General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Wow, this thread is exploding in size so quickly that I can hardly keep up... Anyways, may as well respond to this regardless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercurius
Two crimes were committed here. First, and the less egregious one, is that you said "Middle-earth exists solely to tell the stories of [hobbits]". Ack! I hear J.R.R. Tolkien muttering in his tomb. Actually, The Hobbit was a serial bed-time story that Tolkien told his kids that happened to be set in Middle-earth, the world of a much larger epic he had been working on for decades; the LotR started as a sequel to The Hobbit, requested by the publisher, but became something much larger, "more serious and dark," as JRRT said. But the core of Tolkien's work was not The Hobbit or LotR but The Silmarillion, which focuses on the history of the elves and, to a lesser degree, humans. In other words, Tolkien did NOT create Middle-earth as a setting to write The Hobbit and LotR in; those stories grew out of it. I think this is one of the main reasons that the setting is so...alive. There is never the feeling of the "cardboard set" that you get in a lot of novels and RPG worlds: As if all that exists is what is needed to portray the scene at hand. The Hobbit and LotR have a sense of deep history, of myth and legend--because Tolkien had spent decades detailing that world's myth and history and languages.
Honestly, you are putting Tolkien's setting too much on a pedestal. The world itself isn't really all that unique or fleshed out in the greater scheme of things.
Besides, the real focus of my point was that, in a sense, Middle-Earth really isn't a static setting that is identical between all of its different incarnations. I think it can be argued that Middle-Earth itself is portrayed very differently between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. In a sense, The Lord of the Rings ret-cons many aspects of the setting in order to better tell its own story. More importantly, it is quite clear that Tolkien created the characters and core story and events of his stories first, and created the specific details of the setting to match his story afterwards. Which do you think existed first: Bilbo and the Thirteen Dwarves or the den of giant spiders they are attacked by? Was Thurin created first or was Orcrist? It is not like Tolkien created the entirety of Middle-Earth down to the last detail first and then decided to tell a story using a few bits and pieces he created. This is even clearer in the story of the Silmarillion, really.
Quote:
The second crime, you wonder? It is the worst: You mention Middle-earth and World of Warcraft in the same breath! Alas, alas! May the Great Eagles carry me away to distant Valinor, where only her golden woods may heal my blighted soul!
Both are settings for MMORPGs, so they can't be that different.
Besides, I said Azeroth, the setting for the Warcraft series, not World of Warcraft. There is a slight difference, which gets to the heart of the whole "setting is reinvisioned for each new version" thing I mentioned above.
Then you've done basically the same thing as the guy who didn't put the wyrm there in the first place due to a desire not to screw over low level PCs who can't fight the wyrm.
Both of you are designing the game world such that the PCs will encounter level appropriate fights. You're just including the risk of a level inappropriate fight if the PCs so choose, and then telling the PCs not to so choose. Both worlds are equally engineered and the outcome is the same.
I disagree entirely. They aren't the same thing at all. The fact that it is there, that it exists in the world, that its presence has an impact on the context of the PCs choices, matters. By merely *being* it enhances the setting and play.
__________________ Reynard
-------- Reynard's Foxhole - My ENWorld Blog
Updated 03-24-09: Alvoran -- Island of a Thousand Kings
There is a fine line here: a world that solely exists for the entertainment of the DM (and not necessarily the PCs enjoyment) can create some of the biggest hobgoblins in our hobby; railroading (my plot must not be disturbed), God-NPCs (lucky My NPC protagonist was here to save the day), PC dis-empowerment (The bartender does 57 points of damage to the thief; did I mention he's a retired 15th level fighter?) and DM "self-pleasuring" (It doesn't matter if my PCs are having fun, as long as I am. Now save vs. death).
While not always true, there is a slippery slope between putting the DMs fun before (and not equal to) the other players and becoming a DM Tyrant whose game topples over the Chasm of Badwrongfun.
However, there is nothing wrong with creating a world for the enjoyment of others and receiving enjoyment at the process (and results) of it. That is the joy of DMing.
Assuming the world exists for the enjoyment of the DM is not the same as saying that the purpose of the game is to stroke the DM's ego.
But the fact is, the PCs never experience the world. They experience only parts of it. The DM is the one who gets to know the whole of the world. Campaign supplements are seldom marketable to players but many DMs buy them for the sheer joy of reading them. The same is true of adventures. How many of us DMs have bought adventures we will never run simply to read them.
Ergo, the world exists for the DM.
PCs exist for the sake of adventuring and in some ways the adventure exists for the PCs. However the question posed was, "why does the world exist," not, "why do we write adventures?" It has been my experience, in 26 years of DMing, adventures seldom encompass all of the world I envision.
Edit: More on topic, let me add, that as the world exists for me the DM, the reason I place things within the world is because it seems right to me to do so. As I write adventures, I will keep in mind the level and goals of the PCs but in the end, the adventure must conform to the world that I envision first and foremost.
Last edited by Wicht; 9th March 2009 at 01:32 AM..
Assuming the world exists for the enjoyment of the DM is not the same as saying that the purpose of the game is to stroke the DM's ego.
Hence the term, "fine-line". As I said, a world created for the enjoyment of the DM is fine. A world created SOLELY for the enjoyment of the DM is dangerous.
I disagree entirely. They aren't the same thing at all. The fact that it is there, that it exists in the world, that its presence has an impact on the context of the PCs choices, matters. By merely *being* it enhances the setting and play.
You've done nothing different in the context of the specific conversation and this thread.
Obviously its different, there's either a dragon or there isn't. But for you to sit back and self congratulatorily toss out the obligatory video game references regarding people who don't put level inappropriate fights near low level PCs while also not putting low level fights near low level PCs is ridiculous. You, also, do not put level inappropriate fights near low level PCs. You just avoid it in a slightly different way. Both of you have engineered your game world to fit the players, you just pretend you didn't.
You've done nothing different in the context of the specific conversation and this thread.
Obviously its different, there's either a dragon or there isn't. But for you to sit back and self congratulatorily toss out the obligatory video game references regarding people who don't put level inappropriate fights near low level PCs while also not putting low level fights near low level PCs is ridiculous. You, also, do not put level inappropriate fights near low level PCs. You just avoid it in a slightly different way. Both of you have engineered your game world to fit the players, you just pretend you didn't.
In essence, its just a justified form of "gotcha." If the PCs make a bad choice (ignore a warning, wander down too many levels) then the DM can throw a high level foe at the PCs and whack them, arguing "You ignored the warnings".
You just avoid it in a slightly different way. Both of you have engineered your game world to fit the players, you just pretend you didn't.
Here's the thing:
Creating a world to fit the characters [because a PC is a dragonborn, dragonborn are important to the world]
Creating a world to fit the players [because one player likes dragonborn, dragonborn are important to the world, even if none of the characters are.]
Creating a game to fit the characters [because one PC is a dragonborn, the dragonborn are central in the sessions you have]
Creating a game to fit the players [because one player likes dragonborn, the dragonborn in the sessions you have, even if none of the PC's are dragonborn]
Replace "dragonborn" with any game element.
Generally, creating a game to fit the players is a positive thing: because your sessions mostly involve things that your players are interested in.
Creating a world to fit the players breaks the suspension of disbelief a little harder. It doesn't matter if dragonborn are important in the world, really -- just if they're important to the game.
Creating a game to fit the characters is what 3e relied on. It means that if your characters have skills, you challenge those skills with what they face.
Creating a world to fit the characters is narm-worthy often. Because your characters are level X, all challenges are level X? Really?
They didn't engineer their world to fit the players.
They engineered the game to fit the characters.
Just like players are not characters, your game is not your world, and just as players and characters have different needs at the table, so do worlds and games.
Just like players are not characters, your game is not your world, and just as players and characters have different needs at the table, so do worlds and games.
Well said. I've given out too much XP today, but this post is XP-worthy.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
They are really completely independent from one another, and both are continuums. Bad or pathological game experiences can emerge from sandboxes as easily as from railroads. Groups where players have no fun, or where the game master can't have fun - probably won't play together for very long.
Some people hate customized treasure ("hey look! ANOTHER magical military pick! and our fighter is specialized in military picks! What are the chances?"), and some hate finding useless treasure ("Hey! After I found that magic military pick six levels ago I spent four feats specializing in it, but all we ever find are magical spears. What the hell am I supposed to do with a magical spear?").
Probably a happy answer is somewhere in the middle ("hey! when we were in town the retired knight we were helping out saw that I used a military pick, and told me that way back when the Burning Lord also wielded a magical military pick, and that it was buried with him in the Ash Crypt. Mind if we make a side-trek out to the Ash Crypt and see if we can find it next week? It'd be perfect for my fighter.").
Versimilitude doesn't have to suck, and saying yes to the players doesn't make it Christmas.
Creating a world to fit the characters [because a PC is a dragonborn, dragonborn are important to the world]
Creating a world to fit the players [because one player likes dragonborn, dragonborn are important to the world, even if none of the characters are.]
Creating a game to fit the characters [because one PC is a dragonborn, the dragonborn are central in the sessions you have]
Creating a game to fit the players [because one player likes dragonborn, the dragonborn in the sessions you have, even if none of the PC's are dragonborn]
Replace "dragonborn" with any game element.
This makes a huge and (in my case) erroneous assumption: that any of these are known during the design phase.
I designed my current world - at least in broad-brush ways - long, long before I invited anyone to play in it, and longer still before I knew any of said invitations would be accepted, or by who. I created a world to fit - well, itself, really - and to give me something I could mine for stories.
As for ongoing game design, while that's a bit more malleable for the DM to tweak to player preference, it's also in large part up to the players. For example, Hobbits are quite rare in the area where my current game has been set thus far, but if the players really like Hobbits and want to see some they know full well the Hobbit lands are far to the north, right where they've always been...
In the interest of going in a slightly different direction regarding the "wish list" thing I thought I'd share an extremely unoriginal idea that I'm using in my current campaign: Spontaneous enchantment.
Over the course of the campaign some items will be found, some will possibly be manufactured. But some will just...happen. Once in a while when the hero is smiting some bad guy with his sword something causes that sword to become enchanted. And its enchantment can increase or change over time as it is used more. Same goes for any type of item.
I don't plan to do this all the time or anything. But once in a while it has the dual benefit of giving the player the item that they want (or at least one that's pretty handy in the moment) as well as having some story element to it. After all, Bjorn may think it is cool to wield the Sword of Halgrund. But how much cooler is it if Bjorn suddenly finds himself wielding the Sword of Bjorn? Once in a while I think that is pretty cool.
In essence, its just a justified form of "gotcha." If the PCs make a bad choice (ignore a warning, wander down too many levels) then the DM can throw a high level foe at the PCs and whack them, arguing "You ignored the warnings".
You act like I need permission.
I don't need permission to put anything I wish anywhere. Likewise, players don't need my permission to walk down any path of their choosing.
A dragon rumored to be up in the mountains but which is only encountered if the players seek it out is hardly thrown at anyone. You act as if the DM is secretly gleeful at such a turn of affairs, when probably the DM sees it as a disaster.
If the PC's make bad choices, naturally, they will come to bad ends in all probability despite my best efforts to save them from themselves. But ultimately, the player is in charge of his character. I can't force them not to do something stupid. I can't take away their responcibility for their actions, because to do that is to completely take away their freedom. If their actions always lead to the same ends no matter what I do, then they are truly just my puppets and the whole thing is a sham.
If the PC's make good choice, naturally, they will probably overcome everything and come to good ends despite me playing NPC's with all the cunning and ruthless I can manage. Players are usually pretty cunning, and when you stack the deck in their favor ever so slightly, they generally prevail. Heck, they sometimes prevail when you think the odds are against them. What am I to do, take away their well earned rewards? If I can take away their bad ends and call it fair, then surely I can take away their good ends and call it fair?
What course would you really suggest a DM take? Put up impenatrable forests and uncrossable mountains around every path, so as to perfectly guide the PC's to the places that you think that they ought to go? Shift every obstacle out of the way of the PC's, and shuffle in its place something you prefer? Erect invisible barriers in the campaign world that cannot be crossed until you reach level 15?
__________________ Shameless plug for my current Enworld project. Learn more than you ever wanted about the Slaad Lords here.
New updates semi-regularly. Please stop in. Feedback, positive or negative, much appreciated.
Well, either I'm an idiot, or you guys aren't making sense. I guess either way I'll leave it here.
I can't figure out the difference between:
1. Engineering the game world to fit the challenge level appropriate to the PCs by declining to place a huge dragon in a nearby forest, or
2. Engineering the game world to fit the challenge level appropriate to the PCs by putting a huge dragon in a nearby forest, and then ensuring that the PCs know not to go there, and if they do have to go there making sure they do so by encountering a level appropriate "sneak by the dragon" challenge instead of a level inappropriate "fight the dragon and get eaten" death scene.
I mean, obviously there's a difference because one version has a huge dragon and the other doesn't, as Reynard pointed out. And that's a big difference! After all, we just stipulated that the dragon was huge.
But I'm pretty sure that's a distinction without a difference.
As an aside, after reading several of Jack7's editorials, I think the OP consistently suffers from a stilted and contrived sense of the 'heroic' and the (mistaken, in my experience) assumption that the adventurers intend to be heroes.
With that out of the way, any player who comes to me with a wish list had also better be prepared to explain in some detail how she plans to come by these items. Consult with a sage or seek a divination to learn the whereabouts? Complete a quest on behalf of a powerful spellcaster in exchange for crafting it? Sneak into the guarded and warded armory of the king to steal it?
__________________ On weird fantasy: "The Otus/Elmore rule: When adding something new to the campaign, try and imagine how Erol Otus would depict it. If you can, that's far enough...it's a good idea. If you can picture a Larry Elmore version...it's far too mundane and boring, excise immediately." - Kellri, K&K Alehouse
You've done nothing different in the context of the specific conversation and this thread.
Obviously its different, there's either a dragon or there isn't. But for you to sit back and self congratulatorily toss out the obligatory video game references regarding people who don't put level inappropriate fights near low level PCs while also not putting low level fights near low level PCs is ridiculous. You, also, do not put level inappropriate fights near low level PCs. You just avoid it in a slightly different way. Both of you have engineered your game world to fit the players, you just pretend you didn't.
I think you're misreading me, at least insofar as "video game references" go. I haven't made any that I'm aware of.
Also, it seems disingenuous to suggest that not having a "level inappropriate" thing at all and having a "level inappropriate" thing but not making it mandatory are the same exact thing. They aren't, not in the least. if it doesn't exist, it does not factor into player freedom (the most important aspect of the rpg, the one that separates it from other kinds of games) at all, simply because it isn't there. IF it exists, even if it is rare or unusual or out of the way, it does impact player freedom, simply by virtue of its inclusion.
Part of the disconnect here may be deeper than talking about mere setting issues and move into the territory of adventure design and how that relates to "level appropriateness". I do my best *not* to design adventures. Rather, i try and create locations and situations and set the PCs loose. I do my best to not engage in the "this is what you guys are doing this week" mentality, which I feel is an inhibitor to play, and work toward a "Here's the situation? What do you do?" That is, I do that kind of thing until a campaign theme or adventure emerges from play and then I spend more time and effort creating something truly appropriate for the PCs.
One of the reasons that I disdain the "adventure path" mentality is that I can't imagine knowing where the campaign's going to be three sessions down the line, let alone 20 or 30. Players do funny things. They engage the setting and its elements in unexpected ways. Planning adventures is far more a "waste" of time to me than doing setting development, because at least setting development allows me to be consistent while responding on the fly to what the PCs are doing. (It also has the advantage of allowing the campaign and setting to survive the occasional TPK; particular subplots may be lost but the setting and its situations remain even if the party disappears forever in the Tomb of Absolute Deathness.)
As it relates to level appropriateness I'll put it this way: you know what's awesome? Watching a 10th level party go back to the 5th level bad guy who sent them running with their tails between their legs when they were 3rd level and not just killing him but razing his fortress and slaughtering his minions to the man/monster. If the world remains apart from the PCs from the level perspective, yet exists no matter what level they are, the PCs have the opportunity to interact with the same elements in different ways at different times. If the BBEG is always 3 levels higher than the PCs so it will be a "hard" encounter, the losers will always be the PCs -- not matter what they do, no matter how hard they strive, they will never reach a point where they can deal with that villain on their own terms. This goes for any setting element.
__________________ Reynard
-------- Reynard's Foxhole - My ENWorld Blog
Updated 03-24-09: Alvoran -- Island of a Thousand Kings
With that out of the way, any player who comes to me with a wish list had also better be prepared to explain in some detail how she plans to come by these items. Consult with a sage or seek a divination to learn the whereabouts? Complete a quest on behalf of a powerful spellcaster in exchange for crafting it? Sneak into the guarded and warded armory of the king to steal it?
In so doing, though, the issue of "wish list" is obviated. it's no longer a wish list -- it's a player character goal. To which I say "Huzzah! Go and get it!"
Just don't expect it to be free and don't expect it to be easy.
__________________ Reynard
-------- Reynard's Foxhole - My ENWorld Blog
Updated 03-24-09: Alvoran -- Island of a Thousand Kings
That wasn't advice: them's the rules here, whether or not you personally agree with their effectiveness.
I think you missed the point I was trying to make, which is that for just about anything said or done, someone will be offended. A lot of the more interesting, dare I say "juicy", material on forums like this tend to have some degree of potential offensivosity. I think the key is to not go overboard, to avoid the usual triggers, and try to be respectful. However, I think that if we tried not to offend everyone with everything we said--which is what you seemed to be saying--things would get awfully stale real quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfessorPain
How dare you assume your post offended someone. I am someone, and I was not in any way offended by your post. It was a reasonable statement of fact, and I am outraged you so quickly conclude I don't agree. Implying that I am somehow unable to follow your line of thought, because I once got an A- instead of an A+ on my Socratic Logic exam. I cannot believe you treat people who got A minuses as inferiors. You should be ashamed of yourself. Just because I got one A-, that doesn't mean I don't understand philosophy!
Well, I am deeply offended by your offendedness!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinBahamut
Honestly, you are putting Tolkien's setting too much on a pedestal. The world itself isn't really all that unique or fleshed out in the greater scheme of things.
?!DF&#%#!*!$#!$!#&!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinBahamut
Besides, the real focus of my point was that, in a sense, Middle-Earth really isn't a static setting that is identical between all of its different incarnations. I think it can be argued that Middle-Earth itself is portrayed very differently between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. In a sense, The Lord of the Rings ret-cons many aspects of the setting in order to better tell its own story. More importantly, it is quite clear that Tolkien created the characters and core story and events of his stories first, and created the specific details of the setting to match his story afterwards. Which do you think existed first: Bilbo and the Thirteen Dwarves or the den of giant spiders they are attacked by? Was Thurin created first or was Orcrist? It is not like Tolkien created the entirety of Middle-Earth down to the last detail first and then decided to tell a story using a few bits and pieces he created. This is even clearer in the story of the Silmarillion, really.
Okay, I gotcha. Having attempted (and still attempting) to write a Gynormous Epic, I understand that there is constant tinkering with details back and forth throughout the narrative (and if only details, you're pretty lucky). Not to mention that some of the best stuff comes out spontaneously in the writing. This happens with DMing, as well.
The way I would describe what you are getting at is that the world and the characters are symbiotic--there is a living, dynamic relationship between them. (For me this whole argument is rather doomed to begin with, because it implies an either/or duality when, I feel at least, the truth is both/neither and more )
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinBahamut
Both are settings for MMORPGs, so they can't be that different.
Well, either I'm an idiot, or you guys aren't making sense. I guess either way I'll leave it here.
I can't figure out the difference between:
1. Engineering the game world to fit the challenge level appropriate to the PCs by declining to place a huge dragon in a nearby forest, or
2. Engineering the game world to fit the challenge level appropriate to the PCs by putting a huge dragon in a nearby forest, and then ensuring that the PCs know not to go there, and if they do have to go there making sure they do so by encountering a level appropriate "sneak by the dragon" challenge instead of a level inappropriate "fight the dragon and get eaten" death scene.
I mean, obviously there's a difference because one version has a huge dragon and the other doesn't, as Reynard pointed out. And that's a big difference! After all, we just stipulated that the dragon was huge.
But I'm pretty sure that's a distinction without a difference.
I think you're reading in something that isn't there, at least from my point of view.
Let's say it's a CR 18 dragon. It's lair is in the heart of the forest. It's presence is known well enough to allow an interested group of PCs to find its lair, or give it a wide berth -- regardless of their level. However, the dragon is also found on the forest's random encounter chart (it does occasionally go out and hunt or survey its domain or whatever), again, regardless of the level of the PCs. With this information in hand, the players/PCs are able to make an informaed choice about taking a shortcut (or whatever) through the forest, versus going around (or whatever).
Nothing in this suggests that lower level PCs are only set against a lower level challenge of some sort or another should the dragon be otherwise "encountered".
__________________ Reynard
-------- Reynard's Foxhole - My ENWorld Blog
Updated 03-24-09: Alvoran -- Island of a Thousand Kings
Honestly, you are putting Tolkien's setting too much on a pedestal. The world itself isn't really all that unique or fleshed out in the greater scheme of things.
There are a dozen plus books compiled from his notes on the history, geography and people of Middle Earth that would beg to differ.
Well, either I'm an idiot, or you guys aren't making sense. I guess either way I'll leave it here.
I'm not the one that brought it up, but I'll make a stab at it.
Quote:
1. Engineering the game world to fit the challenge level appropriate to the PCs by declining to place a huge dragon in a nearby forest, or
That doesn't go nearly far enough. If you truly wish to make your world have padded walls and appropriately safe chopped up rubber floors, you must decline to put any level inappropriate challenges in the game world at all. Afterall, if a player truly wishes to go 'fight a dragon and take its gold', so long as there are any dragon's anywhere, the PC might be able to discover this and take off on his quest. Of course, you can always argue with the player that his activities are to no avail, and place every obstacle in his way, and see to it that all sorts of things happen on the way to the dragon so that by the time he reaches it he's certain to be able to dispatch it.
But this is a distinction with no difference. Either way, the dragon doesn't exist until such time as you deemed it appropriate, and the PC is sure to figure out eventually that everything he does or chooses is pointless because there is no real connection between causes and effects. It's all your story, and none of it his.
Quote:
I mean, obviously there's a difference because one version has a huge dragon and the other doesn't, as Reynard pointed out. And that's a big difference! After all, we just stipulated that the dragon was huge.
But I'm pretty sure that's a distinction without a difference.
I think you are quite wrong. Quite unlike the circumstance I just outlined, there is a distinction there. If I write a play in which there is a pistol on the mantle in scene one, then the audience of the play will know that at some point that pistol is very likely to be fired and when it is fired it will seem a perfectly reasonable thing to have occured. But if I write a play in which there is no pistol on the mantle, and in scene 5 suddenly a character goes to the mantle pulls a pistol off and fire it, the audience is likely to go, "Huh, where did that pistol come from, it wasn't there before." The experience is quite different for the audience, because, among other things in the former case the audience is likely to think the story about the characters, but in the latter case the audience is likely to think the story is, "Where did the pistol come from?", and waste lots of time and effort on that question. And generally speaking, if the history of literature is any evidence, the audience is very likely to find the latter play lacking in merit compared to the first one.
But we are talking of RPG's, and in them the audience of the play also takes the role of the lead actors within it, and so the matter for them is far more acute. For if the pistol is pulled off the mantel when it wasn't there before, its they that it will be pointed at and they that must act the scene. But if the pistol has been there all along, then they will surely say, "I saw this coming; it's time for the pistol to be fired." or even better, "Ahh... so this is the time for the pistol to be fired; what a clever twist." or perhaps, "Great Scott! Why didn't I see it before! The pistol!!!"
And I speak here with experience as a player, that to experience a 'play' where the pistol has been there all along is far more sublime and enjoyable than one where it wasn't.
__________________ Shameless plug for my current Enworld project. Learn more than you ever wanted about the Slaad Lords here.
New updates semi-regularly. Please stop in. Feedback, positive or negative, much appreciated.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
