Why the World Exists

[Stoat]

Well there are a couple of methods I use to determine such things...

1. Reaction: The NPC reacts to an event caused by the PC's and/or other events in the campaign.

2. Motivations and goals: If Ugor the Ogre chieftain from the North is leading his tribe south into new lands and it will take hm 3 months to enter the Southlands... well in 3 months game time a new force of Ogre's will appear and they will attack and take from the weak along their path. Of course the PC's may discover this is happening and stop them before they reach the Southlands.

3. Relationship maps: Something I picked up from the Unknown Armies rpg. It is a chart that shows the major types of connection or feelings between groups/NPC's/Etc that have interacted with each other.

4. Chance, if all else fails create charts to simulate chance...base the percentage chance on how likely PC's are to encounter the things within an area (I use this method mainly for wildlife, rarely for NPC's or major monsters that can think at human or above level.)

To what extent, if any, do you consider the level of the PC's when you employ these means?

Ugor the Ogre Chieftan could be a regular ogre with max hit points and +1 Greatclub or he could have 10 levels of barbarian and the Sword of Kas. The DM decides, just as the DM decides how big Ugor's tribe is, what their history is, why they're migrating and any other factors that would explain/justify Ugor's level. Do the player levels factor into that decision at all?

Also: Tell me more about Relationship Maps. I haven't heard of them before, and I'm intrigued. How do they work?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Do they cast divinations at every door, level, and staircase? It seems like it'd be dreadfully slow going through a dungeon. Heck, our level-approp dungeons seem slow going due to PC prudence, and they know there are no CR 20 dragons behind those doors...

Obviously not. Again, if the world exists "as is", then there should be good reasons why traps exist where they do, and there should be good reasons why certain areas are not trapped.

A world that makes sense...to the degree in which it is possible in an RPG...perforce contains patterns, and the elements in that world leave "footprints" on other parts of the world. If the orcs trap corridor A, and use only corridor B as a result, corridor A shows signs of being disused, but probably has a visible "lure" to make outsiders choose corridor A first.

The lever that teleports you to a hot magma bath? Probably hasn't been touched in a long, long time. Also, the mooks (if any) probably know not to touch it. Smart play includes letting a mook or two live in exchange for information, possibly with detect lie or zone of truth, if you've got it. This lever, now dusty, disused, and growing cobwebs, is something that almost any player in an "as is" game should quickly learn to distrust.


RC

 

[Cadfan]

The problems I have with the Raven Crowking / Imaro approach:

You all keep talking about how the game world changes as a result of effects in the game world, not as a result of the DM changing the game world to accomodate the player's need for an adventure.

1. But the game world isn't real. When Imaro decides that the Emo Caves no longer have level 2 goblins because of some external event (not because the PCs are level 5, of course), Imaro ALSO was the one who decided that the external event happened. His choice may not be 100% unbounded (prior in game events might force his hand), but his choice is very close to free.

2. Unfortunately he's wed himself to a design paradigm in which he cannot decide which external events occur based on a desire to create good gameplay. But what other criteria is he going to use?

3. If he uses "realism" or "what really happened," which I'm going to count as standing in for "some objective criteria other than a desire to match player level to challenge difficulty," then logically he should occasionally have things happen which wreck his game. In real life, sometimes people catch terminal diseases, totally unavoidably, and die. In real life, sometimes people go places that logically should be safe, and are murdered in ways they could not avoid. Lots of things like this happen. And yet they don't generally happen in sandbox campaigns.

4. The underlying issue is: If you're not adjusting the setting to fit the PCs, why is it that game-appropriate scenarios keep playing out? Isn't it awfully coincidental that your game world, allegedly built upon a premise of realism and objectivity, just coincidentally happens to create good game outcomes? Real life doesn't do this. Its almost like your game world is controlled by some semi-benevolent hegemon who tailors reality to the needs of a few specific inhabitants. If that's not the case, why does it look so much like that is the case?

5. But no one addresses that underlying issue. Instead, they debate hypotheticals instead of debating the question raised by the hypothetical.

6. So we get treated to lengthy essays (almost as lengthy as mine) that basically read like classic psychological texts on blaming victims. See Blaming the Victim and Just World Hypothesis. Every time someone asks, "if you do things based on realism, why doesn't this thing, which is realistic but really unfair to players, ever happen?" the response isn't to actually answer, but rather to come up with more and more elaborate and tenuous ways to claim that player behavior "chose" the allegedly unfair outcome. The player *knew* that Doug the Dangerous was a scary person, so its his fault when he intervenes when Doug the Dangerous is mugging someone, and gets butchered by a level 20 rogue. The player *knew* the forests were dangerous, so its his fault when he enters them and the DM rolls a 100 on the wandering monster percentile chart and devours the level 1 party with a trio of Purple Worms. The player *knew* that he didn't know which direction to go in the dungeon, so its his fault that he didn't cast divination and avoid the unescapable deathtrap of doom.

6a. The first problem with this is that its just avoiding the real question. Lets say you really did successfully defeat the hypothetical. Fine, imagine a different hypothetical. In real life, unfair things happen. Do they happen in your game? Sometimes real life unfair things end you, permanently. Does that happen in your game? If not, why not?

6b. The second problem is that it starts to get absurd. There's a reason that my back and forth earlier in the thread kept discussing the information a player "reasonably" requires to avoid blundering into unfair situations and dying. The tact taken here seems to be that IF the unfair situation could have been avoided, THEN whatever precautions would have avoided it are per se reasonable and the PCs should have used them. But come on. This is just classic victim blaming. The fact that someone could have performed some unusually cautious act doesn't mean that any consequences they suffer as a result of not performing it are their fault.

6c. And lets say that your victim blaming is true, and reasonable. Everything really was in the control of the PCs. They really did have precautions they could have reasonably taken, and they really do have precautions they can take at every step of the game. How did that happen? Real life isn't like that. Sounds to me like someone's engineering the game again to match player needs for fairness.

I also have a problem with distinctions without a difference ("You can't say that X and Y are the same in terms of player freedom! X is totally different than Y! Its blue!"), but I don't think that's getting anywhere as a discussion.

 

[The Shaman]

The problems I have with the Raven Crowking / Imaro approach:

You all keep talking about how the game world changes as a result of effects in the game world, not as a result of the DM changing the game world to accomodate the player's need for an adventure.

1. But the game world isn't real. When Imaro decides that the Emo Caves no longer have level 2 goblins because of some external event (not because the PCs are level 5, of course), Imaro ALSO was the one who decided that the external event happened. His choice may not be 100% unbounded (prior in game events might force his hand), but his choice is very close to free.

Randomizers.

One of the things that I like about Traveller is that the game includes random tables for just about everything. Random encounters, random reactions, random patrons, random rumors, random events, random news bulletins, a displacement ton of tables that allow me to generate the action on the fly.

I add flesh to the barebones setting details, then use the random tables to create the situations which confront the adventurers. My knowledge of the setting details allows me to add chrome to the random results and integrate them into the setting in a way that maintains verisimilitude.

 

[Imaro]

The problems I have with the Raven Crowking / Imaro approach:

You all keep talking about how the game world changes as a result of effects in the game world, not as a result of the DM changing the game world to accomodate the player's need for an adventure.

Do you find it impossible for PC's to seek out their own adventure? I guess in a world of nothingness a PC could find himself with nothing to do, but in a world populated with things how is this possible?

1. But the game world isn't real. When Imaro decides that the Emo Caves no longer have level 2 goblins because of some external event (not because the PCs are level 5, of course), Imaro ALSO was the one who decided that the external event happened. His choice may not be 100% unbounded (prior in game events might force his hand), but his choice is very close to free..

Yes and that is why much of the setup is created before the characters enter it. There has to be a baseline. In the Ogre example there are two ways to handle this. Either the migration is planned before the game starts and takes place 3 months from the start of the game (in other words it is in motion already and part of the campaign setting)... or there is a percentage chance it happens and takes place once rolled (random occurence to simulate a change out of the hands of the PC's). Either way it isn't guaranteed to happen when the PC's are an appropriate level to handle it in combat.

2. Unfortunately he's wed himself to a design paradigm in which he cannot decide which external events occur based on a desire to create good gameplay. But what other criteria is he going to use?

"Unfortunately...Good gameplay"... Now that's just a wee bit patronizing don't you think? I'm sorry I ascribe to the thought that when given free reign my players will create good gameplay through the choices they make... but I'm curious how is "good gameplay" (and I don't mean Cadfan's good gameplay) hindered in any way with a sandbox approach. you see it's broad statements like this that reek of Wrongbadfunism that I don't like. the funny thing is I haven't made any judgements about the quality of gameplay created when everything is able to be approached with direct combat.

3. If he uses "realism" or "what really happened," which I'm going to count as standing in for "some objective criteria other than a desire to match player level to challenge difficulty," then logically he should occasionally have things happen which wreck his game. In real life, sometimes people catch terminal diseases, totally unavoidably, and die. In real life, sometimes people go places that logically should be safe, and are murdered in ways they could not avoid. Lots of things like this happen. And yet they don't generally happen in sandbox campaigns

Uhm they do... that is what chance (rolling the dice) is for, that is why you can stumble into a higher level challenge than is approproiate, or a trap you weren't prepared for and is higher level than you....am I right or wrong. what you seem to want is for the DM to come down from on high and without so much as a saving throw, skill check, luck, cleverness or even the rules of the game giving the PC a chance to survive the DM should strike the characters down. I'm sorry that isn't realistic... in life choices lead to consequences (whether it's an informed choice or not is irrelevant to this discussion)... and sometimes people (who are able to roll high enough, plan well enough,etc.) walk away unscathed. However I have never seen an unknown force swoop down and destroy a person regardless of the choices they have made in life (again whether informed or not is irrelevant)...nothing in the world is 100% certain.

4. The underlying issue is: If you're not adjusting the setting to fit the PCs, why is it that game-appropriate scenarios keep playing out? Isn't it awfully coincidental that your game world, allegedly built upon a premise of realism and objectivity, just coincidentally happens to create good game outcomes? Real life doesn't do this. Its almost like your game world is controlled by some semi-benevolent hegemon who tailors reality to the needs of a few specific inhabitants. If that's not the case, why does it look so much like that is the case?

Why don't most people in the real world, with the numerous possible ways to be injured or get killed die at a young age? Are you telling me the majority of people in the world walk into situations that they thought were safe and then suddenly and inexplicably die? What you are describing is, IMO, absurd...with the PC's as the cream of the crop adventurers.. it seems an average peasant, commoner, etc. couldn't possibly survive in your world. That, my friend, is more unrealistic than highly trained, highly skilled and powerful characters surviving against dangerous odds.

5. But no one addresses that underlying issue. Instead, they debate hypotheticals instead of debating the question raised by the hypothetical.

I think my friend, you are perhaps ignoring the answers.

6. So we get treated to lengthy essays (almost as lengthy as mine) that basically read like classic psychological texts on blaming victims. See Blaming the Victim and Just World Hypothesis. Every time someone asks, "if you do things based on realism, why doesn't this thing, which is realistic but really unfair to players, ever happen?" the response isn't to actually answer, but rather to come up with more and more elaborate and tenuous ways to claim that player behavior "chose" the allegedly unfair outcome. The player *knew* that Doug the Dangerous was a scary person, so its his fault when he intervenes when Doug the Dangerous is mugging someone, and gets butchered by a level 20 rogue. The player *knew* the forests were dangerous, so its his fault when he enters them and the DM rolls a 100 on the wandering monster percentile chart and devours the level 1 party with a trio of Purple Worms. The player *knew* that he didn't know which direction to go in the dungeon, so its his fault that he didn't cast divination and avoid the unescapable deathtrap of doom.

6a. The first problem with this is that its just avoiding the real question. Lets say you really did successfully defeat the hypothetical. Fine, imagine a different hypothetical. In real life, unfair things happen. Do they happen in your game? Sometimes real life unfair things end you, permanently. Does that happen in your game? If not, why not?

6b. The second problem is that it starts to get absurd. There's a reason that my back and forth earlier in the thread kept discussing the information a player "reasonably" requires to avoid blundering into unfair situations and dying. The tact taken here seems to be that IF the unfair situation could have been avoided, THEN whatever precautions would have avoided it are per se reasonable and the PCs should have used them. But come on. This is just classic victim blaming. The fact that someone could have performed some unusually cautious act doesn't mean that any consequences they suffer as a result of not performing it are their fault.

6c. And lets say that your victim blaming is true, and reasonable. Everything really was in the control of the PCs. They really did have precautions they could have reasonably taken, and they really do have precautions they can take at every step of the game. How did that happen? Real life isn't like that. Sounds to me like someone's engineering the game again to match player needs for fairness.

I also have a problem with distinctions without a difference ("You can't say that X and Y are the same in terms of player freedom! X is totally different than Y! Its blue!"), but I don't think that's getting anywhere as a discussion.

First I think everyone answered your question when Mustrum proposed the trap and many said they would let their PC's die if they made that choice...are you just ignoring these answers?

Second, the game mechanics create the random chance of you surviving bad things, right? Thus there are plenty of chances for a character to stumble into a bad situation (as well as a good situation) and die a random death (or walk away wit a great reward). That said it is not up to me as DM to decide if he can survive it... it's up to the players ingenuity and the mechanics of the game (along with a roll of the dice or two) to decide, you seem to have a large problem accepting that.

Finally, you can prepare for alot of things in life if you think ahead, have patience and are intelligent...all things? Nope and sometimes you have to make a split second decision without any knowledge at all to help you... so what was your point again about how sandboxes play out?
I don't even understand your final example so I will leave it alone.

 

[Mallus]

I disagree... parties where the DM sets only level appropriate encounters available will without fail have a 100% level appropriate encounter game...

Remember that even tailored, level-appropriate encounters imply a range of difficulty; some at-level, some easy, some damn hard.

And few DM's who tailor encounters --say like me-- actively prevent determined PC's from challenging opponents/taking on challenges that are outside their current ability to handle, if that's what the players really want to do.

Debates like these too often get bogged down in hypotheticals and extreme examples. I'm (trying) to talk about play at the table, as I've experienced it.

A DM who sets both appropriate and inappropriate encounters, and allows the PC's the freedom to choose from any of them doesn't have a set percentage of level appropriate enciunters vs. non-level appropriate encounters... it's the whole point of giving the PC's a choice, it's a surprise to the DM and players.

All I'm saying is that I've observed that players tend to choose level-appropriate encounters the majority of the time, when given that choice. That's simply a product of the system. Easy challenges offer too few rewards (be they XP, treasure, or that more unquantifiable quality, fun), and difficult challenges pose too much risk.

It's a simple cost-benefit analysis.

 

[Mallus]

In practice, it doesn't happen because it isn't a particularly interesting story nor is it a particularly believable story.

I believe the first part of that sentence is more important than the second. Before you can begin to talk about the internal logic of a setting, you need to recognize that internal logic must ultimately be in service of an interesting story, which is to say a good, playable gaming experience.

I'm not criticizing attempts to make the game world logical or consistent. I'm not knocking simulationism. But I'm wary, well, critical of statements that suggest it's somehow logical that game environment protects PC's from random deaths. That's a metagame requirement.

Let's look at the internal logic of a sandbox setting.

Let's suppose the dragon lairs on the edge of inhabited territory.... snip

Cel, that fact that you can skillfully create a logical in-game explanation for it doesn't alter the fact you're addressing a metagame need (ie playability). I'll go so far as to say that reasoning like this is at the heart of a good setting, but it's still a form of rationalizing the game conventions into something plausible inside the narrative of the game.

(As a semi-aside, one of the things I disliked about many 1st edition published settings is that I couldn't figure out why creatures like hobgoblins weren't long since extinct, since they always seemed to be provoking humans who had champions who could each slaughter them by the hundreds single handedily. It didn't make sense to me in terms of sustainable ecology.)

And we both know why goblins aren't extinct in those settings. Low-level PC's need goblins, or something similar, to smack around. To paraphrase Spock, the needs of the game outweigh the needs of the simulation (at least when it comes to mass-market published supplements).

 

[Mallus]

(1) Why is the dragon in a "fit of pique"?

Initially, because I said it was. It was my example, after all. Do you really want me to make a list of plausible reasons? I'm fairly imaginative, you know. Conceivably the list could be quite long...

(2) What is the most likely action of the dragon under those circumstances?

What interests me is that actions it cannot take, such as raining unavoidable fiery destruction upon a helpless band of low-level PC's.

And why can't it? Simple, it would be bad for the campaign. The needs of the game outweigh the needs of the simulation.

 

[Raven Crowking]

1. But the game world isn't real. When Imaro decides that the Emo Caves no longer have level 2 goblins because of some external event (not because the PCs are level 5, of course), Imaro ALSO was the one who decided that the external event happened. His choice may not be 100% unbounded (prior in game events might force his hand), but his choice is very close to free.

Urm.....Let us assume, for a moment, that the Emo Caves might have Level 1 goblins when the PCs are level 5 as the result of campaign events, or level 10 giants. Change occurs, but the only changes that "map" to the PCs in any form are those that they are either catalysts to or engineer (intentionally or not).

And, unless the PCs make an effort to make it so, these changes will map to PC-related criteria other than their level.....such as bounty hunters seeking the fighter who burned down the inn.

If the inn offers little bounty (i.e., is a poor inn), the hunters may well be inept in comparison to the PCs. If the inn is owned by someone very wealthy, the hunters may well exceed the PCs "level appropriate" threshold.

2. Unfortunately he's wed himself to a design paradigm in which he cannot decide which external events occur based on a desire to create good gameplay. But what other criteria is he going to use?

Good game world.

3. If he uses "realism" or "what really happened," which I'm going to count as standing in for "some objective criteria other than a desire to match player level to challenge difficulty," then logically he should occasionally have things happen which wreck his game. In real life, sometimes people catch terminal diseases, totally unavoidably, and die. In real life, sometimes people go places that logically should be safe, and are murdered in ways they could not avoid. Lots of things like this happen. And yet they don't generally happen in sandbox campaigns.

Sure they do. At least, they do to the extent that they do in the real world, although the PCs often have better resources than we do in the real world to deal with those problems.

I have had PCs get cholera.

I have had PCs die in prison.

I have had PCs die because they were unable to escape natural disasters, or because they went down the wrong alley at the wrong time.

I have had PCs die in these sorts of ways both as DM and as player, and I have no interest in a game where, should my choices lead me in that direction, that sort of thing doesn't happen.

4. The underlying issue is: If you're not adjusting the setting to fit the PCs, why is it that game-appropriate scenarios keep playing out? Isn't it awfully coincidental that your game world, allegedly built upon a premise of realism and objectivity, just coincidentally happens to create good game outcomes? Real life doesn't do this.

Really? How many insta-kills have you encountered lately? There is at least one excellent thread on EN World about real people whose lives really did play out like adventure yarns.

As another aside, consider the following:

For every CR 20 threat in the world, there are 10 CR 19 threats.

For every CR 19 threat in the world, there are 10 CR 18 threats.

Etc., right down the line.

Now add the obvious: Bigger challenges tend to leave bigger "footprints" on the world. I.e., most anyone in the world knows what a lion or a polar bear is, but few of us know what a pine martin is. Hence, it is easier to prepare for/avoid polar bears than it is to do the same with pine martins.

All-level play encounters proportionally more low-level threats than high-level threats. As PCs make a name for themselves, they come to the attention of the movers and shakers of the world/region/whatever. I.e., they cease to be pine martins and become closer to polar bears. People start taking them into account in their plans. This is why, prior to 3e, high-level play tended to mean more politics and fortress-building than orc hunting.

Of course, more powerful characters also have better resources to seek out more powerful threats. But more powerful threats might mean (1) taking on the Vampire King, (2) trying to carve out a kingdom, (3) trying to end poverty, (4) etc. The pieces on the board haven't really changed as much as they've changed position.

In one AD&D campaign, for example, play began with a known vampire as a power broker in a gigantic city. As play continued, by about 3rd-5th level, the PCs began to want things that they knew the vampire could provide. They entered a business relationship with him, and actually "sold" him a few levels in order to gain his support against other factions. The vampire became, essentially, the setting's "Godfather".....and one who would eventually seek to eliminate the PCs when they were becoming too powerful for him to control.

Its almost like your game world is controlled by some semi-benevolent hegemon who tailors reality to the needs of a few specific inhabitants. If that's not the case, why does it look so much like that is the case?

Obviously, you are talking about your game world, or someone else's game world.

5. But no one addresses that underlying issue. Instead, they debate hypotheticals instead of debating the question raised by the hypothetical.

Obviously, you are ignoring every concrete, really-from-a-game example, as well as many responses in this thread.

6. So we get treated to lengthy essays (almost as lengthy as mine) that basically read like classic psychological texts on blaming victims.

I find it somewhat interesting that, as soon as it is suggested that the players determine what challenges they face, they become "victims". Perhaps, from some wonky angle, you could rationally consider the (not real) PCs as "victims", but the players are not.

I also have a problem with distinctions without a difference ("You can't say that X and Y are the same in terms of player freedom! X is totally different than Y! Its blue!"), but I don't think that's getting anywhere as a discussion.

And yet, when that distinction was made (I assume you are referring to my X/Y analysis of Mallus' post some ways back), not only was the question raised never answered, but it was never addressed. Indeed, you are doing nothing more than raising a straw man here to claim that previous terms to demonstrate a distinction are as phony as what you are presenting.

I think my friend, you are perhaps ignoring the answers.

Indeed.

Would I be right, Cadfan, in believing that you advocate the occasional fudged die roll?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'll go so far as to say that reasoning like this is at the heart of a good setting, but it's still a form of rationalizing the game conventions into something plausible inside the narrative of the game.

Determining the requirements of the game world is a metagaming concept that is going to go on throughout the life of the game. However, the metagaming requirements of a sandbox include the chance for the PCs to die a gruesome random death, whereas the metagaming requirements for an adventure path require that the PCs are protected from said gruesome random death.

Yes, in the sandbox game, the players will take pains to eliminate that chance as much as possible, but it is always there. It is the chute that deposits you three levels deeper in the dungeon when you're already low on hit points. It is the earthquake that happens, and that may kill you despite your best efforts. It is the random chance for disease (see the 1e DMG) that strikes down the strongest, the failed saving throw that you needed to make, the dice running cold one night when you can't get over a 5 on your d20 to (literally) save your (PC's) life.

And, frankly, for those who like this style of game, this is what is desired.

Which is why you will seldom hear a sandbox DM talk about fudging die rolls....and you often hear of adventure path DMs talk about doing so.

"[T]he needs of the game" may "outweigh the needs of the simulation", but the needs of the two paradigms are different.

Initially, because I said it was. It was my example, after all. Do you really want me to make a list of plausible reasons? I'm fairly imaginative, you know. Conceivably the list could be quite long...

You miss (intentionally?) the point.

I cannot answer what the dragon is likely to do without first knowing why it is in a fit of pique. I don't need a list; I just need one good reason to answer the question intelligently.

And, yes, sometimes the intelligent answer is "raining fiery destruction upon a helpless band of low-level PC's". And, despite your protests to the contrary, the fact that this sometimes is the intelligent answer....and what happens....is good for the game.

It is also, obviously, possible to abuse this sort of thing. The game is never "DM vs. Players" because the DM would always win. And, I note, your use of the word "unavoidable" (which I cut) is, I think, they key thing you keep coming back to. Only if the DM has decided what will happen before the players' input is presented, and the dice are rolled, is anything "unavoidable".

"X is unavoidable" is adventure path, not sandbox.


RC