (other than the PCs) exist, there is some chance that the outlined scenario happens. In a 100% sandboxy campaign (a hypothetical construct to be sure), the DM should be assigning a percentage chance to this scenario happening and rolling for it. If that's not happening, if the scenario never even makes its way onto a table of random events (i.e. the possibility doesn't exist that the scenario could happen), the DM has exercised just as much metagame fiat as if he simply decided that the scenario does happen.




It is, unless the DM decides otherwise, just abstracted to a non-roll (like many things in D&D).  It is of such low probability (about equal to a lion breaking through the two doors in the bottom of my apartment, coming up three flights of stairs, breaking through my apartment door coming into my bedroom and attacking me.  Note this happening is not the same chance as it not happening thus realistic vs. non-realisic) that yeah, it could happen, but the probability is not large enough for me to consider unless something happens to increase it.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> ... how can this instantly incinerate an entire village of 400 to 900 people?



Hint: it doesn't have to instantaneous. Just inevitable. 



> ... you see there are so many variables that can take place that I fail to see this as an instant death scenario for the PC's.



My argument is based on the notion it's _never_ an instant death scenario. Read Ourph's last post, he makes the point better than me. 



> No a created and adhered to system for determining things is not the same as creating events and things whilly nilly from moment to moment.



When they're created by the same person it is. 



> ... big difference is that tornado in no sense of realism = instant death.  People have survived natural disasters and thius in being realistic the PC's also have a chance to survive one.



So all tornadoes are survivable, so long as the correct action is taken? Each and every one?


----------



## Mallus (Mar 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> In your dragon example?  How can there not be ample warning in a simulationist world where the dragon follows the simulation...



The angry dragon flies faster than the survivors can run or ride?


----------



## Imaro (Mar 11, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Hint: it doesn't have to instantaneous. Just inevitable.




So the PC's aren't doing anything until it's they're turn to die...or have you as DM decided, instead of letting the roll of the die decide, they cannot survive no matter creating a 100% possibility which cannot exist in reality.



Mallus said:


> My argument is based on the notion it's _never_ an instant death scenario. Read Ourph's last post, he makes the point better than me.




So you're going to ignore Mustrum's portal example too..ok




Mallus said:


> When they're created by the same person it is.




Yeah because Reign and Unknown Armies are the exact same since Greg Stolze wrote both of them... wait no they aren't.




Mallus said:


> So all tornadoes are survivable, so long as the correct action is taken? Each and every one?




Nothing is 100%, there is a chance to survive a tornado, whether that chance increases or decreases is dependent, at least in part, by the actions of the one trying to survive, as well as the environment he is in, who else is around, and so on...too many variables to claim it's instant death.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 11, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> In the real world, people randomly walk into convenience stores in the middle of a robbery and get shot in the head. Or two drug dealer have a shoot out in the street and a stray bullet flies into their window and kills them. There is no warning. There is no "clever play". Perhaps the person walking into a mugging saw the events through the 7-11 window and decided to be a hero. Perhaps they were on their cell phone and never saw it. But just as likely they walked in with no knowledge, no rhyme, no reason.




In D&D, player characters have hit points - usually, a lot of them to give ablative protection against such things.  They are also walking engines of destruction.  They are 'Conan'.  They are 'Gandalf' (who was arguably 6th level, remember?).  That provides plenty of protection against realistic ordinary hazards.  They can randomly walk into the middle of a robbery, but the outcome is likely to be alot different than me or you walking into a robbery.  Random scrub NPC's are highly unlikely to be more than 4th level (and probably less) if I'm running the game.  The PC's walking randomly into a robbery, however realistic that may be, is more than likely an oppurtunity to play golden age superheroes for a scene than a TPK.  It'll be the robbers, not the PC's, at the wrong place at the wrong time in all liklihood.  

The real interesting part of that scene for me won't be providing a 'level appropriate challenge' which it will only be in a very narrow band, but how do the PC's excercise their power.  At first level, it probably means cowering with the other customers, and perhaps not even responding to attacks against them and hoping to appear as non-threatening as possible.  At 10th level, it probably means the lives of the robbers are in their hands to do with as they please.  And the thing is, it could be the very same robbers.  That might be an interesting coincidence where I'd put my thumb on the 'dice' as it were. 

Still, whatever style of play you use, there is always a chance that the ogre scores a crtical with his battle axe and drops the PC instantly or provokes save vs. massive damage that drops the PC instantly.  The random unfair death can occur even in an 'level appropriate encounter'.  So, I don't see a point in complaining too much about real or simulated randomness.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 11, 2009)

Again, this...



The Shaman said:


> I don't see the game as the vehicle for creating a story




Directly contradicts what you said earlier.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> For me, there is no *"story"* until the "good, playable gaming experience" takes place.




If the story you're talking about above (in bold) isn't coming from the game, where is it coming from?



> Recounting the events of actual play and crafting adventures to tell a story are not the same thing to me.



They are also not the same thing to me.  I suspect, based on the context in which he was using the word "story", they are not the same thing to Mallus either. You're automatically assuming that the word "story" means one thing when used by you and another thing when used by somebody else.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> So the PC's aren't doing anything until it's they're turn to die...



Oh sure, the 2nd level PC's are taking actions. Run a few playtests with the CR18 dragon vs. village and the 2nd level PC's. Tell me how it works out. 



> Yeah because Reign and Unknown Armies are the exact same since Greg Stolze wrote both of them... wait no they aren't.



Doesn't a DM uses his judgment (and knowledge) when creating his settings internal logic? Wouldn't that be the same judgment (and knowledge) he uses during play to make judgment calls (ie when he uses DM Fiat)? Thus making them strikingly similar... 

Or is that to obvious?  



> Nothing is 100%..



Only when the DM is rigging things.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Good example.



So in your campaign, when the 2nd level PCs show up in town to do some shopping, how do you go about determining whether there are any other adventuring parties nearby who have POed large, dangerous creatures? How do you determine whether there are any evil, high-level casters who have teleported into the area and summoned a Pit Fiend? How do you determine
whether an upstream battle with an elder water elemental causes massive flooding?


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 11, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Only when the DM is rigging things.




"Impossible" things happen.

Nothing is guaranteed.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 11, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Cept again, that's not how it works in a real world, right?





All I can say, Remathilis, is that your conception of the "real world" is far different from mine.

In my "real world", there are cities, neighbourhoods, etc., where getting shot is much more likely than in others.  I've had a gun pointed at my twice in my life -- once by an officer of the law (honest mistake on his part!), and once by a guy in a bar in California.  Neither time, strangely enough, did I get shot in the head.

I used to work in "Boys in the Hood" country in Los Angeles (the Kraft Knudsen factory at Slauson & Crenshaw), where they included tie and suit jacket/sweater in the dress code.  I am white.  Every day, I took the bus into and out of work, and almost everyday I walked to get lunch in the neighbourhood.  I had a problem once with two fellows who were drunk, and it was a problem that was dealt with without violence, flight, or anything other than words.

I once fell 35 feet and broke my back in four places (L1, L2, L3, and L4), and was told that I was never going to walk again without a cane.  Well, that turned out to be a false prediction.  I now go hiking every summer.  It hurt a lot (at times) to get to that point, but I was glad that I did.

I have seen two tornados first hand, once as a child and once as an adult.  I have once seen the aftermath of a tornado I didn't see.  Oddly enough, I wasn't harmed in either instance (although the first one was certainly scary!).

I have lived 42 years now, and so far as I can tell have never been struck by lightning or gotten an incurable disease.  Although I've hiked all my life in country where there were dangerous animals (venomous snakes and/or bears at least, sometimes where there were wolves or cougars), I've never been attacked by one.

I have had friends die....the first of a congenital heart disease when I was in high school.....but I've never seen real people die in anything like the numbers that PCs and NPCs do in most D&D games.

If anything, the sandbox world is considerably more dangerous than the real world, with considerably greater chance for a "sucks to be you" moment.



RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> So the PC's aren't doing anything until it's they're turn to die...or have you as DM decided, instead of letting the roll of the die decide, they cannot survive no matter creating a 100% possibility which cannot exist in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're going to ignore Mustrum's portal example too..ok



I am not sure why he has to use it, or other examples - and even better ones - are invalid. 

To expand on my teleport trap.

The trap is actually not a trap. 500 years ago, it lead to an underground cavern. Unfortunately, an earth quake a few decades ago diverted a stream of magma into that cavern. 
Nobody in the dungeon leading to the teleportation trap new of the exact details, since the 2 Golems protecting the trap were both instructed to never use the portal and to let no one near it - and they managed, until the PCs attacked them in conjunction with some allied goblins.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 11, 2009)

Mallus said:


> The angry dragon flies faster than the survivors can run or ride?




Ah.

You didn't tell me that this was the Quantum Dragon, who can split into several beings in order to chase each survivor individually.    Dragon Manhattan?  

Your argument becomes weaker the farther you extend it.

Shall we stick to natural disasters?

Oh, and Ourph, to answer your question, I use an "Events Planner"....a series of charts based off those in the back of the 1e OA.  So, if a natural disaster is going to occur, I already know it, and I know where.  If the PCs happen to be there, it still occurs there, unless they are somehow able to stop it from happening (which is unlikely).  Thus, for example, the collapse of Selby-by-the-Water and the resultant cholera epidemic.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 11, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> To expand on my teleport trap.





Nice.  I might use that.......  

The PCs know that the thing hasn't been used in a long time, and the players know that the world changes.

Me, I would probably pull the lever anyway (I do that sometimes), but I wouldn't consider the result unfair.


RC


----------



## Ourph (Mar 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Oh, and Ourph, to answer your question, I use an "Events Planner"....a series of charts based off those in the back of the 1e OA.  So, if a natural disaster is going to occur, I already know it, and I know where.  If the PCs happen to be there, it still occurs there, unless they are somehow able to stop it from happening (which is unlikely).  Thus, for example, the collapse of Selby-by-the-Water and the resultant cholera epidemic.



So what is the percent chance, based on this Events Planner, that an evil magician teleports into the town the PCs are shopping in and summons a Pit Fiend into the town square?


----------



## Imaro (Mar 11, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Oh sure, the 2nd level PC's are taking actions. Run a few playtests with the CR18 dragon vs. village and the 2nd level PC's. Tell me how it works out. .




With 400-900 people between them and the Dragon as well as the whole area of a village and the surrounding wilderness for the Dragon to contend with... how is this an insta-kill, if the PC's flee?




Mallus said:


> Doesn't a DM uses his judgment (and knowledge) when creating his settings internal logic? Wouldn't that be the same judgment (and knowledge) he uses during play to make judgment calls (ie when he uses DM Fiat)? Thus making them strikingly similar...
> 
> Or is that to obvious?.




Similar?  Perhaps, but even then I bet a DM would probably come up with a much better (and arguably different) solution given time to think it through...YMMV of course, or is that to obvious? 



Mallus said:


> Only when the DM is rigging things.



 According to Mallus Huh?


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> However if you're going to argue against simulationism or sandbox play






Raven Crowking said:


> In your dragon example?  How can there not be ample warning in a simulationist world where the dragon follows the simulation, rather than the "story" of what the DM wants to have happen?




What definition of simulationism are you guys using?


----------



## Thasmodious (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> If I haven't placed a marauding Dragon in my setting my PC's are welcome to go look for one but they won't find it.  Freedom doesn't mean having everything you want given to you it's making choices from your options that have meaning and consequences in the game.  Perhaps if I roll a dragon on the wandering monsters chart, then one is sighted and appears but if not oh, well people spent their lives searchingfor the fountain of youth and never found it...doesn't mean the journey won't be interesting.
> 
> All I'm saying is that my players have enjoyed the feeling of having to run from an enemy, only to return for that enemy when they've gained in power and pay him back.  If I adjust the challenges this is way less likely to happen, and this is just one example of why I like to set the levels at different points and keep them there... besides after 20/30 levels of always running into something we can clober well it starts to feel contrived.




We both like freedom, we both tend to run sandbox games.  I have a tough time believing we are as far apart in philosophies as you seem to want to paint us.  Perhaps a couple of questions could clear this up.

1.  Do the choices your players make as to class ever inform the campaign setting?  Examples - someone plays a cleric of Kord, yet you have not already written a temple of Kord into any of the places you've detailed and you haven't really thought how that particular deity plays into the local religious social network.  Do you do so now, in response to the player's choice?  Do you disallow a cleric of Kord?  Do you let him do it, but without any support from the setting?  Example 2 - a player plays a paladin - even though you hadn't thought about it before and hadn't decided an adventure site had one, do you consider adding a Holy Avenger somewhere in the setting for the PC to possibly acquire or at least quest for someday?  Or would such an item just not be possible?  Or would it only come up in a purely random roll?

2.  Do the backgrounds of the PCs inform the setting at all?  Do you create unique NPCs, friends, family members, contacts, enemies, that suite the backgrounds of the PCs and help forge connections to the settings?

3.  Lastly, you never really did answer my question.  Why is the level specific details of a group that monsters that have a lot of range built into the system need to be set in stone ahead of time?  Wouldn't it be better to leave a little variation in many sites in the game world to adjust mechanically as needed for the fun/challenge of the game.  I'm not saying everything is exactly even level (thats not what level-appropriate means anyway) with the PCs, but that some places in the setting have wiggle room in offering a challenge to the PCs depending on their capabilities when they encounter the locale.  

*Raven Crowking*, I'd love to see your thoughts on this, too.  I've enjoyed reading this discussion, and participating in it the last few pages.  It is interesting as one who runs sandbox games to find you two coming as more rigid with the concept than I would have thought for a style that emphasizes freedom.  Which is why I am wondering if we aren't just beating around the same bush.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Note this happening is not the same chance as it not happening thus realistic vs. non-realisic) that yeah, it could happen, but the probability is not large enough for me to consider unless something happens to increase it.



How do you determine whether "something happens to increase it"? And given that adventurers raiding dragon's hoards is a fairly typical trope in most D&D games, why is this event so incredibly unlikely?  Who determines the likelyhood?

Also, given that you attach so much significance to the distinction drawn earlier in the thread, i.e....

_An encounter that exists, but the PCs avoid it because it's too dangerous. vs. The absence of the too dangerous encounter_

... it seems absolutely astounding to me that you would so glibly ignore the distinction between...

_An encounter that is unlikely to happen vs. an encounter that can never happen because the DM excludes the possibility of it happening_

It seems to me that both are either significant or insignificant distinction depending where you fall regarding the general principles we're talking about.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> You didn't tell me that this was the Quantum Dragon, who can split into several beings in order to chase each survivor individually.    Dragon Manhattan?



OK, that's funny...

BTW, the dragon doesn't need to replicate itself and chase down every survivor. It merely needs to reach each subsequent village in it's path of fiery (and bite-y) destruction _before_ survivors/word does. 

Given that dragons are magical fliers, and terrified villages just _might_ prefer hiding to high-tailing down the road --if a good road even exists-- to warn the surrounding communities, this doesn't sound so unreasonable to me.

Then again, I'm hardly the biggest proponent of reason in D&D settings. A light dusting suffices, like powdered cocoa atop a fancy dessert. 



> Your argument becomes weaker the farther you extend it.



Your reliance on contrivances in order to make your position sound logical gets larger too. And I say this as a DM who thinks contrivance is an art form every DM needs to master.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Ah.
> 
> You didn't tell me that this was the Quantum Dragon, who can split into several beings in order to chase each survivor individually.    Dragon Manhattan?




Dragons are _fast._  Dragons move at 15-20 miles an hour.  Let's say that the towns are 6 hours apart - that's about 18 miles.

I don't think it's outside the realm of plausibility that the dragon can wipe out a few towns (well, villages maybe) without people being alerted to the danger.

As to the PCs surviving - hell, some of them might be able to.  It would depend on their choices during the encounter.  (Jumping into the town well, for example.)


----------



## Mallus (Mar 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> ... how is this an insta-kill, if the PC's flee?



The PC's _might_ manage to escape. Or they might get caught in the initial flame cone as they exit the general store. Or killed in a burning building. Or chewed on. Or trampled...

Run the scenario a few times for your group. See how they like it. 



> Similar?  Perhaps, but even then I bet a DM would probably come up with a much better (and arguably different) solution given time to think it through...YMMV of course, or is that to obvious?



How much time does the DM get during the session? The game's internal logic isn't just something cooked up by the DM during setting creation. It has to be _applied_ during play, as the world reacts to PC actions.

ie it starts to look a lot like the DM's judgment calls. 



> According to Mallus Huh?



Well, I won't replace According to Hoyle... but I do know a little something about this game...


----------



## Scribble (Mar 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> In your dragon example?  How can there not be ample warning in a simulationist world where the dragon follows the simulation, rather than the "story" of what the DM wants to have happen?




Attacks happen all the time in the real world with the enemy having no knowledge beforehand of the impending attack for various reasons:

1. Lack of ability to effectively communicate.
2. Survivors are too worried about surviving then helping other survive.
3. Fit Shappens.
4. No survivors.
5. Other stuff.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Unless the village is the village closest to the dragon, once the dragon starts marauding, I don't believe that there would be no warning. And if it is the village closest to the dragon, that might well equate to some warning already.




Isn't this sentence indicating that you DO in fact put some DM input into the world and you DO in fact choose what the PCs will encounter.

Whats the difference between you think logic says there should be warning of a dragon attack and you think logic says the people of the land choose to build their dwellings far away from the BIG threats of the world, and thus the giants live in remote places? (Especially if the giants know adventure groups LOVE to target them for all their phat loots.) 

And it makes realistic sense too: Osama Bin Laden... probably considered one of the most dangerous men alive- I don't think he lives in South Jersey.

My point really is no matter how little DM input you strive for, at some point you're going to have some. Whether you like to create level appropriate challenges most of the time or just random groupings of encounters. 

In my opinion this is one of those why tabletop games rule moments.

The DM can create a realistic world, but unlike a computer, can override that realism for the sake of "Yo man that kicked arse!"




> So, if Tolkein is the example we should go by, please tell me where what he demonstrates differs from what I am saying?




What Tolkien demonstrates is that the mechanics of being a solo author differ greatly then the mechanics of a group of people collectively playing an RPG.

You cannot use an authors methods to further a "what happens happens" mentality, because nothing could be further from the truth in writing a book.

In a book, what happens happens because the author believes it will make a better story. People are either ready for a dragon attack, or not ready for a dragon attack based on what the author feels will best further the story, and nothing else.

In an RPG the "story" is being told by the DM, the Players, and the dice. Each one has input on what happens in that story.

The DM has some input, the players have some input, the dice determine the final results. It's up to each group to determine if they lean towards any one group having more or less input.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Nice.  I might use that.......
> 
> The PCs know that the thing hasn't been used in a long time, and the players know that the world changes.
> 
> ...



What lever?


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 11, 2009)

A lot of this boils down to the individuals in the group. The thing to focus on is fun. Some groups have more fun with gamist stuff, some have more fun with simulationist stuff. Most probably fall somewhere in between. I know anytime I game with a GM that is too far on the simulationsist side or the gamist side, I don't enjoy myself. For me an adventure should "feel" like a good book or movie. So I am okay with suspicious coincidences once in a while, if they keep the story entertaining. I am also cool with balance. But at the same time, I don't want to feel like I live in a world encased in bubble rap. Sometimes, I want to be forced to run away from something I cannot possibly beat. I don't want to to read like a children's story though, where there are no consequences for bad rolls or stupid decisions. Character death is needed to maintain the drama, and to make success meaningful. If Heroes are under the protection of the GM, then there greatness is pre-ordained, and that is a little hollow. I said I want a great adventure to _feel_ like a great novel or movie. But I don't want the whole process replicated. The thing that seperates and RPG from a novel, is the characters' ability to deviate from the plot. To do things the GM didn't intend. And it wouldn't be very fun, if straying didn't involve danger.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 11, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> Dragons are _fast._  Dragons move at 15-20 miles an hour.  Let's say that the towns are 6 hours apart - that's about 18 miles.
> 
> I don't think it's outside the realm of plausibility that the dragon can wipe out a few towns (well, villages maybe) without people being alerted to the danger.




Ever seen a big fire?  I find it unlikely that 18 miles away, no one knows.



Mallus said:


> The PC's _might_ manage to escape. Or they might get caught in the initial flame cone as they exit the general store. Or killed in a burning building. Or chewed on. Or trampled...




Exactly.  A lot of things might happen.



Scribble said:


> Isn't this sentence indicating that you DO in fact put some DM input into the world and you DO in fact choose what the PCs will encounter.




I have never denied that I do in fact put some DM input into the world (doing so would be foolish) or into what the PCs can have encounters with.  Clearly, this is the case, especially when setting up any situation that the PCs can become involved in.

This is especially true when the players are new to the world, because they don't generally choose where their PCs begin play, or what their starting resources are (i.e., they don't start with a Ring of Unlimited Wishes simply because they want it).  

While I would also argue that hooks are okay (in fact, good) in a sandbox, the primary goal of the sandbox DM isn't to showcase his design, but to allow PCs to evolve, and player choice to be the engine of that evolution.

As I said earlier, from other discussions, I have the impression that most of the sandbox-type DMs here are non-fudgers when it comes to the dice. After all, fudging the dice to determine what happens invalidates the point of allow the players to make choices.

I also have the impression that most of the "There's no difference" folks here are fudgers when it comes to the dice. After all, not fudging the dice to determine what happens invalidates the way they planned the encounters to go.

And that is, perhaps, a good encapsulation of the difference: Whose choices does the DM empower? His, or his players'?


RC


----------



## Scribble (Mar 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Ever seen a big fire?  I find it unlikely that 18 miles away, no one knows.





I used to live right on the inside edge of the Jersey pine barrens. I'd see smoke in the air and think, oh oh fire... Wonder where? What's up? My house ok? Hrmm. Sometimes it wasn't until days later that I found out what happened, and sometimes I never found out.

They might know "something" happened, but the nature of that thing being a dragon is attacking might not be so common as you seem to indicate. If the wind is right, they might not even know something happened to begin with.

But the point wasn't to debate whether knowing about a dragon attack or not would be more realistic. The point was that DM input on the game is DM input no matter which way you slice it.




> I have never denied that I do in fact put some DM input into the world (doing so would be foolish) or into what the PCs can have encounters with.  Clearly, this is the case, especially when setting up any situation that the PCs can become involved in.
> 
> This is especially true when the players are new to the world, because they don't generally choose where their PCs begin play, or what their starting resources are (i.e., they don't start with a Ring of Unlimited Wishes simply because they want it).




So you're still indicating what the players can become involved with, you just sometimes make it vastly higher level challenges sometimes while others choose not to.



> While I would also argue that hooks are okay (in fact, good) in a sandbox, the primary goal of the sandbox DM isn't to showcase his design, but to allow PCs to evolve, and player choice to be the engine of that evolution.




Cool. I'd say you can still do this while making challenges level appropriate.



> As I said earlier, from other discussions, I have the impression that most of the sandbox-type DMs here are non-fudgers when it comes to the dice. After all, fudging the dice to determine what happens invalidates the point of allow the players to make choices.
> 
> I also have the impression that most of the "There's no difference" folks here are fudgers when it comes to the dice. After all, not fudging the dice to determine what happens invalidates the way they planned the encounters to go.




I think you are unfairly painting anyone that fudges die rolls as someone that wants things to happen in a predetermined fashion. I think this is just a cheap shot.

There are a variety of reasons a DM might fudge the dice, none of which are based around his idea of how the adventure should go being invalidated.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I have the impression that most of the sandbox-type DMs here are non-fudgers when it comes to the dice. After all, fudging the dice to determine what happens invalidates the point of allow the players to make choices.
> 
> I also have the impression that most of the "There's no difference" folks here are fudgers when it comes to the dice. After all, not fudging the dice to determine what happens invalidates the way they planned the encounters to go.
> 
> And that is, perhaps, a good encapsulation of the difference: Whose choices does the DM empower? His, or his players'?



I think this is exactly the wrong distinction and perhaps explains a lot of the talking past each other that's gone on in this thread.

I'm a non-fudger (it's a game, the dice fall where they may) and I run what I would call a sandbox style game (the players have a wide array of choices and player initiative is a valued part of determining what those choices are) but I don't spend time developing "choices" that I know won't see play because the players will immediately recognize that the choice is suboptimal and I also don't make any bones about acknowledging that when it comes to making choices about the setting, my first priority is facilitating encounters and events that will be meaningful and fun for the players (which, in most cases, means the challenge is level appropriate, even if all the NPCs and monsters involved in the encounter aren't).

The distinction isn't fudging vs. non-fudging or sandbox vs. set-piece, it's prioritizing the development of play-relevant material vs. prioritizing the development of setting relevant material which may or may not impact actual play.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 11, 2009)

Scribble said:


> I think you are unfairly painting anyone that fudges die rolls as someone that wants things to happen in a predetermined fashion. I think this is just a cheap shot.
> 
> There are a variety of reasons a DM might fudge the dice, none of which are based around his idea of how the adventure should go being invalidated.




Name one reason to fudge a die roll that has nothing to do with avoiding that roll changing the outcome that you wanted to happen.


RC


----------



## Scribble (Mar 12, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Name one reason to fudge a die roll that has nothing to do with avoiding that roll changing the outcome that you wanted to happen.
> 
> 
> RC




Well I guess if you consider "fun" being an outcome then yes I fudged it to promote the outcome being different then I hoped (ie unfun.)

I very rarely do this though. Only in certain extreme cases where the dice have been really bad to the PCs and they're stuck in a "can't choose to make any other choice, even though we normally would be able to" moment, and it's looking like really depressed players.

Other then that: 

Misdesigned something- IE thought it would interact with the game differently then it is. Oops I'll fudge this one and fix. 

Messed up on a rule call earlier, so now I'm giving a PC a bonus as a silent "make good." (Tennis refs do this all the time.)

But let me clarify your original statement because maybe I misunderstood:

What did you mean by planned the way they wanted the encounter to go? 

Do you mean they planned it to be a challenge that falls within what would be their "level." 

Or planned the encounter to go as in do the PCs win or loose? 

I took it to mean the second based on some of your other statements. I could be wrong.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 12, 2009)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The underlying issue is: If you're not adjusting the setting to fit the PCs, why is it that game-appropriate scenarios keep playing out? Isn't it awfully coincidental that your game world, allegedly built upon a premise of realism and objectivity, just coincidentally happens to create good game outcomes? Real life doesn't do this. Its almost like your game world is controlled by some semi-benevolent hegemon who tailors reality to the needs of a few specific inhabitants. If that's not the case, why does it look so much like that is the case?





I certainly have a good game in mind in setting up the world. For D&D, naturally there must be dungeons and dragons (or else we'd be playing a game of "&").

It's _not_ coincidence that PCs tend to take on challenges they can handle! The players choose where to go and what to do in the world. Part of skill at play is weighing risk and reward. Good players know better than to rush in blindly; they do investigation to inform their decisions.

That seems to me so obvious that I feel I must be missing something in Cadfan's objection.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 12, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Ever seen a big fire?  I find it unlikely that 18 miles away, no one knows.




What if it's a green dragon?


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 12, 2009)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> And lets say that your victim blaming is true, _and reasonable_.




Ah, that's what I was missing. If some misfortune befalls a character, then the character's player is a _victim!_

There's a serious disconnection here from the premise that one is _playing a game_. Sometimes in _Afrika Korps_, you lose a tank division. Sometimes (ideally, half the time) you lose the game. That's key to what _makes it_ a game.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 12, 2009)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I've honestly never met a D&D player whose preferred style of play included having their PC's eradicated by an unbeatable foe (for example, a CR18 red dragon vs. a party of 2nd level characters) which attacked them without warning while they were out shopping.




Neither have I! But if you change that to "included _the possibility of_ ..." then I've met plenty -- assuming, of course, a situation in which going shopping is supposed to be so dangerous. _That_ I have never encountered in D&D, and unless you have I must wonder why you consider it relevant.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 12, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Neither have I! But if you change that to "included _the possibility of_ ..." then I've met plenty -- assuming, of course, a situation in which going shopping is supposed to be so dangerous. _That_ I have never encountered in D&D, and unless you have I must wonder why you consider it relevant.




You can count me in the group that wants this possibility super deadly foes in unexpected places (though to be fair, not while I am shopping in the city). As a player I do want to feel like everything around me is trying to accomodate my character level. I don't think it fair to force a party to confront a super potent foe; but the experience of seeing it or running away from it is fine. Even the occassional character death from an uber foe is okay with me. If every door leads to something that perfectly matches our party level, thats a little less exciting for me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 12, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Well I guess if you consider "fun" being an outcome then yes I fudged it to promote the outcome being different then I hoped (ie unfun.)




IOW, you decided that X was fun, but Y was unfun, and rolling the die to determine X or Y, and gaining Y, you chose X.

Rolling a "5" or a "1" or a "20" isn't unfun in and of itself.  That roll indicates an outcome, and it is that outcome that didn't fit your vision of what was supposed to happen in that encounter.  And because it didn't fit your vision of what was supposed to happen in that encounter, you decided it was unfun.

One wonders why roll in the first place?


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 12, 2009)

Thasmodeus argues that freedom is an illusion if one can't do absolutely anything one wants. That's fine for abstract philosophy, but not the kind of "freedom" relevant either to real life or to a game.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 12, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> One wonders why roll in the first place?




Indeed. Why choose rules designed to serve ends just the opposite of one's own? Arneson and Gygax designed D&D with probabilistic elements _on purpose!_

Nowadays, there are plenty of designs in which dice determine not the outcome but rather who gets to narrate a scene -- or in some other way the mechanics directly serve the purposes of a "story-telling" game.

If a "good game" requires cheating, then change the rules.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 12, 2009)

Ourph said:


> *snip*



*Ourph*, where I come from we call this picking the fly(excrement) out of the pepper.

You're parsing two sentences and ignoring the context in which they were written. I considered putting quotes around story in the second sentence, but I thought that most people reading my post would discern that I was talking about the difference between taking the approach of crafting a story through play preparation and recounting the events of actual play.

In fact I still think that most people are perfectly capable of discerning that difference.

If *Mallus* was using the word story in a way different from the way I interpreted it, then I'd be glad if *Mallus* would correct my misreading of the post. I haven't seen anything to suggest that was the case, but I'm certainly open to clarification.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 12, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> I think the basis of the objection to a world that doesn't respond to character levels is that what is realistic doesn't necessarily make for a good game, and a lot of people who plays an RPG wants to play a game.
> 
> An underwater earthquake that sets off a tsunami and wipes out hundreds of thousands of people is sudden, tragic and very, very realistic.
> 
> ...




So what? How does it follow from this sophistry that the illusion must be of a particular form?

You can have an opinion of what makes a "good game," and I can have a different one. The designers of D&D had opinions of their own. You can make up a game to suit your tastes. That is in fact what the original D&D set was explicitly intended to facilitate!


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 12, 2009)

To me, trying to make every encounter an "appropriate challenge" for PCs would be an unacceptable blow to verisimilitude. Taking it to an absurd (but logically consistent) extreme: One day, Joe the Greengrocer is just a normal man, but the next he's a superhero ... and then he's back to being normal Joe again?

Moreover, it would seem a logistical headache unless I were always dealing with the same PCs.

I think *many* style-of-play issues have to do with the notion that "the party" is a singular entity always made up of pretty much the same characters of about level X (continually rising over the course of the campaign).

That seems to be a very common approach today, and an eminently practical response to some needs. It's problematic (if understandable) when folks take it to be ubiquitous or somehow "the right way to play."

It was not the assumed scheme in early D&D, nor has it in fact been universally adopted. Some of us still run more or less what what was meant by a "campaign" in the original context.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 12, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> You can count me in the group that wants this possibility super deadly foes in unexpected places (though to be fair, not while I am shopping in the city). *As a player I do want to feel like everything around me is trying to accomodate my character level*. I don't think it fair to force a party to confront a super potent foe; but the experience of seeing it or running away from it is fine. Even the occassional character death from an uber foe is okay with me. If every door leads to something that perfectly matches our party level, thats a little less exciting for me.



Am I right in thinking you meant to say "As a player I *don't* want to..." in the sentence I highlighted above?

Otherwise, I agree with you.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 12, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I think *many* style-of-play issues have to do with the notion that "the party" is a singular entity always made up of pretty much the same characters of about level X (continually rising over the course of the campaign).



You've hit a good point here.



			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> That seems to be a very common approach today, and an eminently practical response to some needs. It's problematic (if understandable) when folks take it to be ubiquitous or somehow "the right way to play."
> 
> It was not the assumed scheme in early D&D, nor has it in fact been universally adopted. Some of us still run more or less what what was meant by a "campaign" in the original context.



::raises hand:: Guilty as charged, y'r honour.

Multi-interacting-party campaign, levels overall rising but not very fast at all (and just wait till they start meeting level-drainers!), lots of retirements, lots of death, lots of fun.

Single-party (I call them "linear") games/campaigns really are a different breed of animal, and are - unfortunately, IMO - much more common now than the multi-party campaigns.  The style of play, for one thing, is much different.  In a multi-party game, one can easily have one's character find a good reason to leave a party it doesn't want to be with, and then (usually with some DM co-operation) find a way to have it join one of the other active parties.  The only difference for the player is she has to show up on a different night of the week.   The game is able to be more chaotic.  In a single-party game, you either have to abide by the wishes of the party (or the party bully, depending on the characterizations being played) or leave.  The game tends to be more lawful.

Multi-party games do require a DM with more than one night a week available for play; that alone is probably why they're less common than during the 1e days.

Lan-"which party am I in this week?"-efan


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 12, 2009)

Hey, everyone -

There's a lot more hostility and veiled (heck, even blatant) sniping than we want to see in this thread. It's fine to disagree; just be polite and respectful to the other people. If you're planning on taking a cheap shot, better to just push away the keyboard for a bit.

My thanks to everyone who's worked to be polite, and to stay on topic.


----------



## Jack7 (Mar 12, 2009)

> Hey, everyone -
> 
> There's a lot more hostility and veiled (heck, even blatant) sniping than we want to see in this thread. It's fine to disagree; just be polite and respectful to the other people. If you're planning on taking a cheap shot, better to just push away the keyboard for a bit.
> 
> My thanks to everyone who's worked to be polite, and to stay on topic.




I appreciate that as well. Because of work and personal matters I haven't had much time to respond here directly, but I'm enjoying trying to catch up with what many people have been writing. Much of it is very interesting.

But don't think me rude if some of you have directed stuff at me and I haven't had time to properly respond yet. For me better no response than a shoddy or incomplete one.

I also had no idea this thread would get this big or complex. I never expected it to take off like this, _but sometimes in cases like this I think the best thing you can do is sort of sit back and relax and not clutter up the thread with just your opinion_, and instead let everyone else run in the way they see best. So I've tried to stay out of the way.

I'm enjoying reading of it what I can though so I hope some of you guys will remain cool and not take things personally.

Carry on ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 12, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> If *Mallus* was using the word story in a way different from the way I interpreted it...



I am. 



> ...then I'd be glad if *Mallus* would correct my misreading of the post.



I did, but I think you missed my post.

When I use the word 'story' to describe D&D play I'm not implying fudging, plot immunity or railroading. No predetermined course of events or resolution. I'd call the course of play in a sandbox box campaign the 'story' _as it's unfolding_. 

A story is something with fictional characters taking action in a fictional setting. Something doesn't become a story after it's completed. It's _still_ a story while it's being written or told, when the outcome or even direction is completely up in the air.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 12, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I have never encountered in D&D, and unless you have I must wonder why you consider it relevant.



I was making a point that looks to have gotten lost in the shuffle. 

I was trying to debunk the notion that it was somehow logical for low-level PC's to be insulated from dangers outside their ability to handle striking them out of the blue. This needs to happen in a campaign in order for it to be playable, but it has nothing to do with the internal logic of the setting.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 12, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I did, but I think you missed my post.



You're right, I did - thanks for clarifying, *Mallus*.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 12, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I was trying to debunk the notion that it was somehow logical for low-level PC's to be insulated from dangers outside their ability to handle striking them out of the blue. This needs to happen in a campaign in order for it to be playable, but it has nothing to do with the internal logic of the setting.




Yeah, you don't want all of your PCs to die a horrible death to an impossible challenge.  It's no fun.  So, you insulate them from those challenges either by keeping those challenges out of reach, failing to mention those challenges to keep the PCs focused elsewhere, or giving them enough information to make an informed decision not to go there.

But it is not based on logic.  It is based in the needs of the game and in the interest of having fun.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 12, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I was making a point that looks to have gotten lost in the shuffle.
> 
> I was trying to debunk the notion that it was somehow logical for low-level PC's to be insulated from dangers outside their ability to handle striking them out of the blue. This needs to happen in a campaign in order for it to be playable, but it has nothing to do with the internal logic of the setting.




I really don't understand how you come to this blanket conclusion without examining the particular setting you are making the assertion about. Here's an example... a setting based upon PC's as citizens of a Roman-esque empire, at the height of it's power, who patrol a nearby road that accomodates trade for the city are less likely to die a random horrible death than escaped slaves with nothing but the rags on their backs, lost in a dessert of Athas. This has alot to do with the internal logic of the setting (one of the reasons players in Dark Sun had multiple characters who started at higher levels than characters on other worlds.).

EDIT:  I think the multiple characters thing is something often overlooked by people who want to run true sandboxes as well.  There is actually an expectation that not all these characters will survive, maybe none of them contrary to your assertions.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 12, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I was making a point that looks to have gotten lost in the shuffle.
> 
> I was trying to debunk the notion that it was somehow logical for low-level PC's to be insulated from dangers outside their ability to handle striking them out of the blue. This needs to happen in a campaign in order for it to be playable, but it has nothing to do with the internal logic of the setting.





Hasn't gotten lost in the shuffle.

I just think that you are wrong, and that you haven't actually evidenced your point.  


RC


----------



## Mallus (Mar 12, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Hasn't gotten lost in the shuffle.



It did to the poster I was replying to .

BTW, after you wrote this...



> I have never denied that I do in fact put some DM input into the world (doing so would be foolish) or into what the PCs can have encounters with. Clearly, this is the case, especially when setting up any situation that the PCs can become involved in.




... we're basically in agreement (more or less - which for us is about as good as you expect...).


----------



## Imaro (Mar 12, 2009)

Mallus said:


> It did to the poster I was replying to .
> 
> Also, after you wrote this...
> 
> ...




I would say much less... unless RC states that level-appropriatness is a driving force in his decisions...


----------



## Mallus (Mar 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I really don't understand how you come to this blanket conclusion without examining the particular setting you are making the assertion about.



Because any setting constructed must meet certain baseline requirements with regard to facilitating play (ie, they can't just mete out random PC deaths).



> Here's an example... a setting based upon PC's as citizens of a Roman-esque empire, at the height of it's power, who patrol a nearby road that accomodates trade for the city are less likely to die a random horrible death than escaped slaves with nothing but the rags on their backs, lost in a dessert of Athas.



In both cases the PC's will encounter opportunities for adventure (ie danger). Those opportunities/dangers will differ primarily in _form_. 



> EDIT:  I think the multiple characters thing is something often overlooked by people who want to run true sandboxes as well.  There is actually an expectation that not all these characters will survive, maybe none of them contrary to your assertions.



Have to admit I don't have any experience with the whole 'multiple PC' thing. Never saw/played in a campaign that did that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I would say much less... unless RC states that level-appropriatness is a driving force in his decisions...




Correct....much less.

But don't take it personally, Mallus.    I certainly admire your creativity, and think your current, very surreal, setting is the best match for 4e's rules structure that I've seen.  Much better, in fact, than I imagined could be done with that ruleset.  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 12, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Because any setting constructed must meet certain baseline requirements with regard to facilitating play (ie, they can't just mete out random PC deaths).




Exhibit A:  The original Traveller game.  Random PC death occurs _*during character creation*_.



> Have to admit I don't have any experience with the whole 'multiple PC' thing. Never saw/played in a campaign that did that.




You might consider trying it.  Who knows?  You might enjoy it!


RC


----------



## Imaro (Mar 12, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Because any setting constructed must meet certain baseline requirements with regard to facilitating play (ie, they can't just mete out random PC deaths).




It really depends on your definition of random... IMO, every death in D&D is random since it is either accomplished or staved off through use of a randomized (dice)... one can influence probability but not eliminate randomness in PC death  The only question becomes how high or low the probability of dying becomes.

Now if you just mean  "I the DM declare you dead" then that isn't random at all it's deliberate and 100% unavoidable if the DM chooses.




Mallus said:


> In both cases the PC's will encounter opportunities for adventure (ie danger). Those opportunities/dangers will differ primarily in _form_.




Form...and capability... in a sanbox game at least.  That is what you keep missing.  

Setting logic dictates that, barring some extraordinary event, on a road that is the center of commerce for a large and powerful empire... I will encounter very few seriously dangerous threats.  I would say it is fairly safe to assume that if this road supplies a large portion of trade and revenue, the empire would have long ago taken pre-emptive measures to eleiminat major threats along it.  How is this not logical for the setting?

However the very nature of Athas (environmental extremes, mutants, psionics, etc.) creates a logic where I am much more likely to face death being lost in it's desert with no supplies and no water.  Again how is this not logical in this particular setting?





Mallus said:


> Have to admit I don't have any experience with the whole 'multiple PC' thing. Never saw/played in a campaign that did that.




Read the Dark Sun boxed set if you get a chance or even the link I provided to the West Marches sandbox campaign they both talk of multiple PC's and Dark Sun contains the concept of character trees.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 12, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> IOW, you decided that X was fun, but Y was unfun, and rolling the die to determine X or Y, and gaining Y, you chose X.
> 
> Rolling a "5" or a "1" or a "20" isn't unfun in and of itself.  That roll indicates an outcome, and it is that outcome that didn't fit your vision of what was supposed to happen in that encounter.  And because it didn't fit your vision of what was supposed to happen in that encounter, you decided it was unfun.
> 
> ...




Because the majority of the time the system works the way it's indicated it should work. 

My vision of the encounter was that the rules should work properly. 

I haven't had to fudge anything yet in my current campaign. So ONE wonders what THAT says?


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 12, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> Am I right in thinking you meant to say "As a player I *don't* want to..." in the sentence I highlighted above?
> 
> Otherwise, I agree with you.
> 
> Lanefan




Yes. You are right.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 12, 2009)

Scribble said:


> My point really is no matter how little DM input you strive for, at some point you're going to have some. Whether you like to create level appropriate challenges most of the time or just random groupings of encounters.



Of course.

Upthread it was noted that this is not an either/or approach to running a game, but rather a continuum between two extremes. Some skew one way, others the other. I think the goal of some of the referees in this discussion is to run the game-world with a very light touch on the controls. Most roleplaying games provide at least some tools that facilitate (and arguably encourage, by virtue of their presence) this approach, such as random encounters, random reactions, and so on.

*RC* already mentioned the event tables in 1e _OA_, which are one of my favorite features of the book. For _Traveller_ I used a nifty little application that generates the skeletons of Travellers' Aid Society bulletins: I could turn these into the "big picture" events going on around the characters, and fit the random encounters directly in the path of the adventurers into this larger landscape.

For example, the TAS bulletin generator might spit out something like a natural disaster on a world of population 8 (that's 10^8, or a population in the hundreds of millions, not eight people, by the way). I would figure out a likely world, and add some flesh to the bones: a tsunami, a plague, whatever. Now let's say I roll a random patron encounter with a doctor or a philantropist: I can use the background generated from the TAS bulletin and decide that the patron wants the adventurers to transport donated medical supplies to the affected world. Now let's say that the adventurers encounter a random pirate ship along the way: the pirates know that merchant ships from across the cluster are transporting medical and other supplies to the affected planet, and with the high value of pharmaceuticals, medical hardware, _et cetera_ on the black market, these merchants become prime targets.

At no time in this am I considering if the encounters are "level-appropriate" to the adventurers. Rather I'm interpreting random results based on my understanding of the setting. Based on a roll on a table, the pirate vessel could be a simple scout/courier, with a single turret, looking to pick off an unarmed merchant, or it could be a mercenary cruiser, with eight batteries of missle launchers and lasers and three times the acceleration, against which the adventurers' free trader is hopelessly outclassed. The scout ship will be crewed by a handful of pirates while the cruiser can carry a platoon of raiders able to overwhelm a merchant crew in a boarding action. Either result is wholly acceptable to me. The fact that the adventurers ship may be bristling with weapons, or completely unarmed, doesn't enter into my decisions about the pirates - the pirates will act and react based on their goals, in this instance obtaining valuable cargo from trader starships while avoiding damage to their own vessel in the process.

I still create encounter locations that I sprinkle around the setting - a lost starship, an abandoned colony station, a pirate lair, _et cetera_. The hazards associated with some may be relatively minor, while others can be very dangerous. The hazards are appropriate to the situation, not the adventurers. It's up to the players to use the tools available to their characters to determine the degree of any hazards they encounter, and decide the amount of risk they are willing to accept.

My game is not a completely autonomous simulation, though to the degree that I like to use randomizers it's perhaps as autonomous as I can make it. The result is that the challenges encountered by the adventurers vary quite a bit, and therefore their responses must as well. My goal is to provide the players with a sense of being in the setting, that they are part of events taking place on a larger stage, and the degree to which they can influence those events is limited only by their imaginations and the abilities and resources of their characters.







			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> In my opinion this is one of those why tabletop games rule moments.
> 
> The DM can create a realistic world, but unlike a computer, can override that realism for the sake of "Yo man that kicked arse!"



First, I can't speak for anyone else, but you'll rarely hear me talk in terms of realism in a game-world. Coherence, internal consistency, verisimilitude, yes, but not realism.

Second, in my experience what "kicks arse" is a you-are-there feeling during play. I consider the game element of roleplaying games essential, but I like that element to be running in the background, allowing us to focus on the experience of the events and encounter of the game-world.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 12, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> Of course.
> 
> Upthread it was noted that this is not an either/or approach to running a game, but rather a continuum between two extremes. Some skew one way, others the other. I think the goal of some of the referees in this discussion is to run the game-world with a very light touch on the controls. Most roleplaying games provide at least some tools that facilitate (and arguably encourage, by virtue of their presence) this approach, such as random encounters, random reactions, and so on.
> 
> ...





First let me say, great post...

Emphasis mine, I think when people speak of "realism" in their game, this is what most if not all people are talking about (I honestly don't think anyone believes a game can in anyway ever approach all the vagaries of true realism), nicely summed up.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 12, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> - the pirates will act and react based on their goals, in this instance obtaining valuable cargo from trader starships while avoiding damage to their own vessel in the process.



Out of curiosity, would you use an overwhelmingly strong contingent of raiders whose modus operandi was to leave no survivors?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 12, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Because the majority of the time the system works the way it's indicated it should work.
> 
> My vision of the encounter was that the rules should work properly.




Let's look at this interesting premise.

First off, one wonders how the rules can work _*improperly*_.  If the rules said, for instance, that after each encounter, roll 1d6, with all PCs dying on a roll of "1", then, should that "1" come up, the rules would still be working _*properly*_.  Likewise, if the use of the dice means that (say) there is a 2% chance of a character dying in an encounter, and a .005% chance of a TPK, then the rules are not working "improperly" when that result occurs.

The rules define what "properly" is.

What they do not define is what "desireable" is, i.e., what game experience is desired by the participant(s) at the table.

When a person fudges a die roll, it is not because the rules have suddenly ceased to work, it is because the working rules have, by chance, caused a result that was not desired by the person(s) fudging the die roll.

For example, if the dice are all rolled in the open, and a roll comes up that means a TPK is imminent, and the whole group opts that the die should be rerolled, then the result is not what was desired by the whole group.  The game rules, however, haven't somehow failed to act properly, any more than the rules of chess have failed because you lost your queen.

If a player rolls a miss, and then secretly fudges it into a hit, the game rules haven't behaved improperly; they just didn't give the result desired by that player.  

If a DM rolls damage that would kill a PC, and then secretly fudges it into a non-lethal blow, the game rules haven't behaved improperly; they just didn't give the result desired by that DM.

The reason that the aforementioned player and DM do their fudging in secret, BTW, is obvious -- they do not want the rest of the group to know.  In the player's case, he probably fears that he will be compelled to accept the original result.  In the DM's case, he probably fears either that he will be compelled to accept the original result, or that knowledge of "plot protection" will damage his players' enjoyment of the game.  This last is because the DM is well aware that fudging makes the success of the players to some degree illusory.

In either case, plot protection is involved because the fudger(s) have a desired outcome that rolling the dice does not automatically allow.  Rolling the dice becomes a means to preserve an "illusion of chance" where chance is in reality constricted.



> I haven't had to fudge anything yet in my current campaign. So ONE wonders what THAT says?




It says that the rules are more in accordance with your desired play experience so far.  Nothing more, but also nothing less....and for you, that is a very good thing.  


RC


----------



## Scribble (Mar 12, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> Of course.
> 
> Upthread it was noted that this is not an either/or approach to running a game, but rather a continuum between two extremes. Some skew one way, others the other. I think the goal of some of the referees in this discussion is to run the game-world with a very light touch on the controls. Most roleplaying games provide at least some tools that facilitate (and arguably encourage, by virtue of their presence) this approach, such as random encounters, random reactions, and so on.




Sure, I'm not arguing that. I just don't think either "extreme" is actually possible, and like I believe mallus was saying, the "types" of DM end up running a game that is in many ways very similar. (Because in the end both rely on both randomness and DM input.)



> *RC* already mentioned the event tables in 1e _OA_, which are one of my favorite features of the book. For _Traveller_ I used a nifty little application that generates the skeletons of Travellers' Aid Society bulletins: I could turn these into the "big picture" events going on around the characters, and fit the random encounters directly in the path of the adventurers into this larger landscape.




You've taken a random event and placed it in front of the PCs. No matter whether you created the evnt from start to finish, or you randomly rolled it, you still chose to fit it in the place you did. 

I'm not arguing either way is better, just that it's two approaches to get to the same conclusion.



> For example, the TAS bulletin generator might spit out something like a natural disaster on a world of population 8 (that's 10^8, or a population in the hundreds of millions, not eight people, by the way). I would figure out a likely world, and add some flesh to the bones: a tsunami, a plague, whatever. Now let's say I roll a random patron encounter with a doctor or a philantropist: I can use the background generated from the TAS bulletin and decide that the patron wants the adventurers to transport donated medical supplies to the affected world. Now let's say that the adventurers encounter a random pirate ship along the way: the pirates know that merchant ships from across the cluster are transporting medical and other supplies to the affected planet, and with the high value of pharmaceuticals, medical hardware, _et cetera_ on the black market, these merchants become prime targets.




So you randomly rolled an adventure, vrs someone who creates an adventure. Neither one offers more or less "choice" for the players. You just randomly came up with an event, whereas someone else might come up with the same event based on other factors. 



> At no time in this am I considering if the encounters are "level-appropriate" to the adventurers. Rather I'm interpreting random results based on my understanding of the setting. Based on a roll on a table, the pirate vessel could be a simple scout/courier, with a single turret, looking to pick off an unarmed merchant, or it could be a mercenary cruiser, with eight batteries of missle launchers and lasers and three times the acceleration, against which the adventurers' free trader is hopelessly outclassed. The scout ship will be crewed by a handful of pirates while the cruiser can carry a platoon of raiders able to overwhelm a merchant crew in a boarding action. Either result is wholly acceptable to me. The fact that the adventurers ship may be bristling with weapons, or completely unarmed, doesn't enter into my decisions about the pirates - the pirates will act and react based on their goals, in this instance obtaining valuable cargo from trader starships while avoiding damage to their own vessel in the process.




Maybe level appropriate means different things to different folks. 

I don't design level appropriate things with the idea that the PCs will always be able to defeat their enemy. Just that in some way they have a chance. That chance might be easy, or it might be hard. I find this more realistic.

I also design encounters based on believability. It's not believable for the mercenary cruiser, with eight batteries of missle launchers and lasers and three times the acceleration to randomly show up in the san francisco bay outside my office.

So while we might both use random encounters, mine are more tailored to the locations. 



> I still create encounter locations that I sprinkle around the setting - a lost starship, an abandoned colony station, a pirate lair, _et cetera_. The hazards associated with some may be relatively minor, while others can be very dangerous. The hazards are appropriate to the situation, not the adventurers. It's up to the players to use the tools available to their characters to determine the degree of any hazards they encounter, and decide the amount of risk they are willing to accept.




Same thing mostly, but I also intersperse some stuff based on the actions the PCs took, and how other people would logicaly react to that, or what I've decided some NPCs are up to, or just what my group finds fun collectively.



> My game is not a completely autonomous simulation, though to the degree that I like to use randomizers it's perhaps as autonomous as I can make it. The result is that the challenges encountered by the adventurers vary quite a bit, and therefore their responses must as well. My goal is to provide the players with a sense of being in the setting, that they are part of events taking place on a larger stage, and the degree to which they can influence those events is limited only by their imaginations and the abilities and resources of their characters.First, I can't speak for anyone else, but you'll rarely hear me talk in terms of realism in a game-world. Coherence, internal consistency, verisimilitude, yes, but not realism.




Same mostly. I tend to find that what some find promotes Coherence, internal consistency, verisimilitude promotes the opposite in others. I think it has to do with how people interpret and use the rules.



> Second, in my experience what "kicks arse" is a you-are-there feeling during play. I consider the game element of roleplaying games essential, but I like that element to be running in the background, allowing us to focus on the experience of the events and encounter of the game-world.




Me too.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 12, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Let's look at this interesting premise.
> 
> First off, one wonders how the rules can work _*improperly*_.  If the rules said, for instance, that after each encounter, roll 1d6, with all PCs dying on a roll of "1", then, should that "1" come up, the rules would still be working _*properly*_.  Likewise, if the use of the dice means that (say) there is a 2% chance of a character dying in an encounter, and a .005% chance of a TPK, then the rules are not working "improperly" when that result occurs.
> 
> ...




Sure that's fair. 

But when the rules imply they will work in a certain way, which the group desires, and then they don't- that's improper.



> When a person fudges a die roll, it is not because the rules have suddenly ceased to work, it is because the working rules have, by chance, caused a result that was not desired by the person(s) fudging the die roll.




This isn't what I'm arguing. You're inventing an argument that I am not making, so please stop. 

No the rules haven't suddenly ceased to work. They worked improperly to begin with, we just didn't notcie until it was too late.




> It says that the rules are more in accordance with your desired play experience so far.  Nothing more, but also nothing less....and for you, that is a very good thing.




Yes, the rules so far seem to functuion as they indicate they should. Which is indeed a very good thing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 12, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Sure that's fair.
> 
> But when the rules imply they will work in a certain way, which the group desires, and then they don't- that's improper.




Can you give me a couple of examples where this was the case, including how the rules implied they would work, and how they actually worked?


RC


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 12, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Out of curiosity, would you use an overwhelmingly strong contingent of raiders whose modus operandi was to leave no survivors?



In a bog-standard pirate encounter, no. Pirates want cooperative merchants who give up their cargo, and killing indiscriminately increases the chance a merchant will fight back at all costs instead of accepting the loss.

On the other hand, if the encounter is with privateers in a war zone assigned to destroying enemy shipping, then yes, then I would consider it based on the reaction roll. That's a risk the adventurers accept if they enter such an area.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 12, 2009)

Scribble said:


> This isn't what I'm arguing. You're inventing an argument that I am not making, so please stop.





EDIT

Heh.  I thought that you thought my counter-argument was a paraphrase of your argument.

D'oh!!!

Just so we're clear, then:  In my paraphrase, please read "fail to work" as "fail to work properly".  If it is still not your argument that the rules have failed to work properly, please explain your argument to me using small words.    I've had a head cold the last week or so that's made me a bit loggy.


RC


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 12, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Sure, I'm not arguing that. I just don't think either "extreme" is actually possible, and like I believe mallus was saying, the "types" of DM end up running a game that is in many ways very similar. (Because in the end both rely on both randomness and DM input.)



In different proportions, yes.

Again, I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.







			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> You've taken a random event and placed it in front of the PCs. No matter whether you created the evnt from start to finish, or you randomly rolled it, you still chose to fit it in the place you did.



I don't know that I consider them to be quite the same. A randomly generated event is self-selecting based on the dice; it is bounded in the sense that the random table isn't infinite, but the number of potential combinations may make it effectively so in the context of playing the game.

For example, I create the space encounter tables for each star system in _Traveller_, so there are hard limits on the number and type of ships that can be encountered, but the range of both values can run into the scores for each system. Now multiply that number by the results of the random reaction table, and now we're talking hundreds of potential encounters just in one star system.

I created the parameters under which the encounter may occur, but I don't see that as being the same thing as choosing the encounter itself, particularly give the range of possibilities.







			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> I'm not arguing either way is better, just that it's two approaches to get to the same conclusion.



If that conclusion is fun for everyone around the table, then we're in accord.







			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> So you randomly rolled an adventure, vrs someone who creates an adventure. Neither one offers more or less "choice" for the players. You just randomly came up with an event, whereas someone else might come up with the same event based on other factors.



Yes, but remember the random encounter, versus the one created by the referee, may be much variable in terms of the degree of hazard presented to the adventurers. It's not intrinsically so, but all else being equal, my experience tells me that encounters prepared by the referee are more likely to be be close to the adventurers' "level" than those generated randomly.







			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> Maybe level appropriate means different things to different folks.
> 
> I don't design level appropriate things with the idea that the PCs will always be able to defeat their enemy. Just that in some way they have a chance. That chance might be easy, or it might be hard. I find this more realistic.



Whereas I prefer an environment that is indifferent to the adventurers, where encounters are based not on the adventurers but the setting.







			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> I also design encounters based on believability. It's not believable for the mercenary cruiser, with eight batteries of missle launchers and lasers and three times the acceleration to randomly show up in the san francisco bay outside my office.



As I mentioned upthread, pirate encounters in my corner of the Third Imperium are more likely away from trade routes, naval bases, and mainworlds. The frequency of encounters with pirates is weighted based on those parameters. If the adventurers stick to main routes and patrolled systems, their likelihood of encountering a pirate is pretty low.







			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> So while we might both use random encounters, mine are more tailored to the locations.



As are mine, but with a broader set of parameters perhaps on what can be generated.







			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> Same thing mostly, but I also intersperse some stuff based on the actions the PCs took, and how other people would logicaly react to that, or what I've decided some NPCs are up to, or just what my group finds fun collectively.



Of course. One of the fun things about sandbox games for me is that random encounter can develop into a close alliance or a bitter rivalry, based on the actions and reactions of the adventurers and the non-player characters.







			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> Same mostly. I tend to find that what some find promotes Coherence, internal consistency, verisimilitude promotes the opposite in others. I think it has to do with how people interpret and use the rules.



Agreed.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 12, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> In a bog-standard pirate encounter, no. Pirates want cooperative merchants who give up their cargo, and killing indiscriminately increases the chance a merchant will fight back at all costs instead of accepting the loss.
> 
> On the other hand, if the encounter is with privateers in a war zone assigned to destroying enemy shipping, then yes, then I would consider it based on the reaction roll. That's a risk the adventurers accept if they enter such an area.



I like that. In the first case the overwhelming force still represents a gameable situation, albeit one where the players only have one intelligent choice. In the second the players have the initial choice to enter the war zone or not. 

Would you ever have a war zone erupt around a PC merchant crew, catching them unawares (and denying them the choice about how much risk they take on)? That's certainly possible given Traveller's lack of FTL communication. 

I'm interested in cases where maintaining fidelity to the setting and its internal logic seem to come into conflict with the needs for playable game (ie situations where meaningful options exist and essentially forgone conclusions do not). 

Should that be another thread? (like we haven't completely changed topic already...).


----------



## Scribble (Mar 12, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Can you give me a couple of examples where this was the case, including how the rules implied they would work, and how they actually worked?
> 
> 
> RC




If you want specifics, sorry I can't. I'm at work. 

A broad example is it usualy involved CR, or spell power levels, sometimes even feat power levels.



Raven Crowking said:


> EDIT
> 
> Heh.  I thought that you thought my counter-argument was a paraphrase of your argument.
> 
> ...




I thought I did?

Fail to work properly = the game told me the rules function in a certain way, and then fail to actually do so at points.

I'm not saying the game "stopped" working. 

I think looking at it we're saying a similar thing, just from difefrent angles.

Correct me if I'm wrong: You seem to be saying that I'm looking at the rules and then determining that what they say they do is undesired and then changing it.

Whereas I'm saying I'm looking at the rules, accepting what they say they are doing, but then changing them when they end up not actually doing that.

Does that make sense?


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 12, 2009)

Mallus said:


> In the first case the overwhelming force still represents a gameable situation, albeit one where the players only have one intelligent choice.



They may have more than one choice, for example, jumping out while inside the 100D limit and risking a misjump. The intelligence of that option is debatable, of course.







			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> In the second the players have the initial choice to enter the war zone or not.
> 
> Would you ever have a war zone erupt around a PC merchant crew, catching them unawares (and denying them the choice about how much risk they take on)? That's certainly possible given Traveller's lack of FTL communication.



Yes.

The bloodthirstyness of the privateers is going to be determined by reaction roll, so assuming the adventurers allow them to board or are forced to yield, the crew may not necessarily end up dead with a wave of my hand. I might impose a -1 or -2 modifier to the reaction roll, but if the roll is high they could simply end up marooned instead.

That said, I would have no problem with the privateers killing off the crew if that's how it shakes out. Remember that we're talking about a perfect storm of bad luck for the adventurers: wrong place wrong time, facing overwhelming force, bad reaction. The chances of this encounter are about the same as the ancient red wyrm in a fit of pique discussed earlier.







			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> I'm interested in cases where maintaining fidelity to the setting and its internal logic seem to come into conflict with the needs for playable game (ie situations where meaningful options exist and essentially forgone conclusions do not).



I agree that keeping meaningful options on the table is a worthy goal, but I also think that an occasional foregone conclusion, whether it's murderous privateers in space or a _coup de grâce_ of a captive adventurer by an orc chieftain, can be a part of an enjoyable game, if the players and the referee know this is a possibility from the outset and accept that shared mental space of the game-world.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 12, 2009)

Scribble said:


> If you want specifics, sorry I can't. I'm at work.





I can wait.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 12, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I can wait.




It'll probably be  long while. I'm not looking to play anything other then 4e for now, so you'll have to deal with a made up broad example:

This creature is CR 5 but the ability it has makes it way out of line with other CR 5 stuff (and its own design.) Crap, he's poorly designed, I'll fix later, fudge for now to keep him at a better CR level.

The rules didn't suddenly "stop working" it's just they told me the creature was designed as a CR 5 creature, but it in reality it was not.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 12, 2009)

Scribble said:


> This creature is CR 5 but the ability it has makes it way out of line with other CR 5 stuff (and its own design.) Crap, he's poorly designed, I'll fix later, fudge for now to keep him at a better CR level.
> 
> The rules didn't suddenly "stop working" it's just they told me the creature was designed as a CR 5 creature, but it in reality it was not.




This is the sort of thing that I thought you meant.  

CR and EL are tools to give the DM some ability to predict the outcome of a particular encounter or series of encounters, and thus to achieve a desired outcome.  Perforce, the CR guidelines are not perfect, and make assumptions about how encounters are handled, and perforce, the CR guidelines will sometimes fail because the encounter is handled in a way not foreseen by the creator of the guidelines (thus seemingly "too easy" or "too hard").

However, "too easy" and "too hard" both strongly imply (I would go so far as to say have no intrinsic meaning without the existance of) a desired outcome.  The entire CR system, as well as things like wish lists, etc., are a move to encourage desired outcome play.  Because random elements exist within the game, though, this desired outcome does not always occur.

It is the random elements, not the rules, that are adjusted when the CR 5 creature outperforms (or underperforms) your expectations.  Random elements like encounter design, player choices, and die rolls.

Fudging eliminates these random elements, thus reinforcing the desired (predicted by CR guidlelines) outcome.  It is, after all, meaningless to say that you intentionally chose a CR 5 creature without also agreeing that you chose that CR because it seemed to support the encounter outcome you wanted.


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 12, 2009)

Different strokes for different folks. There are various tastes in "good" or "fun," and apparently even in "fair."

It sometimes seems here that folks are presenting a concept of "balance" as an absolute of "playability" even though it runs counter to how certain games were designed and _played for a decade or more_ before that concept was widely embraced. (It was central to _Champions_ in 1981, but took a while to catch on in other circles.)

D&D, for instance, was designed to produce a lot of character mortality, especially at low levels. When characters have 1d6 hit points and a hit does 1d6 damage, that's an average 50% kill rate per first hit. _Avoiding_ the capriciousness of the dice was a survival skill. It helped that dice-rolls were prescribed for only a few activities.

The DM was empowered to modify probabilities before hand, or to waive rolls -- but that's a different matter from calling for a roll and voiding it _afterward_. A basic assumption, taken for granted in the war-game hobby of which D&D was a part, was that the basis for such adjustments should be "simulation" of the situation. To base them on whether they favored one side or the other was considered clearly improper.

Losing a character was not the calamity it might seem in another context, a sort of "losing the game" event. It was more like losing a round. How one did in the long run, over the whole course of play with multiple characters, was the key perspective if one wanted to "keep score."

In that long run, random factors tend to even out. The average was still pretty risky, and there were plenty of opportunities to get characters killed in more deterministic ways. The difference between a random choice and an informed one might depend on taking unusual steps to gather information.

So, _most_ characters died before attaining high levels. The ones that became notably powerful were _exceptional_. Moreover, the selection pressures tended to make the accomplishment reflect a notable degree of skill at play. ("Monty Haul" campaigns were exceptions to that rule.)

That's a factor in considering, for instance, _Tomb of Horrors_. Although there's some benefit in the game-mechanical assets likely to be possessed by characters of the recommended level, what is thereby implied of the _players_ is most telling.

To have earned characters of that level should have taken a considerable amount (probably more than a year) of careful play. The Tomb is a test of the game-mastery to be expected of such experienced and successful players. Presumed rather naturally was experience and success in just such a milieu as that for which the game was designed. In their essence, the puzzles, tricks and traps were pretty typical of dungeons. The wrong choice might more often result in sudden death, but the process of determining the right choice was not extraordinary. Some errors could be avoided by applying what ought (in the D&D context) to have been mere common sense well before that stage in the players' careers.

In that infamously deadly dungeon, it makes relatively little difference whether characters are 1st level or 21st. Its appropriateness is mainly geared to a certain (and somewhat elite) level of players.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 12, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> CR and EL are tools to give the DM some ability to predict the outcome of a particular encounter or series of encounters, and thus to achieve a desired outcome.  Perforce, the CR guidelines are not perfect, and make assumptions about how encounters are handled, and perforce, the CR guidelines will sometimes fail because the encounter is handled in a way not foreseen by the creator of the guidelines (thus seemingly "too easy" or "too hard").




It's not just when you use encounters in ways that are unforseen.  The problem with CRs is that they are not actually mapped with difficulty.  A creature with an AC of 10 and 20 hitpoints could be CR 10.  A creature with AC 25 and 100 hitpoints could be CR 6.  CRs are just a guess based on a formula/playtesting/eyeballing by the creator.  Some creators are better at eyeballing than others and get more accurate CRs than others.

Part of the problem comes from having too much randomness to be predictable.  If a creature has 2 hitpoints but has a DC 25 save or die what CR should it be?  It might kill level 10 characters on the first round before they act if it goes first.  It might die in one hit before it even has a chance to do anything.

But, while CR does a poor job of predicting actual difficulty, it is advertised as working so well that the entire encounter design and XP rules are based around using CR.  Which creates a house of cards built on a shaky foundation.  So, it sometimes requires a bit of correction on the DMs part.

However, I agree that using CRs to plan encounters DOES imply a desired result.  I know, I always desire the result that the players live.  At least most of them.  I want to keep running the game and them to keep playing.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 12, 2009)

double post


----------



## Scribble (Mar 12, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> This is the sort of thing that I thought you meant.
> 
> CR and EL are tools to give the DM some ability to predict the outcome of a particular encounter or series of encounters, and thus to achieve a desired outcome.  Perforce, the CR guidelines are not perfect, and make assumptions about how encounters are handled, and perforce, the CR guidelines will sometimes fail because the encounter is handled in a way not foreseen by the creator of the guidelines (thus seemingly "too easy" or "too hard").




Ok sure, we'll go that route. Thats fine. Those who write the rules have a desired outcome of their rules. Right on.

In this case not fudging also plays towards th desired outcome. You have x percentage chance to defeat an encounter of y level. Fudging invalidates that, so not fudging works towards a desired outcome.

But what I said isn't invalidated. If the CR indicates in X circumstance Y should occur, and then G7 occurs instead because the author of said rules screwed up? My expectations of what the implied desired outcome was are now invalidated. That annoys Scribble. It's like if someone secretly replaced the 20 on your die with another 1. Now my understanding of the die has been undermined. The game says I have a 5% chance to roll a 20 and I no longer can. 



> However, "too easy" and "too hard" both strongly imply (I would go so far as to say have no intrinsic meaning without the existance of) a desired outcome.  The entire CR system, as well as things like wish lists, etc., are a move to encourage desired outcome play.  Because random elements exist within the game, though, this desired outcome does not always occur.
> 
> It is the random elements, not the rules, that are adjusted when the CR 5 creature outperforms (or underperforms) your expectations.  Random elements like encounter design, player choices, and die rolls.
> 
> Fudging eliminates these random elements, thus reinforcing the desired (predicted by CR guidlelines) outcome.  It is, after all, meaningless to say that you intentionally chose a CR 5 creature without also agreeing that you chose that CR because it seemed to support the encounter outcome you wanted.




And what outcome was expected or wanted?

If it's simply that the game run as designed then sure I agree. 

If it's simply that X character has an x percentage chance to survive a head to head fight? Then yes again I agree.

If it's that a character not die or the "plot not be ruined" in a particular encouunter then I dissagree. 

In either case choosing a particular CR vrs not choosing a particular CR are both done with a "desired outcome" in a way. In one case it's the outcome that PCs have a chance mathwise to effect the encounter should they choose to. In the other it's sometimes they just don't and have to avoid the encounter.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 12, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> But, while CR does a poor job of predicting actual difficulty, it is advertised as working so well that the entire encounter design and XP rules are based around using CR.




This we agree on.



> So, it sometimes requires a bit of correction on the DMs part.




Only if there is a "desired result".  I suppose, otherwise, you might need to adjust XP awards, but the vagarities of the CR system are liable to even out on this score without any adjustement at all.  Certainly, unless there is a "desired result" that a die roll undoes, there is no need to adjust die rolls.



> However, I agree that using CRs to plan encounters DOES imply a desired result.




We agree here.

For much the same reasons that using CRs to plan encounters implies a desired result (strongly), so does fudging a die roll.  If there is no desired result, why use CRs?  If there is no desired result, why fudge the roll?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 13, 2009)

Scribble said:


> If the CR indicates in X circumstance Y should occur, and then G7 occurs instead because the author of said rules screwed up? My expectations of what the implied desired outcome was are now invalidated. That annoys Scribble. It's like if someone secretly replaced the 20 on your die with another 1. Now my understanding of the die has been undermined. The game says I have a 5% chance to roll a 20 and I no longer can.




LOL.

Where were you when I was discussing the (many) failings of 3.5?

The CR System is a predictive engine, but if you read the DMG, you will note that it makes no prediction of being perfect in its predictions.    I do not agree with the argument that because a prediction fails to take into account all possible elements (which is, in and of itself, an impossible task), the game has failed to run as designed.

But, going from this, the encounter was designed to follow the predictive model.  The predictive model predicted a given outcome.  The investment in the outcome (not the investment in the model) causes the fudging.  I do not believe that anyone, anywhere, ever fudged because he believed it protected the (questionable at best) integrity of the CR System.  I do believe that many people in many places have fudged because they used the CR System in an attempt to control the odds, and that attempt failed without fudging.

It is also true, as you say, that _*not fudging the dice*_ is also in service of a desired outcome.  The desired outcomes, however, in these two cases are polar bears and pine martins.  Close enough to be related, but not the same animal.


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 13, 2009)

My initial impression is that 4E does a good job of yielding predictability. However, any probabilistic element -- even the probability of players choosing a given mix of character types -- means that an encounter is sometimes easier and sometimes harder than average.

So, I am skeptical when I see a claim, based on a single run, that an encounter is poorly designed. A small sample is not a sound basis, and just one instance is as small as they come.


----------



## ryryguy (Mar 13, 2009)

*perfect storm of bad luck*



The Shaman said:


> The bloodthirstyness of the privateers is going to be determined by reaction roll, so assuming the adventurers allow them to board or are forced to yield, the crew may not necessarily end up dead with a wave of my hand. I might impose a -1 or -2 modifier to the reaction roll, but if the roll is high they could simply end up marooned instead.
> 
> That said, I would have no problem with the privateers killing off the crew if that's how it shakes out. Remember that we're talking about a perfect storm of bad luck for the adventurers: wrong place wrong time, facing overwhelming force, bad reaction. The chances of this encounter are about the same as the ancient red wyrm in a fit of pique discussed earlier.I agree that keeping meaningful options on the table is a worthy goal, but I also think that an occasional foregone conclusion, whether it's murderous privateers in space or a _coup de grâce_ of a captive adventurer by an orc chieftain, can be a part of an enjoyable game, if the players and the referee know this is a possibility from the outset and accept that shared mental space of the game-world.




Very interesting... I think I can appreciate a some of the fun I'd have playing in a game where there was a lot of uncertainty and risk, where I felt like I had to stay on my toes at all times or risk catastrophe.  I have played in a few games like that.  However...

I can't help but wonder how I would react to the above scenario as a player.  I'm pretty sure that I would not find it enjoyable.  Even assuming I did know and buy into the idea that this was possible from the outset, I don't think I'd say, "Wow, that was an amazing, perfect storm of bad luck!  What fun! I really feel like I am there, experiencing the game world in all its coherence and verisimilitude!"  

Please note, I'm not trying to say your game style is bad or that you and your group can't possibly be having fun.  I'm just trying to imagine putting myself in the shoes of a player in a game where this happened.  Have you actually had this sort of thing happen at your table, and if so, how do your players react?

I remember reading something several years ago (sorry, no idea of the source), where a DM recounted a game session.  First, the group completed a long, dramatic arc successfully.  I think they may have lost a PC or two in the process, but they won out over great odds and achieved a victory that was important to them.  The group was estatic.  But, there were still a couple of hours left in the session.  So as they journeyed through the woods back to town, he rolled for a random encounter.  A wolf attacked, and in the ensuing combat there was a perfect storm of bad luck.  One of the PCs was killed by the wolf.

According to the DM, the players immediately deflated, becoming quiet and obviously depressed.  He asked them why.  "She just died for nothing.  It seems pointless."

Again - I'm not trying to say all groups would react this way.  Maybe the random wolf encounter was a bad choice for his group because they weren't expecting that style of play - they weren't bought into it ahead of time.  

But the DM who wrote up this story clearly took a lesson from it, and it resonates with me. As a player, I don't want to win all the time and I expect to lose.  But I want it to matter.  I want to have a chance not to lose because of my efforts.  More than that, if I do end up losing, I want to have at least a little bit of choice regarding _how_ and _why_ I lose.  I don't want it to be because of mere randomness, even if it's the randomness built into a meticulously crafted, coherent and logical game world.

If I'm dealt a zero-point bridge hand and the opponents have a laydown grand slam, I can laugh it off due to bad luck.  If my fantasy football team's entire starting lineup suffers season-ending injuries in the first week of the season, I might even get a perverse enjoyment out of such spectacular misfortune.  

But when I play D&D or other RPGs, I'm looking for something else.  I'm not sure I even know exactly what it is.  Maybe it's just wanting to be challenged?  Like, on the flip side, if a perfect storm of _good_ luck on the encounter tables led to the discovery of an abandoned starship packed with gold and the deed to a paradise planet - it'd be different, but I  don't think I'd actually enjoy that either.  

Please note, by challenge I don't mean "always a level-appropriate" challenge.  Figuring out something is not "level-appropriate" and backing off could in itself be an enjoyable challenge.  Screwing up and stepping into the "non-level-appropriate" challenge might just open a new challenge of how to survive or to recover from getting my butt handed to me.   

I understand as well that we're talking about a continuum here, that even DMs who are very committed to a sandbox style are still generally going to have ways for players to figure out when they might be getting in over their heads and to escape when they inevitably do; and PC's are gonna die sometimes in most any style of game.  But the Shaman's comments were pretty striking to me as one of the purest expressions of the one end of the continuum.  In that pure form at least, I don't think it would be the game for me.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 13, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> LOL.
> 
> Where were you when I was discussing the (many) failings of 3.5?




Not sure. 



> The CR System is a predictive engine, but if you read the DMG, you will note that it makes no prediction of being perfect in its predictions.    I do not agree with the argument that because a prediction fails to take into account all possible elements (which is, in and of itself, an impossible task), the game has failed to run as designed.




Sure I agree, but I'm not saying the game as a whole. Just a particular element... Which is why I said it wasn't a routine thing, and my example was a broad example.

Really I don't need "perfect" predictability... That would be boring. I just want it to be roughly on track. Little swings here and there don't bother me. It's the odd out of no where OOPS moments that get to me because they throw EVERYTHING off.



> But, going from this, the encounter was designed to follow the predictive model.  The predictive model predicted a given outcome.  The investment in the outcome (not the investment in the model) causes the fudging.  I do not believe that anyone, anywhere, ever fudged because he believed it protected the (questionable at best) integrity of the CR System.  I do believe that many people in many places have fudged because they used the CR System in an attempt to control the odds, and that attempt failed without fudging.




Sort of: But what I was saying can be looked at from the standpoint of someone picking a CR and using that or someone randomly having a CR pop up.

If the CR indicates that a creature is X powerfull (roughly) then I can use that in my judgement of how to describe the situation to the PCs without having to go throuhg the entire stat block. 

If it's a CR much higher then theis I can give them clues (usually through skill checks) as to their level of perceived danger.

But if something is wildly off, it tricks me. I give them a level of perception that's WAY off. 

Those are the moments that annoy me. It's not that I WANTED them to survive, I just wanted their choice to do what they do to be somewhat informed.



> It is also true, as you say, that _*not fudging the dice*_ is also in service of a desired outcome.  The desired outcomes, however, in these two cases are polar bears and pine martins.  Close enough to be related, but not the same animal.RC




My point really was that the game is essentially desired outcome + random = fun.  (Otherwise why have things like BaB or AC bonus, or levels of anything really.)

The amount of either side of the equation equaling fun to a particular group is open  to debate.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 13, 2009)

Sure, an obviously "pointless" death may elicit more grief than one seen as "serving a purpose." A game with an emotional range encompassing that may appeal more to some people than one with a more limited range.

If that's not a feature but a flaw, then why incorporate it into your game rules? Why make it so that the DM feels obliged to hide "fudging" of rolls?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 13, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Sort of: But what I was saying can be looked at from the standpoint of someone picking a CR and using that or someone randomly having a CR pop up.




We're going to have to agree to disagree about this one, because I am a very, very long way from convinced that a person using a random CR (i.e., a person who does not have a vested interest in what CR is used) is going to modify rolls because the listed CR is off.

Colour me skeptical, but I find the science in Star Trek more believable than that.  



> My point really was that the game is essentially desired outcome + random = fun.  (Otherwise why have things like BaB or AC bonus, or levels of anything really.)
> 
> The amount of either side of the equation equaling fun to a particular group is open  to debate.




Ah.  But, let me suggest that the *players* can and should have a vested interest in the desired outcome of an encounter regardless of the type of campaign, but the interest in a desired outcome on the part of the DM fundamentally and obviously changes the nature of the game by the degree of its presence or absence.

(I.e., the point I first made.)


RC


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 13, 2009)

ryryguy said:


> I can't help but wonder how I would react to the above scenario as a player.  I'm pretty sure that I would not find it enjoyable.  Even assuming I did know and buy into the idea that this was possible from the outset, I don't think I'd say, "Wow, that was an amazing, perfect storm of bad luck!  What fun! I really feel like I am there, experiencing the game world in all its coherence and verisimilitude!"



I don't for a second expect the players to be singing hosannas to my ability as a referee when their characters get offed.

On the other hand, I don't expect them to sulk about it either.

(No, *ryryguy*, I'm not suggesting you, or anyone one else posting to this thread, is a sulker, a pouter, a whiner, or a tantrum thrower. I just thought one extreme deserved another defining extreme, so that we can perhaps find a meaningful middle.)







			
				ryryguy said:
			
		

> Please note, I'm not trying to say your game style is bad or that you and your group can't possibly be having fun.  I'm just trying to imagine putting myself in the shoes of a player in a game where this happened.  Have you actually had this sort of thing happen at your table, and if so, how do your players react?



I've experienced a number of TPKs over the years, almost always predicated by the players rolling aces and me with a white-hot hand.

However, the closest example I can think of to the raiders scenario was two adventurers in a 1e _AD&D_ getting separated from the rest of the party by a block descending from the ceiling, sealing a passageway. The two adventurers were promptly attacked by hobgoblins; both were reduced to negative hit points, and I ruled that the hobgoblins finished off the downed characters and ate them for tea.

There were a couple of factors in play here. First, it was part of what I planned for the hobgoblins; the adventurers hadn't discovered their lair yet, complete with corpses hanging in the larder, but there were numerous indications that humans and demihumans were a regular part of the goblinoids' diet scattered around the dungeon: gnawed bones in cooking pots, a dwarf's mail-covered leg in a hobgoblin's pack (aka goblinonid 'iron' rations), _et cetera_.

Second, I made the judgment that getting the players of the adventurers-turned-Lunchables back into play quickly was preferable. One player took over a henchman as a character, the other opted to wait a little bit and re-enter the game with a whole new character a little while later as a recently captured prisoner of another group of hobgoblins encountered by the party (an instance of swinging toward the other end of the continuum in my own time behind the screen).

In this instance both players took it in stride as a hazard of the game. Both players were also dungeon masters in our group, and they were each familiar with the dungeon crawl sample narrative on pages 97-100 in the 1e _AD&D DMG_, specifically the fate of the gnome at the hands (and teeth) of the ghouls. Being eaten by monsters was not unexpected.

I think many referees might opt instead to make the characters prisoners instead of Happy Meals, to facilitate some sort of rescue or escape adventure. I have done that as well, but in the context in which this particular encounter took place, I opted against it, for the reasons outlined above.







			
				ryryguy said:
			
		

> As a player, I don't want to win all the time and I expect to lose.  *But I want it to matter.*  I want to have a chance not to lose because of my efforts.  More than that, if I do end up losing, I want to have at least a little bit of choice regarding _how_ and _why_ I lose.  I don't want it to be because of mere randomness, even if it's the randomness built into a meticulously crafted, coherent and logical game world.



I’m going to address the latter points first, then come back to the section I bolded in the quote.

So, first, let’s revisit the privateers example I offered earlier.

The actions of the privateers will be determined by two things: first, their mission, which is to destroy enemy shipping, and second, the reaction roll which guides me on how severely the raiders will treat their victims. There's a third factor to consider, which is the nature of starship combat in _Traveller_. For those of you not familiar with the game, starship combat is terrifically destructive, but not in a _Star Wars_ disappear-in-a-flash-of-sparkles way. It’s more like combat between a pair of frigates or ships-of-the-line in the Age of Sail, pounding each other until they’re disabled hulks. A starship exploding in _Traveller_ is the result of a very rare critical hit.

Now let’s make this a worst-case scenario: the merchant ship has no weaponry other than small arms for the crew, they’ve emerged from jump without fuel to make another jump, they don’t know they’ve just jumped into a war zone, and they are immediately engaged by privateers aboard a mercenary cruiser armed with lasers and missiles. The goal of the cruiser is destruction of shipping: if they can recover the cargo, fine, but it’s not the first priority, and the cruiser captain will offer no quarter to prisoners (reaction roll 2, adjusted to 1). This is about as bad as it can get for the crew of the free trader, our intrepid adventurers.

The adventurers should recognize at least two things immediately: this is not routine behavior for a pirate in this corner of the Imperium, and they are hopelessly outmatched both in weaponry and maneuver. Their options are limited. To start, the crew may try to maneuver as best they can, evading missiles and laser beams until the free trader’s power plant, maneuver drive, or computer is disabled or destroyed, which will put off the inevitable for a short while at best. They may elect to abandon ship, to take their chances in vacuum suits. They can dump their cargo, and perhaps try to hide in or amongst the drifting containers, again in vacuum suits. They may attempt to hide themselves aboard the free trader, like Han and friends in the _Falcon_’s secret holds. They may attempt to dump decoys to improve their chances of hiding aboard the ship, such as taking passengers out of the low berths, putting them in vacuum suits, and pushing them out the airlock before hiding aboard the ship. (Yes, it’s cruel.)

This is just a sampling of the tactics the players might employ on behalf of their characters. None of them are particularly good, but if the players can keep their characters out of the hands of the privateers, they have a (very tiny) chance of survival. If they survive the onslaught against their ship and are caught by the privateers, I’d consider offering them a second chance at a reaction roll if they can give the raiders a good reason to keep themselves alive: someone wealthy who can pay a ransom might work, or offering them information on the location of something of value. Overcoming the extremely negative reaction roll is unlikely unless you have a character with several levels in Liaison skill, but at least it’s something that the adventurers may attempt. If they can’t mod the roll out of the hostile range, then they’re spaced, or otherwise summarily executed. Grab a blank character sheet.

So there are some options with respect to how your character might face this situation. The why of it I can’t really help you with: I doubt you would consider this a death that “matters,” and as the referee it’s not something I worry about. Your character may die in a blaze of glorious fusing plasma while facing down some alien menace, or get killed by a random animal encounter while wilderness refueling your ship. It’s a hazardous and indifferent universe, and that’s the way I run it. Skill and luck alone determine your character’s destiny.

That may not be your cup of tea, in which case we must simply agree that our play styles diverge on this point.







			
				ryryguy said:
			
		

> But when I play D&D or other RPGs, I'm looking for something else.  I'm not sure I even know exactly what it is.  Maybe it's just wanting to be challenged?  Like, on the flip side, if a perfect storm of _good_ luck on the encounter tables led to the discovery of an abandoned starship packed with gold and the deed to a paradise planet - it'd be different, but I  don't think I'd actually enjoy that either.



As I mentioned earlier, starships in _Traveller_ only blow up with a rare critical hit. My character, Captain Hauser, was skipper of the far trader _Skadi_ when we were confronted by a patrol cruiser which demanded we allow a team aboard for an inspection. The referee announced that the cruiser wasn’t moving to match vectors, but rather maneuvering to a position behind our ship, presumably for a clear shot at our engineering space. Conscious of the face that our hold was filled with gems and computer parts we’d purchased on spec, representing all of our capital, I ordered the gunners to fire, and a miracle hit on one of the cruiser’s turret caused a massive explosion that destroyed what we later learned was a Sword Worlder privateer masquerading as a planetary navy vessel.

We shoulda been space toast. Instead we were very lucky.

I’ll take my good luck with my bad.







ryryguy said:


> Please note, by challenge I don't mean "always a level-appropriate" challenge.  Figuring out something is not "level-appropriate" and backing off could in itself be an enjoyable challenge.  Screwing up and stepping into the "non-level-appropriate" challenge might just open a new challenge of how to survive or to recover from getting my butt handed to me.



Understood.

Obviously it’s a sentiment I share, on both sides of the screen.







			
				ryryguy said:
			
		

> I understand as well that we're talking about a continuum here, that even DMs who are very committed to a sandbox style are still generally going to have ways for players to figure out when they might be getting in over their heads and to escape when they inevitably do; and PC's are gonna die sometimes in most any style of game.  But the Shaman's comments were pretty striking to me as one of the purest expressions of the one end of the continuum.  In that pure form at least, I don't think it would be the game for me.



Now here’s my question to you: would an encounter with the privateers as I described it above, an encounter in which despite your best efforts your character is caught and later spaced by the raiders, would this be a deal breaker for you? Would this unlikely but deadly encounter make the rest of the campaign unplayable for you? Or is even the possibility of such an encounter happening in the game grounds enough not to play at all?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 14, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> I don't for a second expect the players to be singing hosannas to my ability as a referee when their characters get offed.
> 
> On the other hand, I don't expect them to sulk about it either.



I don't know.  I expect people to sulk when they get killed off unfairly.  I've certainly sulked before when it's happened to me.  I've had players do it when it happened in my games.  That's partially why I stopped doing it.



The Shaman said:


> We shoulda been space toast. Instead we were very lucky.
> 
> I’ll take my good luck with my bad.



I guess, but in that scenario, if the GM didn't put the overwhelming ship in combat with you, you wouldn't need the luck.  Instead it would have been a fair test of your combat ability that might have ended up with your death, but would actually require luck going badly for that to happen.



The Shaman said:


> Obviously it’s a sentiment I share, on both sides of the screen.Now here’s my question to you: would an encounter with the privateers as I described it above, an encounter in which despite your best efforts your character is caught and later spaced by the raiders, would this be a deal breaker for you? Would this unlikely but deadly encounter make the rest of the campaign unplayable for you? Or is even the possibility of such an encounter happening in the game grounds enough not to play at all?



I'm not him, but I'd like to answer this anyway.  I don't think I'd want to play in that campaign.  In all the games I've played in there has been an unspoken(and sometimes spoken) agreement between the players and the DM that both of them want the same things out of the game.  The most important one is that the game keeps going and doesn't result in the pointless deaths of all the PCs.

Everyone I know is willing to accept that bad luck happens, bad strategy happens and sometimes there IS going to be a TPK.  But as long as we knew we had a fair chance and that our PCs were working towards something they considered worthwhile when they died, we are good with it.

Because everyone understands one thing: Everything that happens in the game happens because the DM wants it to happen.  We understand that the DM has the power to overrule any random tables he's rolling on, the ability to fudge dice, and so on.  Beyond that, he has the ability to decide what items go on that random table and whether or not he rolls on it at all.

Given these powers, if we end up in a combat with very few to no options that is going to result in our guaranteed death, we can only assume that the DM wanted us to die.  If they didn't want us to die, they would have made sure we were capable of handling anything on the random enemy tables.  Or they would have fudge the die roll to get a different enemy that we could handle.  Or they would have decided that the captain of this ship was in a good mood and decided not to kill us.  Or they would have come up with a way for us to survive in some form.  Suddenly saved by unexpected allies, sudden weapon's malfunction on the enemy ship that lasts just long enough for us to run away, and so on.  But, since none of this has happened, we can simply assume that the DM wanted us dead.

And that breaks the unspoken agreement that they DON'T want us to die.  I think this fits into the conversation about fudging and CRs.  Both of those suggest the DM is looking for a desired result.  I don't see a problem with this because I think DMs SHOULD have a desired result.  Even if the desired result is as simple as not ending the game in a TPK.

When I play a game, I expect that the DM has at least one hand on the wheel at all times and at least makes minor adjustments to make sure the game doesn't crash into a brick wall.  The idea that a DM would simply let "realism", random tables, or "logic" cause a TPK never really enters into my head.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 14, 2009)

When we bring "fudging" into the game is when a character death indicates that the GM wanted that character dead. Otherwise, the GM could have "fudged" the death away.

In such a game (if one can call it that), it is as Majoru Oakheart wrote: "Everything that happens in the game happens because the DM wants it to happen."

I'm pretty fond of the view that "the GM _is_ the rules," but there are limits. I'll leave it to each to impose those limits on himself, but I think that a certain amount of honesty from _all parties_ is essential to fairness.

If something is unacceptable, then I think the wisest course is to state that plainly and make a rule against it. There's no more need for furtive fudging behind the screen: the referee can openly apply _the rules of the game_ by which everyone has agreed to be bound.

That leaves the course of the game again in the hands of players no longer dependent on the GM's breaking of rules.

It might be a game in which the outcome is foreordained, but there can be interest in choosing how to get there. It seems essential that the players be willing to accept some less than optimal results, a range of _somehow_ "better" and "worse" possibilities selected at least in part by their own _meaningful_ choices.

At least it can be a genuine game of some sort!


Back to the game of D & D as it was formerly known:

To the extent that we DMs are concerned with verisimilitude, we're likely to consider that the world -- and other people -- existed before the PCs came along. If an environment is too dangerous for the PCs, then it is too dangerous for normal folks. So, some "straw dragon" scenarios may be too improbable for consideration.

At the same time, we cannot neglect to provide the necessities for such as "a thief, a reaver, a slayer, with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandaled feet."

In a game in which one hit has a 50% chance of killing an average 1st-level PC (yea, even in one a bit less harsh), no particular freshly-minted adventurer's life is likely to be a great saga. But each one must have the opportunity, so that eventually such worthies are forged.

That means treasures worth the getting, and toils and perils enough to have kept them from having been gotten already. As we have set them in the world to the end that doughty souls might seek them, so we have hardly made their legends so obscure as never to be learned! Indeed, we have so shaped the world that there is adventure aplenty to be found by any who would but quest for it.

Risk is part of the game. If your notion of good role-playing is saying, "Dungeons and dragons are too dangerous, so I'll just stay in Town," then maybe the game is not for you. Initiative is the mark of the potential hero, the leader, not the follower. If for some reason you "don't know what to do" and waffle around waiting for someone to tell you instead of GOING OUT AND DOING SOMETHING, then maybe the game is not for you. It's a game of "swords & sorcery," for the love of Leiber! Adventure is an end in itself! When there's a shortage of trouble, swordsmen and sorcerers _make_ some.

And more often than not, trouble leads them to an early grave. Then we pick up dice, paper, and pencil ... roll up a new persona ... and come back swinging into the game that has no end, no final defeat. Fight on!


----------



## Jack7 (Mar 14, 2009)

I've been really busy lately but there are a couple of comments people made earlier I'd like to respond to as I get the chance. I'm gonna try and avoid overly complex responses though as I sometimes have the bad habit of engaging in, and so I'm just gonna try and take comments I want to respond to one at a time.



> You even manage to throw in a cheap "video game" quip that doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense (what kind of videogame even works like that?), so you have already hit on some of my biggest pet peeves.




Maybe I didn't explain this very well. I have a tendency in my mental analyses to see trends, and to just subsume the details thinking everyone else will just instinctively understand what I mean by implication. As my friends, associates, and family often remind me, not everyone looks at A and then can, or will, jump to J without having explained to them all of the letters or elements in-between. I often jump around things in my mind making connections that others might not immediately see without going through all of the other intermediate steps. But I often do that's just the way I think. So I often have the tendency to jump around, even in time. With casework for instance I often (not always but often) jump from my first examination of evidence to the right conclusion, but then I have to backtrack from the end all the way back to the beginning to explain to everyone else how I got there, even when I'm sure I'm right and am not even certain how I got there myself - I can't initially prove it. Whereas I've often seen a lot of other fellas who go from A to B to C to D and so forth before they feel comfortable drawing any kind of conclusion. I get that difference in approach and respect it, it's just not my normal way of thinking or making an analysis, analyzing clues, or making deductions.

So, that being said here is what I was actually implying. Not that, as I think you are thinking, that a certain way of playing D&D or a certain edition of D&D or any other game is WOWey, or video gamey, in the sense of modern video games and everything that implies. *What I said was:*



> This way of looking at the world is far less like a video game full of self-imposed (auto-programmed) Easter Eggs and far more like the real world. Yes, you can create things at your own expense, but there is no Santa-Clause DM/GM to whom one can avail oneself for that special, bright, shiny toy one so desperately longs for in his secret heart of hearts. (And this toy may be an item, object, device, situation, ability, or power – anything that encompasses a possession of some kind.)




*What I meant by that was:*  I am looking forwards (not as in hopefully, but I can easily foresee the time) to the day when video games and computer games are a type of Virtual reality in which the end user self-programs or programs the game himself to ignore the rules of the world and instead gives himself the power to shape the world as he sees fit. You do though already see that with Cheat Codes. Cheat Codes often allow the user to ignore certain "Game Rules and World Structures," in effect creating a totally user-advantaged world in which the player can ignore the effects everyone else would be subject to. For instance a cheat code might make you invulnerable to harm, give you so many "hit or health points" that you cannot in effect be killed, cause you to automatically regenerated if injured, or give you the perfect and unstoppable killing weapon.

So in addition to those types of things I am also looking forwards to the day when the challenge of any video game is like a Virtual World without the threat of real risk, and eventually of RPGs that are similarly able to be programmed by the user (I'll give the DM my Wish List of things I desire, which are in effect my individual and personal Cheat Code) being, in effect, the same. I am of course exaggerating the idea a bit to make a larger point about the Game World.

Why should my wish list not include eventually the ability to regenerate whenever I fall below a certain number of hit points, why not give me a suit of armor that makes me invulnerable, and while we are at it why not let me program the game world DM, it is after all made for me, the end-user? (I could easily create such devices and defend them on purely mechanical and gaming notions, if my only criteria is that the game should be about what the player really wants above all other considerations.) So my Wish List or my Cheat Code becomes my ability to re-program the game world so that if effect "I Nero" become the world, not the character interfacing with the world. Take the idea far enough and eventually why have the DM design the world at all or structure how it works? Just let me (the world exists for me anyway) do it and I'll skip straight to level 3000, make myself invulnerable, give myself the best weapons and armor and so forth and I can go straight to butchering the gods and remaking the world in my Own Image? That is more fun after all than facing any sort of limitation to my ultimate aim of ultimate power and bad-assery.

Now does that often happen as I've just described above? Probably very, very rarely? As I said I am exaggerating for implicational effect.

But take the idea of wish lists and cheat codes and give-aways far enough and that would be the ultimate end, a Virtual Reality world in which the world is merely a plastic stage backdrop, worse yet it would be nothing more than a blue-screen that bears no virtual resemblance to anything other than a self-programmed and self-serving non-reality.

So that's what I meant even if that's not what I said.

By the way I think there is another good discussion about programming and role status in *This Thread*. I won't repeat here what I said, or what others said, there, but I think it is really a related discussion.

Because I think that certain forms of player-programming are good (within reason), even necessary to good games, such as when players program and reprogram their own characters to better interact with and interface with _*"their world."*_ When they start programming and re-programming the World at Large, I personally see no value and nothing at all heroic in that. Because heroism is not programming the world to your best advantage, it is using the world as it is to create something better for everyone else. And that is definitely not programming, though it may subsume certain ideas about how you want the world to be, it is struggle. Heroism is not a wish for how the world will be, it is the hard work required to make it that way.

Anywho I gotta go. But I'm glad this thread kinda took off. (Though I wouldn't have imagined it before hand.)
Some of the comments have made me think about a lot of interesting ideas.
So, thanks for the comments.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 14, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Because everyone understands one thing: Everything that happens in the game happens because the DM wants it to happen.  We understand that the DM has the power to overrule any random tables he's rolling on, the ability to fudge dice, and so on.  Beyond that, he has the ability to decide what items go on that random table and whether or not he rolls on it at all.
> 
> ...
> 
> When I play a game, I expect that the DM has at least one hand on the wheel at all times and at least makes minor adjustments to make sure the game doesn't crash into a brick wall.  The idea that a DM would simply let "realism", random tables, or "logic" cause a TPK never really enters into my head.




I am constantly telling my players that it is never me, the DM, doing X or Y to them; it is the setting and its inhabitants. I never seek to kill off characters; NPCs, on the other hand, may want to do so very much.

The distinction is, I feel, an important one, to the point that I try to make it very, very clear to new players that this is what is going on. The playstyle you're talking about here would seem to eventually lead to antagonistic DMing, because the players will interpret the DM's actions as antagonistic (whether intended as such or not). I'm not interested in a "DM vs. the players" set-up, because in such a thing, the DM always wins. The reverse, though - where it is silently understood that the DM and players are all working towards the same goal - doesn't interest me, either; there, players may get the sense that they are "unique and special snowflakes," or that they enjoy some sort of plot immunity.

In my mind, as the DM, my job is to set up the parameters of the setting, to determine reasonable chances of various events occuring, and to ensure that the setting remains interesting insofar as adventurers are concerned. Once the ball is set in motion, my job is purely as rules-adjudicator and as the players' means to access the world; an interface that enforces the physics of the world in question. My stance - as the DM - regarding the PCs is neutral and uncaring, just as the stance of the universe towards them is neutral and uncaring. 

Do I necessarily enjoy it when the game ends in a TPK? No, not really. But at the point where it becomes a TPK, the situation is ideally out of my hands: the events that led to the party's death were predetermined (by which I mean that they were placed there without consideration of the party, specifically). If a situation would logically or sensibly end in a TPK, then it should do so.


----------



## jim pinto (Mar 14, 2009)

I am still reading the entirety of this thread, so I'm not sure if this was said yet…

…but scavenging the dead for treasure, isn't very heroic to begin with. Handing a GM a registry of items he can pick up for the "treasure shower" fits right in with the mercenary manner of this gaming trope. 1st Edition wasn't about Heroism, so the fact that some of these metagaming conventions survived through the iterations is indicative of so many other problems with the game that your original post can't really be about D&D anymore. It can be about a host of smaller press games or some home-brew _heartbreaker_ that allows players to build the exact archtype they want. But D&D is about growing into your pants, not buying the right pair of pants in the first place.

3.x and 4E are cannibalized retinue, left-over from designers who did not approach the gestalt of the product, but rather fine-tuned the game design to the way people would "probably" play it. In essence, making D&D the former of your arguments… the game is there for the players and as such should respond to their id and not their intellect. That wasn't a slam. Gaming is about fun for the majority of people doing it. It is not a noble exploration of morays and/or counter-culture storytelling methods. It's perhaps (another reason) why people flee the gaming table and join MMOs.

Jack7, your original post is excellently-written and well thought out. I think it's a disservice to your theoretic argument and anathema to the concept of game forums that people would take offense to your obvious extreme and academic approach to game theory. Obviously a new (and/or extreme) opinion is going to invite controversy. But I don't recall you writing anywhere that Gamer65109 is a jerk and is playing wrong. If people are happy scavenging the dead for +1 swords, let them. I'm just sorry that in 35 years we haven't invented a new way to give treasure and/or XP to PCs other than killing and looting.

Again. That's for the post. Extremely enjoyable read.


----------



## jim pinto (Mar 14, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> With that out of the way, any player who comes to me with a wish list had also better be prepared to explain in some detail how she plans to come by these items. Consult with a sage or seek a divination to learn the whereabouts? Complete a quest on behalf of a powerful spellcaster in exchange for crafting it? Sneak into the guarded and warded armory of the king to steal it?




Does anyone remember Earthdawn? It had a system for putting XP into magic items to unlock future powers, so you kept the same weapon forever, but it just got more and more useful.

Is "finding" treasure such an enamored trope in gaming that we can't move away from it. Does it prohibits players and GMs from making more realistic game worlds? Or does every licensed product have to kowtow to the limitations and expectations of "treasure?"

[Insert Diablo which is essentially a dungeon-crawl simulation and hardly a game]


----------



## Emirikol (Mar 14, 2009)

*I play 4e in the WARHAMMER FANTASY world*

I play 4e in the WARHAMMER FANTASY world.

That means that my world exists because some guys play miniatures wargames.

jh


----------



## shilsen (Mar 15, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Risk is part of the game. If your notion of good role-playing is saying, "Dungeons and dragons are too dangerous, so I'll just stay in Town," then maybe the game is not for you. Initiative is the mark of the potential hero, the leader, not the follower. If for some reason you "don't know what to do" and waffle around waiting for someone to tell you instead of GOING OUT AND DOING SOMETHING, then maybe the game is not for you. It's a game of "swords & sorcery," for the love of Leiber! Adventure is an end in itself! When there's a shortage of trouble, swordsmen and sorcerers _make_ some.
> 
> And more often than not, trouble leads them to an early grave. Then we pick up dice, paper, and pencil ... roll up a new persona ... and come back swinging into the game that has no end, no final defeat. Fight on!




Whether risk is part of the game or not depends on how you define risk. As far as I'm concerned, for example - what risk? If the player can just roll up a new character, there's no risk to the player. Perhaps the risk of not getting to play a certain character as long as they wanted to, but that's a pretty minor risk in my book, especially since it will (depending on the player) be offset by the opportunity to run a number of fun characters, the chance to have a heroic and memorable character death, etc. One could argue that there's greater risk in a game of chess, since you might actually lose, whereas in D&D, as you note, there is "no end, no final defeat." There is, in my estimation, no genuine and fundamental risk in the game (mainly because it is a game), which is just fine by me. It just invalidates a lot of the assumptions made in this thread, including many of the OP's.


----------



## Jack7 (Mar 15, 2009)

> Jack7, your original post is excellently-written and well thought out. I think it's a disservice to your theoretic argument and anathema to the concept of game forums that people would take offense to your obvious extreme and academic approach to game theory. Obviously a new (and/or extreme) opinion is going to invite controversy. But I don't recall you writing anywhere that Gamer65109 is a jerk and is playing wrong. If people are happy scavenging the dead for +1 swords, let them. I'm just sorry that in 35 years we haven't invented a new way to give treasure and/or XP to PCs other than killing and looting.
> 
> Again. That's for the post. Extremely enjoyable read.





I appreciate that point of view Jim, I really do.

I also hope that as time wears on here (on this site) and the edition wars die away that others will not automatically equate a criticism with a scree or a personal attack. (I don't understand feeling personally attacked by a discussion of gaming ideas anyways, but to each their own.)

You can't improve anything without carefully examining and analyzing it, and without criticizing it.

So, it doesn't bother me that people on the internet (after all I don't know them) automatically criticize my ideas or even me personally, but it does sort of amuse me every time automatic assumptions are made about my, or anyone else's "real intentions" in saying something.

So I get where you are coming from.

Nevertheless I am used to my ideas being sort of reflexively criticized, not just here, but in matters like casework, Intel analysis, inventing, experimentation, a whole host of things. (_You should hear what my wife calls me._) That's just part of the game when you take a view which is "an extreme approach" as you would say. And I know what you mean by that. 

Now I'm not saying the ideas I presented in the original post are new by any measure, but I kinda suspected some would object to them form the very beginning, and that's fine by me. That's the way life works.

I kinda wish sometimes that people would slow down a little and actually listen to what is being said before having a reflexive reaction sometimes, but, C'est la vie. I don't always explain things perfectly either. And sometimes better things happen in the meantime by the arguments that break out when people misunderstand each other. This thread has given me a lot of ideas simply by the arguments that have broken out over this or that, discussing stuff I had never originally intended or even thought about. And personally I like that kinda thing. To me personally it is far more important that some new or better discovery be made than that everybody like me or agree with me.

But I do appreciate people like you stepping back and carefully examining a thing before making automatic assumptions.

Anyways, see ya.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 15, 2009)

The "programming the world" aspect of play that Jack 7 brought up is indeed a part of many games. I would not call them "role-playing" games, though. "Narrative" and "story-telling" are terms currently in common use.

In such a game, the player's POV is not so much that of a character in a world as that of an _author_ creating a fictional world.

Experience suggests to me that such a game calls for rules designed with that process in mind, _not_ haphazardly hacked or "fudged" RPG rules. It can make good use of the Game Master role, but the assumption that a GM is _necessary_ -- and that he or she ought to have all the powers customary in an RPG -- can really screw up the design.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 15, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> I am constantly telling my players that it is never me, the DM, doing X or Y to them; it is the setting and its inhabitants. I never seek to kill off characters; NPCs, on the other hand, may want to do so very much.
> 
> The distinction is, I feel, an important one, to the point that I try to make it very, very clear to new players that this is what is going on. The playstyle you're talking about here would seem to eventually lead to antagonistic DMing, because the players will interpret the DM's actions as antagonistic (whether intended as such or not). I'm not interested in a "DM vs. the players" set-up, because in such a thing, the DM always wins. The reverse, though - where it is silently understood that the DM and players are all working towards the same goal - doesn't interest me, either; there, players may get the sense that they are "unique and special snowflakes," or that they enjoy some sort of plot immunity.
> 
> ...




Well, let me bring a hated word here: 

What I, as the DM want, is "fun". I want fun. I have fun when my players are having fun. 

If my players enjoy total "realismn" or "verisimilitude" with Pirates jumping on-top of them due to the random likelihood* of them arriving there and killing the entire crew, I will do that. But if they don't, I just won't. There will be a way out.

If a TPK can lead to an interesting situation in game, I am okay with it. If it just feels pointless, I'd rather avoid it. 


*) I like random tables in a way - especially because they provide me with ideas for stuff that can happen/be found etc. But in another way - they don't explain why stuff happens.
If I roll my 5 % chance that the party will encounter the Dragon in the forest, the table doesn't tell me _why_ he does that exactly at this moment. And if I figure that the PCs won't survive any combat encounter against him, why shouldn't I make up a story that makes the combat option less likely - and dependent on the PCs actions?
Of course, I also could make up a random table giving the Dragons motivation. But at some point; I think I as the DM should take _direct_ control of the game. Everything relying on chance just don't work. Players usually don't roll the dice to determine whether they help the mayor or rather explore the dungeon of carnage. Why should I, as the DM, be differently? 

---

In a general "sandbox" context. I tend to think I would be willing and able to run a "tailored" sandbox. Of course, there are certain fixed points in a campaign. A dragon that is known to be of adult age won't change to an Ancient Wyrm or Young dragon just because of the PCs level. But the challenge that would involve him would change. 1st level PCs don't go hunting adult Dragos, and 20th level PCs will probably not find much challenge in fighting them. So a 1st level challenge might be a social challgene or an escape challenge (the PCs try to avoid getting eaten). At 20th level, the Pcs might want to make the dragon an ally so he helps them convincing other dragons of help. (Another social challenge). Or they try to trick him into attacking another foe and buying them some time. 

The unique and intersting thing about a sandbox to me is that the PCs do have a lot of of decisions to make what goals they choose for themselves and which hooks they follow - and that these decisions impact the game world. The hooks they don't follow don't get forgotten, they grow. If they didn't deal with the Goblin attacks at 1st level, the Goblins might grow bold and attack a village, gaining new (more powerful) allies - allies that the 5th level PCs could choose to engage. A wizard hiding himself in his tower might, at 1st level, ask the PCs for some aid in his research, at 10th level, he might have invented a powerful necromantic ritual that gives him power over the dead, and at 20th level, he might be an influential member of an undead army trying to conquer the world.


----------



## jim pinto (Mar 15, 2009)

*fallacy*

This came up earlier… and I apologize if it's a forked thread… but I thought it bears some discussion.

The DM is not here to entertain.

I don't know where this fallacy started. I'm sure early gamers assumed the GM was enjoying the game the most and therefore was responsible for doing ALL the work ahead of time AND making sure everyone was entertained at peak level.

It's the sort of antiquated approach to RPGs that pushes people away from mainstream gaming and further into the hobbyist market with games that cater more closely to how they want to play. Zero-prep games are becoming more and more popular and games without GMs are popular for just this reason.

Wish-lists are a symptom of the thinking that _I deserve to be entertained,_ not that the game needs to be fun (this is not 100% overlaps on the venn diagram). If the game needs to be fun, for everyone (equally, at all times), then more players would take on an active role and not leave so much work in the GMs hands. When this kink in gaming is more adequately addressed, notions of adversarialism (GM vs. PC) and wish-fulfillment start to dissolve.

ASIDE: 
Jack7… check out James Maliszewski's blog and his post on Gygaxian Naturalism. You might enjoy some of his insight on this topic.
GROGNARDIA: Gygaxian "Naturalism"


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 15, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> When I play a game, I expect that the DM has at least one hand on the wheel at all times and at least makes minor adjustments to make sure the game doesn't crash into a brick wall.  The idea that a DM would simply let "realism", random tables, or "logic" cause a TPK never really enters into my head.



I have both hands on the wheel at all times.  However, I'm driving blindfold down a road I've only seen once on a badly-drawn map (my storyboard) and I've got 3 or 4 or 5 player-navigators each telling both me and each other where to go; rarely agreeing and even less often bothering to look out the front windshield for the brick walls.

I've never totalled the whole car, but there's been lots and lots and *lots* of avatar-navigators (characters) that have either jumped, fallen, or been thrown out the windows and never seen again.

And to *jim pinto*, I heartily disagree: the DM *is* there to entertain.  However, the players are also there to entertain the DM; and this often seems to be forgotten in the equation.

Lan-"shut up and drive"-efan


----------



## Jack7 (Mar 15, 2009)

*Ghost in the Machine*



> ASIDE:
> Jack7… check out James Maliszewski's blog and his post on Gygaxian Naturalism. You might enjoy some of his insight on this topic.





_Our revels now are ended. These our actors, 
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and 
Are melted into air, into thin air: 
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, 
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces, 
The solemn temples, the great globe itself, 
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, 
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, 
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff 
As dreams are made on; and our little life 
Is rounded with a sleep_. 


Jim, I thought the article on _*Gygaxian Naturalism*_ was very well considered. I also liked the complimentary/competing article on_* The Dungeon as Mythic Underworld.*_

Personally in my milieu or setting there are two worlds: our "Real World" historically set in Constantinople circa 800 AD, and another world that is the home of Elves and Dwarves, etc, though they do not call themselves that.

Our real world is a physical world of pragmatic physics and sconce and technology (for the time period explored), and the other world is a more supernatural/mythic world populated by other creatures, like Elves, Giants, Monsters, and so forth though that world is geographically identical to ours.

Creatures and monsters from that "Other World" visit our world from time to time to "adventure" and men from our world visit the other world from time to time to "adventure." And these are always interesting scenarios and missions.

But I have found that when these two different worlds overlap (the world of men, and the world of non-men) then that is when the bets adventures really occur. When these two different worlds overlap they create a Third World, a sort of Underground World, or Over-World, or you might even say a Hyper-World, depending on how you want to classify and define it.

When that happens very interesting things take place because in that world the rules of how things operate are constantly _*"in-flux,"*_ that is, the Underworld does not have to operate exactly like the Real World, our world, nor does it have to operate exactly like the Other World. In the Underworld psychical laws and supernatural paradigms and even psychological and perceptual viewpoints don't have to necessarily act like they would in either of the other two worlds. And this creates very interesting "adventures" because in the Underworld both of the other worlds are endangered, and because outcomes are not always easy to predict as to what effect they will have on anyone.

But regardless of what world the players are adventuring in, it seems to me that each world in an RPG has to have its own "Reality." And the reason is simple to see. A character could never become anything more than a hollow "Sheet," a sort of blank cipher if his world lacks all reality. Anymore than a real man can become anything "real" if his environment lacks "reality." For instance imagine that the world was merely what you wanted it to be. That you could arise any given morning, or every morning, or you could even create when morning was or was not, and reshape the world into any form you wished? What then at the end of the day is the value of our work? Your family? Your nation? Your community? Your accomplishments? Your world? If the world is about accomplishments then you need a stable base of operations in which to act, one in which you can rely upon the reality of outcomes. If RPGs are about role play then one has to be able to role play, and how can one role play if the world is insubstantial? 

Such a world is like an Earth made of Vapors. There is nothing solid, substantial, or lasting to push against. There is no atmosphere, no terra firma, nothing of real reliability, no force of gravity against which to push to leave a mark. It really is a video game world, as they currently exist. Cut it off and the whole world falls to zero once again. You can program it to be anything you want it to be at any point. (Though even modern video and computer games have at least learned this very vital lesson, a _*"Save Function"*_ makes for a much, much more interesting game than one in which you really have to restart from the beginning every time you play. That adds significantly to the "realism" of the video game world. Why then if video games understand the sales-value of more realism would RPGs want to seek the dubious value of less realism in this sense?) You can be a doctor one second, a policeman the next, but nothing lasts beyond the immediate desire. You can have a Holy Avenger one second, then "sell that off" because your desire flags and get a really cool nuclear fusion gun the next. In a world dominated by pure gamism nothing has any lasting value, certainly not heroism. _How can characters have any gravitas if the world has no gravity? _

On the front of the Player's Handbook it says plainly _*Arcane, Divine, and Martial Heroes*_. That is the point of most heroic fantasy games, *"Heroism."* But if heroism has a history and a consistency that lasts only until the next "reboot," until the next re-programming, then it has absolutely no reality, not even an imaginary one. Heroism must have consistency, it must have  a history, it must have a world and a reality to _"push against,"_ it must have a *"Center of Gravity."* This is indeed the very reason for the development of Milieus and Worlds in the first place. If there were no need of realities beyond the character then the player could simply invent any world he desired for each different game he played. He'd have the excitement of the fight he scripted in any environment he choose, but does that create heroic characters? Or just cartoon ones?

Without a world with its own reality all you have is a collection of Powers, not a Character. Without struggle and lasting accomplishment all you have are video game personas with no reality outside the time the power button turns on, and the time it turns off again. In fiction a character without a real and viable world in which to play his part is no more real or substantial than a man would be in our world if it dissolved every day and then reformed as something else every night. You'd have no development in the man because you'd have no environment in which to develop. All developments in such a world would be of short momentary value at best. Nothing could really move him because he world be aware that nothing is _"substantial,"_ everything is shadow. How long could a man really invest himself in such a world without absolute boredom being the inevitable result,_ and to what end would his investment pay any dividend other than immediate diversion?_

And in such a game all you have is a gamey-game, where nothing exists except for the sake of play, but even the play has no value beyond the moment of play. _So how could a *Character* possibly develop?_ He could gain bonuses, but not a true nature. He could gain levels, but he could gain little else worth mentioning. Certainly not even _*an imaginary approximation of heroism*_. For nothing lasts. Not even his own achievements.

You can't have a hero who is made of nothing, with no consistency, and you can't have a hero operating in a world of no substance that lacks all history.

Even imaginary heroes need to be made of *"firmer stuff"* than that.


----------



## jim pinto (Mar 16, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> And to *jim pinto*, I heartily disagree: the DM *is* there to entertain.  However, the players are also there to entertain the DM; and this often seems to be forgotten in the equation.




Lanefan... i respect your right to disagree, although I'd be curious to know more than just "jim is wrong." Why do you perceive the "entertainment" avenue of RPGs to be the path to fun, rather than the zero-prep, everyone has to work it path to fun that many indie game prescribe to?

In other words, why is it okay to put 75-100% of the work on the GM's shoulders in the traditional gaming model? Do you think the "work" that PCs do during games equates in any way with the work a GM does to prep a game?

Assuming Jack7 is correct in his original analysis, don't you see a corrolation between how PC's expectations are fed by this somewhat archaic methodology of [world prep, adventure prep, game prep] vs. [stat prep]. I'm being a little curt in my analysis, because I don't want to type all day, but I think it gets to the meat of it, at least from my perspective.

I realize this entire GM-work discussion is a tangent of the original post, but I think if you tackle this conjectured thinking about RPGs you start to open up the gaming vista before you to a myriad more possibilities when it comes to gaming.


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Mar 16, 2009)

jim pinto said:


> Lanefan... i respect your right to disagree, although I'd be curious to know more than just "jim is wrong." Why do you perceive the "entertainment" avenue of RPGs to be the path to fun, rather than the zero-prep, everyone has to work it path to fun that many indie game prescribe to?
> 
> In other words, why is it okay to put 75-100% of the work on the GM's shoulders in the traditional gaming model? Do you think the "work" that PCs do during games equates in any way with the work a GM does to prep a game?
> 
> ...



Here's a couple questions about the basis of your opinion for you to consider: If the people participating in the game are not being entertained, what exactly is it that they are doing? Also, why are you of the view that being entertained requires preparation and work?

Entertainment is watching or taking part in activities which give you enjoyment. That is what a game is. To have fun is to be entertained, and you play games to have fun. The source of the entertainment is another question, but that's the root of the thing. 

Have you ever been entertained by an improv comedian? If you say yes, as most people would, that is admitting that entertainment does not require preparation. D&D is little different; DMs who _want_ to put all that prep in will, whether or not you agree that they _should_. DMs who _want _to improvise and fly without preparation will, whether or not you agree they _should_. Different people derive enjoyment from different aspects of the game.


----------



## jim pinto (Mar 16, 2009)

*another thought*

TV and Movies "entertain" actively while keeping the audience passive and disengaged from the action on the screen. They don't provide TOOLS for me to entertain myself, they entertain me, so I can passively sit back and "enjoy the show." Books engage and force me to think and are a different category.

i didn't make the TV show, or the characters, and their certainly not saying the things i would have made them say. in a traditional rpg, the GM in in charge of 99% of the world logic and the components of that world. what other calculation can one draw from this?

in an ideal state, the GM would be nonexistent; barring that, the GM would provide the sandbox for people to have fun in, without being expected to put on a clown nose and entertain the kiddies with antics and special effects.

now, getting rid of the GM is so far removed from what D&D players have come to expect about RPGs, i don't even dare suggest that today on here. but it does open the door for other problems. but at that point, the problems are the responsibility of everyone at the table to solve, not a single GM.

case in point, i was running a fantasy game some six years ago for friends. in addition to building a world bustling with "stuff", i made NPCs, adventures, a campaign story, and finally i had to manage four other personalities at the table who all wanted something else out of the game (socialization, story, character, combat). eventually the players decided that one of the other players wasn't fitting in any longer, and after a long meeting out of game without that player (talk about drama), it became my responsibility as GM to ask that player not to show up any longer, despite the fact that i didn't have any of the issues the other players had.

A perfect example of the inequality of labor associated with the notion of GM as "entertainer."

This does not mean games can't be fun and that people can't be entertained by their gaming experience. But unless a gaming session is going to cost money or be interrupted by commercials for snacks, players probably shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the fruits of someone else's labors without bringing something to the table.

It really is as simple as that. The key of course is more games with zero-prep that bring the players into the design of the "environment." Enough indie games are doing this, so I'm not sure how much weight this carries on this website. Most gamers looking for "more" already know that waiting for the mission to be revealed is no where near as fun as making the mission yourself. And players looking to be "entertained" already have the myriad of D&D adventures the provide exactly that outlet for gameplay.


----------



## jim pinto (Mar 16, 2009)

Lord Sessadore said:


> Here's a couple questions about the basis of your opinion for you to consider: If the people participating in the game are not being entertained, what exactly is it that they are doing? Also, why are you of the view that being entertained requires preparation and work?




The majority of what has been so far has been about world creation, realities, wish lists, and so on. A lot of that is prep work for someone. Even if it's fun for him to do, it's still work and requires time.



Lord Sessadore said:


> Entertainment is watching or taking part in activities which give you enjoyment. That is what a game is. To have fun is to be entertained, and you play games to have fun. The source of the entertainment is another question, but that's the root of the thing.




Yes. Excellent point. Entertainment is those things. But watching is passive and taking part in an activity is active. There's a huge difference here in expectation. If someone (and many players do this) shows up to a game and half-asses his way through the session, making poor decisions, triggering traps just to do it, opening doors and getting monsters to chase him, and so on, without any thought to how cause and effect might unhinge the fun of the game for others, it becomes the JOB of the GM to fix it.

Usually. Right?

And I think you are using FUN and ENTERTAINMENT as synonyms and I am being very careful to split the hairs between the too. I think gaming should be fun. No doubt. But I also think the work load should be egalitarian.



Lord Sessadore said:


> Have you ever been entertained by an improv comedian? If you say yes, as most people would, that is admitting that entertainment does not require preparation. D&D is little different; DMs who _want_ to put all that prep in will, whether or not you agree that they _should_. DMs who _want _to improvise and fly without preparation will, whether or not you agree they _should_. Different people derive enjoyment from different aspects of the game.




I also PAY the comedian to entertain me. A very important distinction. The comedian you get for free, usually isn't funny.

As for the rest of your point, I'm not taking away FUN from the GM, I'm trying to lighten his workload, so he can enjoy the fun with everyone else, instead of feeling like an underpaid and underappreciated actor. What else is a wishlist, but another way for the PCs to tell the GM that he's not living up to their expectations.


----------



## jim pinto (Mar 16, 2009)

Jack7.... good post. Again.

What about a consideration of what activities make a character Heroic. Instead of gauging the world on alignment, but rather acts of courage, you (in effect) create a new game or a new way of playing an old game.

One of the things I've written about before is that D&D doesn't let me choose to join the lich or ally with the orcs or otherwise find a way past the adversaries without "defeating" them. In this, D&D assumes I always want to kill/trick everything that is "bad," regardless of my alignment.

How we approach the game, in essence, is the flaws we find in it. D&D (from 2nd edition on) was never designed to do what you are talking about. And 1st edition didn't care if you were a hero. Plundering tombs and pilfering the dead are not heroic activities. Killing orcs because they look different than you isn't either.

When we begin to examine a lot of the questions that you are bringing up, we can see the tropes and misconceptions of D&D have perpetuated its design to this day, and vice versa. I mean, when was the last time you really read any good GMing advice in a TSR/WOTC book? You only really know how to run D&D because… well… you've always known.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 16, 2009)

> The DM is not here to entertain.




This DM _could_ be there to entertain for four hours ... for the same box-office price as the last semi-entertaining two-hour movie.

Roll up!


----------



## FireLance (Mar 16, 2009)

jim pinto said:


> As for the rest of your point, I'm not taking away FUN from the GM, I'm trying to lighten his workload, so he can enjoy the fun with everyone else, instead of feeling like an underpaid and underappreciated actor. What else is a wishlist, but another way for the PCs to tell the GM that he's not living up to their expectations.



Jim, I find it ironic that on the one hand, you complain that the GM has too much work to do, and on the other hand you complain about one of the tools that could lighten the GM's workload.  If the DM and the players approach wishlists in the right spirit, they can save the DM the time that he would have otherwise spent on picking magic items for the PCs. Of course, the counter to this would be your broader point that the DM shouldn't be entertaining the players, and hence, he shouldn't be picking magic items with the PCs in mind in the first place. 

Now, I do agree that the DM's job should be made as simple as possible, but I also believe that a pure sandbox-style campaign is only one of the possible solutions. A pre-made sandbox campaign product, among other things, relieves the DM of the need to create locations, monsters and NPCs, develop situations and adventures, and generate treasure and other rewards. If there is a sufficient level of comfort within the group, the DM could just as easily give the responsibility for any of the above to one or more of the players instead of relying on the sandbox product. 

Taking turns to DM is another way to make the workload more egalitarian, at least within a gaming group (this is my own group's preferred solution, by the way). As a group, we do expect that whoever is in the DM chair for the session has the responsibility to entertain the players, not necessarily by putting on a clown nose, performing antics or producing special effects, but by coming up with interesting situations and challenges for the PCs to tackle. However, we also recognize that we should do the same when it's our turn to DM.


----------



## jim pinto (Mar 16, 2009)

Thanks for the response Firelance. If even 1% of this…



FireLance said:


> Robin Laws Game Style Quiz Result: Tactician
> Tactician 100%/Power Gamer 100%/Butt-Kicker 92%/Specialist 67%/Storyteller 67%/Casual Gamer 58%/Method Actor 50%




… is true, then I can only assume you and I come from very very very different schools of thought about gaming. I can't imagine we game the same way or for that matter, play the same games. If my assumption is false, I apologize, but I recognize there are styles of play that I just do not encounter anymore in my travels.

We're unlikely to agree on this point of GM-less games because,

a. I don't game like you
b. You are comfortable doing what you do and don't want to change
c. There's a misunderstanding (because I'm not explaining myself well) that I think you're doing it wrong

That's not an attack. That's a statement of fact. D&D isn't my game of choice anymore, so my opinion here is even less valid than it used to be.

Taking the workload off the GM is only a portion of my point. The mentality that "I didn't enjoy this game because of the GM" is so rampant in this hobby (and such a fallacy among gamers) to even bring it up as ludicrous causes people's heads to spin. If the GM was bad, what did you do as a player to fix it? Can you even imagine playing D&D without a GM? Can you imagine a game world without XP or treasure? Do players really sit down for Diablo because it captures High Fantasy Heroism or because the monsters puke out treasure?

I'm well-aware that 99% of gamers do not agree with me on this point of a GM free of the burden of being the entertainer. But I won't stop me from believing that enough symptoms of gaming exist because of the main fallacy/diseases that plague D&D:

1. GM is here to entertain
2. XP is the only way for me to develop my character
3. US vs. Them (the GM is also the enemy)
    which leads to a subset disease, the GM stops me from winning
4. Cooperation vs. Competition (when did teamwork disappear)
5. Class/Skill systems are superior to Class/Skill systems

This tangent has gone on long enough for me to say, I should either drop it or bring it to a new thread. I don't read enworld all that much, and I'm not sure if this topic has ever come up before. But, if you want to make D&D more accessible and more viable as a product in the 21st century… find a way to make it zero-prep and GM-friendly and more people will be playing it. It's competing against the greatest zero-prep game of all time, WoW. And while that phrase may spark a riot, I'm trying to make a point, not inflame people that are already upset.

Sorry for the tangent.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 16, 2009)

[B said:
			
		

> GnomeWorks[/B]
> 
> ]
> _I am constantly telling my players that it is never me, the DM, doing X or Y to them; it is the setting and its inhabitants. I never seek to kill off characters; NPCs, on the other hand, may want to do so very much.
> _



_
_
Right, right.  Except it really is you.  Because the NPCs aren't real.


> The distinction is, I feel, an important one, to the point that I try to make it very, very clear to new players that this is what is going on. The playstyle you're talking about here would seem to eventually lead to antagonistic DMing, because the players will interpret the DM's actions as antagonistic (whether intended as such or not). I'm not interested in a "DM vs. the players" set-up, because in such a thing, the DM always wins. The reverse, though - where it is silently understood that the DM and players are all working towards the same goal - doesn't interest me, either; there, players may get the sense that they are "unique and special snowflakes," or that they enjoy some sort of plot immunity.



Let me not overstate myself.  I am a HUGE (the only?) proponent of illusionism.  I totally agree that you want the players to *feel* like the NPCs are real, living people, and like the NPCs actions are really derived from their very real decisions and motivations.  I'm totally down with that.

But you can't believe your own propaganda, man.  Obviously its you doing things to the characters, not "the NPCs" because you are the NPCs.  You created them, you control their every action, you control the world they live in, you control... everything.  Everything except the PCs, of course.

Its not unbounded control.  In order to make a fun game, it has to be relatively believable.  And that may mean that you have to do something that kind of sucks.  Like hypothetically, if you've had the evil NPC scream at the Paladin, "I don't care if you kill me!  I will eat your heart before I die!" then you might have to have the evil NPC coup de gras the unconscious paladin, even though the evil NPC is obviously losing his last chance at survival by spending his turn hacking apart a downed foe.  Or if you declare that a particular lake is full of lava, expecting the party to avoid it, and instead they get into a fight in a rope bridge above the lava and fall in, well, they're probably gonna die because you said it was lava and that's what lava does.

But there's two major differences between my way of looking at these things, and the predominate view in this thread.

1. I acknowledge that ultimately it was me who did it.  I invented the NPCs motivations knowing full well they might lead to a PC death.  I put the lake of lava there.  And so, when I do these things, I do so from the perspective of someone who's considered the repercussions that are likely to be felt by the players.  Honestly, I expect most other people do this as well.  

2. I have a little different threshold for what counts as affecting realism.  Basically, if the players don't know about it, it isn't *real* yet.  Because what matters isn't creating a world that feels real for me.  It can't, because I know darn well that I made it up.  

What matters is creating a world that feels real for the players.  Lets say that I secretly plan on an orc strike team scouting for them and ambushing them after their fight with the minotaur.  Its all quite logical, they're in a conflict with the orcs, the orcs have scouts, the orcs like to ambush people, everything's well and good.  But the fight with the minotaur is particularly taxing, and I look at the orcs and realize that one or more PC deaths are likely if I continue with this plan.  

If I alter the plan, maybe by reducing the strength of the orc's force, or changing the terrain to somewhere more favorable for the PCs, or adjusting the encounter so that the PCs have a chance to notice the orcs in advance and slip away in a non combat encounter, or even just plain reschedule the whole fight for another time, I'm not affecting the player's sense of realism.  Because they don't know that anything was changed, because they don't know the original nature of my plans.

Obviously if you take this to extremes and envision a world in which I've covered all the sharp edges with foam, a player might eventually notice something.  But there are a lot of ways to create a sense of danger that don't involve killing off PCs because you're concerned about changing a note you made before the session that no one other than you has ever read.  Exactly what those techniques are is too big of an issue for this thread (they vary depending on your campaign's take on resurrection magic, your game's view on replacement characters, your player's attachment to their present characters, and so on), but there are plenty of them.

The sense I get from this conversation is that a lot of well meaning DMs have a lot invested in creating a sense of realism about their gameworld.  I also suspect that those DMs care just as much as anyone else about creating a fun game for their players.  In pursuit of that, they're very leery about ever admitting that the Great Oz is really just a man behind the curtain.  Its become kind of a taboo issue for them, because its not something you can ever tell the players if you want them to keep believing (or suspending their disbelief) in Oz.

But you're online.  Your players aren't reading.  You can stop pretending.  We're all DMs, and we all know we're the ones ultimately responsible for things like the personality of the Orc Overlord of the living quarters of the Evil Dragon.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 16, 2009)

I believe in the RPG anthropic principle: by definition, RPGs are only set in worlds and situations worth playing RPGs of.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 16, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Right, right.  Except it really is you.  Because the NPCs aren't real.




I am well aware that you like to attack the stance of those who attempt to interact with and portray the world as a thing in and of itself.

When an NPC takes an action, I attempt to remove myself - as much as is possible, given the situation and mechanics used - from the decisions made regarding that action. In an ideal world, an NPC's actions in a given situation would be resolvable as a function of the situation and the NPC's personality and abilities.



> Let me not overstate myself.  I am a HUGE (the only?) proponent of illusionism.  I totally agree that you want the players to *feel* like the NPCs are real, living people, and like the NPCs actions are really derived from their very real decisions and motivations.  I'm totally down with that.




As a GM, such a game is meaningless for me. If the world which I am attempting to present to the players exists only at my whim, and I allow myself direct access to it without interacting with it only through mechanical channels of the system upon which it is built, then running a game is a futile exercise; it has no meaning.



> But you can't believe your own propaganda, man.  Obviously its you doing things to the characters, not "the NPCs" because you are the NPCs.  You created them, you control their every action, you control the world they live in, you control... everything.  Everything except the PCs, of course.




No, I do *not* control their actions. I control the parameters of their creation and in which they operate. In an ideal set of game mechanics, I would be able to simply "turn a crank" in order to generate new NPCs (based upon previously existing NPCs) and determine their actions for a given situation.

Is GM interaction necessary, at some points, in order to create a reasonable setting? At this point, yes, and it is probably highly unlikely that that requirement will cease to exist. But that intervention can be minimized, and I seek the most minimization possible.



> 1. I acknowledge that ultimately it was me who did it.  I invented the NPCs motivations knowing full well they might lead to a PC death.  I put the lake of lava there.  And so, when I do these things, I do so from the perspective of someone who's considered the repercussions that are likely to be felt by the players.  Honestly, I expect most other people do this as well.




Ramifications towards the players are irrelevant; the world does not exist for their sake. If there is a lake of lava, perhaps the players should make a point of not joining a fight while over it, and - if such an event is unavoidable - seek to remove themselves from such peril at the earliest opportunity.

Did I construct the world? Yes. But its evolution over time is hopefully produced by a systematic "turn the crank" procedure in which I have little to no input. GM input is unavoidable, but it can be minimized, with the results of specific instances of GM intervention determined in manners that are sensible in regards to the mechanical foundation of the setting.



> 2. I have a little different threshold for what counts as affecting realism.  Basically, if the players don't know about it, it isn't *real* yet.  Because what matters isn't creating a world that feels real for me.  It can't, because I know darn well that I made it up.




No one, I think, is claiming that their settings have actual physical independent existence. They are not "real" in the sense that you are describing.

They are, however, "real" in the sense that they are mental constructs. A GM can very well, after creating his setting, seek to have as little meta-intervention into it as possible, instead working in the setting through predetermined systems for doing so - in our discussion, that would be game mechanics.

Through minimizing the amount of interaction that is completely and utterly meta, I make the setting a more "solid" mental construct; it ceases to be subject to my whims and instead "takes on a life of its own." While the system used to determine events inside that setting was decided upon arbitrarily by me, once the decision is made, it is not unmade, and I specifically do not modify or interact with the world directly.



> But the fight with the minotaur is particularly taxing, and I look at the orcs and realize that one or more PC deaths are likely if I continue with this plan.




If it makes sense, then the players will have to deal with this situation, either by attempting to fight or by running or by doing any number of other things.



> I'm not affecting the player's sense of realism.  Because they don't know that anything was changed, because they don't know the original nature of my plans.




Sure, their sense of realism would not be challenged, in this case.

However, as a GM, this sort of thing would irk me, because _I_ would know.



> But there are a lot of ways to create a sense of danger that don't involve killing off PCs because you're concerned about changing a note you made before the session that no one other than you has ever read.




Not every creature exists to be fought, not every chasm exists to be crossed.



> But you're online.  Your players aren't reading.  You can stop pretending.  We're all DMs, and we all know we're the ones ultimately responsible for things like the personality of the Orc Overlord of the living quarters of the Evil Dragon.




And I'm telling you that, as a GM, I don't want to be.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 16, 2009)

jim pinto said:


> Thanks for the response Firelance. If even 1% of this…
> 
> … is true, then I can only assume you and I come from very very very different schools of thought about gaming. I can't imagine we game the same way or for that matter, play the same games.



It's probably true.  However, I was addressing the more general point that wishlists could actually result in less need for DM preparation, so it seems strange to me that you don't appear to like them. After all, in an earlier post, you mentioned that waiting for the mission to be revealed is no where near as fun as making the mission yourself. If the DM is willing to delegate the responsibility for mission creation to the players, why not delegate the responsibility for reward assignment as well? And if the DM is willing to delegate the responsibility for reward assignment, how different is that from a wishlist?

I do think that you raise some very interesting points, though, and I wouldn't mind discussing them further. Perhaps, as you suggested, in a new thread?

Some initial thoughts, though:


> But, if you want to make D&D more accessible and more viable as a product in the 21st century… find a way to make it zero-prep and GM-friendly and more people will be playing it. It's competing against the greatest zero-prep game of all time, WoW. And while that phrase may spark a riot, I'm trying to make a point, not inflame people that are already upset.



I am not sure that D&D can ever compete with WoW on the zero-prep front. Hence, D&D's competitive advantage has to be in something other than zero-prep. Zero-prep, or something close to it, may turn fewer people away from D&D, but it isn't going to sell D&D in itself. For now, we can still stress the key advantages that it has over the MMORPG medium: among other things, a DM that is responsive to player input (more so than a computer processer, anyway), the possibility of the PCs setting and achieving their own in-game goals instead of choosing from a laundry list of potential quests, and the possibility of the PCs making lasting changes to the campaign world. I just wonder how much longer table-top games will retain these advantages.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 16, 2009)

jim pinto said:


> The mentality that "I didn't enjoy this game because of the GM" is so rampant in this hobby (and such a fallacy among gamers) to even bring it up as ludicrous causes people's heads to spin.




I agree with you, but I think that this can be "retrained" out of most players simply by running a good game where the DM expects the players to provide motive and fun.

I understand the distinction you are making between entertaining and providing a medium in which one can actively entertain oneself and others.

Nitpick:  A lot of books, IMHO, are attempts at "entertainment" (and so less engaging), whereas some film media require more from the viewer and spur interesting/philosophical/entertaining after-viewing conversation (and are so both more engaging and providing a medium for self-entertainment).



> Sorry for the tangent.




Love the tangent!  



RC


----------



## Mallus (Mar 16, 2009)

jim pinto said:


> The DM is not here to entertain.



When I DM, which is frequently, though not of late, I think of myself as entertainer, there to entertain, so to speak. This is no way implies that my players are merely a passive audience. 



> Wish-lists are a symptom of the thinking that _I deserve to be entertained,_ not that the game needs to be fun...



Is this opinion informed by anything other than a wish to ascribe less-than-flattering motives/mindsets to other people? 



> If the game needs to be fun, for everyone (equally, at all times), then more players would take on an active role and not leave so much work in the GMs hands.



Sure. One way to facilitate this is for the DM to distribute some of the narrative authority. Item wish lists can be seen as an _example_ of doing just that.  



> ... and wish-fulfillment start to dissolve.



Why would I want to dissolve the wish-fulfillment in my wish fulfillment fantasy? That sounds like nerd masochism .


----------



## Mallus (Mar 16, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> I am well aware that you like to attack the stance of those who attempt to interact with and portray the world as a thing in and of itself.



There's no sin in admitting the setting has a purpose. 



> When an NPC takes an action, I attempt to remove myself - as much as is possible, given the situation and mechanics used - from the decisions made regarding that action.



Cad is right about this because, despite a DM's best intentions, that 'as much as possible' ain't much. It's a difficult thing to do. Many, many, successful, well-regarded _authors_ can't do what you're suggesting.



> In an ideal world, an NPC's actions in a given situation would be resolvable as a function of the situation and the NPC's personality and abilities.



In an ideal world, it rains candy. This is why examples drawn from ideal worlds lack utility.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 16, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I agree with you, but I think that this can be "retrained" out of most players simply by running a good game where the DM expects the players to provide motive and fun.



When I use the term "entertaining DM", I don't talk about an DM that dances in front of me or juggles core rule books or whatever. 

But he is an enabler. A DM has to provide some ideas of what to do. And if the players pick something to do - whether from his plot hooks or independent of it, he has to be able to react to that. 

If the DM is just reading the adventure book linearly or merely rolling on random tables, he is most likely not providing me the kind of entertainment I would have expected. If he's using a module, he has to react to the wenches the players through at the implied plot. If the PCs decide to make something differently than the adventure expects, he better reacts to that.
 If he's using a random table, he has to interpret the results in a way that leads to an interesting game. If he rolls for his "Dragon too tough for this level" on the forest wandering monster table, I fully expect him o interpret this result in a way that allows the players to react and interact with the encounter without leading to only one possible outcome. 


That does not mean the players don't have their responsibilities, too. They have to find their own motivations. If they ignore every plot hook thrown at them, they better come up with one of their own and give the DM clues at what they'd like.


----------



## Jack7 (Mar 16, 2009)

First of all this all became a lot more complicated than I had ever intended or imagined when I wrote the first post. That's fine, that's good as a matter of fact, but I'm gonna have to think carefully for awhile about some of my replies to some of the things addressed to me to try and avoid misunderstandings on my part. Sadly, as big as this has grown (I did not anticipate that) I'm not sure I'll ever, given time limitations, be able to address all of the interesting points brought up. Even all of the ones brought up directly to me. Don't feel slighted guys if it seems I am ignoring you. I have classes to teach and papers to write and work to do.

Let me just say these things though from my point of view:

I am not against in-game wish-fulfillment - _but not all methods are the same, *or have the same value*._

This debate from my point of view was about the various reasons for the world existing, not whether careful preparation or no preparation were best in world design - situationally I'm agnostic on this point, but I think it is a separate debate at the very least. An interesting one, even a related one, but a different one than the one I intended. (I'm not saying _"take it somewhere else guys,"_ I'm saying it wasn't my original intent.)

I am not against world design elements that specifically service the character, anymore than I'm against real world elements that service and help me. I am under no illusions however that this world exists merely to service me, and I think heroism is a to a large degree not a demand made on the world, but a service rendered to it. In real life or in game.

I understand the difference between fun and entertainment as it has been proposed, passive and active for both. I don't think it would be a bad idea though to carefully distinguish between the two concepts in a specific way as regards game function.

I'd be glad to have others (as well as myself) set out to try and define a basic concept of game heroism. I think in this case though it might be bets to start out saying what heroism is not. After all if heroism is a real thing, if the point of the game is to be an heroic character, or to at least have characters who are heroic, then the opposite must be true as well. If there is heroism, then there is villainy and non-heroism. To have some idea of what heroism is then you have to at least have a clear conception of what heroism is not.

Personally I don't think killing Orcs or looting tombs is heroic at all if that is your only motivation. If orcs however are evil and committing crimes and atrocities, or if the tomb is the tomb of a monster who got his goods by theft and killing then killing orcs and raiding tombs can very well be heroic. It depends upon your motivations and those of your enemies. And being willing to risk your own life or face danger regularly is, in and of itself, not a mark of heroism. Even evil men often risk their own lives, especially at the beginnings of their career. Being willing to face danger and risk though is a necessary component of heroism. *There are no cowardly heroes*, but bravery takes on different forms just as it has different motivations. So when it comes to heroism I think you have to define motivation, possible forms, and even actions to a degree, _*but every definition must have bravery at the core.*_ It's just that not every act of bravery is sufficient to rise to the standard of being heroic. _Some acts of bravery are even outright evil and anti-heroic_.

I am however enjoying reading many of these debates and side debates.
Keep it up.


----------



## jim pinto (Mar 16, 2009)

Mallus said:


> When I DM, which is frequently, though not of late, I think of myself as entertainer, there to entertain, so to speak. This is no way implies that my players are merely a passive audience.
> 
> Is this opinion informed by anything other than a wish to ascribe less-than-flattering motives/mindsets to other people?
> 
> ...




Hey Mallus. Let me address what I can.

I agree with your first point. There's a difference between being "entertaining" and being an enabler. I'm using the term "entertaining" in a slightly pejorative manner in my posts. The GM is not a TV show writer/producer being paid zero dollars to put on a show for an unappreciative audience. He is part of the apparatus (perhaps the pilot), but he's not the only one involved in the engineering of the campaign.

My comment about wish-fulfillment was in reference to Jack7's very first post about "wish lists." I was adding that they are, in my opinion, another example of the passive audience telling the writer/producer what to put on the next episode. It's condescending in some ways and I don't like it.

[And I don't see it saving all the time that people think it saves.]

I'm doing a post somewhere else about narrative authority, so I won't repeat myself here.

I kinda get your joke about nerd masochism, but I don't see how it applies. Enlighten me?


----------



## jim pinto (Mar 16, 2009)

FireLance said:


> It's probably true.  However, I was addressing the more general point that wishlists could actually result in less need for DM preparation, so it seems strange to me that you don't appear to like them. After all, in an earlier post, you mentioned that waiting for the mission to be revealed is no where near as fun as making the mission yourself. If the DM is willing to delegate the responsibility for mission creation to the players, why not delegate the responsibility for reward assignment as well? And if the DM is willing to delegate the responsibility for reward assignment, how different is that from a wishlist?




On an emotional level, I find the idea kind of gross. My birthday is coming up, here's a list of things you can buy me.

On an intellectual level, I would rather the PCs have to be more creative with their use of the magic items I give them, then derive the benefit of a flaming sword that matches exactly with their 10-step feat tree.

On a game design level, Earthdawn got it right. And D&Ds magic item system is just archaic and uninteresting. Wishlists don't do it for me.

On the other hand, if the PCs are taking some of the narrative responsibility as well and playing active (and not passive) roles in the game world, why not throw them a bone based on their suggestions. But a wish-list… ick… see above.



FireLance;4712731
Some initial thoughts said:


> It is possible that D&D cannot, but other games have shown that it can be done. And new editions that become MORE labor-intensive, while continuing to shy away from REAL, CONCRETE GM advice, are redundant. Instead of being a useful tool, D&D becomes a hammer that I use to open a bottle of champagne. Instead of evolving, it has caused the gaming environment to stagnant. Worse yet, in the case of 4E, it's devolved.
> 
> I get into all kinds of trouble when I say this, but there's a lot game companies can learn from the Indie movement. Not everything they are doing is GOLD, but the nuggets that exist in there, make D&D look like chutes and ladders.
> 
> New thread started on the other topics, Firelance.


----------



## jim pinto (Mar 16, 2009)

*heroism? cowardice? opportunist?*

As an aside, Jack7…

what do you think of a game-world that just is… devoid of a moral compass, alignment, or any other superfluous measure of ethics and morals… what do you think of a game world where the PCs do what they want and ultimately live with the consequences of those actions.

And to be more fair about it, let the other players determine the consequences of a PC that pillages and murders, instead of leaving it to the GM — who will ultimately be seen as a bad guy anyway.

Answering this may help focus your question/analysis.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 16, 2009)

Mallus said:


> There's no sin in admitting the setting has a purpose.




No, but I think it's a sin to limit "setting" to serving only one purpose and claiming it is the only or main thing it should serve when games and gamers  are quite the diverse lot. That sounds alot like one-true-wayism to me.




Mallus said:


> Cad is right about this because, despite a DM's best intentions, that 'as much as possible' ain't much. It's a difficult thing to do. Many, many, successful, well-regarded _authors_ can't do what you're suggesting.




Mallus I really feel like you might think too much in absolutes, especially when it comes to playstyles (and only a Sith deals in absolutes...). You also make alot of assumptions about the capabilities of DM's whom you have no experience with. How can you quantify what the results of a DM who strives to be impartial are, unless you've played in his particular game.  Perhaps you don't do well or have trouble with a particular style but that in and of itself is not a basis for what another DM can or cannot achieve.

Personally I think it's easier for a DM as opposed to an author to disassociate himself from NPC's as opposed to the author's characters (whom the story is actually about), especially if they are created beforehand and have their motivations and relationships mapped out independently of the choices the PC's will make.  It then becomes a logical process to create consistent and logical actions for them as the world changes around them (I mean we're taught to think logically from 1st grade up).  Since I have no interest in these characters besides if, when, how and why they might interact with the PC's... what exactly is the agenda (especially in a non-scripted campaign) for pre-determining their actions in a way based solely on the state of the PC's as opposed to the world or setting... especially if my purpose is to run an organic sand-box campaign?  


As an example... I set it up beforehand that in round 3 of the PC's battle with an Ogre (barring precautions that keep the battle silent) the noise attracts 3 Orcs in another room to come and investigate, and it takes them 4 rounds to reach the room.  Now, since this encounter is set up before the actions or motivations of the PC's are known to me, and/or interact with it, it is a neutral situation and not based on the state of my PC's because I have no idea what that will be at the time they interact with it. Instead it is based on the logic and consistency of the "setting".  the noise will attract the Orcs because it's loud and the sounds of battle... it takes n rounds for them to get there because they are that far from the room.  The orcs will investigate because it could mean danger for themselves... etc.

Now if I decide the Orcs don't come *because the PC's may not be able to handle the fight* this is where my reasons are not logical, impartial or consistent.  There are Orcs close enough to hear the noise that, regardless of what it may mean for their own safety choose not to investigate???  Now we step into the realm of illusionism, as I can (through various shennanigan's, lies, or manipulation) make the players think this is what was suppose to happen all along... even though I know that's not true and it doesn't make sense logically, if the Orcs are still in the nearby room.

To me this is illusionism, not the first situation above... it is also not a way I enjoy playing the game in sand-box campaigns, it increases and makes arbitrary the fact that the state of the world at any given moment is in flux depending on my whims, makes the actions and choices (good or bad) of the PC's matter less, and it cheapens the fun of the sandbox playstyle... of course this is all with the understanding that we have agreed to use this playstyle.  My group in no way limits itself to only one playstyle all the time.





Mallus said:


> In an ideal world, it rains candy. This is why examples drawn from ideal worlds lack utility.




And yet you are unwilling to accept or give credit to those whose ideas and playstyles differ from yours.  IMO, it seems you've created your own "ideal" world and it is based only on Mallus's experiences, expectations and definitions of fun.  do you honestly believe that what applies and is best for you is best and should be applied to everyone else, if that's not the height of applying a certain idealization (based upon your own personal bias) I don't know what is.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 16, 2009)

jim pinto said:


> He is part of the apparatus (perhaps the pilot), but he's not the only one involved in the engineering of the campaign.



When you put it that way... agreed. 



> It's condescending in some ways and I don't like it.



Personally, I don't find it condescending. It's no more than a request to customize a PC further, something systems like M&M2e or HERO permit by default. 



> I kinda get your joke about nerd masochism, but I don't see how it applies. Enlighten me?



I'm of the opinion that there's an inescapable core of (primarily adolescent) wish-fulfillment (and power) fantasy in most RPG's, particularly games like D&D, with it's focus on 'leveling up' to demi-godlike, or at least, fantasy superheroic power. Not that there's anything wrong with that (and, given D&D's market dominance, there's obviously something very _right_ about it). 

Seen in that light, wanting to minimize the wish-fulfillment aspects of the game is a bit like wanting to minimize the amount of chocolate in a chocolate sunday, an act of deprivation that suggests a sort of masochism (have I explained the joke into a deep enough grave yet?).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> When I use the term "entertaining DM", I don't talk about an DM that dances in front of me or juggles core rule books or whatever.
> 
> But he is an enabler.




Jim can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you are making the same distinction (with different emphasis) that he intended to make.

Or, at least, that's how I read it.


RC


----------



## Mallus (Mar 16, 2009)

Imaro said:


> No, but I think it's a sin to limit "setting" to serving only one purpose...



Agreed. 



> ...and claiming it is the only or main thing it should serve when games and gamers are quite the diverse lot.



I said a setting's _primary_ purpose is to house a D&D campaign ie, to facilitate the playing of a game.   



> That sounds alot like one-true-wayism to me.



Because you're misreading me. 



> You also make alot of assumptions about the capabilities of DM's whom you have no experience with.



My experience is that people, in general, aren't terribly objective. 



> How can you quantify what the results of a DM who strives to be impartial are, unless you've played in his particular game.



Mainly because my experiences tell me people aren't very objective. 



> And yet you are unwilling to accept or give credit to those whose ideas and playstyles differ from yours.



Because you keep misreading me. At this point I'm beginning to think it's deliberate .


----------



## Imaro (Mar 16, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> I said a setting's _primary_ purpose is to house a D&D campaign ie, to facilitate the playing of a game.
> ...




Yes but your assumptions about what facilitates playing a game is quite limited to what you like, yet again gamers and games are a diverse lot.



Mallus said:


> My experience is that people, in general, aren't terribly objective.




= anecdotal evidence




Mallus said:


> Mainly because my experiences tell me people aren't very objective.




= anecdotal evidence



Mallus said:


> Because you keep misreading me. At this point I'm beginning to think it's deliberate .




I honestly don't think I am.  Perhaps it is the way your are stating your thoughts.


----------



## jim pinto (Mar 16, 2009)

*catching up*

Raven…

Yeah. That's pretty much what I mean. The GM who entertains instead of develops the stage on which the PCs can entertain themselves vs. the one who makes Plot A which leads to Plot B which leads to Plot C with funny voices in between and no decisions to be made by anyone.

Mallus…

When you talk about the marketing of D&D (wish-fulfillment, power gaming, high fantasy heroics) you nail it. And I cannot argue with the success of the model.

When Jack7 talks about Heroics, he refers to people making due with what they have. Very different from the character that is hewn from stone and shaped into the exact image the player requires to feel fulfilled. And while I can see the need for that kind of gaming (wow, isn't ninja zero cool, i want to play a character just like that), it rarely stems from a place of heroism or even quality story-telling... it's about the satisfaction of the id over the satisfaction of the gameplay experience.

I kinda addressed this part of it already before.

I'm not talking down about that style of play, only recognizing it's limitations and why video games are so much more popular.

Heck. I'm playing a web-based RPG right now, just because it's a fun distraction and I get to see my character progress. But to enforce that same policy of wish-fulfillment on a room full of people who might want to play D&D for other reasons…

… kinda selfish. I personally could never do it and I just don't game that way.

And yes. I see how for others, that's what brings them to the table.

What's most interesting about gaming now vs. then, is the level of perspective and vocabulary we have to analyze it and improve on what we know. 20 years ago, I'm not sure I could have identified why I wasn't enjoying a game in the manner of wish-fulfillment vs. storytelling approach to gameplay.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 16, 2009)

Imaro said:


> As an example... I set it up beforehand that in round 3 of the PC's battle with an Ogre (barring precautions that keep the battle silent) the noise attracts 3 Orcs in another room to come and investigate, and it takes them 4 rounds to reach the room. Now, since this encounter is set up before the actions or motivations of the PC's are known to me, and/or interact with it, it is a neutral situation and not based on the state of my PC's because I have no idea what that will be at the time they interact with it.



Agreed, with some minor quibbles about the meaning of "neutral."  You could be "neutral" in the sense of "not based on the state of the PCs" while still being completely gamist or completely detached from the internal consistency of your setting.  But that's probably neither here nor there, we probably all agree that setting up an encounter where reinforcements hear the noise of battle and join in is a reasonable thing for a DM to do.


Imaro said:


> Instead it is based on the logic and consistency of the "setting". the noise will attract the Orcs because it's loud and the sounds of battle...



I agree with the second sentence.  With the first I have some disagreement.  While there may be logic to your decision, there is also a degree of arbitrariness.  Unless the orcs are genuinely necessary (in the philosophical sense of the term[that's a great band name, "Necessary Orcs"]) to the logic and realism of your setting, then you still picked arbitrarily amongst the many reasonable possibilities that would all have matched the logic and consistency of the setting.  Most likely, within the set of "things that would be logical and consistent," the orcs are just one element.  You chose them instead of a different one for reasons that were your own.


Imaro said:


> it takes n rounds for them to get there because they are that far from the room.



...disagreed.  You can't say, "its neutral that it takes them N rounds to get there because they are X meters from the room" because you are the one who put them X meters from the room, knowing full well that they would then take N rounds to arrive.  You could have put them Y or Z meters from the room, deleted the room, put them in the same room with the original orcs, put the room on the moon, whatever, and when you did, you would have known the in-game effects that were likely when you decided.

Of course your decision of X instead of Y or Z was probably perfectly reasonable.  Just don't try to make it out to not be your decision.  Adding one step of reasoning between your decision and the outcome doesn't negate the fact that your decision was the cause of the outcome.


Imaro said:


> Now if I decide the Orcs don't come *because the PC's may not be able to handle the fight* this is where my reasons are not logical, impartial or consistent.



Oh?  Not impartial, I'll give you that.  Logical or consistent?  You might be perfectly logical or consistent.  I'll get to why in a moment.


Imaro said:


> There are Orcs close enough to hear the noise that, regardless of what it may mean for their own safety choose not to investigate???



Disagreed.  There are no such thing as orcs.  They have no objective distance away, nor any other objective characteristics.  

What there is, on the other hand, is a guy named Imaro.  And this Imaro guy had the intention of doing something in a D&D game.  And now maybe he's not going to, because he thinks that it might suck for everyone at the table if he does.  So instead, he does a different, equally logical, equally consistent thing, that he's chosen because he thinks it will be more fun.

Now he might be boxed in.  Maybe he's previously communicated every last relevant detail of the orcs to the players, and changing it now will ruin their suspension of disbelief.  But if that's not the case, he's free to change his mind at any time.  How could he not be?

Changing your mind about your unexpressed future intentions as a DM isn't changing the game world.  Its just changing your mind.  Its ok to do that.

For the record, since I know this is going to come up:

1. If there are zero reasonable alternatives to the originally intended orcs showing up as originally planned, then that may be all you can do.  But there are probably other reasonable possibilities that will be exactly as logical and coherent as the original plan.
2. My suggestion that the DM opt for a different, also reasonable alternative is premised on the assumption that there is an actual problem with the orcs being used as originally planned.  So don't tell me, "oh, the PCs can just retreat, why change the world so they don't have to?"  That's fine!  Apparently there was no problem in the first place.
3. Some people are going to say that changing your mind about the nature of the orc reinforcements deprives of the PCs of meaningful choice.  That really, really doesn't apply unless the PCs already knew of the nature of the orc reinforcements.
4. This isn't about protecting the PCs from bad decisions.  At no point did Imaro bring up whether it was reasonable or not for the PCs to be fighting the ogre and making noise, so I didn't address it.  Obviously unwise decisions should have consequences (at least usually, some unwise decisions in real life don't have consequences, so making every unwise in-game decision have consequences can actually wreck the believability of your game world by emphasizing the presence of a punitive dm/god).  Of course, that doesn't mean that unwise decisions should have lethal consequences every single time, and my argument about "within the larger set of reasonable outcomes, why not pick one that's fun?" applies here as well.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 16, 2009)

Read the encounter below. Then open the SBLOCKs, and read the DM's thoughts during the encounter. Make sure to do it in that order.

Obviously its not the best encounter in the world. Try not to judge it on that criteria.  But the events should be something that's completely plausible from both a sandbox and a player-oriented perspective.  They're a wee bit railroady, but sandboxes don't actually have a problem with the variety of railroading that occurs when NPCs follow through on logical motivations in a way that unavoidably affects the PCs.
[sblock]DM, in thoughts: *ok, the players are going to meet with the corrupt, sniveling merchant as he eats dinner. Unbeknownst to them, the evil assassins have put incredibly lethal poison in the merchant's wineglass in an attempt to silence him and frame the PCs. He'll drink some of it, and die. Ok, go.*[/sblock] 
PC: I stride into the merchant's dining room like I own the place. This guy's a coward, so I'm going to intimidate him into telling us what we need to know. "Good evening, _Dog!_ We know all about your dealings with the Armada! Its fortunate for you that you aren't important enough for us to bother to crush. Your backers are the true threat to the realm. Give us their names, end your arms trading, and we might see fit not to leave you destitute in a ditch, exposed, reviled, and alone!"

DM, as Merchant: "You, you...! You can't do this to me! I have friends!" 

PC: "You have nothing. We _own_ you now. Talk." To emphasize that I can do anything I want to him, I sit on his table right in front of him, tower over him, and help myself to a long drink of his most expensive wine.
[sblock]DM, in thoughts: *oh no! The wine was poisoned! If he drinks it, he'll die! What shall I do? Oh, wait. There's no reason the wine had to be poisoned. Maybe it was the fish. Its not like I'm depriving the players of a believable world if I declare it was the fish. Its never come up before, so there's no way for them to know. There's nothing unbelievable about it being the fish. There are literally zero downsides to this plan. Its exactly as if, instead of planning of the wine to be poisoned, I had just planned for "his dinner," in some abstract sense, to be poisoned. I'm not making the player's decision less meaningful, because he didn't pick the wine based on any concern about poison, nor should he. I'm not mitigating the consequences of rash action, because his action wasn't rash. I'm just choosing X instead of Y, where X and Y are equally believable, and there's no reason to go with X just because it popped into my mind first.[/sblock]
Merchant, as DM: "Ok, ok! I'll tell you what you want to know... please, take a seat. In a chair. There's... there's no reason we have to be barbarians. Just keep the wine, please, its yours. Consider it a gift from your good friend. Lets... lets come to an arrangement, shall we? Over dinner?"

PC: I take a seat next to him, dropping myself loudly into the chair with casual disregard for the damage my armor and weapons are doing to his furniture. "Talk."

DM: He calls his servant, and tells her to bring you food, the finest in the house. With sweat on his brow and a visibly shaking hand, he carefully brings a fork to his mouth and takes a bite of his fish dinner. You can tell that it tastes like sand to him, terrified as he is. He swallows, slowly, audibly, and begins to tell you the truth behind his dealings.

...

DM, later: As he has been speaking, you've noticed a bluish tinge growing on his face. You chalk it up to the stress, until he gasps and clutches his chest. "The... fish...!" he croaks out, and then falls face first into his plate, dead. You realize suddenly that you were never served the dinner he had ordered for you. In fact, you haven't seen his servant at all since he sent her to the kitchen.

PC: Murder! I tear through the apartment in search of the assassin!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 16, 2009)

The DM should have left it as the wine.

The PC would make his save, or not.  Either way, the merchant then knows his wine was poisoned by his supposed allies, and can possibly tell the remaining PCs everything he knows.

Only if the DM thinks it is somehow "wrong" for the PCs to (1) accidently drink poison (see Hamlet!) or (2) find out the plot by saving the merchant's life is there really a problem, and neither one IMHO should be a problem.  What if the PC had just knocked the wine from the table onto the floor?  Would the poison transport to the fish?  What if the PC upended the table?  Would it transport to an assassin's dart?

Meh.


RC


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 16, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> When an NPC takes an action, I attempt to remove myself - as much as is possible, given the situation and mechanics used - from the decisions made regarding that action. In an ideal world, an NPC's actions in a given situation would be resolvable as a function of the situation and the NPC's personality and abilities.




That is just not possible. You would not be playing a game, you would be observing it, which would make your role as a player a contradiction in terms. You also cannot simply channel a character, since there is no character to channel before you create it. Even if you are simply reading a novel, your experience of the characters in it depends partly on your perceptions. You cannot observe an NPC without injecting yourself into their decision-making process. You cannot observe any human being in real life without injecting yourself into their decision-making process. There is no outside observer, that is a fiction of objectivity which simply cannot occur.

If you really want to remove yourself from a character's actions, try this. Run a game based on Lord of the Rings or Star Wars or whatever, but focus on the action of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, exactly as they would behave if they were real. The entirety of human existence is a blink in the eye from the standpoint of our Sun. 

While ideally, it would be nice if characters were sufficiently life-like in depiction to have their own agenda, it would me a mistake to forget they were created with a purpose in mind and that their existence is always subject to review. The in-world rationale is bogus, since there is nothing that logically prevents me from saying, in the middle of a heretofore realistic GURPS WWII game, that the Nazi officer they have just encountered is a vampire. Whether that is a sensible action or not depends entirely on what my players would think of that event.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 16, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Agreed, with some minor quibbles about the meaning of "neutral." You could be "neutral" in the sense of "not based on the state of the PCs" while still being completely gamist or completely detached from the internal consistency of your setting. But that's probably neither here nor there, we probably all agree that setting up an encounter where reinforcements hear the noise of battle and join in is a reasonable thing for a DM to do.




And you can be neutral in relation to the PC's state, and base your decisions on the consistency and logic of your setting... This isn't really relative to the overall point.



Cadfan said:


> I agree with the second sentence. With the first I have some disagreement. While there may be logic to your decision, there is also a degree of arbitrariness. Unless the orcs are genuinely necessary (in the philosophical sense of the term[that's a great band name, "Necessary Orcs"]) to the logic and realism of your setting, then you still picked arbitrarily amongst the many reasonable possibilities that would all have matched the logic and consistency of the setting. Most likely, within the set of "things that would be logical and consistent," the orcs are just one element. You chose them instead of a different one for reasons that were your own.




Ok, granted this was a purposefully limited example, because I am not and cannot detail an entire campaign setting here. If I placed the orcs there because orcs and ogres have alliances and work together then the decision is based upon the internal logic and consistency of my setting. Now there may be orcs and ogres who work independently but my decision is still based in the assumptions of my setting and not on the state of my PC's.




Cadfan said:


> ...disagreed. You can't say, "its neutral that it takes them N rounds to get there because they are X meters from the room" because you are the one who put them X meters from the room, knowing full well that they would then take N rounds to arrive. You could have put them Y or Z meters from the room, deleted the room, put them in the same room with the original orcs, put the room on the moon, whatever, and when you did, you would have known the in-game effects that were likely when you decided.
> 
> Of course your decision of X instead of Y or Z was probably perfectly reasonable. Just don't try to make it out to not be your decision. Adding one step of reasoning between your decision and the outcome doesn't negate the fact that your decision was the cause of the outcome.
> 
> ...




First impartial =/= "not my decision" (that's why we have referees in sports). If I am creating the situation independent of the state of the PC's it is an impartial situation... if I change the situation based on the state (not actions of the PC's) then it is not impartial (though I can make it look so with illusionism).

Second, in a sandbox campaign, how do I " known the in-game effects that were likely when you decided.". you see in a sandbox campaign my PC's could run into this situation anywhere from level 1 up to level 20 and with the variables of feats, class abilities, spells, magic items, etc. thrown in, exactly how do Iknow what thein game effect will be once my PC's interact with it?

So their is no objective stat block for an Orc, I got one in my C&C book and one in my 3.5 MM. Isn't this an objective representation of what an Orc is? If I put it in a situation with no consideration of the state of my PC's then isn't that situation objectively impartial as it pertains to my players? 

Now if I change the above or make decisions bsed on the state as opposed to the actions of my PC's... that is wherw impartiallity and illusionism enter the equation. 




Cadfan said:


> What there is, on the other hand, is a guy named Imaro. And this Imaro guy had the intention of doing something in a D&D game. And now maybe he's not going to, because he thinks that it might suck for everyone at the table if he does. So instead, he does a different, equally logical, equally consistent thing, that he's chosen because he thinks it will be more fun.
> 
> Now he might be boxed in. Maybe he's previously communicated every last relevant detail of the orcs to the players, and changing it now will ruin their suspension of disbelief. But if that's not the case, he's free to change his mind at any time. How could he not be?




I don't think anyone's arguing a DM can't change things... What is being argued is that there are some who enjoy playstyles that do not involve the DM changing things as you describe above (one reasonis that it assumes the DM will always know what route produces more "fun!" and he's not infallible), and it is not badwrongfun or impossible to play in such a style and still have fun.



Cadfan said:


> Changing your mind about your unexpressed future intentions as a DM isn't changing the game world. Its just changing your mind. Its ok to do that.




No, sometimes it is changing the gameworld, just like fudging rolls is changing the gameworld and it's assumptions... but that's ok if you enjoy playing like that. However you have no right to tellothers their style isn't fun for them or isn't possible because you don't enjoy it.



Cadfan said:


> For the record, since I know this is going to come up:
> 
> 1. If there are zero reasonable alternatives to the originally intended orcs showing up as originally planned, then that may be all you can do. But there are probably other reasonable possibilities that will be exactly as logical and coherent as the original plan.
> 2. My suggestion that the DM opt for a different, also reasonable alternative is premised on the assumption that there is an actual problem with the orcs being used as originally planned. So don't tell me, "oh, the PCs can just retreat, why change the world so they don't have to?" That's fine! Apparently there was no problem in the first place.
> ...




The only one I'm going to comment on is 4...

How, unless your DM is psychic, can one person decide what's fun and what isn't. I say let your players decide through their actions. It's like riding a bike, they'll fall and they'll hurt themselves but eventually they will be shapping their own fun through their actions without me having to run interference.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 16, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> The DM should have left it as the wine.
> 
> The PC would make his save, or not. Either way, the merchant then knows his wine was poisoned by his supposed allies, and can possibly tell the remaining PCs everything he knows.
> 
> ...




Basically this, and guess what... I also think his playerss would have become more cautious and conscious of the dangers of these types of things (poison) in future game sesions.  So now, instead of brute force they will probably think a little more about things like this, since there are still dangers they may overlook.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 16, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Yes but your assumptions about what facilitates playing a game is quite limited to what you like



My main assumption was that most players don't like being put in no-win situations through no fault of their own (obviously a radical position, natch). I think most the assumptions you're ascribing to me are being manufactured in your head. 



> ...yet again gamers and games are a diverse lot.



Agreed . 



> = anecdotal evidence



Sentences that begin 'In my experience' usually relate anecdotes, yes. You were perhaps expecting a peer-reviewed study?. 



> Perhaps it is the way your are stating your thoughts.



Or it's the way you're misreading them. At no point was I criticizing styles of play different from my own. What I _did_ do was note similarities between my current preferred style and others, opine that 'internal setting logic' frequently bears a close resemblance to 'DM Fiat' (for a specific value of DM), and objectivity is hard. 

How you got to me being a proponent of WrongBadFun from that remains a mystery of induction.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 16, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I expect people to sulk when they get killed off unfairly.



Sulking is right out with me. It’s just a game, after all. 







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I guess, but in that scenario, if the GM didn't put the overwhelming ship in combat with you, you wouldn't need the luck.  Instead it would have been a fair test of your combat ability that might have ended up with your death, but would actually require luck going badly for that to happen.



You and I have different ideas of what’s “fair.”

I believe that if the rules of the game are applied impartially by all the participants, then the game is fair. _Quod erat demonstrandum_.

Creating an encounter within CR±2 of our party level doesn’t enter into it unless the rules state that encounters must fall within this range, without exception.

Let’s take one more quick look at the privateer encounter above. Please note that this is an absurdly contrived example offered for the purposes of discussion; the likelihood of players jumping their starship into a system without knowing at least the potential for warfare exists are pretty low in my games, even given _Traveller_’s communications lag between star systems. In my games this would more properly termed a ‘commerce raider’ encounter; privateers make their money off the prizes take, so they are not prone to indiscriminate destruction any more than pirates are.

Using the random starship encounter tables in my _Traveller_ campaign, the chance of generating an encounter with a commerce raider in a war zone and getting the lowest possible reaction score is one-in-46,656. If the war zone is the result of a random event, which is pretty likely in my campaign, then the chance is another order of magnitude smaller still. (Per my encounter tables, the ship type of the raider varies quite a bit, but that’s a whole ‘nother level of detail not necessary for this discussion.)

With that in mind, if the rules of the game we are playing generate this encounter, then I consider it fair, from either side of the screen, even if the chances of escape or survival for the player characters are miniscule. 







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> In all the games I've played in there has been an unspoken (and sometimes spoken) agreement between the players and the DM that both of them want the same things out of the game.  The most important one is that the game keeps going and doesn't result in the pointless deaths of all the PCs.



In my experience the game doesn’t end with the deaths of the player characters. The players generate new characters, and the game continues.

The idea of “pointless deaths” bugs me, to be honest. It presumes there is a “point” to the game, a desired end-state, a foregone conclusion accepted by all at the start of play. In the games I run, I ask the players to develop goals for their characters as we play, but at no time is the adventurers’ successful achievement of these goals presumed. Again, skill and luck alone determine a character’s fate in the games I run, and in the games in which I enjoy playing. 







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Everything that happens in the game happens because the DM wants it to happen.  We understand that the DM has the power to overrule any random tables he's rolling on, the ability to fudge dice, and so on.



Some referees don’t like to overrule the dice.

When I’m behind the screen I consider myself to be a player at the table as well, in that I’m bound by the rules of the game, too. For me to just start making stuff up that should, per the rules of the game, be decided by die roll, isn’t “fair” to me. It’s also why I don’t like to play with referees who fudge. Let’s all play the same game together.







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Beyond that, he has the ability to decide what items go on that random table and whether or not he rolls on it at all.



This is an excellent point, one that I think is overlooked by referees with a tendency to fudge the dice when an encounter is moving away from the ‘desired outcome’ the referee has pre-selected.

Simple rule of thumb: if you don’t want the player characters to die, don’t present them with encounters in which they can be killed. 







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Given these powers, if we end up in a combat with very few to no options that is going to result in our guaranteed death, we can only assume that the DM wanted us to die.



And this I can’t agree with at all.

Once more to the privateer encounter. In the example, the player characters are operating an unarmed free trader when they encounter the 800 dton raider-cruiser. Here’s the problem I have with your argument: the same encounter would occur is the player characters arrived in system crewing a 2000 displacement ton freighter with twelve triple turrets of flaming death, an armed pinnace, a pair of fighters ready to deploy from a makeshift hanger in the hold, and a section of mercenaries aboard as security troops.

If my goal was to kill the player characters, then the raider would suddenly become a 20,000 dton destroyer instead. But it doesn’t. The rules under which we are playing the game turned out a raider which is in fact outmatched by the freighter crewed by the adventurers. That raider could in fact still destroy the player character’s ship – remember that patrol cruiser example – but now the edge lies with the players and their characters. This is what it means to run an impartial game.

The point of a sandbox game isn’t to kill the player characters; it isn’t even to make them more likely to die. It’s to provide the players with a sense, _to the extent practicable_, that the game-world functions by its own natural laws, its own social forces, independent of their characters. In my experience, random generators are a useful tool in achieving this goal.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 16, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> *Adventure is an end in itself!* When there's a shortage of trouble, swordsmen and sorcerers _make_ some.
> 
> And more often than not, trouble leads them to an early grave. Then we pick up dice, paper, and pencil ... roll up a new persona ... and come back swinging into the game that has no end, no final defeat.



I'll have what *Ariosto*'s having.

In fact, make mine a double.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 16, 2009)

jim pinto said:


> Is "finding" treasure such an enamored trope in gaming that we can't move away from it. Does it prohibit players and GMs from making more realistic game worlds?



It is an enamored trope because of the source literature, but it's certainly not the only way adventurers can, or have, received items of value.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 16, 2009)

Mallus said:


> There's no sin in admitting the setting has a purpose.




My setting existed for seven years before a single game was played in it.

It has no purpose other than to exist in my head. Is it useful for other things? Yes. But in the end, its purpose is to exist.



> Cad is right about this because, despite a DM's best intentions, that 'as much as possible' ain't much. It's a difficult thing to do. Many, many, successful, well-regarded _authors_ can't do what you're suggesting.




How do you know if they can or cannot? And how is this relevant?

So you think it's not possible... fine. I think it is.



> In an ideal world, it rains candy. This is why examples drawn from ideal worlds lack utility.




I hope you don't ever have conversations about how you would like the world to be.



> I said a setting's _primary_ purpose is to house a D&D campaign ie, to facilitate the playing of a game.




Oh, please. You didn't say anything vaguely resembling "primary."



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> Unless the orcs are genuinely necessary (in the philosophical sense of the term[that's a great band name, "Necessary Orcs"]) to the logic and realism of your setting, then you still picked arbitrarily amongst the many reasonable possibilities that would all have matched the logic and consistency of the setting.




Having necessary orcs would require a level of detail that, while ideal, is probably rather unrealistic.

Sufficient orcs, on the other hand... would most likely be sufficient.

Not only that, but why is it necessary that the encounter is selected by hand? Why is it inconceivable to think of a GM who constructs "random" encounter tables for a dungeon by consulting the region around where the dungeon is located, thereby determining (through math, not through arbitrary decision-making) what is reasonable to encounter in the dungeon?

The conditions for the process of filling a dungeon may have been arbitrary (ie, as part of world design, the GM determines that dungeons include creatures from X radius around its various entrances, which may or may not be a reasonable number). The point isn't that it's necessarily realistic, it's that it is internally consistent and not subject to the GM's whim once the decision is made. PCs can make decisions based off of this knowledge, and expect it to remain true.



> You can't say, "its neutral that it takes them N rounds to get there because they are X meters from the room" because you are the one who put them X meters from the room, knowing full well that they would then take N rounds to arrive.




...unless the dungeon is the product of relatively random/procedural generation, at which point - no, I didn't put those orcs there, the world did.



> There are no such thing as orcs. They have no objective distance away, nor any other objective characteristics.




Why is it so absurd to you to treat them as if they were objective?


----------



## Mallus (Mar 16, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> My setting existed for seven years before a single game was played in it.



So the setting began as fiction. Or a form of masturbation. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Okay...  



> It has no purpose other than to exist in my head.



But as soon as you began running an RPG in it, that changed. The setting needed to conform, in some fashion, to the game system used, it needed to conform to the needs of the specific campaign you ran, it needed to become a gaming space, etc. 

You could almost say at that point you had two related settings; the purely fictional one and the one you used as a game environment. Note that this is usually what happens in licensed gaming fiction (the FR of the rule books is different from the FR of the novels). 



> I hope you don't ever have conversations about how you would like the world to be.



But I think you'd find I'm a pretty good guy to discuss worldbuilding with. Even people who disagree w/me on other gaming-related topics admit I'm good at it. 



> Oh, please. You didn't say anything vaguely resembling "primary."



Go back and read my posts again. My overall point has been pretty clear (I think...).


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What I, as the DM want, is "fun". I want fun. I have fun when my players are having fun.



*Mustrum_Ridcully*, have you met *Melan*?







			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I like random tables in a way - especially because they provide me with ideas for stuff that can happen/be found etc. But in another way - they don't explain why stuff happens.



That's the referee's role.







			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> If I roll my 5 % chance that the party will encounter the Dragon in the forest, the table doesn't tell me _why_ he does that exactly at this moment. And if I figure that the PCs won't survive any combat encounter against him, why shouldn't I make up a story that makes the combat option less likely - and dependent on the PCs actions?



You can. Or you can roll a random reaction and derive the motivation from that.







			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Of course, I also could make up a random table giving the Dragons motivation. But at some point; I think I as the DM should take _direct_ control of the game.At some point the referee will take control of the encounter. The point at which that happens varies from referee to referee.
> 
> I like to randomly generate NPCs, including their personalities and quirks, because it keeps things fresh and I often end up with character I never would've considered creating with the influence of the dice. I can get a lot of mileage out of random results before I finally have to put my hands on the wheel.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If he's using a random table, he has to interpret the results in a way that leads to an interesting game. If he rolls for his "Dragon too tough for this level" on the forest wandering monster table, I fully expect him o interpret this result in a way that allows the players to react and interact with the encounter without leading to only one possible outcome.



Just to be clear, while I've been mucking around at the extreme end of the spectrum with a deeply contrived example, I agree with this insofar as the encounter should offer the players and their characters the opportunity to demonstrate their skill and creativity.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 16, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> As he has been speaking, you've noticed a bluish tinge growing on his face. You chalk it up to the stress, until he gasps and clutches his chest. "The... fish...!" he croaks out, and then falls face first into his plate, dead.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoBTsMJ4jNk]Was it salmon mousse?[/ame]

Oh, and that's what saving throws are for.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 16, 2009)

Mallus said:


> So the setting began as fiction. Or a form of masturbation. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Okay...




Wow, yeah, thanks for being condescending.



> But as soon as you began running an RPG in it, that changed. The setting needed to conform, in some fashion, to the game system used, it needed to conform to the needs of the specific campaign you ran, it needed to become a gaming space, etc.




Or, you know, I modified the hell out of the game system to suit the world.



> You could almost say at that point you had two related settings; the purely fictional one and the one you used as a game environment. Note that this is usually what happens in licensed gaming fiction (the FR of the rule books is different from the FR of the novels).




No, I refuse to do this.



> But I think you'd find I'm a pretty good guy to discuss worldbuilding with. Even people who disagree w/me on other gaming-related topics admit I'm good at it.




I don't see how this is at all relevant, but sure, whatever you say.



> Go back and read my posts again. My overall point has been pretty clear (I think...).




That you and a few others around here seem to think that I'm crazy and doing it wrong and am basically an idiot for not seeing it your way, and seem to think that it's perfectly acceptable to condescend to those who do things differently than you?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 16, 2009)

Mallus said:


> So the setting began as fiction. Or a form of masturbation. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Okay...




(1)  The setting isn't fiction until action takes place in it.  Until that point, there is no "story" and hence no fiction.  The setting is no more (or less) fictitious when the game occurs than when the game is in prep.

(2)  Do you refer to your gaming as "a form of group masturbation"?  If not, may I suggest that this sort of comment might not be appropriate?


RC


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 16, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> (1) The setting isn't fiction until action takes place in it. Until that point, there is no "story" and hence no fiction. The setting is no more (or less) fictitious when the game occurs than when the game is in prep.



Exactly!  That's why its ok to change stuff that hasn't happened yet.

For the record, everyone responded to my earlier post by arguing the hypothetical.  Like I predicted like ten pages ago.  I'd be psychic except I converted to 4e and we don't have those yet.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 16, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> (1)  The setting isn't fiction until action takes place in it.



I'm calling the writing of fictional setting details 'fiction'. It's shorthand.



> Do you refer to your gaming as "a form of group masturbation"?



Heh... no. But I _do_ sometimes refer to setting development as masturbation (because so much of it is done solely for my pleasure and in accordance w/my specific fetishes interests). It's a little self-deprecating humor... 

I know it's a tad vulgar, but also apt. I'm an inveterate world-builder. I like creating details for their own sake, or rather, for mine, for the sheer joy of making sh stuff up. But I also know that once I agree to use said world in an RPG campaign, I need to bend/break/remake it to serve the needs of the game.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 16, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> Wow, yeah, thanks for being condescending.



I wasn't being condescending, I was being self-deprecating (I've spent a great deal of time noodling away on setting creation, too). But you didn't have a way of knowing that, so I apologize. 



> No, I refuse to do this.



I accept that, but I really struggle to see the benefit of it. Why hold to one version of a fictional construct when you can just as easily have _many_?



> I don't see how this is at all relevant...



Relevant? I just like to mention the things I'm good at .



> That you and a few others around here seem to think that I'm crazy and doing it wrong and am basically an idiot for not seeing it your way...



All I said to you was 'objectivity is harder than you make it out to be'.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 16, 2009)

D&D is a game. It can be just the starting point for making your own, perhaps quite different game. You are explicitly encouraged to do so: "The best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!"

By the same token, it seems untenable to knock folks for playing the game as it was designed to be played.

Heroism has nothing intrinsically to do with D&D. The reason it includes no player "wish lists" for magic items is that uncertainty is part of the game (as are such probabilities as the rarity of enchanted arms usable by clerics). It's a matter neither of literary theory nor of "realism" but of game design.

Likewise, it is beside the point that at some point the referee must make decisions about the environment. Taking it for granted, how does it follow (as has time and again been suggested) that the referee's decisions must be to make every situation conform to some notion of what's "appropriate" for the PCs? I does not follow; that is a value judgment to be derived from other predicates -- certainly not from Arneson and Gygax!



> The fear of "death", its risk each time, is one of the most stimulating parts of the game. It therefore behooves the campaign referee to include as many mystifying and dangerous areas as is consistent with a reasonable chance for survival (remembering that the monster population already threatens this survival). For example, there is no question that a player's character could easily be killed by falling into a pit thirty feet deep or into a shallow pit filled with poisoned spikes, and this is quite undesirable in most instances.



"In most instances" (as opposed to "all" or "no" instances) is key, and is to be taken in the full context. "A reasonable chance for survival" is a consideration not spot-by-spot on the map, or relative to a particular character, but in the milieu _as a whole_.

Verisimilitude can be appreciated as aesthetic, but its primary function is to provide a reasonable basis by which players can address the limited-information aspect of the game. Again, that is _not_ a matter of ensuring that every player in every situation is able to make a well-informed choice.

It is a game of probabilities, not certainties. In the long run, skilled play results on average in fewer character casualties. One can derive from the books a broad sense of the level of difficulty the designers had in mind, but the number of variables prohibits precise evaluation.

There's no reason one need like that, any more than it is incumbent on anyone to like Chess or Backgammon. It happens simply to be the way the game was intended to be.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 16, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I wasn't being condescending, I was being self-deprecating (I've spent a great deal of time noodling away on setting creation, too). But you didn't have a way of knowing that, so I apologize.




Apology accepted.

As a note, I'm ridiculously defensive when it comes to my particular approach to gaming, although part of that is the atmosphere of EN World in the past seven months or so. I'll try not to interpret everything you say as hostile.



> I accept that, but I really struggle to see the benefit of it. Why hold to one version of a fictional construct when you can just as easily have _many_?




Having many makes PC interaction with the setting completely and utterly meaningless, which is something I want to avoid.

I like the idea of a game being able to change the world. I also like the idea of being able to write fiction in the setting. I also like the idea of being able to "turn the crank" on a hypothetical mechanical system that would progress the setting forward in a logical and internally-consistent manner.

These three ideals do not have to be mutually exclusive; they can work together and maintain a cohesive setting.



> All I said to you was 'objectivity is harder than you make it out to be'.




I don't think that I have argued against it being difficult.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 16, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Exactly! That's why its ok to change stuff that hasn't happened yet.




Who in this thread ever said it wasn't ok,let me guess no we're all confused and restraining ourselves... *if that's your preferred playstyle* good for you.  Why are you trying to make this a wrong way/right way thing when it's simply a preference thing?  I'm seeing alot more... you *should* do this for a more "fun" game from your side of the camp than those promoting sandbox play



Cadfan said:


> For the record, everyone responded to my earlier post by arguing the hypothetical. Like I predicted like ten pages ago. I'd be psychic except I converted to 4e and we don't have those yet.




Are you talking about the hypothetical situation and thoughts of a DM you posted earlier?  I'm a little confused by what you are referring to here.


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Mar 16, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Who in this thread ever said it wasn't ok,let me guess no we're all confused and restraining ourselves... *if that's your preferred playstyle* good for you.  Why are you trying to make this a wrong way/right way thing when it's simply a preference thing?  I'm seeing alot more... you *should* do this for a more "fun" game from your side of the camp than those promoting sandbox play.



As a disclaimer, I find myself of more similar views to Cadfan than, in your words, "those promoting sandbox play." (I'm assuming that by 'sandbox play' you mean the "create the world and let it run itself" ideal. If that's incorrect, well ... substitute whatever term is appropriate.)

Personally, I'm seeing the opposite. In other words, that the sandbox proponents are saying a lot more "you _should_ do this for a more enjoyable game", and their opposition is doing this less so. 

I'm not trying to say this is necessarily the case, though I think it's an interesting point in favour of 'objectivity is hard'. People naturally associate better motives with those who agree with them than those who don't. The internet in general is a good proof for this  



Cadfan said:


> For the record, everyone responded to my earlier post by arguing the hypothetical.  Like I predicted like ten pages ago.  I'd be psychic except I converted to 4e and we don't have those yet.



Haha, that made me laugh. Thanks  Maybe next spring we can be psychic


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 17, 2009)

*Entertainment*

The world exists to entertain, period.

It entertains the DM during the design process.

The DM entertains the players by running games in it, thus bringing it to life.

The players entertain the DM by what they do to it, and the characters they supply as the engines of destruction.

It just doesn't get any simpler than that.

Lan-"here we are now, entertain us"-efan


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 17, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Exactly!  That's why its ok to change stuff that hasn't happened yet.




Sorry, but that doesn't follow logically from the statement I made.



> For the record, everyone responded to my earlier post by arguing the hypothetical.  Like I predicted like ten pages ago.  I'd be psychic except I converted to 4e and we don't have those yet.




Or, perhaps, we merely have consistent positions?


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 17, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> *Mustrum_Ridcully*, have you met *Melan*?



No.



> I like to randomly generate NPCs, including their personalities and quirks, because it keeps things fresh and I often end up with character I never would've considered creating with the influence of the dice. I can get a lot of mileage out of random results before I finally have to put my hands on the wheel.Not everything, but perhaps more than some referees realize.Because the referee is supposed to be impartial with respect to outcomes? Because the referee's role at the table is different than that of the players?



I am not an impartial "referee". I am a DM. I want to bring certain elements into the game I find interesting and fun, and I usually expect that they will also interest my players and bring them fun, too. (If I find that what I thought might be fun or interesting is not, I will also try to change things, because I don't think I can have fun when the players don't have it. In my group, that probably wouldn't fly, either... We like to "meta-talk" about the game afterwards, since everyone is a DM and a player.)

I create NPCs not randomly (usually at least), because I want to "tell" certain stories. I use quotes because I don't really know the story that will unfold, I only know what has happened in the game world and what probably will happen as long as the PCs don't interfere, and I might even have some ideas - based on past experiences - on what the PCs will do.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 17, 2009)

@ Cadfan:

It also occurs to me that, if it is decided that the poison is in the wine, and the PC drinks the wine, that part of the world has been interacted with, and that, should your reasoning be followed through, it should no longer be subject to change.


RC


----------



## billd91 (Mar 17, 2009)

jim pinto said:


> But, if you want to make D&D more accessible and more viable as a product in the 21st century… find a way to make it zero-prep and GM-friendly and more people will be playing it. It's competing against the greatest zero-prep game of all time, WoW.




I think you're laboring under a tremendous misconception here. WoW isn't zero-prep at all. But its prep is all done with the design and development teams and served out to literally everybody at the same time and managed algorithmically. The prep burden, traditionally borne by the on-hand DM, is borne by the remote team and given extended reach by the online structure, both necessary because there simply is no on-hand DM. So the misconception is that the zero-prep label can really be applied to WoW in the absence of a game master in the first place.


----------

