Why the World Exists

[Raven Crowking]

Hyperbole notwithstanding, I agree with Jack7 on the basic premise that, generally speaking, there are two polar views on the interaction between setting and characters in your typical D&D campaign. One end of the spectrum is that the setting does indeed exist to serve the player characters, that it should be designed at all levels to support the preferences of the players. The other end of the spectrum is that the world is defined, it exists as it does and the player characters meet the world and interact with it on its terms, dealing with its challenges and rewards. But as a continuum rather than merely two options, most campaigns, I think, exists somewhere between the two.

Also, while I think that any edition can be played anywhere along the continuum as a matter of agreement between the players and the DM, edition matters in regards to the assumed location along the continuum. Earlier editions, with random treasure tables and encounter tables based on environment, lean toward the "world side". Later editions with concepts of Level Appropriate and Wish lists lean toward the "PC side". But even so, where the campaign sits has far more to do with what happens at the table than what is found in the rulebooks.

As to the relationship between heroism and entitlement (in general, not as a commentary on editions) is that the more "freebies" the DM gives the PCs, the less heroic they are. heroism (to me) is defined as the struggle against adversity, and the reduction of that adversity by fudging dice or providing all the right/best items or arranging events so the PCs are always on the "right track" reduces adversity and therefore reduces heroism (and cheapens victories).

I tend toward the "here's the world, it's a dangerous place, go master it!" school of DMing. As such, it is incumbant upon me, as DM, to allow PCs the freedom to interact with the "uncaring" world on their own terms, and provide the players with the information necessary to make meaningful choices and execute the world's response to their actions to the best of my ability.

This.

I could not have put it better.

 

[Dragonblade]

Ichigo has Zangetsu

Nice! Mad props for the Bleach reference!

 

[Ourph]

Earlier editions, with random treasure tables and encounter tables based on environment, lean toward the "world side". Later editions with concepts of Level Appropriate and Wish lists lean toward the "PC side".

Earlier editions also suggested that the monsters in a dungeon arrange themselves by level, with mostly Level 1 monsters on Level 1 (the level that the 1st level PCs would encounter first), Level 2 monsters on the next floor down and etc., so that players knew that the "deeper" they went into a dungeon the more dangeorus it would get. That doesn't strike me as being particularly on the side of "the world exists irrespective of the PCs".

 

[Mercurius]

If you know something's going to upset someone, don't post it.

If everyone followed this advice we'd have a pretty sparse forum. Obviously there are degrees of potential offensiveness, but let's face it: Just about every "something" is going to offend "someone", and for whatever reason RPGers, as a bunch, tend to take offense relatively quick-and-easily, especially when they think that--erroneously or not--Someone Else is telling them how to play RPGs. The worst offense of all!

See, I probably just offended someone with Something I wrote.

 

[Celebrim]

Bob the fighter will find a magic bastard sword because, well, he's specialized in bastard sword, not halbred. There is no point to rolling up a staff of the Wilderness for a druidless party. If no one can wear heavy armor, that +5 Plate is just so much GP (or residuum in 4e).

There are limits to that though. If Druids exist in the world, then they exist somewhere. I may imagine for the sake of making the campaign world interesting, that in a copse outside of town in an ancient stone ring, a group of druids meet to examine the stars and determine in their wisdom how best to shape the course of events so as to maintain harmony in the realm. Perhaps these druids become important to the campaign. Perhaps I just intend them as a temporary obstacle in the path of the players. Whatever purpose I had in creating them, they are there, and the answer to whether or not they have magic items isn't, "Well, do the PC's have a druid in the party?" Because if the answer to that question depends on anything about the player party, then I really am screwing the players.

I don't decide, "The Grand Druid has a +5 staff of the wilderness because he's supposed to be the awesome, and if the player's mess with him - look out." I don't decide, "I can give the Grand Druid a +5 staff of wilderness because none of the players in the party can use it, and I can always say when they take it, that it doesn't have many charges left and so isn't very valuable." And likewise, I don't generally decide, "I'm going to give the Grand Druid a +5 staff of wilderness, because there is a druid in the party."

If the Grand Druid has a +5 staff of the wilderness, it's because it seems logical that if anyone has one it should be the Grand Druid. If there are magical bastard swords out there, it isn't because the player choose one. There are rings of elemental control out there too, but they probably aren't just lying around as easy pickings.

It is very different to assume that the bandits show up in Resterford because the PC's are there, than it is to assume that the bandits only show up because the PC's are there. If bandits really do show in Resterford solely because the PC's are there, the PC's aren't heroes but jinxs, and they'll probably start feeling liked jinxs rather than heroes after not too long. Generally, from the perspective of the player's, either the players should show up in Resterford because the bandits or there, or else the poor people 20 miles away in Offstageville have run out money (because the PC's weren't there), and so now the bandits have taken there act to Resterford.

 

[Wicht]

I am surprised that no one seems to have yet posted the position that I would hold, namely, the world exists for the sake of the DM, who is the author of the world. Part of the joy of DMing is then in presenting this world to others for their enjoyment. It is very similar, IMO, to the actions of an author who creates a world and then gives it to readers for what he hopes is their approval.

As a player, when I get to play, the enjoyment comes from exploring someone elses world.

 

[Ourph]

If the setting always bends to my will, there really is no challenge. It is reverse railroading.

Fortunately, it's very rare that anyone (4e DMs included) always does anything. "It's a good idea to find out what your players want from the game" =/= "Always give the players everything they ask for".

 

[Kishin]

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!

This is actually not too hard to do, considering how shamelessly both worlds rip from Norse mythology.

 

[billd91]

Of COURSE there's a difference. The difference is that D&D doesn't let you start with Stormbringer at level 1.

Hence the need to skirt genre conventions by discussing matters with your DM.

I think that idea is ultimately irrelevant to Reynard's point about eventually getting ahold of a particular device vs the concept. I don't believe Sting is an integral part of either Bilbo's or Frodo's character concept. It's a convenient tool for a few points of action, but tangential to the main point or primary action of the characters.
For Elric and Aragorn, their swords are part of their character concepts. But both must take pains to actually get them and, as D&D characters, would have significant life before achieving that character+sword concept. Elric contacts Arioch and goes specifically to find the blade. Viewed as a D&D PC, his search is entirely PC initiated. Aragorn totes around a broken sword for decades before being ready, proving his readiness, and before world events determine the time is ripe.

 

[Kichwas]

First approach: setting exists for the characters.
Second approach: characters exist for the setting.

The first approach assumes a gamist approach. You are there for the game experience, and the setting and story are secondary or tertiary (in varying orders and degrees of importance).

The second approach assumes a simulationist approach. You are there for the roleplay, either based around story creation or setting simulation, and gamist concerns are tertiary.

(There's a third model in here somewhere obviously - as story driven and simulation driven are very different, but neither fits your first model. Rather your second model is the 'more or less fit' for them.)

Good roleplay can happen in the first approach, but its not the key driving force. The first approach is better suited to a group who's driving concern is the game. The setting is a backdrop, but they're really there to experience the mechanics of the game engine. If that's your group, you want the first approach. If that's not your group, you should avoid the first approach.

If your group is there for the story, or the setting (and setting groups are not so common as GM egos like to pretend they are), you want some version of the second approach. This is the group that, in its extreme form, could just as well go diceless or systemless. They want to engage in spinning a yarn, experiencing drama, story, romance and tension.

It might seem like you want the setting to be made for the characters in that second group... to meet their every demand... but that's actually the opposite of what you want. The setting needs to be there, and uncaring, because the tension they desire is the tension of fitting into it, of becoming 'real people in a world' and living the lives of those people. The setting, not the game engine, becomes the challenge. Giving them a setting that exist to serve their characters would be like giving a group of gamists a game engine that always rolled the die result that led to success. It defeats the challenge they are there for.