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.
1. provide a place to adventure and explore
2. Set the overall tone (e.g, post apocalyptic, arabaian adventures, gothic horror, wuxia) and magic level.
3. Set the ground rules for character creation
a) the PC races that exist
b) the cultures and the classes and/or class variants found within them
c) the deities and their domains
d) how magic will work (i.e, classes and magic system used)
4. Help me to provide individual players with information based on their character's cultural and, if any, organizational ties (including information not avaialbe to other PCs). This information can be useful in-game and, should the player choose, when creating backgrounds and is intended to help further ground the character into the setting .
a) cultural characteristics
b. local important NPCs (which may serve as mentors)
c) non-secret socieities and organizations (e.g, guilds, wizard colleges, ) including prestige class based organizations
d) some recent and historical events of interest, rumors, and places (including "legendary" or unique creatures known to be inhabitng them)
e) the reduction or waiving of certain Knowledge check DCs in a given region, city, etc.
5. (Edit): Make it easier to wing it when the players do the unexpected and change their mind at the last minute about where they are going to go.
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
Last edited by Greg K; 9th March 2009 at 07:10 AM..
1. Engineering the game world to fit the challenge level appropriate to the PCs by declining to place a huge dragon in a nearby forest, or
2. Engineering the game world to fit the challenge level appropriate to the PCs by putting a huge dragon in a nearby forest, and then ensuring that the PCs know not to go there, and if they do have to go there making sure they do so by encountering a level appropriate "sneak by the dragon" challenge instead of a level inappropriate "fight the dragon and get eaten" death scene.
I think that you have set this up to fail. (Not intentionally, but by the nature of being the one to define the sides of the argument.) You have not accounted for two things. One, challenge level appropriate may not be the design goal. Two, and more importantly, there are more reasons to use a dragon (insert any high-level challenge) than just to fight or sneak by. Story and plot come to mind.
I don't know where several of the posters have gotten their conception of the 'wish list' in 4e from. Is this some internet myth that has risen and been spread by people who haven't actually read the books?
There is no Wish List system, no Wish List section. There is nothing about giving players exactly what they want for free (which more than one poster, including the OP, has claimed in this thread). On page 125, under the section about Awarding Treasure, there is this paragraph:
Quote:
A great way to make sure you give players magic items they’ll be excited about is to ask them for wish lists. At the start of each level, have each player write down a list of three to five items that they are intrigued by that are no more than four levels above their own level. You can choose treasure from those lists (making sure to place an item from a different character’s list each time), crossing the items off as the characters find them. If characters don’t find things on their lists, they can purchase or enchant them when they reach sufficient level.
That's it. It's not a system, its a suggestion to give the DM some guidance in coming up with treasure awards centered around the idea that since magic shops are a thing of the past, items tailored to the party are certainly more useful than random items that will just have to be disenchanted. It is not a list of demands, Fed-EX does not deliver the items to the characters at the local inn. It's simply a suggestion for coming up with useful items the PCs will be excited to get to fill up the magic item part of the treasure parcels.
I don't use wish lists myself. My players are not the book reading types, they haven't poured over the PHB items, and certainly not the AV items. I listen and they discuss things they want and are looking for. Sometimes, I have asked them to write me a brief list of short term goals the character is pursuing during downtime. I've been doing this for years, and those background bits, which are sometimes "trying to find a flaming sword", often turn up as sidequests, adventure seeds, and such.
Also, it seems disingenuous to suggest that not having a "level inappropriate" thing at all and having a "level inappropriate" thing but not making it mandatory are the same exact thing. They aren't, not in the least. if it doesn't exist, it does not factor into player freedom (the most important aspect of the rpg, the one that separates it from other kinds of games) at all, simply because it isn't there. IF it exists, even if it is rare or unusual or out of the way, it does impact player freedom, simply by virtue of its inclusion.
1. I got you confused with someone else for a moment. Sorry about the video game reference comment.
2. The above quote is true in only the most trivial and unimportant sense. Obviously the inclusion of a thing increases player freedom in the sense that the players can now choose how to interact with that thing. This would also be true of whatever else a DM might place in the forest instead of the dragon.
3. They are the exact same thing in that you engineered the game in both circumstances in order to accomodate player character level, placing you squarely in the OPs camp A, "The World Exists for the Sake of the Characters," and clearly exemplifying a "level responsive" setting. It is level responsive both to decline to include a level inappropriate dragon, and to include said dragon while giving the PCs information and options sufficient to make that dragon a plot device that they do not have to face in a level inappropriate manner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ghost
I think that you have set this up to fail. (Not intentionally, but by the nature of being the one to define the sides of the argument.) You have not accounted for two things. One, challenge level appropriate may not be the design goal. Two, and more importantly, there are more reasons to use a dragon (insert any high-level challenge) than just to fight or sneak by. Story and plot come to mind.
These things are true, but they are not relevant to whether or not the game world is being engineered by the DM to better serve the players by ensuring that they do not wander or get led into level inappropriate encounters.
Obviously a story with dragons in it is different from a story with, I dunno, fish people.
There is no Wish List system, no Wish List section. There is nothing about giving players exactly what they want for free (which more than one poster, including the OP, has claimed in this thread). On page 125, under the section about Awarding Treasure, there is this paragraph:
And as with PrCs in the 3.0 DMG, certain players will think they are entitled to it. Oh, wait! I have already seen this in at least one thread on the WOTC boards where players talk about going through the Adventurer's Vault and choosing magic items and how DMs should not waste players time by placing things that the PCs cannot use.
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
In so doing, though, the issue of "wish list" is obviated. it's no longer a wish list -- it's a player character goal. To which I say "Huzzah! Go and get it!"
Just don't expect it to be free and don't expect it to be easy.
*Psst!* Reynard? That was my point exactly. But don't tell anyone, 'kay? Let 'em figure it out on their own.
__________________ 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
After a good bit of thought I think that the Silmarillion would have been a lot better with some Tauren Death Knights.
Or zeppelin mechas.
__________________ 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
3. They are the exact same thing in that you engineered the game in both circumstances in order to accomodate player character level, placing you squarely in the OPs camp A, "The World Exists for the Sake of the Characters," and clearly exemplifying a "level responsive" setting. It is level responsive both to decline to include a level inappropriate dragon, and to include said dragon while giving the PCs information and options sufficient to make that dragon a plot device that they do not have to face in a level inappropriate manner.
It's not "level responsive" to include a dragon where a dragon would be, and to provide the players with information about the dragon that their characters would reasonably have, because neither of those decisions (1, placement of the dragon, and 2, availability of information about the dragon) are being made in response to the PCs' level.
It is true that almost without exception, PC's start off in places where survival is fairly easy. Typically, they start in some corner of civilization where level inappropriate challenges are rare. Typically, they start off as members of this civilization and thus what level inappropriate encounters are available are generally with characters that are nominally on 'the same side' as the characters, and thus not hostile. And typically, because it is a civilized area, what level inappropriate foes that are about are generally not interested in casual murder of strangers, because - this being civilized - they are afraid of running afoul of the law.
So yes, by starting the characters there, I'm engineering good odds on the character's survival and engineering it such that most encounters will be with something that low level characters could defend themselves against.
But on the other hand, if I didn't do this, it would raise a paradox. If in fact the PC's find themselves in a place where low level characters probably couldn't survive, how did they get there in the first place? Why aren't they dead? Why isn't everyone else dead? Sure, I could randomly drop them on the haunted continent of Sethia, where a horde of wraiths is an ordinary encounter and where broken epic level artifacts await as death traps to the unwary mortal and that would surely engineer their speedy demise, but there are no living inhabitants of Sethia and even the gods avoid the place. What the heck justification would I have for dropping starting characters there?
Similarly, if I have a dragon living near civilization unless it showed up exactly when the PC's arrived (which would be a rather extraordinary coincidence), if I don't have a wide zone around it where everyone knows you don't go (even if no one knows exactly why), then it raises another internal contridiction in the setting. How is it that all these people are wandering into the dark forest and dying, and no one has noticed it? Won't someone eventually learn the rule, "Don't go into the dark forest.", even if only through natural selection?
But let's suppose that I have some level inappropriate thing around that isn't well known? It's easy to imagine such a thing. Perhaps, buried in the side of a hill somewhere nearby is a hidden vault containing a demi-lich. But once again, we find that if this is a living world, that if such a vault is not known at all and thus the PC's are likely to walk into it with no warning of the hazards inside, then it must also be the case that the vault is very hard to find. If it is not hard to find, someone other than the PC's would have probably found it and hense it would be known about, and it would be well known 'Don't go near those standing stones on such and such hill'. And if it is hard to find, then the PC's are not at all likely to stumble on it by accident either.
Hense we find that it is very difficult to construct logical situations for low level characters where there would be hostile and insanely 'level inappropriate' encounters near by which a character might easily stumble into. There might be a 10th level Paladin or a garison of the King's soldiers, but neither are necessarily hostile (initially). There might be such a dangerous dragon no one dared go near, but everyone would likely know the general location of the lair. There might be well hidden and concealed dangers generally not known about, but the PC's would be generally safe from such dangers by the combination of their ignorance and the passivity of the dangers.
In other words, the fact that a starting location is 'engineered to ensure the PC's are unlikely to wander into level inappropriate encounters' is pretty much indistinguishable from randomly selecting a location where 1st level characters are generally found, for anywhere that 1st level characters are generally found it is logically unlikely that you'll wander into level inappropriate encounters. As a DM, I might be doing everything necessary to give the PC's a fair chance at survival, but the PC's survival might not necessarily be my overriding motivation - and given how I've responded thus far, may I suggest that it probably isn't.
It is therefore a very weak prejudice on a DM's part in favor of the PC's, and if anything, because it represents far and away the statistically most likely scenario, engineering anything but that situation would seem to me to be evidence of far stronger bias or at least much stronger 'rail roading' of a particular plot or story.
Now, is there bias on the part of the DM? Sure, he let's the players play characters with exceptional attributes, relatively high amounts of starting wealth, who have relatively uncommon and highly useful survival skills, and who otherwise have many advantages stacked in their favor. Also, the DM is motivated to fudge consequences in the PC's favor as much as he thinks can be swallowed, if things go badly or might go badly, simply because a TPK represents a lot of hassle and extra work for himself and possibly the end of a hitherto enjoyable story. But as tempting as this may be, the plot protection can never be absolute or too repetitive.
__________________ 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.
There are a dozen plus books compiled from his notes on the history, geography and people of Middle Earth that would beg to differ.
And how many books are there out that detail setting information for the Forgotten Realms? Or even Eberron, for that matter?
And, keep in mind, many of those Middle Earth setting books exist solely as an attempt by various people after Tolkien's death to go into Tolkien's setting notes and pull out as much as they can in order to fill a desire by various people to see more stories set in Middle Earth. How many books do you think could be created from unused setting detail created by any other author? Probably as much as a dozen books, I bet.
Because The Lord of the Rings is a book trilogy, it has certain inherent setting detail needs that are very different than other forms of entertainment. It needs less detail than a series of books much longer than a trilogy (can you really write a whole other trilogy of novels in the setting of Middle Earth as it exists now?), and it certainly requires less detail than something like an MMORPG (which literally needs hundreds or thousands of individual characters and dozens of highly detailed locations, all within a strong thematic framework). All told, I am quite certain that Middle earth is very far from being the most detailed setting ever devised. If nothing else, overblown abominations like the DC multiverse and Marvel universe are far more extensive and detailed, simply because so many more stories have been told in them. Even the fact that Tolkien created his own language for the setting is nothing unique anymore.
Truthfully, Middle Earth and The Lord of the Rings have been imitated and used as the model for countless stories and settings since (and quite rightfully so), so there really isn't anything really unique about them anymore other than historical role and quality. Well, I suppose few have dared to copy Tolkien's elaborate writing style, but that isn't really an aspect of the setting.
The greatness of Tolkien's writing has nothing to do with setting detail, and everything to do with Tolkien's own skill in crafting those stories. If anything, I consider the constant inside references to far more obscure works contained within those books to be one of the few flaws of those novels, not one of their assets. Frodo or Aragon invoking the names of Beren and Luthien is something that is meaningless to a reader who hasn't read the Silmarillion, and thus it is something that is just as easily ignored as anything else.
3. They are the exact same thing in that you engineered the game in both circumstances in order to accomodate player character level, placing you squarely in the OPs camp A, "The World Exists for the Sake of the Characters," and clearly exemplifying a "level responsive" setting. It is level responsive both to decline to include a level inappropriate dragon, and to include said dragon while giving the PCs information and options sufficient to make that dragon a plot device that they do not have to face in a level inappropriate manner.
If this is really your perspective on the matter, I'm not sure I can explain it to you in any way that will make you see that they aren't the same thing at all. I might be wrong, so forgive me, but it seems like you are leaning toward a very linear, railroad style view, that the DM is responsible for the events of play (not least what encounters occur, level appropriate or otherwise). I don't subscribe to that view. The DM is responsible for framing the situation but the players are responsible for what actually happens in play by making choices. So, you see, the dragon in this example isn't just a set piece, it is an actual option.
__________________ Reynard
-------- Reynard's Foxhole - My ENWorld Blog
Updated 03-24-09: Alvoran -- Island of a Thousand Kings
I think this is my problem with it, to be honest. I just plain don't like the concept of defining a character by a "signature" item -- especially at creation (an emergence defining item can be interesting, mostly because its emergent). One of the really big issues here is that if a player incorporates a piece of equipment into the core of their character design, issues may arise when that item gets lost, stolen, broken or whatever. I use Sunder. I use item saving throws. I use Disarm. I use thieves in the night. A character's tools are just that, tools. We aren't playing HERO (a game I love, btw) where you spent "points" on the item. it's a shiny sword. if it gets melted by a red dragon's fiery breath, find another one and count yourself lucky you didn't also get equally slagged.
Seen through the lense of 3E and now 4E - yes, we spent "points" on these items. We call them gold pieces, which we have according to roughly the value of "Magical Item Wealth by level" (at least in 3E).
It's also seems one of the reasons how "wish lists" came into being in 4E. A lot of 3E games assumed something like magic item shop and selling unsuitable magical items and crafting or buying the ones you desire.
So 4E offers to cut the middle man - you don't need to sell your items, because you already get what fits your character.
And I think that is a fitting approach to games if you look at it from the view that they create a "story". Most literary stories don't introduce items that the characters don't use. They might not always want them, but they will use them, and it will propel the story. We don't get to hear the story where they found an item and never used it, often they even become cruicial to the story.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
I think you missed the point I was trying to make, which is that for just about anything said or done, someone will be offended. A lot of the more interesting, dare I say "juicy", material on forums like this tend to have some degree of potential offensivosity. I think the key is to not go overboard, to avoid the usual triggers, and try to be respectful. However, I think that if we tried not to offend everyone with everything we said--which is what you seemed to be saying--things would get awfully stale real quickly.
I understand your point completely; while the fact that I disagree with your conclusion is irrelevant, the rule remains, notwithstanding the point. Obviously, by implication, a "reasonable man" test applies to all posts; but one which begins with "I know I'm about to anger some people" automatically fails that reasonable man test. It's served us well for nearly 9 years, and will continue to do so.
Anyway, that's enough of discussing board moderation here. That's another rule, anyway! Back to the thread!
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 responsibility 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 impenetrable 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?
I think we're arguing opposite sides of the same coin. (and it goes back to my, and largely Cadfan's, point).
If I'm designing an adventure for low-level PCs, I use orcs, not giants. If I want a dragon, I make it young-to-adult, not a great wyrm. I don't put an epic-level lich's crypt near the PC's home town. If I'm putting powerful monsters in the world, they are in remote locations (far away, lost locales of wonder) not the local goblin-warrens.
That is not to say that a PC can't wander from the goblin-warrens to find an ogre's den. They won't wander into a hill-giant's steading though unless they go seeking the darkest, most remote areas of my world though.
The point Cadfan was arguing (if I'm not incorrect) is that in the infamous "20-level dungeon" scenario, we put the level 1 monsters on level 1 and don't have the level 20 monsters wander up to borrow a cup of sugar, no matter how "realistic" it is. If you're running said dungeon and the PCs open the door expecting kobolds but find a balor, you've just played "gotcha", not matter how much brimstone the PCs smell in the hallway in front of them.
Seen through the lense of 3E and now 4E - yes, we spent "points" on these items. We call them gold pieces, which we have according to roughly the value of "Magical Item Wealth by level" (at least in 3E).
I do not agree that the gold pieces characters are expected to be able to have at their command, on average, is really a de facto points system. I will agree that 3e tended to blur the issue by putting out a guideline because players began to look at those wealth levels as if they were entitled to every gp on the table. They're not, but they think they are.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
These things are true, but they are not relevant to whether or not the game world is being engineered by the DM to better serve the players by ensuring that they do not wander or get led into level inappropriate encounters.
They are relevant in that they challenge the initial assumption that the dragon (lich, whatever) only exists to be killed. That is hardly the case. The dragon (etc.) is an option, nothing more, something that the PCs can use how they wish. My job is only to provide them the options, it is the PC's job to value those options.
After a good bit of thought I think that the Silmarillion would have been a lot better with some Tauren Death Knights.
Aside from the fact that I don't know what Tauren Death Knights are (edit: I just googled and saw they are part of WoW, which I have never played), I don't think you need them--or anything, really--when you have...
GOTHMOG.
(the original from the Silmarillion, not the ugly dude in the LotR movies).
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
