# New Dungeoncraft: The Dungeons of Greenbrier Chasm



## TerraDave (Feb 13, 2008)

More on preparing for a low level campaign, with a focus on dungeon building. 

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dudc/20080213a


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 13, 2008)

*Full article text:*

Last time, we walked through the process of creating a starting area for my . . . er, your first 4th Edition campaign. We created the troubled village of Greenbrier and came up with ideas for a few adventure spots nearby: Tower Watch, Harrows Pass, and Greenbrier Chasm. We decided that Greenbrier Chasm would be the starting dungeon, so that's where we're turning our attention this month.

I haven't actually pulled my next gaming group together yet. Presumably, you have a better idea of who's in your group and what they enjoy in a D&D game. That's actually our first consideration in thinking about the dungeons of Greenbrier Chasm. If you could call your group of players "slayers" -- the kind of people who come to the game table from work or school ready to lay some smackdown on whatever monsters stand between them and treasure -- you have a pretty easy job. Just draw or find a dungeon map and start populating it with said monsters and treasures. 

Assuming that your players have some interest in story and social interaction within the game, though, we're going to go a little deeper into the story of Greenbrier Chasm. That means we must first make some decisions about what happened to create it.

You might think about that question from a couple of different angles. Was the opening of the chasm a goal -- someone set out to open it in order to access the dungeons below -- or a side effect of a larger plan? Maybe it was an earthquake, or maybe a not-so-natural disaster. Or instead of someone on the surface opening the chasm to get inside, perhaps someone in the dungeons broke free, or created an opening to the outside world.

Last month, we discussed the idea that the opening of the chasm was connected to the burning of the nearby forest. So let's take that idea of something breaking out of the chasm and run with it. Deep in the ancient ruins of Greenbrier Chasm, something was bound by powerful magic. After centuries of slumber, something happened -- maybe an earthquake broke the circle of binding that held it imprisoned, or maybe it simply served its sentence of 1,001 years. Whatever it was, the creature exploded up from the earth, creating the chasm, and rampaged off into the wilderness, burning the forest to cinders at the same time. The burning suggests that we might be looking for some kind of entity of fire, but we'll leave the nature of the prisoner aside for the moment.

What I like about this angle to the story is that it suggests a long-term campaign goal -- hunting down whatever creature was imprisoned there and either killing it or returning it to its prison. That's not something the characters might even think about until they're into the epic levels, but I can work seeds of that idea into even the very first adventures of my campaign. So I'm going to hold on to the question of the nature of the beast until I have a better idea of what sorts of themes I want to explore in my campaign.

Fortunately, I've had one of those ideas bouncing around in my head for the last couple of days. I was moving my D&D books from one room of our house to another, and my eye fell on Lords of Madness: The Book of Aberrations. I love that book -- it's one of my favorite 3rd Edition books I didn't write. I like aberrations, I like the themes of madness and the corruption of nature they suggest, and I like the Lovecraftian edge they bring to the game, while remaining distinctly D&D. 

I also really like the organizations and prestige classes dedicated to fighting aberrations: the nature-focused Circle of the True, the psionic-themed Society of the Sanctified Mind, the holy Topaz Order, and the lone-wolf keepers of the Cerulean Sign. Cool anti-aberration organizations with really cool names . . . and very easy to loot for a 4th Edition campaign, even without making use of the specific mechanics attached to the prestige classes.

So I'm going to fill the deeper dungeons of Greenbrier Chasm with aberrations. The 4th Edition Monster Manual doesn't have much in the way of low-level aberrations, though, so I'll have to get creative. But I'll definitely hold on to the idea that the lower reaches of the chasm provide entry into more dangerous levels of the ruins, which I can populate with mind flayers and aboleths and other higher-level aberrations. As the characters approach paragon levels, I can start to introduce foulspawn and carrion crawlers, but for now aberrations are a bit out of reach.

This is telling me that Greenbrier Chasm has a lot of potential for adventuring through the life of the campaign. Probably, the characters' adventures will take them away from Greenbrier for a time, but that can be a really rewarding aspect of a campaign: The characters leave their home town and go off to grand adventures, then come back home as powerful heroes and face new threats back in their very first dungeon. That will be great, when the time comes.

So what do I do during the character's first few levels? As I said before, I get creative. The Monster Manual is full of low-level monsters, from the usual kobolds, goblins, and orcs to stranger fare such as kruthiks and needlefang drakes. There's nothing that really screams "aberration" at me, except maybe the kruthiks, but sometimes it's all in the perception. Let's say that whatever hideous aberration was imprisoned in the depths of Greenbrier Chasm tainted the upper reaches of the dungeons as well, corrupting the creatures that made their homes there. So I can use kobolds and goblins, but these will be warped kobolds and goblins, twisted into horrible mockeries of their original forms. (What makes an aberration an aberration? The answer is largely cosmetic.) Just changing the appearance of these monsters will make them seem strange and alien, giving the players a clue about the dangers lurking farther below. At some point, maybe I'll either modify a hobgoblin stat block or reduce the level of one of the foulspawn in the Monster Manual to make a major opponent for a climactic battle.

So far, then, I have an origin story for the chasm itself (which might come out in local legends), an idea of a really broad arc for the whole campaign, and some starting ideas for the first excursion into the chasm, and the kind of monsters the characters might face there.

*What Is Your Quest?*
I have a story background, and I have monsters to kill. One thing I lack is a story for the actual adventure. I don't mean a narrative of the adventure's events -- my players will write that as they play through the adventure. I mean some idea of what draws the characters into the adventure and what they're trying to accomplish. In 4th Edition, the characters' goals come wrapped in the handy mechanical wrapper of quests. 

What brings the characters to Greenbrier Chasm? 

For reasons I'll soon make clear, I want to steer clear of the clichéd idea that the denizens of the dungeon have been raiding outlying farms or ambushing caravans. So a couple of alternative ideas are bubbling around in my mind (partly inspired by looking at the 4E Dungeon Master's Guide's list of adventure seeds). 

Rather than monsters or raiders coming out of the chasm, weird, alien energies are spreading out from it, warping crops and twisting animal life. Then a calf is stillborn in a farmstead near the chasm, its body equally corrupted. That's enough to spur the town into action, before the Depravation (as they call it) spreads into humans.


It's a tradition in the town that in order to be recognized as an adult, a young person must spend the night in a place of danger. In the old days, youths would sleep in a dark part of the forest, but since the burning of the forest, Greenbrier Chasm has been the dangerous location of choice. Most people come back to the village alive, but then, most of them sleep on a ledge near the top of the chasm. When the PCs (as a group) undergo their rite of passage, they see strange lights in a cave mouth just below them. If that fails to lure them into the dungeon, some warped goblins come out and attack.


An ancient prophecy known to the village elders (or one crazy old priest of Pelor) describes the events surrounding a solar eclipse. The eclipse is due to occur in a few months, and the prophecy contains dire warnings about what will happen if a particular ceremony is not performed on the day of the eclipse. The problem is, the prophecy dates from the time when the dungeons in the chasm were inhabited, and the ceremony has to be performed there. The characters are handed a dusty old scroll and some ritual materials, and off they go into the dungeons, the fate of the village in their hands!​
There are three ideas off the top of my head. I'm least enthusiastic about the second one, but if I wanted to, I could combine all three. Let's try this: 

Most or all of the characters are approaching their rites of passage. There's some debate among the villagers about whether to perform the rites this year or not, because of the weird energies that seem to be emanating from the chasm. Perhaps the PCs join in this debate. But one additional factor is that one member of the party -- someone with ties to the crazy old priest of Pelor -- has another reason to enter the dungeons. He's going in to perform the ritual. Maybe he doesn't want to tell the others about it, or maybe it's an important point in the ongoing debate. The result, at any rate, is that the PCs enter the dungeons, intending to spend the night, perform the ritual in the morning, and emerge afterward, hopefully in one piece.​
Now the characters have a good story reason for entering the dungeons. Here's the catch: The PCs enter the dungeon, kill some of its inhabitants, perform their ritual, and leave. Naturally, that angers the other denizens of the dungeon, and they launch some raids into the village and farms. So we do actually reach the cliché, but now the PCs have a really good, personal reason for stopping the raids: the raids are, essentially, their fault.

*Mapping the Dungeons*
True confessions time: I hate drawing dungeon maps. So here's where I come back to a recurring theme in these articles: creative theft. For this article, I was lucky enough to have the fabulous Chris West draw a map for me. If it weren't for that, I would be digging through old adventures or looking at Maps of Mystery to find a pretty basic, straightforward dungeon map. I'd copy it, and then pull out the big magic marker.


If you can find a map that's perfectly suited to your needs, by all means use it. But if you can't, don't feel like your only choice is to draw one from scratch. That's why I call it creative theft -- I'm stealing, as it were, using a map drawn for some other purpose. But I'm using my own creativity to stitch it into the patchwork campaign I'm creating. 

In this case, I'm going to interrupt this dungeon with Greenbrier Chasm. I'll take a magic marker and look for just the right place to draw a long, wide gash, right through the middle of the dungeon. That should leave a lot of cave entrances on both sides of the chasm where the gash cut through chambers and corridors. Already this is looking like a map that's unique to this adventure.

As I think about this, I decide I want the chasm to be a part of the adventure as well -- I won't just send the characters into the dungeon and keep them there until they're done. So I want some of those cave entrances to be dead-ends -- to lead into small areas of chambers and tunnels that go nowhere. They'll be self-contained encounter areas, and the PCs will have to travel through the chasm to get between them. So, marker in hand, I start coloring in some passageways to block corridors that link sections of the dungeon. At the same time, I want to make sure I have room for future expansion. I'm going to add some passages going off the edge of the map, as well as some stairs leading down. I can also, if I need to, create connections between different areas that would otherwise be cut off by the chasm, though I'll only do that if I need to bring some rooms together into a larger encounter area. 


Speaking of encounter areas, here's something I learned while working on last year's Expedition to Castle Ravenloft adventure. When you're working with an existing map, particularly a map from an older adventure (like the original Ravenloft adventure), you need to train yourself to approach the map from a different perspective than that of the original cartographer and adventure designer. A 20-foot by 30-foot featureless room was a perfectly reasonable encounter area in those days, but it's just not any more. Most 3rd Edition encounters, and especially 4th Edition encounters, play a lot better in larger areas. But that doesn't mean you can't use old maps -- quite the contrary, actually. I found that some of the most interesting encounter areas in Castle Ravenloft were places where I grouped three or four rooms together to form a single encounter. The PCs barge into one room and start fighting there, and either the noise attracts monsters from another room, or some of the monsters in the first room retreat into the hallway or circle around to other doors. Multiple rooms means lots of cover, lots of movement, and combat on multiple "front lines," all of which make for more dynamic and interesting encounters.

Encounter design, though, is still a few steps away. Next time, we'll do a little more exploring into the idea of a campaign arc, and think about the various forces acting on the region of Greenbrier. 

*The Idea File*
This is a great time to mention one of a DM's essential tools: some kind of notebook or electronic file to hold the random ideas that come into your head at strange times. I bring it up because I have two more ideas bouncing around in my head that I'm filing away for future reference. I want to have those written down somewhere, or else I'll forget them. Guaranteed. I'll leaf through my notebook once in a while, especially when I'm looking for inspiration. 

The first idea is directly relevant to the campaign I'm building around Greenbrier Chasm, and it has to do with another older D&D product I want to loot: The Gates of Firestorm Peak, a late-90s adventure written by Bruce Cordell. This adventure more or less introduced the Far Realm to the D&D cosmology, and Bruce has had a reputation (or at least his creations have!) for slime and tentacles ever since. So clearly it would fit in with the aberrations theme I've started building. At some point, I'll want to work that adventure into this campaign, or an adaptation of it. Maybe I can tie it in with the Harrows Pass I scrawled on my map last time.

The second idea is something that popped into my head while my son was watching TV at his grandmother's house. I don't really know what he was watching, but it sparked the idea of a campaign world that's entirely underground, with civilized population centers on the upper levels and different dungeon complexes on deeper levels. Something about the verticality of that environment appeals to me -- it's sort of like an underground Sharn, Eberron's City of Towers. I like the idea that going on an adventure doesn't mean trekking across the wilderness to some remote ruins; instead it means descending once more into the depths below your home to prevent the latest threat from working its way up from the darkness. That's a setting that takes the "points of light" idea of the D&D world to its extreme conclusion. In theory, I could add a city-dungeon like that to my Greenbrier campaign, but I suspect it would work better if I built the whole campaign around it. So I'll file it away in the Idea File.

*Next time:* The campaign arc for Greenbrier Chasm!


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 13, 2008)

Links to the two maps:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/dungeoncraft_20080213_2.jpg

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/dungeoncraft_20080213_1.jpg


----------



## mhensley (Feb 13, 2008)

It's disappointing that he didn't take this into more of a sandbox style direction.  Oh well, it's still a decent read.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 13, 2008)

I thought it was good. And not just for the "make your own caves of chaos". Definately liked it better then the first one.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 13, 2008)

I love reading these building articles. Much more than session reports.

Dammit, now I want to start a new campaign...


----------



## scrubkai (Feb 13, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> In 4th Edition, the characters' goals come wrapped in the handy mechanical wrapper of quests.




Sounds like we have confirmation that Quests are a new subsystem in 4th edition.


----------



## helium3 (Feb 13, 2008)

scrubkai said:
			
		

> Sounds like we have confirmation that Quests are a new subsystem in 4th edition.




I'm still just not understanding why the game needs a "mechanical wrapper" for quests. Beyond that, what does said "mechanical wrapper" look like? I guess this is a feature that's more for newcomers to the game?


----------



## PeterWeller (Feb 13, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> It's disappointing that he didn't take this into more of a sandbox style direction.  Oh well, it's still a decent read.




I don't know.  I still like to have a tight introductory adventure in sand box games because it creates a strong sense of party cohesion right off the bat.  That being said, it doesn't sound like he's planning on making the campaign a sand box.


----------



## Kesh (Feb 13, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> I'm still just not understanding why the game needs a "mechanical wrapper" for quests. Beyond that, what does said "mechanical wrapper" look like? I guess this is a feature that's more for newcomers to the game?



 From what we've seen, yes, it's more to help out newcomers. New players/DMs can get overwhelmed or forget the details of a quest they set out on three sessions ago, so the new "mechanic" should help out with that.


----------



## helium3 (Feb 13, 2008)

Kesh said:
			
		

> From what we've seen, yes, it's more to help out newcomers. New players/DMs can get overwhelmed or forget the details of a quest they set out on three sessions ago, so the new "mechanic" should help out with that.




So is the "mechanic" still those Quest Card things?


----------



## Voss (Feb 13, 2008)

Meh.  Those maps are pretty bad.  He doesn't give any context for them (they were clearly sewer maps, with a ludicrous number of random structures built off them), doesn't give any reason for why they are there or what happens when the PCs wander off down the side tunnels. Its the typical 'here is a random assortment of rooms, lets call it a dungeon' map.

The story ideas aren't bad, but are just as cliched as raiders attacking the town.  'Depravation' is a little out of place, however.  Not sure what makes crops and calves 'depraved'

Just... meh.


----------



## helium3 (Feb 13, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Doesn't give any reason for why they are there or what happens when the PCs wander off down the side tunnels. Its the typical 'here is a random assortment of rooms, lets call it a dungeon' map.




I assumed he'd cover the origin on the dungeon at a future date.

Besides, don't most players not really care about that sort of stuff?


----------



## Voss (Feb 13, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> I assumed he'd cover the origin on the dungeon at a future date.
> 
> Besides, don't most players not really care about that sort of stuff?



I have no idea- speculating on what 'most people' care about seems an exercise in futility.  But it is odd sitting next to criticism of old module design, since its the same kind of thing.


----------



## mhensley (Feb 13, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> The story ideas aren't bad, but are just as cliched as raiders attacking the town.  'Depravation' is a little out of place, however.  Not sure what makes crops and calves 'depraved'




Something like this?


----------



## helium3 (Feb 13, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Something like this?




See, I wouldn't pussyfoot around and have it only affect livestock and then say "the villagers want you to fix this before it starts to affect us." I'd have the villagers giving birth to goblins or gricks or something and then say "the villagers beg you to end this terrible curse before another of their young maidens dies in childbirth from the abomination in her womb."

More emotional resonance that way.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Feb 13, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> See, I wouldn't pussyfoot around and have it only affect livestock and then say "the villagers want you to fix this before it starts to affect us." I'd have the villagers giving birth to goblins or gricks or something and then say "the villagers beg you to end this terrible curse before another of their young maidens dies in childbirth from the abomination in her womb."
> 
> More emotional resonance that way.




Depends on how you build the tension. Maybe you want it more like a horror movie, with things starting off a little creepy and only getting really "out there" when the party's actually up against some scary monsters.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 13, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> So is the "mechanic" still those Quest Card things?



The quest cards are not the mechanic. They are a suggestion how to represent them a game, similar to a suggestion of giving the players a hand-out with the map of an area, minus the secret doors, traps and other DM secrets. 

The Quests are basically "story-based" XP. So that a DM can grant XP for stuff that's not an encounter with other creatures, or where the XP value of the activity is badly measured with the XP value granted for overcoming the challenge of a monster/NPC. (Like dealing with an aristocrat that you could easily kill, but don't want to, because that's not the solution to your goals...)


----------



## Cake Mage (Feb 13, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> See, I wouldn't pussyfoot around and have it only affect livestock and then say "the villagers want you to fix this before it starts to affect us." I'd have the villagers giving birth to goblins or gricks or something and then say "the villagers beg you to end this terrible curse before another of their young maidens dies in childbirth from the abomination in her womb."
> 
> More emotional resonance that way.





I like the way you think.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 13, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The Quests are basically "story-based" XP. So that a DM can grant XP for stuff that's not an encounter with other creatures, or where the XP value of the activity is badly measured with the XP value granted for overcoming the challenge of a monster/NPC. (Like dealing with an aristocrat that you could easily kill, but don't want to, because that's not the solution to your goals...)




They are also a way to communicate this to players. Versus traditional story goals, which tend to be more implicit.


----------



## Cake Mage (Feb 13, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The quest cards are not the mechanic. They are a suggestion how to represent them a game, similar to a suggestion of giving the players a hand-out with the map of an area, minus the secret doors, traps and other DM secrets.
> 
> The Quests are basically "story-based" XP. So that a DM can grant XP for stuff that's not an encounter with other creatures, or where the XP value of the activity is badly measured with the XP value granted for overcoming the challenge of a monster/NPC. (Like dealing with an aristocrat that you could easily kill, but don't want to, because that's not the solution to your goals...)





I already do this in my 3.5 game.  I give xp when they complete a "mission". Usually just bonus xp when they accomplish something.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 13, 2008)

Cake Mage said:
			
		

> I already do this in my 3.5 game.  I give xp when they complete a "mission". Usually just bonus xp when they accomplish something.



I think a lot of people do it. I think even official adventure modules do it. 

The reason why it's part of the game system in 4E seems to be that inexperienced DMs might have trouble coming up with a good guideline on how to do story-based XP. The 3.5 DMG isn't that eloberate on the matter, but it contains several tables for treasure rewards and a big table for XP by Challenge Rating. The MM gives CR values for monsters, and the DMG gives CR values for traps, but there is no equivalent for story-based XP.


----------



## Primal (Feb 13, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> *Full article text:*
> 
> *Last month*, we discussed the idea that the opening of the chasm was connected to the burning of the nearby forest.





Um, don't they proofread their articles? I seem to recall that the last Dungeoncraft installment came out in October?


----------



## Primal (Feb 13, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Meh.  Those maps are pretty bad.  He doesn't give any context for them (they were clearly sewer maps, with a ludicrous number of random structures built off them), doesn't give any reason for why they are there or what happens when the PCs wander off down the side tunnels. Its the typical 'here is a random assortment of rooms, lets call it a dungeon' map.
> 
> The story ideas aren't bad, but are just as cliched as raiders attacking the town.  'Depravation' is a little out of place, however.  Not sure what makes crops and calves 'depraved'
> 
> Just... meh.




I agree. All this reminded me heavily of the 'Expedition to Undermountain'-module. First of all, we didn't use the really lousy backstory ("You dream of Halaster dying, and with tearful eyes you realize that you *must* do something for Undermountain... etc.") because it was just laughable. It featured  so badly done maps for levels 1 and 2 that they were practically unusable -- not to mention that the rift featured in the 'Delve'-format encounter area maps was not shown at all. And since they couldn't fit the whole level maps on one page, they just cropped them, which resulted in many corridors leading off the edge of the maps. You really needed the original 'Undermountain Boxed Set' to run this adventure properly.  All in all, 
if I ran this module without the original room and level descriptions, it would feel like the players were stumbling through endlessly long and empty corridors ("Hey, it seems that the reputation of this place is way exaggerated -- so far no monsters or treasure at all, and we've probably mapped half the level!").

Which brings me to my actual point. You see, I think this will be the "new" thesis for Adventure Building in 4E -- you only need the Encounter Areas and the rest of the dungeon will be just "You enter the Halls of the Bronzebottom Dwarven Clan and pass through two miles of empty chambers and musty corridors... *UNTIL* you finally find a set of bronze double doors deep within the halls! Roll for Perception, guys!"-type of short descriptions. Isn't 4E all about combat action, after all? I think it works in fiction (e.g. couldn't imagine why Tolkien would have described every passage or room in Moria) but I *like* to draw maps, and I think this style of DMing (or playing) would not fit me.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Feb 13, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Which brings me to my actual point. You see, I think this will be the "new" thesis for Adventure Building in 4E -- you only need the Encounter Areas and the rest of the dungeon will be just "You enter the Halls of the Bronzebottom Dwarven Clan and pass through two miles of empty chambers and musty corridors... *UNTIL* you finally find a set of bronze double doors deep within the halls! Roll for Perception, guys!"-type of short descriptions. Isn't 4E all about combat action, after all? I think it works in fiction (e.g. couldn't imagine why Tolkien would have described every passage or room in Moria) but I *like* to draw maps, and I think this style of DMing (or playing) would not fit me.




I've put some thought into this to.  My current idea is to have Dungeoneering or some similar skill useable to navigate vast dungeons like undermountain, moria, the TOEE, etc.  If you make the check, you get to the "zone" I have mapped out, or at least to the next bottleneck with a guardian in it.  If you fail, well, floors collapse and dump you on the wrong level, encounters with wandering monsters, simply getting lost, etc.  Depending on the extent to which I can make all of those results interesting.


----------



## Primal (Feb 13, 2008)

WyzardWhately said:
			
		

> I've put some thought into this to.  My current idea is to have Dungeoneering or some similar skill useable to navigate vast dungeons like undermountain, moria, the TOEE, etc.  If you make the check, you get to the "zone" I have mapped out, or at least to the next bottleneck with a guardian in it.  If you fail, well, floors collapse and dump you on the wrong level, encounters with wandering monsters, simply getting lost, etc.  Depending on the extent to which I can make all of those results interesting.




Hmmm... it might work -- depends on which style of play your players prefer. Yet I fear that 4E is pretty much doing away with "dungeon dressing" (minor details, traps, items, treasure, monsters, hand-outs, etc.) .

And to disagree with mr. Wyatt: I *do* think empty rooms have their place in any dungeon -- you don't always need to have a monster or a "challenge" in a room to make it feel exciting. If my PC finds a hidden pouch of coins, a torn piece of map a mysterious rune scrawled on the floor or in an otherwise empty room, I'm usually excited. 

And you need empty rooms so that the "Encounter Areas" and action would feel more special -- i.e. exploring the "empty" areas usually builds up tension very effectively. I remember one particular dwarven delve which had lots of empty chambers (actually most of them very "empty" of both monsters and traps), but then there were many that contained a lot of minor (i.e. "unimportant") details (such as runes and statues) and hidden caches (one even contained a magical shield). Although it took us four or five sessions to completely explore the place, none of us felt bored, because the whole place had felt heavy with tension and ancient history.


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 13, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Hmmm... it might work -- depends on which style of play your players prefer. Yet I fear that 4E is pretty much doing away with "dungeon dressing" (minor details, traps, items, treasure, monsters, hand-outs, etc.) .
> 
> And to disagree with mr. Wyatt: I *do* think empty rooms have their place in any dungeon -- you don't always need to have a monster or a "challenge" in a room to make it feel exciting. If my PC finds a hidden pouch of coins, a torn piece of map a mysterious rune scrawled on the floor or in an otherwise empty room, I'm usually excited.
> 
> And you need empty rooms so that the "Encounter Areas" and action would feel more special -- i.e. exploring the "empty" areas usually builds up tension very effectively. I remember one particular dwarven delve which had lots of empty chambers (actually most of them very "empty" of both monsters and traps), but then there were many that contained a lot of minor (i.e. "unimportant") details (such as runes and statues) and hidden caches (one even contained a magical shield). Although it took us four or five sessions to completely explore the place, none of us felt bored, because the whole place had felt heavy with tension and ancient history.




Haha, that would have never worked with the group I play with. I remember doing a section of Undermountain (I got to play) and we had two empty rooms in a row and a player said "yeah, yeah, that's all nice, but we just keep going, room after room, until we find something interesting. Any small items we throw in the bag, just give us a list later. Let's get a move on it."

We were then attacked by wandering monsters. Higher level wandering monsters.


----------



## Cake Mage (Feb 13, 2008)

if you do things like that, how are you to put the hidden traps in the dungeon.  

"eh, and then you come to another empty hallway.  Nothing interesting here, nope."

"so we move on..."

"HAHAHA, there is a trap!!!!, roll a reflex save!!"

kinda lame.


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Feb 13, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> "You enter the Halls of the Bronzebottom Dwarven Clan and pass through two miles of empty chambers and musty corridors... *UNTIL* you finally find a set of bronze double doors deep within the halls! Roll for Perception, guys!"




That's how I started out running D&D sessions back in the day.  I map out the whole area now, but I don't know that it's really improved the game much.  I used to just use a battle map when a fight broke out, at which point we'd kind of decide where everyone was by general group consensus.  Everything else was purely descriptive, all in our heads.  These days I draw out the whole dungeon to scale on a massive graph paper tablet and have the players move their minis around for most of the session, which has made it feel a little more like a board game, for good or ill.


----------



## Voss (Feb 14, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Which brings me to my actual point. You see, I think this will be the "new" thesis for Adventure Building in 4E -- you only need the Encounter Areas and the rest of the dungeon will be just "You enter the Halls of the Bronzebottom Dwarven Clan and pass through two miles of empty chambers and musty corridors... *UNTIL* you finally find a set of bronze double doors deep within the halls! Roll for Perception, guys!"-type of short descriptions. Isn't 4E all about combat action, after all?




It certainly seems that way.  For me, the uber-dungeon and the senseless dungeons are pretty much played out.  I ran the original undermountain box set way back in 2e and, well... wouldn't want to do that again.  Or subject players to fight, trap, fight, fight, weirdness, random crap to break up the monotony, portal, fight, blah.  

I'd rather have plots and intrigues and heroics, rather than just a dungeon where you go in and kill everything, thats standing around waiting to be killed.  And while dungeons can be used for that, but the big crawls of the past were a bit one dimensional.


----------



## king_ghidorah (Feb 14, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Hmmm... it might work -- depends on which style of play your players prefer. Yet I fear that 4E is pretty much doing away with "dungeon dressing" (minor details, traps, items, treasure, monsters, hand-outs, etc.) .
> 
> And to disagree with mr. Wyatt: I *do* think empty rooms have their place in any dungeon -- you don't always need to have a monster or a "challenge" in a room to make it feel exciting. If my PC finds a hidden pouch of coins, a torn piece of map a mysterious rune scrawled on the floor or in an otherwise empty room, I'm usually excited.
> 
> And you need empty rooms so that the "Encounter Areas" and action would feel more special -- i.e. exploring the "empty" areas usually builds up tension very effectively. I remember one particular dwarven delve which had lots of empty chambers (actually most of them very "empty" of both monsters and traps), but then there were many that contained a lot of minor (i.e. "unimportant") details (such as runes and statues) and hidden caches (one even contained a magical shield). Although it took us four or five sessions to completely explore the place, none of us felt bored, because the whole place had felt heavy with tension and ancient history.




Once upon a time, when I first started playing D&D 26 years ago, I might have said exploring empty rooms built tension because we didn't really know what would happen, and the way we played was so random that anything could have happened. As I have gone from teen age to creeping into middle age, I have to disagree with you. Encountering empty rooms one at a time is a waste of my time. Perhaps it's the fact that I don't game for hours every week, perhaps it's the fact taht I'm more jaded, perhaps it's the fact that I expect my games to be more like fiction and less like some weird exploration of disjointed fantasy, but if I played in a game where we wandered around some empty rooms until something happened, I probably wouldn't pla in that game for very long.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 14, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Um, don't they proofread their articles? I seem to recall that the last Dungeoncraft installment came out in October?



Probably they proofread it in November. Everything was right then...


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 14, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> So is the "mechanic" still those Quest Card things?



The mechanic was never the cards.  That was a suggestion.  The mechanic is a codified system of providing rewards to dangle in front of the players for accomplishing things they decide to do, rather than a poorly-defined ad-hoc system like the one in 3.x.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 14, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> See, I wouldn't pussyfoot around and have it only affect livestock and then say "the villagers want you to fix this before it starts to affect us." I'd have the villagers giving birth to goblins or gricks or something and then say "the villagers beg you to end this terrible curse before another of their young maidens dies in childbirth from the abomination in her womb."
> 
> More emotional resonance that way.



Lamashtu approves of this post.


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 14, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Hmmm... it might work -- depends on which style of play your players prefer. Yet I fear that 4E is pretty much doing away with "dungeon dressing" (minor details, traps, items, treasure, monsters, hand-outs, etc.) .




I don't want to be snarky here, but 4e can't possibly do away with any of these elements. We may see fewer published scenarios that deal with them, but most adventures are homebrewed.



> And to disagree with mr. Wyatt: I *do* think empty rooms have their place in any dungeon -- you don't always need to have a monster or a "challenge" in a room to make it feel exciting. If my PC finds a hidden pouch of coins, a torn piece of map a mysterious rune scrawled on the floor or in an otherwise empty room, I'm usually excited.




On this point, I would agree 100%. Not every room must have a challenge in order to be interesting. I would maintain that the examples you've listed above do not equate to _empty _ rooms. They are very pertinent to the scenario at hand.



> And you need empty rooms so that the "Encounter Areas" and action would feel more special -- i.e. exploring the "empty" areas usually builds up tension very effectively. I remember one particular dwarven delve which had lots of empty chambers (actually most of them very "empty" of both monsters and traps), but then there were many that contained a lot of minor (i.e. "unimportant") details (such as runes and statues) and hidden caches (one even contained a magical shield). Although it took us four or five sessions to completely explore the place, none of us felt bored, because the whole place had felt heavy with tension and ancient history.




I wouldn't disagree with the first part of this paragraph either. Large empty spaces are good to help distinguish the encounter areas and to make them unique. My own preference, both as a GM and a player, is to gloss over these areas, to use narrative and a few rooms like you mentioned in the first paragraph to make these places interesting. I have never had much patience for endless descriptions of very repetitive rooms that were devoid of appropriate dressing, clues, information, etc....

Often I will use wandering encounters related to one of the encounter areas to spice up these regions as well.

Every group is different, however. If spending hours mapping out empty rooms and stretches of corridor is fun for your group, that's great. I have never been part of such a group.


----------



## Keenath (Feb 14, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> For me, the uber-dungeon and the senseless dungeons are pretty much played out.  I ran the original undermountain box set way back in 2e and, well... wouldn't want to do that again.  Or subject players to fight, trap, fight, fight, weirdness, random crap to break up the monotony, portal, fight, blah.
> 
> I'd rather have plots and intrigues and heroics, rather than just a dungeon where you go in and kill everything, thats standing around waiting to be killed.  And while dungeons can be used for that, but the big crawls of the past were a bit one dimensional.



QFT.

A ton of the 3.x modules are big dungeons or a very thin storyline wrapped around a series of dungeons (RttToEE, I'm looking at you). I'd much rather spend gametime on a more interesting story with some real goals and skip over the hours of "The passage splits here, left and right..."  "Left."  "Okay, you step on a trap, and there's an ogre in the room..."

A small dungeon is fine, but once you've gone beyond five or six encounters, it's played out.



When it's down to me, I tend to develop small dungeons with three to four decent-sized encounters.  Sometimes I'll link two or three small dungeons with 'dead zones' in the middle -- that's a section that's virtually abandoned where the PCs can rest that otherwise doesn't do much of anything; it's the underground equivalent of a road.


----------



## Remathilis (Feb 14, 2008)

Cake Mage said:
			
		

> if you do things like that, how are you to put the hidden traps in the dungeon.
> 
> "eh, and then you come to another empty hallway.  Nothing interesting here, nope."
> 
> ...




Which has an unintentional corollary:

"eh, and then you come to another empty hallway.  Nothing interesting here, nope."

"Ok, I check the floor for traps" rolls "29?"

Looks at notes. "No. No trap here."

"Ok, I check the ceiling. 26?"

"Nothing"

"Ok, any secret doors? 27"

"none."

"Ok, I tap the ground with my 10' pole..."

"Nothing"

"Ok, I move 10'. I search the ground for traps. 28?"

Repeat Ad nasuem...


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Feb 15, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> I'm still just not understanding why the game needs a "mechanical wrapper" for quests. Beyond that, what does said "mechanical wrapper" look like? I guess this is a feature that's more for newcomers to the game?



Personally, I'm willing to step down a rung lower and see where these quest rules takes me. We're all going to be new comers to 4E, and besides that there are more than a few bad habits from previous editions that need breaking.

I won't allow the possibility of excessive pride to stop me from improving my game.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Feb 15, 2008)

Y'know I missed these before.  These are cool.  I'm a big fan of the reuse a map trick.  

I think he should draw them in pencil though in case the PCs or NPCs alter them around to account for future actions.  I'd include that for the modular overland maps too as even cities can be wiped out.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Feb 15, 2008)

Cake Mage said:
			
		

> if you do things like that, how are you to put the hidden traps in the dungeon.
> 
> "eh, and then you come to another empty hallway.  Nothing interesting here, nope."
> 
> ...



 I seem to recall that was addressed in another writing by WotC.  I think their expectation is that traps won't be that style of "Gotcha!"   Traps (by the way they intend) instead will be either an encounter of its own that needs to be overcome, or they will be part of the environment during an encounter and serve as an obstacle or even a separate combatant.  


As for the article, I'm not so big on the design idea.  For an introductory adventure, I don't like the idea that the chasm is a megadungeon meant to be done in parts.  It just seem unfulfilling to get a group started with the idea of: "You can do a little bit of this right now, but come back when you are more than just local heroes and you can do the rest."

I would prefer the idea that something big and dangerous broke out of Greenbriar Chasm.  Eventually the party goes to the chasm for some reason.  They only encounter lower level things because the area is being repopulated by creatures that would never go near the thing that broke out.  In the course of exploring the chasm, the party can find clues about what once dwelled in there and where it might have gone.  The chasm itself is played out and is done.  Through the party's adventuring career they continue to hear things that may have something to do with whatever broke out until eventually they understand enough to seek it out and stop it.  Maybe I would return to the chasm by having the party discover months/years later that what broke out has returned to it in order to complete some dark ritual, but I would not just leave it as, "yeah, there are more levels for you to explore, but those inhabitants will just kick your butt if you go down there now.  Come back in another 7 levels.  They won't do anything to the town until you are ready to face them."


----------



## Primal (Feb 15, 2008)

king_ghidorah said:
			
		

> Once upon a time, when I first started playing D&D 26 years ago, I might have said exploring empty rooms built tension because we didn't really know what would happen, and the way we played was so random that anything could have happened. As I have gone from teen age to creeping into middle age, I have to disagree with you. Encountering empty rooms one at a time is a waste of my time. Perhaps it's the fact that I don't game for hours every week, perhaps it's the fact taht I'm more jaded, perhaps it's the fact that I expect my games to be more like fiction and less like some weird exploration of disjointed fantasy, but if I played in a game where we wandered around some empty rooms until something happened, I probably wouldn't pla in that game for very long.




Although we apparently share the same "Age Category" ('Ancient Grognard'   ) our preferences seem to vary a bit. I like those empty rooms -- or, actually, room that *seem* empty at first glance -- and even after all these years they still serve to build up the mood and the tension for me (and my whole group). I usually hate it when every room in a dungeon contains "action", because it often feels very artificial ("Why have these grells not devoured those kobolds we slew in the previous room?"). Not to mention that playing such (published) adventures usually mean that the whole session consists of little more than dice-rolling, as every fight draws more "heat" (attention) to the party. 

Weird that you seem to think that 4E would cater better to your needs (i.e. "more like fiction") since to me it seems (I hope to be wrong, though) that 4E will be *more* about "weird exploration"/"disjointed fantasy" than any previous edition of D&D. For example, the Dungeoncraft installments by James seem to strongly encourage the PCs to delve into the local dungeons (James is even pondering about running the whole campaign as one giant dungeon delve in the Chasm). On the other hand, it seems that 4E is strongly separating the Encounter Areas from "useless" areas (this is also hinted at in Rich Baker's blog as he discusses his work on the 'Thuderspire Labyrinth'). This may actually lead into the game becoming more like fantasy fiction (i.e. by removing "useless" narrative and exploration by focusing the game on action "hotspots"). However, it may also very easily lead into the game becoming little else than separate Tactical Combat Encounters with some marginal role-playing qualities.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 15, 2008)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I seem to recall that was addressed in another writing by WotC.  I think their expectation is that traps won't be that style of "Gotcha!"   Traps (by the way they intend) instead will be either an encounter of its own that needs to be overcome, or they will be part of the environment during an encounter and serve as an obstacle or even a separate combatant.
> 
> 
> As for the article, I'm not so big on the design idea.  For an introductory adventure, I don't like the idea that the chasm is a megadungeon meant to be done in parts.  It just seem unfulfilling to get a group started with the idea of: "You can do a little bit of this right now, but come back when you are more than just local heroes and you can do the rest."
> ...



I'd write it like this:

Heroic: Some Thing was bound down there long ago, with a small city's worth of temple around it because it took that much effort to keep this Thing contained.  Now, the Thing is off somewhere recovering its strength, but it'll be out of commission for a while.  In the meantime, you have no idea what happened, so let's drop the matter for the moment and go after some plot hook you found while you were down in the dungeon.  Also, while you were in the dungeon you stumbled across a door you had no ability to open.  That was important.

Paragon: Bad things are starting to happen, and you learn it's because the Thing escaped its trap, and it sweats awful and poops evil.  You find out the magnitude of the threat, and clue into the fact that things are going to get really bad if you can't trap the Thing again somehow.  How?  Well, if it was done once, maybe they left instructions for doing it again, in case of such an emergency.  Now, go on an adventure in order to find out how to open the door that you couldn't open, while you notice that things are starting to get weird out there due to the influence of that Thing that escaped.

Epic: Part of the problem with exploring a dungeon designed to keep an epic-level threat contained is that they designed it both to keep the Thing inside and to keep anyone from letting it go.  So, sucks to be you.  Fight your way down to where they put all the info on how to trap epic-level Far Realms Things, and then finish up by going to find the Thing and beat it down so that it's weak enough to be recaptured.  Recapture it, the end.

There's a lot of room in there for writing up lots of details, side adventures, Far Realms-tainted sites and creatures, an end-of-the-world scenario, and lots of fun ancient evil.  Makes me think a bit of Shadow of the Colossus.


----------



## Primal (Feb 15, 2008)

I don't know if anyone else feels the same way, but to me this "Rite of Passage"-thing seems a bit odd in a 'Points of Light'-setting. If the NPCs are supposed to be inherently weaker than the PCs and the wilderness is a-crawl with dangerous creatures, why would the people of a small village -- whose very existence is threatened by those creatures -- deliberately risk the lives of their young generation? It's not as if they're suffering from any sort of overpopulation, hey?

I also have a problem with the degree of altruism apparently expected from the PCs, because the Alignment Rules in 4E seem to suggest that *most* PCs should be 'Unaligned' (Neutral). Why would you risk your neck for your fellow man? Just because you're a PC? Just because you're somehow (mechanically) "More Heroic" than your neighbours -- or even your own father? This also calls to question that if the PCs are supposed to represent the "other end of the spectrum" (i.e. the "better" part of the gene pool) -- how realistic is it that there are 4-6 such individuals born to "Non-Heroic" parents in a small village of 200 people or so?  

Although I agree that in a small "protomedieval" community people would stick together, it feels a bit of a stretch to assume that *every* PC (especially if you're 'Unaligned') would want to help the community out of pure altruism. My players (who would jump at the chance to play 'Unaligned' characters) would probably tell me that "Oh come on, you can come up with something better... so what if the grumpy old farmer Graelmer's sheep are afflicted with weird mutations?". Now, if the whole village or their loved ones are *directly* threatened, they might feel that even more "mercenary-minded" PCs would "swallow the hook". I'm not saying that my players would not wish to participate in the game -- they just want to have *believable* hooks that truly motivate their characters.

And pray tell me -- if the 'Points of Light'-concept is as "narrow" as the Dragon and Dungeon articles seem to indicate (i.e. small settlements surrounded by the Darkness) it seems a bit unlikely that your PCs could actually purchase weapons and armour in Greenbrier, for example. Trade appears to be almost non-existent and why would anyone work as a Weaponsmith or Armorer in a 'PoL' village? Note: if there are, say, King's soldiers in the village or NPC adventurers passing by every now and then, it's a completely another matter -- yet this would probably be too "deprotagonizing" by 4E standards, so we can forget about it. It would make sense if the clerics at the local temple would craft and sell armour and weapons, but once again: NPCs are not supposed to "outclass" the PCs in 4E, right? So, where do the PCs get their equipment? 

In most campaigns I guess that these things won't even matter, but one of my players is a history teacher (who hates anything which is not consistent or internally logical) -- need I say more?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 16, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I don't know if anyone else feels the same way, but to me this "Rite of Passage"-thing seems a bit odd in a 'Points of Light'-setting. If the NPCs are supposed to be inherently weaker than the PCs and the wilderness is a-crawl with dangerous creatures, why would the people of a small village -- whose very existence is threatened by those creatures -- deliberately risk the lives of their young generation? It's not as if they're suffering from any sort of overpopulation, hey?
> 
> I also have a problem with the degree of altruism apparently expected from the PCs, because the Alignment Rules in 4E seem to suggest that *most* PCs should be 'Unaligned' (Neutral). Why would you risk your neck for your fellow man? Just because you're a PC? Just because you're somehow (mechanically) "More Heroic" than your neighbours -- or even your own father? This also calls to question that if the PCs are supposed to represent the "other end of the spectrum" (i.e. the "better" part of the gene pool) -- how realistic is it that there are 4-6 such individuals born to "Non-Heroic" parents in a small village of 200 people or so?
> 
> Although I agree that in a small "protomedieval" community people would stick together, it feels a bit of a stretch to assume that *every* PC (especially if you're 'Unaligned') would want to help the community out of pure altruism. My players (who would jump at the chance to play 'Unaligned' characters) would probably tell me that "Oh come on, you can come up with something better... so what if the grumpy old farmer Graelmer's sheep are afflicted with weird mutations?".



Being familiar with the unity and community structure of rural villages, I actually feel very strongly that the allegiances of the villagers are going to lie primarily with their community, and those who are in it for themselves will probably be quickly noticed and either corrected or ostracised.  Of course, PCs aren't normal people with normal motivations, being controlled by players, and all.  Given that this is the case, it makes no sense to question the believability of the social situation.  If the players aren't going to make characters who fit the background, then they've already broken the ice for suspension of disbelief.  

Besides, in this case, the hook isn't "do it for the village" except in the case of the hypothetical cleric who gets handed an ancient ritual and a hatful of responsibility.  But that was presented as a roleplaying hook, in which the cleric may or may not want to be straight up about what he really wants to do in the ruins.  The others think they're spending the night out by the old haunted crevasse (being youngsters, they're unaware of its true nature), and are either coaxed in by the cleric, or by some curious activity going on in one of the caves...

edit: I also wanted to express my distaste for anyone who uses alignment as a reason to avoid participating in the plot, especially in the first adventure, and especially in a game that doesn't even really have alignment anymore!  That is not a believability issue.  That is an issue concerning combative players.  There's a certain amount of "playing along" that goes along with dumping the responsibility for the plot onto the DM.  If a player is not willing to play along, perhaps he should be playing a single-player game.



> And pray tell me -- if the 'Points of Light'-concept is as "narrow" as the Dragon and Dungeon articles seem to indicate (i.e. small settlements surrounded by the Darkness) it seems a bit unlikely that your PCs could actually purchase weapons and armour in Greenbrier, for example. Trade appears to be almost non-existent and why would anyone work as a Weaponsmith or Armorer in a 'PoL' village?



Because it's friggin' dangerous out there, and if someone in the village knows how to use a sword, they'd better damn well have one.  Not that it is likely that you'll be able to _buy_ a sword in Podunk Village #12, but your starting wealth indicates net worth, which includes a sword that you earned from the local smith in trade for whatever it is you're good at.  Or from your uncle.  Or from your temple.  However, somewhere down the road is a city, and in a city there will be places to buy decent weapons once you've earned enough loot and gained enough XP that the starting area is starting to feel small and poor.

I don't see any great task in justifying how the PCs got their gear.  Simple weapons are easy enough to make or buy from a blacksmith, and more complex weapons probably represent some special circumstance.  Owning a sword might just be what makes your character a PC, rather than just another NPC who ends up being a turnip farmer rather than a rogue.


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 16, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> In most campaigns I guess that these things won't even matter, but one of my players is a history teacher (who hates anything which is not consistent or internally logical) -- need I say more?




I'm a historian as well, with a focus in Late Antique/Dark Ages. There is nothing in the campaign hook that wouldn't make sense in such a setting. Coming of Age rituals are pretty iconic in tribal/village cultures. The presence of actual monsters in this setting makes it a bit more problematic, but it is the village cleric, who (seeing something special about the PCs) asks them to go farther and perform a ritual of cleansing in the dungeon itself. 

There is nothing a GM can do if faced with a table of contrarian players, but a character built to the setting should have a sense of obligation to the village. The kind of mercenary self-centeredness you describe would not be common in a dark ages (PoL) setting, or any tribal setting. If not motivated by altruism, the characters should at least be motivated by the expected adulation of the villagers.

You may have difficulty with the hook, especially given the apparently contrarian nature of your players, but that doesn't make it illogical at all.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 16, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I don't know if anyone else feels the same way, but to me this "Rite of Passage"-thing seems a bit odd in a 'Points of Light'-setting. If the NPCs are supposed to be inherently weaker than the PCs and the wilderness is a-crawl with dangerous creatures, why would the people of a small village -- whose very existence is threatened by those creatures -- deliberately risk the lives of their young generation? It's not as if they're suffering from any sort of overpopulation, hey?




Anyone who wants to see a really _good_ example of PoL combined with the "Rite of Passage" should read Michael Stackpole's _Dragoncrown War_ series, particularly the prequel novel - _Dark Glory War_.

The main characters in that novel are undergoing their "rite of passage," as happens in many tribal communities (as well as warrior ones, like Sparta). They end up running into actually dangerous adversaries. Usually, a youth on his "rite of passage" ends up spending the night on a mountaintop, to no effect. He's faced his fear and he returns home a man, and everyone celebrates.

Occasionally, the lad has to kill a wolf or something equally innocuous (by D&D standards). Usually, that's such a momentous event that the story is embellished and made to seem very heroic, like that of Leonidas in _300_.

VERY infrequently, the threat is serious by D&D standards. Something like goblins, dire wolves, or maybe a predatory dinosaur of some kind (again, see Stackpole for a really cool use of a fantasy world creature modeled after JP-like "velociraptors"). And of course, the PCs _just happen_ to be the ones who encounter that serious threat. Why? Well, they're PCs...Duh.

Most of the village youths just aren't that unlucky.


----------



## helium3 (Feb 16, 2008)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm willing to step down a rung lower and see where these quest rules takes me. We're all going to be new comers to 4E, and besides that there are more than a few bad habits from previous editions that need breaking.
> 
> I won't allow the possibility of excessive pride to stop me from improving my game.




Sure. I don't really have a problem with the existence of a "Quest" mechanism per se.

That being said, my own personal group situation would likely preclude me from using it if it works similarly to how the Quest Cards are described.

Simply put, by the time the mantle of DM was transferred to me my group had gotten so "trained" to think with the "The DM is Running Expedition to X" mindest that they were, at first, nearly incapable of deciding what they wanted to do if I didn't hit them over the head with plot hooks. Ideally, I'd like to get to the point where the players can make decisions about what they want their characters to do simply based on what they know is going on in the "world." Handing out cards that define "quests" wouldn't work because I'd yet again be codifying what it is that the characters are supposed to be doing.

But that's my own personal thing. I don't have a problem with the Quest mechanism unless it's somehow hardwired into the rules in a way that forces me to use it. I can't even begin to imagine how that would happen, though.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Feb 16, 2008)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Y'know I missed these before.  These are cool.  I'm a big fan of the reuse a map trick.
> 
> I think he should draw them in pencil though in case the PCs or NPCs alter them around to account for future actions.  I'd include that for the modular overland maps too as even cities can be wiped out.



He doesn't need pencil, I reckon. It looks like a map drawn with ProFantasy's Campaign Cartographer Pro3 (and add ons): no more need for pencils with PC mapping software!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 17, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Trade appears to be almost non-existent




I don't think you'll find this is true of the basic PoL setup.


----------



## ZappoHisbane (Feb 17, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I also have a problem with the degree of altruism apparently expected from the PCs, because the Alignment Rules in 4E seem to suggest that *most* PCs should be 'Unaligned' (Neutral). Why would you risk your neck for your fellow man? Just because you're a PC? Just because you're somehow (mechanically) "More Heroic" than your neighbours -- or even your own father?




What I've seen of the tidbits that we have thus far, unaligned does not equate with the pre-4e Neutral alignment.  In 4e, Good and Evil are reserved for beings (PC or otherwise) that are supernaturally Good/Evil.  Devils, Celestials, Undead, and perhaps Clerics, Paladins and Warlocks.

To put that in perspective, most criminals are likely unaligned.  Same goes for philanthropists and nuns.  It takes a Mother Theresa or a Josef Mengele to rise above or fall below 'unaligned'.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 17, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I don't think you'll find this is true of the basic PoL setup.



Yeah, aren't halflings supposed to be the catch-all for trade and communication?


----------



## fnwc (Feb 17, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Primal said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree. However, the PoL setup will probably make the cliché caravan guard scenario a bit more dangerous.


----------



## Primal (Feb 17, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I don't want to be snarky here, but 4e can't possibly do away with any of these elements. We may see fewer published scenarios that deal with them, but most adventures are homebrewed.




Oh, certainly. I'm not actually claiming that veteran DMs would change their writing style just because something is omitted from or not encouraged in 4E DMG. I'm really thinking about "new" DMs and what happens if 4E focuses on cinematic and cool action over details or internal consistency. 



> On this point, I would agree 100%. Not every room must have a challenge in order to be interesting. I would maintain that the examples you've listed above do not equate to _empty _ rooms. They are very pertinent to the scenario at hand.




Actually I should called them "Rooms that contain no traps or monsters and seem empty at first glance" . I agree that some elements might be pertinent to the scenario, but most of them would probably be just 'dressing' (and quite often improvised in my group).  



> I wouldn't disagree with the first part of this paragraph either. Large empty spaces are good to help distinguish the encounter areas and to make them unique. My own preference, both as a GM and a player, is to gloss over these areas, to use narrative and a few rooms like you mentioned in the first paragraph to make these places interesting. I have never had much patience for endless descriptions of very repetitive rooms that were devoid of appropriate dressing, clues, information, etc....
> 
> Often I will use wandering encounters related to one of the encounter areas to spice up these regions as well.
> 
> Every group is different, however. If spending hours mapping out empty rooms and stretches of corridor is fun for your group, that's great. I have never been part of such a group.




I don't think we spent hours after hours of mapping empty rooms. I'd say that about one room in five contained some kind of action on the lower levels. As we ascended to the upper levels (which were much smaller) the "action factor" increased and almost half of the chambers contained traps and/or monsters. I think it worked really well, because we could actually take a breath and heal once in a while without fearing that every battle would draw in more monsters from the next room. I think that's actually a pretty "reasonable" rate for action without your players becoming overly bored.

I've once played an adventure which consisted of four sessions of "delving" into a giant-sized dungeon (two levels -- both about the same size as Undermountain's first levels). Every room had some kind of puzzle, trap or combat encounter. After two sessions we *begged* the DM to let us out of there -- it was just an endless "grind" and the pace of action was just too intense and after a while it got really, really boring. Eventually we got out, and in retrospect I can say that not even the magic items or XP we got was worth it -- rolling for Initiative in almost every room is not what I'm looking for in D&D. 

If I had to pick between my 'dwarven delve' example and my DM simply noting how hours pass as the PCs journey through the rooms into the next Encounter Area containing chambers filled with challenges and explosive action (which I suspect will be the "4E way"), I'd go for mapping all those empty rooms. Really. 

You see, I think it's great that all sorts of aspects of adventuring (even boredom) come out in play. The way that 4E is increasing the "fun factor" (which is a subjective term anyway) in the game may work for many -- especially those groups who only occasionally have time to play or DMs who don't like pre-prep work. It just won't work for me or my group.


----------



## Primal (Feb 17, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I'm a historian as well, with a focus in Late Antique/Dark Ages. There is nothing in the campaign hook that wouldn't make sense in such a setting. Coming of Age rituals are pretty iconic in tribal/village cultures. The presence of actual monsters in this setting makes it a bit more problematic, but it is the village cleric, who (seeing something special about the PCs) asks them to go farther and perform a ritual of cleansing in the dungeon itself.
> 
> There is nothing a GM can do if faced with a table of contrarian players, but a character built to the setting should have a sense of obligation to the village. The kind of mercenary self-centeredness you describe would not be common in a dark ages (PoL) setting, or any tribal setting. If not motivated by altruism, the characters should at least be motivated by the expected adulation of the villagers.
> 
> You may have difficulty with the hook, especially given the apparently contrarian nature of your players, but that doesn't make it illogical at all.




I agree that the 'Coming of Age' ritual would be more suitable for a tribal setting, but I think there are several points here to consider:

1) Are females also required to undergo this ritual? If so, why? My understanding is that these sorts of rituals have been more common in "warrior" societies and related to young men proving their mettle.  My group has two female players, so this is actually a very relevant question. 

2) Why would a village surrounded by the Darkness (i.e. monsters and bandits) risk needlessly losing its valuable members? It's not as if they can afford to lose even a portion of their young generation, right? If it's tied to religious issues, it'd be more proper to have a Temple of Bane in the village instead of Bahamut.

3) The social "pressure"/obligation is indeed understandable, but it may smack of DM fiat and make players uncomfortable.

I guess you could call my players 'contrarian', but I guess it's just their way of saying: "Look, if you want us to get immersed in your setting, make it feel like believable to us.". It's typical that they pose "tough" questions about details in the setting -- both during character creation and play.


----------



## Primal (Feb 17, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Anyone who wants to see a really _good_ example of PoL combined with the "Rite of Passage" should read Michael Stackpole's _Dragoncrown War_ series, particularly the prequel novel - _Dark Glory War_.
> 
> The main characters in that novel are undergoing their "rite of passage," as happens in many tribal communities (as well as warrior ones, like Sparta). They end up running into actually dangerous adversaries. Usually, a youth on his "rite of passage" ends up spending the night on a mountaintop, to no effect. He's faced his fear and he returns home a man, and everyone celebrates.
> 
> ...




As I posted above, I can relate to these rituals playing an important role in a warrior or tribal society. However, Greenbrier (or the whole 'Points of Light' concept) doesn't really feel like a good example of either of them. If there was a *very* good logical reason for this ritual, I'd buy it -- warrior society or not. 

I very much doubt that Greenbrier can afford to lose its few inhabitants -- even if it happened only occasionally. Also consider the fact that it's even less logical if females have to undergo this ritual, too -- they'd practically risk losing the whole next generation.


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 17, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I agree that the 'Coming of Age' ritual would be more suitable for a tribal setting, but I think there are several points here to consider:
> 
> 1) Are females also required to undergo this ritual? If so, why? My understanding is that these sorts of rituals have been more common in "warrior" societies and related to young men proving their mettle.  My group has two female players, so this is actually a very relevant question.
> 
> ...




Off the top of my head, I would respond:

1) The game doesn't make a difference between male and female characters. Unless you are running a simulationist game in which females are second class citizens and barred from spheres of male activity, it makes sense to include female characters in such a rite of passage. The particular setting may allow for a modern style double standard in which females are not required to undergo the ritual, but they are welcome to do so if they want to be able to participate in traditionally male  spheres of activity, such as adventuring.

2) To be cynical, most pre-industrial societies had no shortage of youths on the verge of adulthood. Maybe they are winnowing out the weak. Maybe the area the youths traditionally spend the night in isn't all that dangerous, and it is the village cleric who recognizes the potential in this particular group and sends them on a secret mission into the dungeon. Maybe he had a divine vision, or odd dreams brought on by indigestion that he misdiagnosed as a vision, which he interpreted to mean that this particular group should be given something special to do.

3) If the players understand the setting, they shouldn't see this as a case of DM fiat. If the GM has a party who wouldn't respond to such a hook, he shouldn't use it. Not every hook is workable for every group. That's why P&P games are better than video games.   

I still don't see why your group would question the believability of the scenario. But if they would, this hook is not for you. See #3 and find another. I would add that this scenario described isn't for publication. If it were, we would likely see more than one available character hook. It's the set-up for the author's own group. Presumably, he knows what will and will not work for this particular collection of players.


----------



## Primal (Feb 18, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> Off the top of my head, I would respond:
> 
> 1) The game doesn't make a difference between male and female characters. Unless you are running a simulationist game in which females are second class citizens and barred from spheres of male activity, it makes sense to include female characters in such a rite of passage. The particular setting may allow for a modern style double standard in which females are not required to undergo the ritual, but they are welcome to do so if they want to be able to participate in traditionally male  spheres of activity, such as adventuring.




On the contrary -- I was actually thinking that females should be *more valuable* than males in the 'Points of Light' setting that James writes about. Why? Because without young and fertile women there won't be a new generation of villagers (and no, I'm not implying that it's their primary 'role' in the society). Yes, you could say the same for men, too, but the fact is that even a handful of males is enough for a generation or two -- especially as D&D treats mechanically both males and females as equals (and hence there is no 'role division' as such in the game). This means that females can take care of all "traditional" male activities (e.g. hunting and combat) as well as males could, so only a handful of males is actually required for guaranteeing that there will be the next generation of villagers. 



> 2) To be cynical, most pre-industrial societies had no shortage of youths on the verge of adulthood. Maybe they are winnowing out the weak. Maybe the area the youths traditionally spend the night in isn't all that dangerous, and it is the village cleric who recognizes the potential in this particular group and sends them on a secret mission into the dungeon. Maybe he had a divine vision, or odd dreams brought on by indigestion that he misdiagnosed as a vision, which he interpreted to mean that this particular group should be given something special to do.




The fact is that you can't really compare it to any historical RW era, since the existence of voracious monsters and magic makes any such comparison pretty invalid. 

My point is that IMO an isolated 'PoL' village would not risk wasting any workers/defenders/hunters just for a 'Coming of Age' ritual, unless it has some sort of *very* important religious or cultural significance. After all, their very existence at the brink of the Darkness hangs in the balance, and every man and woman is needed for their survival. Therefore, why would they "winnow out the weak", if even they would have a role in the setting? And it's not as if this ritual has any mechanical relevance (=XP) to these "non-heroic" NPCs.



> 3) If the players understand the setting, they shouldn't see this as a case of DM fiat. If the GM has a party who wouldn't respond to such a hook, he shouldn't use it. Not every hook is workable for every group. That's why P&P games are better than video games.
> 
> I still don't see why your group would question the believability of the scenario. But if they would, this hook is not for you. See #3 and find another. I would add that this scenario described isn't for publication. If it were, we would likely see more than one available character hook. It's the set-up for the author's own group. Presumably, he knows what will and will not work for this particular collection of players.




I agree, and I wouldn't be using it. As for why my players (or I) would not believe in this scenario -- I hope my posts have clarified my views on this matter. All in all, I just don't feel Greenbrier is a very believable setting -- as it is described in the articles feels to me as a bunch of quickly written ideas without any internal consistency or deeper insight behind it. I could post a bunch of other reasons beyond those I've mentioned on this thread.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Feb 19, 2008)

primal, I think that you nitpick details and cut hairs in halves.


----------



## Primal (Feb 19, 2008)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> primal, I think that you nitpick details and cut hairs in halves.




Because I wish to have some basic-level internal consistency and realism in my setting?


----------



## BradfordFerguson (Feb 19, 2008)

Did you have permission to post the article in its entirety?  Otherwise, that's a copyright violation.


----------



## hong (Feb 19, 2008)

Primal, I think that you nitpick details and cut hairs in halves.


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 19, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> My point is that IMO an isolated 'PoL' village would not risk wasting any workers/defenders/hunters just for a 'Coming of Age' ritual, unless it has some sort of *very* important religious or cultural significance. After all, their very existence at the brink of the Darkness hangs in the balance, and every man and woman is needed for their survival. Therefore, why would they "winnow out the weak", if even they would have a role in the setting? And it's not as if this ritual has any mechanical relevance (=XP) to these "non-heroic" NPCs.




Societies have often winnowed the _weak_ out of the gene pool, even in poor societies where you would imagine that every able body was needed. Without going into whether such rituals accomplish their goals, it is hard to argue that they have existed in history.

I believe that you are reading a much darker version of PoL than the designers have hinted at. I have never gotten the impression that all of humanity is on the verge of extinction and no community can afford to lose a single member.



> I agree, and I wouldn't be using it. As for why my players (or I) would not believe in this scenario -- I hope my posts have clarified my views on this matter. All in all, I just don't feel Greenbrier is a very believable setting -- as it is described in the articles feels to me as a bunch of quickly written ideas without any internal consistency or deeper insight behind it. I could post a bunch of other reasons beyond those I've mentioned on this thread.




I wouldn't be using this hook either. Mainly because it seems trite and overused (it was the set-up for the AoW adventure path, for example). I don't find it illogical, just unappealing.


----------



## PrinceXaxor (Feb 19, 2008)

Hmmm... weird energies twisting and warping living beings.  Where have I see that before?  Oh yeah, "The Colour Out of Space" by Lovecraft.  Most of that article gives me a Lovecraft vibe, and that, of course, is good.  But then I'm a sucker for Mythos stuff.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Feb 19, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Because I wish to have some basic-level internal consistency and realism in my setting?




More like byzantine debates on pedantic points.


----------



## Primal (Feb 19, 2008)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> More like byzantine debates on pedantic points.




It may feel irrelevant to you, but not to me or my players. What if one of *your* players would ask you these same questions -- would you address the problem or tell him not to dwell on "pedantic points"?


----------



## Primal (Feb 19, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> Societies have often winnowed the _weak_ out of the gene pool, even in poor societies where you would imagine that every able body was needed. Without going into whether such rituals accomplish their goals, it is hard to argue that they have existed in history.




Oh, I'm definitely not arguing that, but I don't think you can directly compare the "pseudomedieval" society of D&D (and this 'Points of Light' concept) with any historical Real World era or society. 



> I believe that you are reading a much darker version of PoL than the designers have hinted at. I have never gotten the impression that all of humanity is on the verge of extinction and no community can afford to lose a single member.




Well, here are some quotes from the Design & Development article on 'Points of Light':



> "But one of the new key conceits about the D&D world is simply this: *Civilized folk live in small, isolated points of light scattered across a big, dark, dangerous world*."
> 
> "*Most of the world is monster-haunted wilderness. The centers of civilization are few and far between*, and the world isn’t carved up between nation-states that jealously enforce their borders. A few difficult and dangerous roads tenuously link neighboring cities together, but *if you stray from them you quickly find yourself immersed in goblin-infested forests, haunted barrowfields, desolate hills and marshes, and monster-hunted badlands*."
> 
> ...



*

I don't know about you, but seems pretty dangerous and grim to me. Of course, you can "adjust" the "Danger Level" in your own 4E setting, yet unless Rich Baker has misinterpreted the concept I guess that this Design & Development article is an indication of how things will be presented in the Core Books and published adventures.*


----------



## hong (Feb 19, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> It may feel irrelevant to you, but not to me or my players. What if one of *your* players would ask you these same questions -- would you address the problem or tell him not to dwell on "pedantic points"?



 I'd tell him not to dwell on pedantic points.

Is this a trick question?


----------



## Primal (Feb 19, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I'd tell him not to dwell on pedantic points.
> 
> Is this a trick question?




No. So you'd not communicate with your players, even if one of them said that he wants to know *why* they're using this 'Coming of Age' ritual in Greenbrier? (i.e. he thinks that this hook is illogical).  Would you say: "Just because they do -- don't ask if you want to play!"? Or would you try to come up logical reasons that would satisfy him?


----------



## hong (Feb 19, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> No. So you'd not communicate with your players, even if one of them said that he wants to know *why* they're using this 'Coming of Age' ritual in Greenbrier? (i.e. he thinks that this hook is illogical).  Would you say: "Just because they do -- don't ask if you want to play!"? Or would you try to come up logical reasons that would satisfy him?



 If he keeps going, I'd say "shut up and roll the dice!"

Are you sure this isn't a trick question?


----------



## Primal (Feb 19, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> If he keeps going, I'd say "shut up and roll the dice!"
> 
> Are you sure this isn't a trick question?




And what if he has forgotten to bring his dice?


----------



## hong (Feb 19, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> And what if he has forgotten to bring his dice?



 You ask, what if? I answer, what if he forgot to bring... HIS MOM?

HAW HAW!


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Feb 19, 2008)

Coming at this issue as a player, I fully expectsome railroading when it's the first session of a new campaign, not to mention the first campaign in a new setting.  If there is nothing screaming Plot Hook! for the first session players are just going to look at eachother until someone says 'I go hunt orcs.'

In this case I would expect my DM to tell me ahead of time that my character is just about to go through a rite-of-passage by spending the night near a creepy crevase that blah blah blah.

I think as a DM, especially for a first session, they have the right to say 'This is what the adventure is.'  If someone asks about issues with the birth rate and generational survival don't view it as an attack on the setting but use those questions for plot hooks.

Player: But why are the girls sent there as well?
DM: Women are seen as capable warriors like the men are. (Hmmm... Local uprising over tradition - future plot hook)

Player: Wouldn't the deaths here reduce the future birth rate?
DM: Maybe a little but not by much.  Hmmm... There is the "Resident Wierd Guy" who has complained about this to the elders but they haven't changed anything as of yet.  (Leader of resident uprising - future plot hook)

Player: I'm sure my character would think this is a stupid tradition.
DM: As I'm sure most of the local teens would.  Your parents are making you go.  There's some character background for you. (Must add parents to future session - plot hook!)


----------



## Klaus (Feb 19, 2008)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Coming at this issue as a player, I fully expectsome railroading when it's the first session of a new campaign, not to mention the first campaign in a new setting.  If there is nothing screaming Plot Hook! for the first session players are just going to look at eachother until someone says 'I go hunt orcs.'
> 
> In this case I would expect my DM to tell me ahead of time that my character is just about to go through a rite-of-passage by spending the night near a creepy crevase that blah blah blah.
> 
> ...



 I fully endorse this post.

The way I see it, the DM doesn't need to convince the player to have his character go on an adventure. The player is there to play. If he doesn't want to go on that adventure, he's welcome to go home. I think it falls to the *player* to explain why the character is going on that adventure. The fact that he's going is a given.

DM: You all head to Greenbriar Chasm to spend the night as your coming-of-age rite.
Player1: My character goes because he wants to impress a girl in the village.
Player2: My character goes because she wants to make her father stop wishing he had a son instead.
Player3: My character goes because even though he thinks this is a stupid ritual.
Player4: My character goes beacuse everyone else is going.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 19, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> The way I see it, the DM doesn't need to convince the player to have his character go on an adventure. The player is there to play. If he doesn't want to go on that adventure, he's welcome to go home. I think it falls to the *player* to explain why the character is going on that adventure. The fact that he's going is a given.




Indeed. I agree completely.


----------



## Moochava (Feb 19, 2008)

Exactly: the "hook" has long been viewed as a DM problem. It's not: it's an issue for the players to resolve. "This campaign will begin with everyone on a pilgrimage to a druid shrine in a coastal town. Everyone come up with a reason why you're on the pilgrimage." It's my job, as a DM, to convince _players_ that they want to play, not to convince _characters_ that they want to participate. If a player wants to play, he can come up with   a reason for why his character would participate. As long as the campaign hook isn't too narrow or ridiculous ("you're a group of serial puppy-molesters on trial for Crimes Against Nature; please come up with a reason for why your character is attracted to puppies and small dogs"), it's not burdensome for the players.

"There is a dungeon full of aberrations next to your home village. Come up with a reason for why your characters would go in there. I'm willing to provide options."


----------



## Stoat (Feb 19, 2008)

I concur.  Particularly for the first adventure in a campaign, the players should be prepared to either (a) take the DM's hook and play or (b) address the issue out of character and out of game.  

It's also best for the DM to give the players some idea of what to expect before they sit down to play.  To some extent, it seems that D&D has a tradition of giving players adventure hooks at the beginning of a game session and then expecting them to figure out what to do from there.  This is, in my opinion, a bad tradition.  When I sit down to play, I want to know what the PC's are going to do.  I don't want to spend 45 minutes making that decision. 

I give out potential adventure hooks at the _end_ of each session, and my group uses email and a messageboard to discuss what to do next.  If the players don't want to take a hook, they say so (in character or not) and I don't waste time writing an adventure that they won't play.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 19, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> No. So you'd not communicate with your players, even if one of them said that he wants to know *why* they're using this 'Coming of Age' ritual in Greenbrier? (i.e. *he thinks that this hook is illogical*).  Would you say: "Just because they do -- don't ask if you want to play!"? Or would you try to come up logical reasons that would satisfy him?




Emphasis mine.

The problem here isn't actually that you have a player who thinks this hook is illogical. The problem is that YOU think this hook is illogical. So fine, don't use it. There are plenty of perfectly logical explanations for this hook, except that you have arbitrarily decided that they don't fit with YOUR conception of how the Points of Light setting works.



			
				Primal said:
			
		

> Oh, I'm definitely not arguing that, but I don't think you can directly compare the "pseudomedieval" society of D&D (and this 'Points of Light' concept) with any historical Real World era or society.
> 
> Well, here are some quotes from the Design & Development article on 'Points of Light':
> 
> ...




I've said it before, and I'll say it again. People are reading WAY too much into the Points of Light concept. For longtime players, it's so intuitive at the base level that when you call it out (as they're doing in 4E), people start seeing a much darker setting. They don't understand that the entire idea is to evoke the Greek City States as portrayed in the Heroic Sagas, Iron Age Ireland, and dark ages Europe (especially as it's presented in Arthurian and Carolingian myth). Those are all good examples of settings that roughly follow "Points of Light."

Consider some of the quotes you highlighted:

*"Civilized folk live in small, isolated points of light scattered across a big, dark, dangerous world...Most of the world is monster-haunted wilderness. The centers of civilization are few and far between..."*

The Grecian City States, like Athens and Sparta were miles apart. They warred with each other, and the notion of a nation of "Greece" was almost non-existent. And the greeks believed, and _behaved as if_, the world was monster-haunted wilderness. Wandering in the wilderness was something sensible people just didn't do.

*"...if you stray from them you quickly find yourself immersed in goblin-infested forests, haunted barrowfields, desolate hills and marshes, and monster-hunted badlands...Roads are often closed by bandits, marauders such as goblins or gnolls, or hungry monsters such as griffons or dragons."*

In pre-modern Europe, they believed that dark things lived in the woods. They knew the woods hid bandits and the like, and they _believed_ they hid faeries, trolls, giants and worse things. Smart people just didn't go into the woods. If you had to travel, you stuck to well-traveled roads.

Even during Elizabethan times (the late Renaissance!), merchants were referred to as "Merchant _Adventurers_" because traveling to other parts of the world was _dangerous_. Most people didn't make it back. But the rewards were considered worth the risk.

*"Since towns and villages do not stay in close contact, it’s easy for all sorts of evils to befall a settlement without anyone noticing for a long time...Many small settlements and strongholds are founded, flourish for a time, and then fall into darkness."*

Think of the American Old West, another classic "Points of Light" setting. If there's a corrupt sheriff in town, or a powerful cattle baron who's throwing his weight around, who is there to stand up to him?

The classic example I can give is the situation that faced the Earp brothers in Tombstone Arizona. There was no law to speak of, and even when there eventually was, it sided with the cowboys. Now, we can argue all day about who was "right" in that case, but the townspeople pretty much had to settle it on their own. The U.S. Cavalry, although it existed, wasn't about to ride into town and take care of things.

It happened in medieval times too, where the powerful oppressed the weak. And we tell folk tales about men who stood up for the people when nobody else would. Thus are legends born - men like Hereward, Fulke, Robin Hood, William Wallace and Rob Roy.

And do I even need to mention the number of Old West ghost towns lost to bad economics, or Indian attacks? Or the Medieval settlements that were abandoned after the plague hit? And that's in less than a century. Remember that in a world as ancient as the D&D one, "for a time" could be 200 years - just shy of the lifespan of the United States.

And those are examples of the "Points of Light" concept applying fairly well even when a large and powerful nation state DID exist.

*"The common folk of the world look upon the wild lands with dread. Few people are widely traveled — even the most ambitious merchant is careful to stick to better-known roads. The lands between towns or homesteads are wide and empty...It might be safe enough within a day’s ride of a city or an hour’s walk of a village, but go beyond that and you are taking your life into your hands. People are scared of what might be waiting in the old forest or beyond the barren hills at the far end of the valley, because whatever is out there is most likely hungry and hostile. Striking off into untraveled lands is something only heroes and adventurers do."*

But in a pre-modern society, that's all true. The common folk do look on the wild lands with dread. Maybe the PCs come from one of the few communities where they still keep the old ways. Maybe that explains why they're "different."

Going off to face danger is something people often do as part of a coming of age ceremony. In Africa, there are "monsters" (or near enough) in the wilderness in the forms of predatory animals, like Lions. Certain tribal societies require boys to face a lion before he's considered a man.

In Celtic-Age Ireland, the first "test" of manhood often came when a boy went on a hunt. You might think it's unusual to put life at risk that way, but in pre-modern societies, life is ALWAYS at risk. And it's not just your life, but the life of everyone in your village, that depends on your ability to contribute. If you can't hunt or farm, you can't feed yourself. So you'd better be able to do SOMETHING that benefits others, or they have no reason to make sure you have enough to eat.

The weak aren't needed by any society. To modern sensibilities, the infant mortality rate in pre-modern times was stupefying. Even small children were considered "expendable," as they could be easily _replaced._ Until you were able to work, you were considered a liability. In England, for example, when people took baths, the father and his working-age sons bathed first. The mother and her working-age daughters went next, followed by the non-working children in descending order of age. The youngest bathed LAST. By the time they got to the babies, the water was often so filthy that you could lose a child in it, hence the expression "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

In a society like that, you need to find out if someone is a liability or an asset. If you can't take care yourself, you're no good to _anyone._ And it's much better to discover that before the rest of the village has to care for the family you leave behind. 

So how's that for the "logic" behind a coming-of-age ceremony in a Points of Light setting?

Just remember: "Points of Light" doesn't mean you WILL get killed and/or eaten by something horrible if you leave the safety of your village, it just means there's a serious risk of that happening.

How serious that risk is should be up to the DM. If you want super-dark, it's near-certain. But even 1 chance in 10 would be enough to stop most people. And 1 chance in 2?

Put it in modern terms. Would you go skydiving if there was a 10 to 50 percent chance your chute wouldn't open? I thought not.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 19, 2008)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Player: I'm sure my character would think this is a stupid tradition.
> DM: As I'm sure most of the local teens would.  Your parents are making you go.  There's some character background for you. (Must add parents to future session - plot hook!)



Best plot hook ever.

PC 1: What made you decide to become an adventurer?
PC 2: Oh, my mom made me.  When I was a kid she really obsessed about getting me into rogue lessons.  Then she got me fixed up with an adventuring group when I was 15.  What could I do?  I was only 15, and she's my mom.  Anyway, now that I've been doing it for a while, she keeps asking me when I'm going to rescue a nice girl from the clutches of an evil cult and settle down.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 19, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I fully endorse this post.
> 
> The way I see it, the DM doesn't need to convince the player to have his character go on an adventure. The player is there to play. If he doesn't want to go on that adventure, he's welcome to go home. I think it falls to the *player* to explain why the character is going on that adventure. The fact that he's going is a given.




Yes.  Exactly.  Why should the DM do all the work?  There's crunch work, and there's fluff work, and both of those can be offloaded onto your ungrateful players so that you have less prep, and they feel more involved to boot.  As an added bonus, they're not going to argue about their own motivations if they're allowed to write them.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Feb 19, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I fully endorse this post.
> 
> The way I see it, the DM doesn't need to convince the player to have his character go on an adventure. The player is there to play. If he doesn't want to go on that adventure, he's welcome to go home. I think it falls to the *player* to explain why the character is going on that adventure. The fact that he's going is a given.
> 
> ...




Bolding mine, because it stands out as especially brilliant.  It took me way too long to learn this.  Don't hide what the damn game is about and then pull the rabbit out of your hat.  TELL the players what the game is going to be about, negotiate it with them.  Let them invest in it.  

Also, LOL.


----------



## king_ghidorah (Feb 20, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Although we apparently share the same "Age Category" ('Ancient Grognard'   ) our preferences seem to vary a bit. I like those empty rooms -- or, actually, room that *seem* empty at first glance -- and even after all these years they still serve to build up the mood and the tension for me (and my whole group). I usually hate it when every room in a dungeon contains "action", because it often feels very artificial ("Why have these grells not devoured those kobolds we slew in the previous room?"). Not to mention that playing such (published) adventures usually mean that the whole session consists of little more than dice-rolling, as every fight draws more "heat" (attention) to the party.
> 
> Weird that you seem to think that 4E would cater better to your needs (i.e. "more like fiction") since to me it seems (I hope to be wrong, though) that 4E will be *more* about "weird exploration"/"disjointed fantasy" than any previous edition of D&D. For example, the Dungeoncraft installments by James seem to strongly encourage the PCs to delve into the local dungeons (James is even pondering about running the whole campaign as one giant dungeon delve in the Chasm). On the other hand, it seems that 4E is strongly separating the Encounter Areas from "useless" areas (this is also hinted at in Rich Baker's blog as he discusses his work on the 'Thuderspire Labyrinth'). This may actually lead into the game becoming more like fantasy fiction (i.e. by removing "useless" narrative and exploration by focusing the game on action "hotspots"). However, it may also very easily lead into the game becoming little else than separate Tactical Combat Encounters with some marginal role-playing qualities.




And it seems weird to me that you think the problem of D&D devolving into Tactical Combat Encounters hasn't been an issue since day one. D&D has always leaned heavily toward tactical tabletop gaming owing to it tactical tabletop gaming roots, and this has been a complaint of critics since I was a wee gamer. (Okay, I was never wee, but I was once young.)


----------



## helium3 (Feb 20, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Yes.  Exactly.  Why should the DM do all the work?  There's crunch work, and there's fluff work, and both of those can be offloaded onto your ungrateful players so that you have less prep, and they feel more involved to boot.  As an added bonus, they're not going to argue about their own motivations if they're allowed to write them.




I had to read this a couple of times before I figured out you weren't actually trying to argue that the DM should do ALL the work.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 20, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> I had to read this a couple of times before I figured out you weren't actually trying to argue that the DM should do ALL the work.



Seriously, I am an advocate of foisting prep and background work onto the players wherever possible.  I do enough just organizing everyone to show up at my house at the same time.  Prep for the game on top of that is tough, and any additional responsibilities involved with trying to cram the various PCs into the plot is just onerous.


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 20, 2008)

Stoat said:
			
		

> I concur.  Particularly for the first adventure in a campaign, the players should be prepared to either (a) take the DM's hook and play or (b) address the issue out of character and out of game.
> 
> It's also best for the DM to give the players some idea of what to expect before they sit down to play.  To some extent, it seems that D&D has a tradition of giving players adventure hooks at the beginning of a game session and then expecting them to figure out what to do from there.  This is, in my opinion, a bad tradition.  When I sit down to play, I want to know what the PC's are going to do.  I don't want to spend 45 minutes making that decision.
> 
> I give out potential adventure hooks at the _end_ of each session, and my group uses email and a messageboard to discuss what to do next.  If the players don't want to take a hook, they say so (in character or not) and I don't waste time writing an adventure that they won't play.




I place a blurb for the next scenario in my campaign on my campaign blog. Players have a lot of time (we rotate between several GMs) to mull over the story and decide for themselves why they are participating. In the first story, this is especially important.


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 20, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I don't know about you, but seems pretty dangerous and grim to me. Of course, you can "adjust" the "Danger Level" in your own 4E setting, yet unless Rich Baker has misinterpreted the concept I guess that this Design & Development article is an indication of how things will be presented in the Core Books and published adventures.




I was so going to respond to this post, but John Snow beat me to it - again!   

Darn kids. Next time they can just feed themselves, or go to bed hungry!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 20, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I was so going to respond to this post, but John Snow beat me to it - again!
> 
> Darn kids. Next time they can just feed themselves, or go to bed hungry!



I'd get a lot more posting done if I could just train my kids to hunt their own food.


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 20, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I'd get a lot more posting done if I could just train my kids to hunt their own food.




My oldest turn eight in March. Maybe I can send them on a coming of age ritual where they can learn to hunt - and to kill goblins!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 20, 2008)

> As long as the campaign hook isn't too narrow or ridiculous ("you're a group of serial puppy-molesters on trial for Crimes Against Nature; please come up with a reason for why your character is attracted to puppies and small dogs"), it's not burdensome for the players.




My most recent campaign has the PCs beginning in Hell for various crimes against nature that they are alleged to commit. The thrust of the campaign is going to be escaping from Hell.

So my first questions to them? "Decide if you're guilty of the sin that has you sentenced to Hell," and "Find a reason you want to escape Hell and work with the other PC's to do so."

The first character sheet I got back is a Chaotic Evil Fighter who is apparently a serial rapist.

This is going to be an....interesting....campaign.


----------



## Pale Jackal (Feb 20, 2008)

Moochava said:
			
		

> Exactly: the "hook" has long been viewed as a DM problem. It's not: it's an issue for the players to resolve. "This campaign will begin with everyone on a pilgrimage to a druid shrine in a coastal town. Everyone come up with a reason why you're on the pilgrimage." It's my job, as a DM, to convince _players_ that they want to play, not to convince _characters_ that they want to participate. If a player wants to play, he can come up with   a reason for why his character would participate. As long as the campaign hook isn't too narrow or ridiculous ("you're a group of serial puppy-molesters on trial for Crimes Against Nature; please come up with a reason for why your character is attracted to puppies and small dogs"), it's not burdensome for the players.
> 
> "There is a dungeon full of aberrations next to your home village. Come up with a reason for why your characters would go in there. I'm willing to provide options."




Well said... and hilarious.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 20, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I was so going to respond to this post, but John Snow beat me to it - again!
> 
> Darn kids. Next time they can just feed themselves, or go to bed hungry!




*chuckle* Sorry!    

I don't have kids, which is why it always seems like I have more time to post. I do.   

Of course, I'm getting married on March 1st, so I might be a bit busy to post for a while after that. New wife...honeymoon...that sort of thing.   

Which means you guys will have to hold the fort post-D&D Experience without me for a while. That's why I'm building up my credit now.


----------



## Primal (Feb 22, 2008)

Stoat said:
			
		

> I concur.  Particularly for the first adventure in a campaign, the players should be prepared to either (a) take the DM's hook and play or (b) address the issue out of character and out of game.
> 
> It's also best for the DM to give the players some idea of what to expect before they sit down to play.  To some extent, it seems that D&D has a tradition of giving players adventure hooks at the beginning of a game session and then expecting them to figure out what to do from there.  This is, in my opinion, a bad tradition.  When I sit down to play, I want to know what the PC's are going to do.  I don't want to spend 45 minutes making that decision.
> 
> I give out potential adventure hooks at the _end_ of each session, and my group uses email and a messageboard to discuss what to do next.  If the players don't want to take a hook, they say so (in character or not) and I don't waste time writing an adventure that they won't play.




I fully agree with this, although I'd also add what Klaus said: sometimes it's best to let the player determine his character's motives for "swallowing" a hook.  

Usually before I start a campaign I ask my players what type of characters they want to play and whether they'd prefer an urban or rural setting. Then I work out the premise of the campaign, and at the beginning of the first session we finalize the backstories and think of some potential hooks/motivations for the characters. Yet it doesn't work for everyone, so sometimes (i.e. with inexperienced players) it's better to use the "DM fiat" for the first session. Note, however, that although it's fine by me to say that the villagers of Greenbrier force the PCs to take part in the Rite of Passage, as long as you can tell any players who care to ask *WHY* this sort of rite exists in the community. 

Usually I drop a lot of potential hooks during a session, if possible. At the end of each session I ask my players if they have any ideas what they want to do during the next session, because it helps with prep work and also caters to their needs better. This doesn't mean that I don't prepare some nasty surprises, but if they'd rather explore the level 3 of the Spiderhaunted Spire than go for the the adventure I thought I'd run, I dig out my notes on the Spire and work on it -- unless there's a campaign plot-related reason to use the other adventure instead.


----------



## Primal (Feb 22, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Emphasis mine.
> 
> The problem here isn't actually that you have a player who thinks this hook is illogical. The problem is that YOU think this hook is illogical. So fine, don't use it. There are plenty of perfectly logical explanations for this hook, except that you have arbitrarily decided that they don't fit with YOUR conception of how the Points of Light setting works.





Actually it's how both I and my players would feel about it (I know my players). I'm not sure which "perfectly logical explanations" you're referring to, but yes, there are ways to make it work better.  Note that I'm *NOT* debating that such rites have historically existed. Yet my players would want to know *why* this rite exists. Does it have any historical, cultural or religious signifigance? I guess that in most groups it's fine if the DM just says: "You have do it because the whole village pressures you to take part in this tradition. Um, it has existed for so long that nobody really remembers why it's such an important tradition in Greenbrier. Alright, no more questions!" Wouldn't work for my players -- they'd just say that I had been sloppy with my pre-play prep work.

As for your arguments on the points I highlighted from the article -- like I've said before, you can draw parallels to Real World societies or historical eras, but it's not really an accurate assessment to say that "It should work like this since Old West worked like this and Ancient Greece had this and yet Arthurian Myths mention this etcetera etcetera". It's even less credible if you cite different sources and eras for different points. While it's far too early to yet tell how "dark" or "gritty" the "official" 'Points of Light' will be, I really believe that they literally meant all those things mentioned in the articles, because in 4E *everything* seems to be about the heroes preventing the world (or their immediate surroundings) from falling into the Darkness. I haven't yet seen any direct references to Ancient Greece or the Iron Age Ireland (unless you consider Faerie and the Fey as such). 

You say that "The weak aren't needed by any society", yet here's the thing: a small farming community which can no longer rely very much on hunting or gathering (due to the monsters and the burning of the forest) either needs *ALL* of its members to survive or has to have trading partners to import more tools, livestock and food. In a farming community even the "weakest" members can participate in some activities that are beneficial for his/her family. In a self-sufficient community that mostly relies on farming for its food, at least 90% of the population have to be farmers. This has been the same in many warrior cultures as well -- even the Mighty Sparta relied on its serfs (that comprised about 95% of the population, IIRC) who farmed the land and provided the food for the upper warrior class (i.e. nobility). And if we think about Africa, yes, their most tribes *had* to weed out the weak because they had to rely on strong hunters. Warrior societies that had slaves or serfs to take care of producing food could *afford* to weed out the weak (they wanted to produce strong *warriors*, after all).  Yet in a society that consists primarily of *farmers*, it'd be a foolish thing to sent them out to kill lions to prove their worth, right? So where's the logic behind such a rite?

Also note that a small and (more or less) isolated community quickly falls to inbreeding (i.e. marriages between cousins) which may result in even more "weak" members if you start "weeding out the weak". A town of, say, 2000 people is a completely another matter, and I could understand why they'd want to get rid of the "weakest links" among the population.

I think it's important to consider these things as you're designing the setting. I liked how James mentions the dwarven merchants and caravans which trade with Greenbrier in his first Dungeoncraft installment. This explains how the PCs can get their hands on weapons, armour, adventuring gear and tools. It also presents them with an opportunity to sell loot (which would otherwise be pretty much impossible in small village) and buy masterwork or magical stuff, too. And new PCs may arrive with these caravans into the village, no matter how dangerous the roads become. 

What I would have added to the village would be some "mentor-type" NPCs (a wizard, at least) who could have trained the PCs, and probably a contingent of King's or local Duke's soldiers. Maybe these soldiers sent some scouts to explore the Chasm but they never returned? And perhaps the weary captain ask the PCs to later explore the ruins of the Tower Watch so that he could establish it as a proper military base? This may even be the original reason why the soldiers were sent to the village, but they are too weak to take on the ruins themselves.

I know very well that if I DMed for less inquisitive players who love to pay attention to (and ask about) a gazillion little detail in the setting (economy, religions, local customs, architecture, etc.), I'd probably get off far easier. However, I also love world-building, so I actually take pride in seeing my players really caring deeply about the setting and immersing themselves in it. The downside to this is that they *expect* me to spend a lot of time in fleshing out a lot of details and NPCs.


----------



## hong (Feb 22, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> As for your arguments on the points I highlighted from the article -- like I've said before, you can draw parallels to Real World societies or historical eras, but it's not really an accurate assessment to say that "It should work like this since Old West worked like this and Ancient Greece had this and yet Arthurian Myths mention this etcetera etcetera".




"Points of light" is a broad philosophy, not a physical law. It draws on various inspirations, and those mentioned appear eminently reasonable.



> It's even less credible if you cite different sources and eras for different points. While it's far too early to yet tell how "dark" or "gritty" the "official" 'Points of Light' will be, I really believe that they literally meant all those things mentioned in the articles, because in 4E *everything* seems to be about the heroes preventing the world (or their immediate surroundings) from falling into the Darkness.




The world is IN darkness. Whether it will fall FURTHER into darkness, or whether it is coming OUT OF darkness, is not something discussed in W&M. You can run something like Midnight if you want. You can also run something like Britannia in Ultima 4 if you want. Both are examples of settings where the world is full of dangerous monsters, people stick to the safe and trusted routes, civilisation is rare, and yet one is on a downward trajectory while the other is heading upwards.



> I think it's important to consider these things as you're designing the setting.




"Setting"? D00d, it's a sample adventure. Why do you persist in making a mountain out of a molehill?


----------



## Primal (Feb 22, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> "Points of light" is a broad philosophy, not a physical law. It draws on various inspirations, and those mentioned appear eminently reasonable.
> 
> The world is IN darkness. Whether it will fall FURTHER into darkness, or whether it is coming OUT OF darkness, is not something discussed in W&M. You can run something like Midnight if you want. You can also run something like Britannia in Ultima 4 if you want. Both are examples of settings where the world is full of dangerous monsters, people stick to the safe and trusted routes, civilisation is rare, and yet one is on a downward trajectory while the other is heading upwards.




Yes, it draws on various inspirations, but I don't think you can draw *exact* comparisons with RW. And I wouldn't explain this concept to anyone as "You know, kind of like the Old West, except with something from the Greek City States and yet the mythology from Iron Age Ireland . It's almost as accurate to state that "You know, sort of like crossbreed between 'Lord of the Rings' and 'Wheel of Time', but only without Aragorn or Frodo, but your characters are like Rand Al'Thor or Mat Cauthon. And yeah, a lot of Darkness but no Dark Lord or Sauron and no trolloks but orcs."

On your second paragraph -- I agree. Yet here's the thing: the concept itself is pretty *narrow*, but it allows for broad interpretation and variance if you want to. That's not the point here. I think it's pretty relevant how WoTC defines this concept, because that's more or less how it will be presented in the rule books and published adventures. Of course, if you only buy the first core books and rewrite the basic premise of this concept to suit your own hombrewed setting and adventures, it's not necessarily relevant to you at all. 



> "Setting"? D00d, it's a sample adventure. Why do you persist in making a mountain out of a molehill?




Really? I thought these installments were about building your own 4E 'Points of Light' setting, and which kind of adventures you could run there, because it's usually pretty relevant to consider how and why you can link your adventure to the setting (and the PCs), right? Of course, this depends on your DMing style and your players. In some groups it'd just fine if the DM just said: "You all live in a small village and now that you're entering adulthood you guys need to go through a Coming of Age-ritual at this huge chasm. So you get there." And this is just fine -- it just doesn't work for me or my players. And I'd dare guess that there others who feel the same way. 

So I happen to like world-building and detailing my setting, which you apparently do not. Neither of us are right or wrong -- it's just a matter of differences in style and preferences.


----------



## hong (Feb 22, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Yes, it draws on various inspirations, but I don't think you can draw *exact* comparisons with RW. And I wouldn't explain this concept to anyone as "You know, kind of like the Old West, except with something from the Greek City States and yet the mythology from Iron Age Ireland . It's almost as accurate to state that "You know, sort of like crossbreed between 'Lord of the Rings' and 'Wheel of Time', but only without Aragorn or Frodo, but your characters are like Rand Al'Thor or Mat Cauthon. And yeah, a lot of Darkness but no Dark Lord or Sauron and no trolloks but orcs."




Hm. So, the more cultural and historical precedents are given, the more jumbled in your mind the concept becomes. This is a new phenomenon, the inversion of the relationship between evidence and credibility. But I guess it does help explain the lack of any similar precedents that have been presented on your side of the equation.




> Really? I thought these installments were about building your own 4E 'Points of Light' setting, and which kind of adventures you could run there, because it's usually pretty relevant to consider how and why you can link your adventure to the setting (and the PCs), right?




Insert six billion chickens example here.


----------



## Primal (Feb 22, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Hm. So, the more cultural and historical precedents are given, the more jumbled in your mind the concept becomes. This is a new phenomenon, the inversion of the relationship between evidence and credibility. But I guess it does help explain the lack of any similar precedents that have been presented on your side of the equation.




Did I say or imply in any way that "the more cultural and historical precedents are given, the more jumbled the concept becomes in my mind"? No, I don't think so.

If you take another look at my post, I tried to convey the feeling a player -- especially a new player or a player who is not very familiar with history -- might have if a DM uses several cultural or historical comparisons in no structured relation to each other.

Why would I use "similar precedents" if the references are pretty loose in the cultural context anyway? After all, we're talking about a certain concept that exists within fantasy fiction and gaming. Therefore, usually I prefer not to use any direct RW comparisons, *unless* the game itself is set in a RW historic era (such as 'Agon') or deals with elements that are clearly identified as belonging to a single era/culture (such as 'Ganagakok'). That said, I'd describe a 'Points of Light' setting as what it is -- a fictional "pseudomedieval" setting with unique traits that set it apart from RW.  



> Insert six billion chickens example here.




Which is? Tell me -- do you actually have anything constructive to say on this topic at all, or are you finally finished with your off-topic comments? Just wondering...


----------



## Kesh (Feb 22, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Which is? Tell me -- do you actually have anything constructive to say on this topic at all, or are you finally finished with your off-topic comments? Just wondering...




Hong hasn't been off-topic at all (which is remarkable, in itself!). You seem to have a very unique view of what PoL means, contrary to what most people in this thread believe it to mean. Your above comment strikes me as somewhat shrill, and inappropriate.

In other words: you seem to have this person's problem.


----------



## Primal (Feb 23, 2008)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Hong hasn't been off-topic at all (which is remarkable, in itself!). You seem to have a very unique view of what PoL means, contrary to what most people in this thread believe it to mean. Your above comment strikes me as somewhat shrill, and inappropriate.
> 
> In other words: you seem to have this person's problem.




Maybe, although I'd hardly call it "unique". What makes you think my comments are "shrill and inapprobriate"? 

Maybe I've interpreted the Dungeoncraft and 'Points of Light' articles in a different light than most people, but to me it seems that this concept is about:

1) The world consists of tiny, flickering Points of Light among a vast sea of Darkness
2) It's up to the PCs (the protagonists) to stop the world from falling into oblivion
3) The setting should remain a bit vague and filled with undetailed spot to allow you to "drop things out of the books" anywhere
4) It's okay to be a lazy DM, as 4E is not about details or creativity as such -- it's about the PCs and more "fun"

Anyway, that's how I see it. Then again, I'm not a native speaker, so some nuances might have escaped me. Whether that's how things will be represented in "official" lore -- maybe, or maybe not. In any case, although the basic premise is pretty narrow, there's naturally a lot of room for individual DMs to interpret or rewrite stuff to fit their own campaign settings better. I don't have a problem with that.

However, I (both as a player and DM) like about details and at least *some* degree of realism and internal consistency in the setting. Is it inapprobriate or "wrong", if everyone (in my group) thinks a vivid and believable setting is more "fun" than a bunch of new and cool abilities? 

As for Hong -- has he really posted any arguments of substance or relevance on this thread? I have failed to notice. I think he's mostly interested in trolling. Or maybe it's about him being (evidently) in the "pro-4E" camp and me being on the other side of the fence (i.e. being highly critical of 4E/WoTC)? You see, I think it's rather sad that even reasonable people lose all interest in civil discussion to make personal attacks at the "enemy" (and IMHO both "sides" are equally guilty of this) -- even when you'd under "normal" circumstances agree with them or would present intelligent counter-arguments that would be constructive and beneficial to the discussion. And the saddest thing, in my opinion, is that this has driven some people to pick sides they wouldn't have -- e.g. you might have decided to jump into the "pro-4E" camp just because some "Anti-4E" people resorted to personal insults after you happened to post some positive comments about the latest article. And vice versa. And here's the thing: I don't think either "side" really represents any sort of "majority" among the gamers, although both like to claim so. In the end, it's the "fence-sitters" (and potential new customers) who shall determine the fate of D&D.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 23, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> It's okay to be a lazy DM



You say that like it's a bad thing.

One of rpgs biggest problems is the difficulty in finding GMs. Any idea that lowers the hurdles potential GMs have to jump over is a good one. And one of the major criticisms of 3e is the long prep time required statting up NPCs and advanced/templated monsters.


----------



## Primal (Feb 23, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> You say that like it's a bad thing.
> 
> One of rpgs biggest problems is the difficulty in finding GMs. Any idea that lowers the hurdles potential GMs have to jump over is a good one. And one of the major criticisms of 3e is the long prep time required statting up NPCs and advanced/templated monsters.




Indeed, from my personal perspective it's a bad thing, but for new DMs and DMs who don't like to do pre-play prep it's a good thing. Note that I'm not saying that it's "wrong" to be a "lazy" DM -- it's just that I wouldn't want to be part of a group which has a DM who prefers "dropping stuff out of the books" or even "stealing" (which James does a lot in his articles). Heck, if I tried to drop Silverymoon or Hommlet into a "homebrewed" 'Points of Light' setting, my players (who are long-time FR and Greyhawk veterans) would most likely walk out of the campaign. I hope that 4E DMG also encourages worldbuilding and doing pre-play prep (if even as an "option") so that not all new DMs learn that "everyone steals so why bother with original creativity at all".


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 23, 2008)

Cake Mage said:
			
		

> if you do things like that, how are you to put the hidden traps in the dungeon.
> 
> "eh, and then you come to another empty hallway.  Nothing interesting here, nope."
> 
> ...



When the DM describes things in broad brush strokes the players can of course do the same.

DM: You enter a large ruined complex. How are you proceeding?
Players: Slowly, taking 20 on our search check.
DM: After proceeding through many empty rooms and corridors, you think you've found a pressure pad. What do you want to do?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 23, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Not to mention that playing such (published) adventures usually mean that the whole session consists of little more than dice-rolling, as every fight draws more "heat" (attention) to the party.



Totally. What those sessions need is some long boring periods where nothing happens at all. That'll improve things. Makes the moderately boring fights seem exciting by comparison.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 23, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> However, it may also very easily lead into the game becoming little else than separate Tactical Combat Encounters with some marginal role-playing qualities.



Your solution to that problem - add boring bits - is awful. A much better solution would be to separate the TCEs with interesting bits such as puzzles, obstacles such as a chasm to be crossed or NPC interaction.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 23, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> what happens if 4E focuses on cinematic and cool action over details or internal consistency.



Good times.


----------



## Primal (Feb 23, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> When the DM describes things in broad brush strokes the players can of course do the same.
> 
> DM: You enter a large ruined complex. How are you proceeding?
> Players: Slowly, taking 20 on our search check.
> DM: After proceeding through many empty rooms and corridors, you think you've found a pressure pad. What do you want to do?




Um, you don't need to do that in 4E anymore, since Traps are apparently "tweaked down" to be minor annoyances... what's the point in stealth or taking precautions anymore?


----------



## Primal (Feb 23, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Good times.




(DM): "Um... yeah... who the hell cares about the history of this village. Shut up and roll for initiative or get out of my game!"  :\


----------



## Hussar (Feb 23, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Indeed, from my personal perspective it's a bad thing, but for new DMs and DMs who don't like to do pre-play prep it's a good thing. Note that I'm not saying that it's "wrong" to be a "lazy" DM -- it's just that I wouldn't want to be part of a group which has a DM who prefers "dropping stuff out of the books" or even "stealing" (which James does a lot in his articles). Heck, if I tried to drop Silverymoon or Hommlet into a "homebrewed" 'Points of Light' setting, my players (who are long-time FR and Greyhawk veterans) would most likely walk out of the campaign. I hope that 4E DMG also encourages worldbuilding and doing pre-play prep (if even as an "option") so that not all new DMs learn that "everyone steals so why bother with original creativity at all".




Good grief.  Really?

I've used Keep on the Borderlands in more homebrew settings than I care to count.  Heck, I've used Orlane (from Cult of the Reptile God) more than a few times as well.

Considering D&D throughout its entire history has been about stealing whatever idea happens to be popular at the time, I'm not sure why we should change now.  D&D, through every edition has been all about yoinking whatever idea strikes your fancy and stuffing it into a setting.  Mulhorandi=ancient Egypt and all that.

I cannot possibly believe that I'm the only one who statted up Claws of the Wolverine and Ruby Lenses of the Cyclops in his 1e games.  

As far as world building goes, I hope, truly hope, that the DMG buries it deeply in the ground.  If you want to build worlds, you don't need the DMG to help you with that.  You never did.  What you need the DMG to do is get you up and running as fast as possible.  Expecting new DM's to spend dozens, or hundreds, of hours before play coming up with worlds is unrealistic and one of the worst things D&D has done for the past 30 years.  

I don't play D&D to create imaginary worlds.  I play D&D to have adventures and watch PC's grow and develop.  All I need for that is a setting.  Take whatever history that you have in your world that does not apply to my PC and keep it to yourself.  I simply, completely do not care to waste my time with six page treatises on Elven tea ceremonies.  

Three hundred years ago, unspeakable rites were performed on yonder hill?  Fantastic.  This factoid has nothing to do with any adventures I can reasonably expect to undertake?  Don't give a rat's petoot.

Hopefully, hopefully, 4e will finally take the position that playing D&D should be about PLAYING and not writing amateur fanfic.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 23, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Um, you don't need to do that in 4E anymore, since Traps are apparently *expanded to be interesting encounters in which every PC can participate*... what's the point in stealth or taking precautions anymore?



FIFY

And a good point about precautions. A high search and disable device check won't be enough to bypass traps like it was in 3e.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 23, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> (DM): "Um... yeah... who the hell cares about the history of this village. Shut up and roll for initiative or get out of my game!"  :\



You're aware not everyone shares your tastes, right? Why should you care what other people do in their games?


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Feb 23, 2008)

> Um, you don't need to do that in 4E anymore, since Traps are apparently "tweaked down" to be minor annoyances... what's the point in stealth or taking precautions anymore?




The traps are still very dangerous - this is just not the gygaxian 'kill and maim the players' mindset anymore. A war of attrition is perhaps the closer thing.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 23, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> You're aware not everyone shares your tastes, right? Why should you care what other people do in their games?




Because, if they care more about running off to do some task or adventure than they do about some long expositions about the village's history, then obviously they're doing it wrong.


----------



## pogre (Feb 24, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> As for Hong -- has he really posted any arguments of substance or relevance on this thread? I have failed to notice. I think he's mostly interested in trolling.




You haven't interacted with Hong much on here have you? Needless to say there is an artifact on ENWorld called a Hong Stick which is used to bash Hong from time-to-time.

Having said that, he usually has a point, as he does here. Most folks here are disagreeing with your play style preference. I doubt you will find 4th edition satisfying given your requirements. I'm not sure how 3.5 does it, but there is no wrong fun.

I think you can always pour time into DM prep. What is valuable is learning new ways or methods of cutting this prep time down. I enjoy prepping for adventures myself, but taking lots of time is always an option - give me a way to prepare quickly when I don't have the time.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 24, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Good grief.  Really?
> ...
> 
> As far as world building goes, I hope, truly hope, that the DMG buries it deeply in the ground.  If you want to build worlds, you don't need the DMG to help you with that.  You never did.  What you need the DMG to do is get you up and running as fast as possible.  Expecting new DM's to spend dozens, or hundreds, of hours before play coming up with worlds is unrealistic and one of the worst things D&D has done for the past 30 years.
> ...



Setting aside the absurd exaggerations regarding such things as hundreds of hours, tea parties and fanfic, I believe the attitude you are describing will be a core reason why two years from now it will be a lot more difficult to find a really good DM.  They will still be out there.  But they will be fewer and farther between.

Hell, a Descent character can grow and develop.  

I don't have a fraction of the time I wish I had for my gaming.  I'm one of those real job, 40 hours is for losers, wife and kids types.  But if I've only got one hour to spend, I'd prefer to build a really cool, detailed and rich single encounter rather than an entire stick figure adventure.  D&D, to me, is about a hell of a lot more than grinding through a string of encounters that are set up like so many bowling pins.  And moving away from that is a very sad thing that will make D&D a lot less distinct when compared to the throngs of other quick and easy games out there.

The love for the texture of the game and being a great DM have a pretty notable correlation.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 24, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> But if I've only got one hour to spend, I'd prefer to build a really cool, detailed and rich single encounter rather than an entire stick figure adventure.




I'd prefer to build several really cool, detailed and rich encounters with that time, rather than spending most of it crunching numbers for a couple monsters for a single encounter (which will take up less time than it takes me to prepare for it). What you call "stick figure adventuring," I call "not giving me needless homework."


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 24, 2008)

Yeah I have to say, if the DMG gives me the options to make a good adventure by letting me concentrate on dialogue, story progression, atmosphere, alternative situations, etc. while putting me essentially off the hook of having to spend 4-5 hours making up npcs and monsters I will be so grateful.

Also while some people can make up NPCs and monsters in no time since they have memorized all the rules others have not, simply because they don't have good enough memory for some things. Hell I basically need to re-read the DMG/Monster Manual every time I make an encounter to make sure it is done properly if in 4e I don't have to, that will cut down on time a great deal.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 24, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> The love for the texture of the game and being a great DM have a pretty notable correlation.




I agree that a love for the texture of the game is a worthwhile quality for DMs to possess. Still, let's put everything in its proper place. Setting material serves to provide a broader context for game play and adventure material, but the adventure material is what actually drives the game play. I don't think its absurd to suggest that GMs should focus more on preparing game play related material than the work that is meant to provide context to the course of play. I would also argue that a GM does not need to know the shape of an entire world before game play even begins. He merely needs enough setting material to place game play within the context of the wider setting. Setting material should be subservient to game play and adventure material not the other way around.


----------



## Primal (Feb 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Because, if they care more about running off to do some task or adventure than they do about some long expositions about the village's history, then obviously they're doing it wrong.




The thing is that I've seen many people gripe about a richly-detailed setting (such as FR) and calling it "impossible to run without pouring over thousands of pages of fluff and hundreds of NPC stats", while this is not actually true. You can *choose* which parts to ignore and which to use, just as you don't have to run a published adventure "as written". Yet if you or your players are into details, they are there to use. It's optional. However, now that the FR Design Team has advanced the timeline by a hundred years and blown most of the known Faerûn to bits, it will take years and years for to get that same amount of lore we have had in 2E and 3E. The option touse  that vast amount of fluff does not exist in 4E anymore.  

Note that I'm not saying that my way to DM is the "right" way or the "best" way to run the game. IMO you *only* need to do the amount of prep your *players* expect of you. So if they like about details and want to know about town X's history or ancient architecture in kingdom Y, why not cater to their wishes? After all, you're running the game to make sure they're enjoying it. Don't write the fluff if nobody (including yourself) do not care about it. My players may expect that their DM is into detailing history, local customs, trade routes, economy, etcetera. And I'm more than willing to do it, because I (as a player) also love the fluffy bits, and expect my DM to invest his time on it.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 24, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> The thing is that I've seen many people gripe about a richly-detailed setting (such as FR) and calling it "impossible to run without pouring over thousands of pages of fluff and hundreds of NPC stats", while this is not actually true.




If plenty of people don't run the Realms, they cite this as their reason, then it is true *as far as they are concerned*.

You may have a different opinion, but that doesn't make them wrong.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> If plenty of people don't run the Realms, they cite this as their reason, then it is true *as far as they are concerned*.
> 
> You may have a different opinion, but that doesn't make them wrong.



It's exactly the reason I don't run games in the Realms.  I have too many FR fans in my groups, and I don't need them second-guessing my canon.  They love it, I don't feel strongly about it, so I usually run my games in Greyhawk because I know exactly how malleable that setting is, especially because I'm the one in my group who knows the most about it.

I know, from experience, what happens when I run FR games with those players.  They try to correct me, and I tell them to stuff a sock in their cakeholes, because I don't intend to follow canon.  They nod, and agree that as the DM, I have the right to do that, and back off.  Then, ten minutes later they forget that discussion and tell me that Lord Whozit is the leader of Whateverdale, not King Whatshisname.  Then I throw dice at them.  It's not a pretty picture.

Plus, they go to all that trouble to define FR right down to the colour of Elminster's codpiece, and it seems somehow weird to just ignore all that text.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Feb 25, 2008)

Thank you Dr. Awkward, now I have to go and stat out Elminster's Codpiece...


----------



## BryonD (Feb 25, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I'd prefer to build several really cool, detailed and rich encounters with that time, rather than spending most of it crunching numbers for a couple monsters for a single encounter (which will take up less time than it takes me to prepare for it). What you call "stick figure adventuring," I call "not giving me needless homework."



What I've seen advocated in this thread and described in a general throughout the 4e presentation doesn't meet my standard of "cool, detailed and rich".
Since my idea of stick figure adventuring is good enough for you it is very clear that we have sharply different standards.  4E is clearly built with your standards in mind.  That's fine.  But the difference remains and those of us who want more are going to be talked out of it or browbeat into pretending that the difference isn't there.

And the ultimate consequences regarding the overall range of DMs out there will reflect this divide.


----------



## hong (Feb 25, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> What I've seen advocated in this thread and described in a general throughout the 4e presentation doesn't meet my standard of "cool, detailed and rich".
> Since my idea of stick figure adventuring is good enough for you it is very clear that we have sharply different standards.  4E is clearly built with your standards in mind.  That's fine.  But the difference remains and those of us who want more are going to be talked out of it or browbeat into pretending that the difference isn't there.




See, all these problems would be solved if only people would stop worrying about bodily fluids.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 25, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Setting aside the absurd exaggerations regarding such things as hundreds of hours, tea parties and fanfic, I believe the attitude you are describing will be a core reason why two years from now it will be a lot more difficult to find a really good DM.  They will still be out there.  But they will be fewer and farther between.




Really?  Absurd exaggerations?  How much time do you think it takes to get a setting like Farland, or Urbis?  Or Ptolus, and that's just a single city.  You can create entire settings in less time?  As far as tea parties go, take a look at the WOTC site and the Forgotten Realmslore section.  There's a six page treatise on the SHAPE OF WINDOWS in the Realms.  

D&D has always celebrated this sort of great clomping nerdism, to borrow a phrase.  The idea that the only "good DM" is one that has laboriously built this massive ship in a bottle.  To me, a good DM is someone who spends all his time developing adventures and the setting comes in a very, very far second.



> Hell, a Descent character can grow and develop.
> 
> I don't have a fraction of the time I wish I had for my gaming.  I'm one of those real job, 40 hours is for losers, wife and kids types.  But if I've only got one hour to spend, I'd prefer to build a really cool, detailed and rich single encounter rather than an entire stick figure adventure.  D&D, to me, is about a hell of a lot more than grinding through a string of encounters that are set up like so many bowling pins.  And moving away from that is a very sad thing that will make D&D a lot less distinct when compared to the throngs of other quick and easy games out there.
> 
> The love for the texture of the game and being a great DM have a pretty notable correlation.




Isn't it funny.  Here we see exactly what I talked about above - a good DM MUST world build, or his campaign is nothing but a string of stick figure adventures.  This attitude just blows my mind.  It absolutely astonishes me how intolerant people have become about the hobby.  Why in hell do I have to detail out the shape of windows in my campaign setting?  My time is FAR better spent creating adventures than screwing around developing calendars for my world.

I loath world building.  That 4e seems to nicely step away from the idea that all DM's must worldbuild is one of the best selling points to me.  That I can start with a PoL setting, detailing it only as much as necessary to run my adventures means that I no longer have to screw around with all the wasted time and energy of what amounts to fanfic.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 25, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Really?  Absurd exaggerations?  How much time do you think it takes to get a setting like Farland, or Urbis?  Or Ptolus, and that's just a single city.  You can create entire settings in less time?  As far as tea parties go, take a look at the WOTC site and the Forgotten Realmslore section.  There's a six page treatise on the SHAPE OF WINDOWS in the Realms.



You are mixing and matching published material and home material.  
You claims are absurd exaggerations in regard to anything I myself or anyone I know of has ever spent their recreational time on.  And that was the point.  



> D&D has always celebrated this sort of great clomping nerdism, to borrow a phrase.  The idea that the only "good DM" is one that has laboriously built this massive ship in a bottle.



Again, you are completely changing what was said.



> DM is someone who spends all his time developing adventures and the setting comes in a very, very far second.



That doesn't contradict my point that really good DMs will be disproportionally drawn to games that are built like 3E rather 4E.



> Isn't it funny.  Here we see exactly what I talked about above - a good DM MUST world build, or his campaign is nothing but a string of stick figure adventures.  Tis attitude just blows my mind.  It absolutely astonishes me how intolerant people have become about the hobby.  Why in hell do I have to detail out the shape of windows in my campaign setting?  My time is FAR better spent creating adventures than screwing around developing calendars for my world.



I think what I actually said is a lot less mind blowing than the mischaracterizations you are trying to put in my mouth.



> I loath world building.  That 4e seems to nicely step away from the idea that all DM's must worldbuild is one of the best selling points to me.  That I can start with a PoL setting, detailing it only as much as necessary to run my adventures means that I no longer have to screw around with all the wasted time and energy of what amounts to fanfic.



I already agreed 100% that some people will be on board with the change.  That changes nothing of my point.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 25, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> really good DMs will be disproportionally drawn to games that are built like 3E rather 4E.



Yeah but the hot chicks will be playing 4e.


----------



## hong (Feb 25, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Yeah but the hot chicks will be playing 4e.



 Only hobbyist gamers bother about that kind of stuff.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 25, 2008)

> I already agreed 100% that some people will be on board with the change. That changes nothing of my point.




Just so I'm not further accused of mischaracterizing what you said.

You're claiming that because 4e does not force DM's to world build, that good DM's won't play it.  In other words,"Good DM's" spend their time building worlds, and bad DM's don't.

Is that a fair characterization of your point?


----------



## BryonD (Feb 25, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Yeah but the hot chicks will be playing 4e.



You haven't met my wife.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 25, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just so I'm not further accused of mischaracterizing what you said.
> 
> You're claiming that because 4e does not force DM's to world build, that good DM's won't play it.  In other words,"Good DM's" spend their time building worlds, and bad DM's don't.
> 
> Is that a fair characterization of your point?



Nope.

Not even close.


----------



## hong (Feb 25, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> You haven't met my wife.



 Is she an elite dungeon master as well?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 25, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Nope.
> 
> Not even close.



Is your point that 3.x is giving you better tools to build worlds, which is why "good" (which means in this context "world-building" (?) will lean towards 3.x instead of 4E?

In that case, I do not agree.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Feb 25, 2008)

The point reads to me to be that it takes longer to build encounters in 3.5 so world building DMs will prefer it to 4e. Which can't be it, so I think we need some clarification.


I could make a broad baseless statement that good DMs will prefer 4e, and only a poor DM would remain with 3.5. Of course, that isn't true and would only serve to insult a large number of people (many of whom I respect as DMs). Obviously something is amiss here.


----------



## Primal (Feb 25, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Is she an elite dungeon master as well?




You aren't? I thought this thread was for "Elite DMs only".


----------



## Primal (Feb 25, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Yeah but the hot chicks will be playing 4e.




In your dreams, man... have you actually ever seen hot chicks playing tabletop RPGs?


----------



## Primal (Feb 25, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> If plenty of people don't run the Realms, they cite this as their reason, then it is true *as far as they are concerned*.
> 
> You may have a different opinion, but that doesn't make them wrong.




Actually, you're correct. I should have noted that this is only my personal observation and not a "universal" truth. Also, I understand Dr. Awkward's point about having players who know a lot more about the setting than the DM -- it may feel stressful to even bother with a campaign in  developed areas. However, once you've read the FRCS, you could run a campaign in one of the less developed areas -- the Border Kingdoms, for example. In the end it's *your* version of the Realms and you're free to change stuff from "canon" lore as much as you want to.


----------



## Primal (Feb 25, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just so I'm not further accused of mischaracterizing what you said.
> 
> You're claiming that because 4e does not force DM's to world build, that good DM's won't play it.  In other words,"Good DM's" spend their time building worlds, and bad DM's don't.
> 
> Is that a fair characterization of your point?




I'd say that "Good DMs" cater to the needs of their players and "Bad DMs" don't. So, if your players are into details and want you to spend time on world-building, you should do it. If they don't, well, then you don't *have* to do it (yet if you do, don't try "force-feeding" the fluff down their throats).


----------

