An Epiphany -- My new Fave thing about 4E

[Stormtalon]

Really? Every time I've stated pretty much exactly that, that you should focus on your campaign and not building your world, I've been told in no uncertain terms, on these forums, repeatedly, that I am absolutely wrong.

That without world building, your campaign will automatically be flat, nothing but meaningless dungeon crawls and completely lacking in any sort of depth or consistency.

THAT'S the bizarro internet I've been reading.

I seem to recall wading through a few of those threads in the past, hehe. Always entertaining reading, to say the least. Me, I've always been a fan of the "just enough" school of thought. I'm building sets, not cities. If I've got a well detailed street front with enough life and extras roaming about, it really doesn't matter if the buildings are actually just flat panels painted to look real on the front side.

Here's another thing that hit me the other night, and in a way, it relates to the whole world-building thing:

With the tier structure, you really only need to solidify two things to get a believable world -- as far as a single campaign is concerned.

1) What happens at the transition from heroic to paragon?
Who's involved? Why?

2) What happens at the transition from paragon to epic?
Again -- who's involved and why?

If you can do that, then you suddenly have the ability to build Heroic tier as a progression towards that event, Paragon as a progression between the two points and Epic as the culmination and resolution of everything that's come before.

Now a further digression back to inkmonkeys' concerns:

Spoiler

I suppose I could make "their" town/region be the last one hit and let them rescue and escape with at least some of the NPCs there, but I'm still not sure if that'll work right. Part of what I want is for the characters to be so enraged they'll initially miss discrepancies in how the towns were destroyed and absolutely want to get revenge on the (framed) giants right now.

In the end, I may just ask up front something like, "So, how mean do you want me to be this campaign, plot-wise? The usual, nicer.... or should I aspire to exceed all prior levels of Evil DM seen to date?"

I do still have vague dreams of being able to self-publish this thing once I've gotten it written up. Maybe I'll have two versions of the Paragon adventures -- "Normal" and "Extra-Apocalyptic." It's a thought.

 

[Fenes]

I don't get why the tier structure makes this any easier. I see nothing that prevents me from structuring any campaign, in any system, like this. I usually plot my own campaign in a similar way, just without tieing plots to level ranges.

 

[Hussar]

I don't get why the tier structure makes this any easier. I see nothing that prevents me from structuring any campaign, in any system, like this. I usually plot my own campaign in a similar way, just without tieing plots to level ranges.

I agree completely here. You can certainly do this sort of thing without tieing it to any specific level range. I think it comes down to a more organizational thing. Having the tiers, and having the tiers actually come with strongly demarcated changes in character mechanics can lend itself to organizing a plot around those changes.

After all, when you change tiers, you gain paragon paths for example. So, now that you are a paragon of something or other, the adventures you go on should reflect that choice. At epic, you get into epic destinies, and the plot can reflect that.

It's not that you cannot do this in earlier editions, it's that 3e didn't really have such strong markers between level ranges. Basic/Expert D&D, for example, also has very strong demarcation between levels. You go from local dungeon crawl to overland adventure, to being a lord of the land, to being a god. This can make campaign design easier to organize.

 

[D'karr]

I don't get why the tier structure makes this any easier. I see nothing that prevents me from structuring any campaign, in any system, like this. I usually plot my own campaign in a similar way, just without tieing plots to level ranges.

I think that what makes it "easier" is that the game gives recommendations on specific goals at each tier. It makes it easier because it allows the DM to set a goal that is "tailored" for the level of play that the characters would be at, and not seem constrained or artificial. In addition, the DM now has two scales that he can use for his adventures. The XP of an encounter to challenge the players during the adventures, and the Tier goals on which to build the adventures.

Could you do this type of thing before? Of course, but the 4e DMG has given the DMs more information on what goals the characters should expect to accomplish at different tiers. Therefore making it easier.

 

[ScottS]

(asked and answered)

 

[Fenes]

I think that what makes it "easier" is that the game gives recommendations on specific goals at each tier. It makes it easier because it allows the DM to set a goal that is "tailored" for the level of play that the characters would be at, and not seem constrained or artificial. In addition, the DM now has two scales that he can use for his adventures. The XP of an encounter to challenge the players during the adventures, and the Tier goals on which to build the adventures.

Could you do this type of thing before? Of course, but the 4e DMG has given the DMs more information on what goals the characters should expect to accomplish at different tiers. Therefore making it easier.

I can do such plots and goals much better if I am not constrained by "expected goals and challenges", but tailor challenges to the individual PCs.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

The tier setup has helped me organize my overarching campaign plotlines quite well. While I don't have them figured level-by-level, a rough guideline I'm using is...

Heroic Tier: Stop a group of Julibex-worshipping dopplegangers from infiltrating the royal family.

Paragon Tier: Stop (or help the human kingdom win) a war with the nearby nation of Clockworks (warforged)

Epic Tier: Stop Orcus from killing the Raven Queen.

Even at only 5th level, plot threads have been put in place for the Paragon and Epic tier stuff. Along the way there'll be some adventures not tied to that tier's metaplot, including stuff that is personal to various characters (like this Friday's game; it's a storyline exploring some of one the characters' backstory.

 

[D'karr]

I can do such plots and goals much better if I am not constrained by "expected goals and challenges", but tailor challenges to the individual PCs.

Good for you...

 

[D'karr]

I can do such plots and goals much better if I am not constrained by "expected goals and challenges", but tailor challenges to the individual PCs.

Like I said before the DMG gives recommendations of these goals. If those recommendations somehow constrain "you" then don't use them. However, It seems to me like a lot of people are finding them edifying.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm gonna do a self plug here.

This is something like what I write about a while back on my blog. (Was originally Gleemax, but copied to ENWorld).

TL/DR:
I designed my current campaign as sort of an "adventure site" campaign setting in which every area specifically had some potential for PC interaction. I called it "adventure up" as a play on "bottom up" and "top up" design practices.

It has worked very well, I think. I've found that most of my original ideas have gone unused, especially as the PCs go in strange ways that I didn't expect. But, even though I'm not using the setting elements exactly how I planned, the fact that places, people, and so on have an adventure dynamic in their design means that the world "plays" well with the PCs.

I would say that the fact that you're thinking about adventure/story suitability of campaign elements is more important than following through on those elements, from my own experience. It makes a world interesting to interact with, not just observe. And, the more time you spend working on these elements, the more fun these interactions become and the more your PCs feel like part of the world.