Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[Halivar]

I have a DM that runs games much like GW does (or, at least, as far as I can infer from GW). He once spent 3 years developing a game world before it was ready to play. The current setting he is planning has been building on that game world for an additional 2-1/2 years, and in excruciating detail. It will probably be rich in NPC's who are very powerful, on every side of the potential factions. Some will be on our side. Others will be against our side. All of them will look at us as piss-ants.

My character will invariably say, " it. My character goes and gets a beer." Attendance peters out until the campaign fizzles and we move on to another DM who will put maybe a month of planning in, and plot the thing around the party.

He goes through all that work, and all we really wanted was to be important. Different strokes, and all that.

EDIT: I should mention that he has gotten a couple really great campaigns under his belt. Those were the games where the party killed all the important NPC's.

 

[GnomeWorks]

It will probably be rich in NPC's who are very powerful, on every side of the potential factions. Some will be on our side. Others will be against our side. All of them will look at us as piss-ants.

Just to be clear, I hope you're not conflating a detailed setting with consistency in mind and a setting where the NPCs are invariably vastly superior to the PCs.

IMC, there are villains and threats of many scopes. Some are local, some are global, some are stellar. NPCs also vary wildly in power.

Just because I value internal consistency over other considerations and don't buy into the whole "the PCs are special snowflakes" shtick doesn't mean that I intentionally try to make the PCs feel powerless.

 

[Halivar]

Just to be clear, I hope you're not conflating a detailed setting with consistency in mind and a setting where the NPCs are invariably vastly superior to the PCs.

Not invariably. But enough are powerful that, if we want to do anything important, they're involved somehow. The way my DM puts it: if you are average for the setting, then logic dictates that the real movers and shakers in the universe (i.e. the NPC's the world [and therefore the game] revolves around) will kick your tail when you meet them.

The real problem here (for my play style) is not the bad guys being stronger than me. If they aren't, then there's no challenge. It's the good guys that are stronger than me that I can't stand.

Let's look at a game world with a wide variety of levels realistically (well... we can't really look at it "realistically"... but at least "internally consistently"). Sure... there aren't many LG level 20 wizards out there, but when something big happens happens, say, level 12, what keeps the level 20 wizard from taking five minutes out of their day to 'port in and take care of it for the PC's? You have two ways about it: come up with a reason the level 20 wizard can't take care of it for the players (which means contriving events to fit the narrative [which I approve of as a DM tool]), or simply do what I do in my campaigns now: there are no allies above the party's level. There is no one to bail them out. Once they hit level 2, they became the go-to guys. It's the party saving the day, or it's no one. I have no problem with this (pretty blatant) tip of the hat to pure gamism and narrativism, since the very idea of "levelling" is already chucking verisimilitude out the window in favor of cinema.

BTW, GW, that's exactly what I was referring to when I earlier suggested that you might be happier with a universal system than D&D. A system with as much meta-physics as D&D (pick your edition) involved can't, in my opinion, reliably model an internally consistent world without significant narrative magic wand-waving.

EDIT: I should mention that the above scenario is not hypothetical. This is kind of deus ex machina stuff happens all the time in [insert guilty DM's name here]'s games. The DM's logic is unassailable: "What was he gonna do? Sit it out?" A better choice, we try to tell him, is not to write the powerful NPC into the game world to begin with.

 

[GnomeWorks]

The way my DM puts it: if you are average for the setting, then logic dictates that the real movers and shakers in the universe (i.e. the NPC's the world revolves around) will kick your tail when you meet them.

Depends where you decide the "average" is, then.

Let's look at a game world with a wide variety of levels realistically (well... we can't really look at it "realistically"... but at least "internally consistently").

I would start here, and question the logic of there being a wide variety of levels across a setting.

IMC, there are maybe a handful of NPCs higher than 10th level. Because otherwise we run into the problem you're describing here - why doesn't Elminster come in and save the day all the time?

You have two ways about it: come up with a reason the level 20 wizard can't take care of it for the players (which means contriving events to fit the narrative [which I approve of as a DM tool]), or simply do what I do in my campaigns now: there are no allies above the party's level.

I just can't grok the latter option. Why is it that no one else has managed to get to 2nd level? It strikes me as bizarre and unlikely.

The first solution is not necessarily contrived. A 20th-level character is not omniscient; there is no reason to think that a 20th-level NPC is, either. And surely that NPC has things occupying their time (what, exactly, would depend on setting and the NPC in question); a 12th-level threat pales in comparison to the 22nd-level threat the NPC is researching, for example.

BTW, GW, that's exactly what I was referring to when I earlier suggested that you might be happier with a universal system than D&D.

I'm well aware that D&D is not the system for me.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, you could also play in a real world setting as a dustman, or an office worker, and it would be very consisent and even more believable than your consistent pseudo-believable fantasy world.

You could play an average joe in any game. It doesn't require a well-built world to play such a character, but, arguably, only in a well-built world is anyone even remotely likely to find it fun.

There is a difference between "You're a special snowflake because you're a PC!" and "Here's the world. Wanna be a special snowflake? Go and make your mark."

Nevertheless I begin to digress. If I were to read between the lines, I get the impression you imagine me just throwing out silly things, lets say swarms of flying vampire monkeys that wear pink underpants on their head or hoards of zombie bananas, to amuse my players.

Well that's not the case.

I didn't imagine that it was. But I bet if you wrote an essay on why you don't thow zombie bananas at your PCs, you would perforce gain a better understanding of why some folks want a more consistent game than you are creating.

I will also admit that attempts to run a game this way, while gaining a big thumbs up when they work, are also more likely to crash and burn than other setups. I'm not sure why. Once the gears start moving, a sandbox is actually often easier to run than an "adventure path", but the gears have to be well designed.

But if I have to choose between end of the world and having my PC's arrive in time to at least have a chance at saving the world, it's a no brainer.

What if the players decide not to save the world? What do you do then?

One obvious maxim of the sandbox world is "Never allow a consequence for failure that you are unwilling to see occur."

Would you allow the world to die in order to make the players' choices meaningful? I would. It's a no brainer. Because, IMHO, unless the players' choices have meaningful consequences -- and always arriving for the climactic finale, no matter what choices you made up to that point -- they aren't heroes. They didn't do anything; the plot did. And they didn't choose the plot.

IMHO, and IME, of course.



RC


P.S.: Two countries (U.S. and Canada), one continent. In the US, in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Missouri, Louisiana, Virginia, and California, as well as pick-up games in other states. My observations are pretty consistent in all those areas. Maybe the people on other continents are very, very different, but I tend to believe that human beings are basically the same everywhere.

 

[Halivar]

Depends where you decide the "average" is, then.

Average in the sense that players in these games have no more special access to levels and classes than any NPC does.

IMC, there are maybe a handful of NPCs higher than 10th level. Because otherwise we run into the problem you're describing here - why doesn't Elminster come in and save the day all the time?

I think we have similar solutions to the problem. The only difference is in degrees of implementation.

I just can't grok the latter option. Why is it that no one else has managed to get to 2nd level? It strikes me as bizarre and unlikely.

A fair question. The only answer I got is this: levels are the primary means by which characters break verisimilitude to acquire game/narrative powers, and I don't want all my NPC's to do this. In accepting that I am going for that kind of game, I'm also tactily deciding that the game is focused on the players and not the milieu.

For milieu games*, I would demand a levelless, universal system more suited to simulationism. And I would have a backup character ready for when mine bites the dust.

*EDIT: My apologies for throwing out lingo without explaining it. When I say "milieu game", I mean it in the sense that one would mean it for speculative fiction: a game focused on setting. Orson Scott Card writes that there are three types of fantasy and sci-fi fiction, and I think these three types translate almost directly into RPG's: milieu stories (it's about the setting), event stories (it's about what's happening from moment to moment), and character stories (it's about character development). I tend to prefer "character games" over "event games" and "milieu games".

 

[Wik]

...God. I wanna run a sandbox game. I'm half-hoping my current 4e PCs bite the dust, and I can talk them into a Dark Sun sandbox. 4e, 3e, or even 2e (but with BAB instead of THAC0!), I'd be game.

I have to say, I'm on GW's side, here. While I can undestand the drive towards "dramatic" gaming, I keep finding myself wanting to run a West Marches, sandboxy game where the PCs can do whatever the hell they want, and I'm just along for the ride, improvising as I see fit.

 

[Jack Colby]

Running away from monsters has never been a part of any edition of D&D.

You're kidding, right?

 

[GnomeWorks]

Average in the sense that players in these games have no more special access to levels and classes than any NPC does.

Fair enough.

I think we have similar solutions to the problem. The only difference is in degrees of implementation.

Again, fair enough.

A fair question. The only answer I got is this: levels are the primary means by which characters break verisimilitude to acquire game/narrative powers, and I don't want all my NPC's to do this. In accepting that I am going for that kind of game, I'm also tactily deciding that the game is focused on the players and not the milieu.

I guess that's reasonable. If you approach the game from a non-simulationist standpoint, there's not much reason to worry about the kinds of things I'm worrying about.

For milieu games, I would demand a levelless, universal system more suited to simulationism. And I would have a backup character ready for when mine bites the dust.

I've found that 3.5 functions, though it is a bit of a square-peg-round-hole deal.

I have to say, I'm on GW's side, here. While I can undestand the drive towards "dramatic" gaming, I keep finding myself wanting to run a West Marches, sandboxy game where the PCs can do whatever the hell they want, and I'm just along for the ride, improvising as I see fit.

West Marches is amazing, and I really hope to be able to do something like that one day.

 

[Halivar]

I should mention here that I also prefer sand-box, if I have time to craft it to that complexity. My current sci-fi campaign has been in planning for two months.

However, as for the story? I will develop it as the players make choices in the world. I have a number of enemies in the galaxy I'm creating, so that wherever the players go, I have a tool to create an overwhelming obstacle to surmount.

It's a sand-box, but one that I am willing to manipulate to place characters into challenging situations and create stories (because, bless their hearts, they will do nothing but trade runs if I let them).