Justifying high level 'guards', 'pirates', 'soldiers', 'assassins', etc.

[pemerton]

That's the thing - not everyone wants to be driven by destiny. Some people want to steer their own course. Now if destiny beckons, they might follow, but they don't want to be railroaded into it.

This seems to be assuming a degree of player/PC identity which wouldn't make sense using the sort of approach I am talking about.

To try and be clearer: the PC has a destiny (reflected by the +0.5/lvl); the player chooses her PC's path. The player is therefore not railroaded.

And I'm not saying that anyone has to play this way. I'm saying that the game can be played this way, and if it is played this way then the NPC guards having increasing levels as the PC's gain levels needn't be seen as leading to an inconsistent gameworld in which things get tougher as the PCs get tougher.

But from a simulation perspective - the NPCs don't become more powerful in the dramatic scene. They just have more luck this time.
If the .5 bonus per level (and the +6 hp per level) for some NPCs just stand in for the extra luck they have in the particular scene, the same could apply here, and I suppose that goes in the direction of pemertons point of view. (Though I wouldn't be surprised if pemerton just takes this point to facilitate an interesting discussion - considering he at least used to play a lot of Rolemaster which certainly doesn't use much of these assumptions. )

It's true that Rolemaster doesn't use many of these assumptions, though it's parrying rules and spell overcasting rules are (in my opinion) a clever use of simulationist-friendly rules to confer a degree of narrative control on players that is unusual for a simulationist-oriented game (it contrasts markedly with Runequest, for example).

But I'm not merely trying to facilitate an interesting discussion - I'm trying to defend the legitimacy of a certain (non-simulationist, non-railroaded) approach to fantasy RPGing, and the utility of various mechanics for that sort of play.

 

[dead]

This thread makes me think of Gygax's novel, Saga of Old City.

At the start of the story, Gord is a lowly street urchin who is beat up by a bully in the Slums of Greyhawk. Gord breaks out of the Slums, however, and goes on many adventures in Greyhawk and beyond. After honing his skills and becoming a battle-hardened rogue, he returns to the Slums to face his fear: that original bully. Needless to say, Gord kicks his butt and the coward runs away in terror.

I believe Gygax was suggesting that Gord earned his confidence and power (ie. game levels) from his adventures while the bully stayed at status quo (the same level) by just staying in the Slums and, well, being an ordinary thug.

Gord's increased power is the previlige and reward of all adventurers. His higher level in relation to the lower level of the thug is a game rule that reflects this.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The reason why is just because the PC's need an XP-worthy challenge.

There's nothing deeper.

Well, maybe one thing deeper:

This is bad adventure design.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is something, like Schroedinger's Wounding or never meeting mundane creatures, that is less of a problem in episodic play than in sandbox play.

In episodic play, the DM and players can decide that the world is completely normal (whatever that is, in context) outside of the gamed "episodes", and that, therefore, anything that happens in-game is exceptional.

In sandbox play, whatever happens determines what is normal and what is exceptional.

In episodic play, the DM is crafting encounters specifically to challenge these PCs at this level.

In sandbox play, the DM is crafting locations in the campaign world, and it is up to the players to determine what challenges they can face. Moreover, because the DM isn't predetermining the challenges that they face, it is reasonable to assume that the 10th level PCs might return to their 1st-level home base, where they reasonably expect to be more powerful in relation to the stay-at-home characters around them. Not only does this give the PCs a sense of accomplishment, but it means that the DM doesn't have to design the same village repeatedly every time the PCs level.

RC

 

[pemerton]

This is something, like Schroedinger's Wounding or never meeting mundane creatures, that is less of a problem in episodic play than in sandbox play.

I agree. One of several reasons why I think that 4e is better suited for some playstyles than others.

 

[Allister]

Again, I think people are misunderstanding the use of the Blue slime and pg 42

The way I understand it (supported by both the PHB and the DMG) isn't that the blue slime scales mysteriously between levels.

It's the same challenge as before but the fact that pg 42 provides a way to tell DMs what is an appropriate challenge for that level PC. If the PC encounters the blue slime at level 5 first and then come back 10 levels later, there's no reason to have the blue slime as a challenge since the PC no longer need to roll and the DM shouldn't even bother having the blue slime there.

It doesn't have anything to do with episodic or sandbox play IMO. It has everything to do with realizing that the DM needs guidelines as to what an appropriate encounter would be for that level of a group.

It's looking at encounters from the perspective that a DM is the one that determines what a challenge is.

If the skill system was an Oblivion style system, then there's no point in actually having specific DCs as the PHB does.

 

[pemerton]

If the skill system was an Oblivion style system, then there's no point in actually having specific DCs as the PHB does.

I think that this is right to an extent - you can combine the DMG and the PHB DCs to extrapolate from the page 42 DCs back to particular flavour descriptions stated in the PHB.

But I also think that there is a degree of tension between the two books in their approaches to skills. And in his discussion of Blue Slime in the Dragon article on writing the DMG, James Wyatt says some stuff which is perhaps closer to the sort of approach I am defending the coherence of.

 

[Fenes]

If the PC encounters the blue slime at level 5 first and then come back 10 levels later, there's no reason to have the blue slime as a challenge since the PC no longer need to roll and the DM shouldn't even bother having the blue slime there.

It doesn't have anything to do with episodic or sandbox play IMO. It has everything to do with realizing that the DM needs guidelines as to what an appropriate encounter would be for that level of a group.

It's looking at encounters from the perspective that a DM is the one that determines what a challenge is.

That thought that unless something is a challenge it shouldn't be there has everything to do with sandbox play, or rather the opposite of sandbox play. The essence of sandbox play is that things are there not because they serve a game role (aka xp/challenge source, which they can and often do as well) but because there's a world role they play.

You don't have to play out the combat against the non-challenge blue slime, but in a sandbox game, it should be there, and be mentioned, or there should be a reason for its absence - especially if the PCs saw it before.

 

[S'mon]

I remember years ago running high level 3e, the ca 12th level PCs discovered that the BBEG had a bodyguard of 5th & 6th level orc warriors. These orcs were no threat to the PCs, but the players complained that 6th level orcs were unrealistic. I was annoyed as I had actually gone through the level demographics of the local orc tribes and had the BBEG recruit a suitable percentage of them as his guards!

 

[AllisterH]

You don't have to play out the combat against the non-challenge blue slime, but in a sandbox game, it should be there, and be mentioned, or there should be a reason for its absence - especially if the PCs saw it before.

But what purpose does it serve though?

When even a blinded PC on a roll of a 1 will auto-hit the monster, and the monster itself can't even hit a PC when it has combat advantage, why bother with it? The PCs won't get any experience with it and other than

From a DM perspective, I don't think they should be expected to run a persistent world a la MMORPG since persistent worlds tend to be static.

re: James comments
Honestly, when I first read James comment, I thought it was understood the first step in using the Blue Slime wasn't setting the DC but in determining that you wanted a Blue Slime as an obstacle in the first place.

I got the impression from reading the DMG that unless you as a DM want stats for obstacles/encounters, you're not supposed to be using said stats. You're supposed to freeform it since it falls outside of the task resolution system.

Sure, you could mention it, but you're not going to be using the stats in any way so you don't use pg. 42.

It's the same reason why when WOTC designers talked about non-combat abilities of the monsters, they don't give guidelines since the DM is expected to handle that via power of the plot.