Why the World Exists

[Thasmodious]

If I haven't placed a marauding Dragon in my setting my PC's are welcome to go look for one but they won't find it. Freedom doesn't mean having everything you want given to you it's making choices from your options that have meaning and consequences in the game. Perhaps if I roll a dragon on the wandering monsters chart, then one is sighted and appears but if not oh, well people spent their lives searchingfor the fountain of youth and never found it...doesn't mean the journey won't be interesting.

All I'm saying is that my players have enjoyed the feeling of having to run from an enemy, only to return for that enemy when they've gained in power and pay him back. If I adjust the challenges this is way less likely to happen, and this is just one example of why I like to set the levels at different points and keep them there... besides after 20/30 levels of always running into something we can clober well it starts to feel contrived.

We both like freedom, we both tend to run sandbox games. I have a tough time believing we are as far apart in philosophies as you seem to want to paint us. Perhaps a couple of questions could clear this up.

1. Do the choices your players make as to class ever inform the campaign setting? Examples - someone plays a cleric of Kord, yet you have not already written a temple of Kord into any of the places you've detailed and you haven't really thought how that particular deity plays into the local religious social network. Do you do so now, in response to the player's choice? Do you disallow a cleric of Kord? Do you let him do it, but without any support from the setting? Example 2 - a player plays a paladin - even though you hadn't thought about it before and hadn't decided an adventure site had one, do you consider adding a Holy Avenger somewhere in the setting for the PC to possibly acquire or at least quest for someday? Or would such an item just not be possible? Or would it only come up in a purely random roll?

2. Do the backgrounds of the PCs inform the setting at all? Do you create unique NPCs, friends, family members, contacts, enemies, that suite the backgrounds of the PCs and help forge connections to the settings?

3. Lastly, you never really did answer my question. Why is the level specific details of a group that monsters that have a lot of range built into the system need to be set in stone ahead of time? Wouldn't it be better to leave a little variation in many sites in the game world to adjust mechanically as needed for the fun/challenge of the game. I'm not saying everything is exactly even level (thats not what level-appropriate means anyway) with the PCs, but that some places in the setting have wiggle room in offering a challenge to the PCs depending on their capabilities when they encounter the locale.

Raven Crowking, I'd love to see your thoughts on this, too. I've enjoyed reading this discussion, and participating in it the last few pages. It is interesting as one who runs sandbox games to find you two coming as more rigid with the concept than I would have thought for a style that emphasizes freedom. Which is why I am wondering if we aren't just beating around the same bush.

 

[Ourph]

Note this happening is not the same chance as it not happening thus realistic vs. non-realisic) that yeah, it could happen, but the probability is not large enough for me to consider unless something happens to increase it.

How do you determine whether "something happens to increase it"? And given that adventurers raiding dragon's hoards is a fairly typical trope in most D&D games, why is this event so incredibly unlikely? Who determines the likelyhood?

Also, given that you attach so much significance to the distinction drawn earlier in the thread, i.e....

An encounter that exists, but the PCs avoid it because it's too dangerous. vs. The absence of the too dangerous encounter

... it seems absolutely astounding to me that you would so glibly ignore the distinction between...

An encounter that is unlikely to happen vs. an encounter that can never happen because the DM excludes the possibility of it happening

It seems to me that both are either significant or insignificant distinction depending where you fall regarding the general principles we're talking about.

 

[Mallus]

You didn't tell me that this was the Quantum Dragon, who can split into several beings in order to chase each survivor individually. Dragon Manhattan?

OK, that's funny...

BTW, the dragon doesn't need to replicate itself and chase down every survivor. It merely needs to reach each subsequent village in it's path of fiery (and bite-y) destruction before survivors/word does.

Given that dragons are magical fliers, and terrified villages just might prefer hiding to high-tailing down the road --if a good road even exists-- to warn the surrounding communities, this doesn't sound so unreasonable to me.

Then again, I'm hardly the biggest proponent of reason in D&D settings. A light dusting suffices, like powdered cocoa atop a fancy dessert.

Your argument becomes weaker the farther you extend it.

Your reliance on contrivances in order to make your position sound logical gets larger too. And I say this as a DM who thinks contrivance is an art form every DM needs to master.

 

[LostSoul]

Ah.

You didn't tell me that this was the Quantum Dragon, who can split into several beings in order to chase each survivor individually. Dragon Manhattan?

Dragons are fast. Dragons move at 15-20 miles an hour. Let's say that the towns are 6 hours apart - that's about 18 miles.

I don't think it's outside the realm of plausibility that the dragon can wipe out a few towns (well, villages maybe) without people being alerted to the danger.

As to the PCs surviving - hell, some of them might be able to. It would depend on their choices during the encounter. (Jumping into the town well, for example.)

 

[Mallus]

... how is this an insta-kill, if the PC's flee?

The PC's might manage to escape. Or they might get caught in the initial flame cone as they exit the general store. Or killed in a burning building. Or chewed on. Or trampled...

Run the scenario a few times for your group. See how they like it.

Similar? Perhaps, but even then I bet a DM would probably come up with a much better (and arguably different) solution given time to think it through...YMMV of course, or is that to obvious?

How much time does the DM get during the session? The game's internal logic isn't just something cooked up by the DM during setting creation. It has to be applied during play, as the world reacts to PC actions.

ie it starts to look a lot like the DM's judgment calls.

According to Mallus Huh?

Well, I won't replace According to Hoyle... but I do know a little something about this game...

 

[Scribble]

In your dragon example? How can there not be ample warning in a simulationist world where the dragon follows the simulation, rather than the "story" of what the DM wants to have happen?

Attacks happen all the time in the real world with the enemy having no knowledge beforehand of the impending attack for various reasons:

1. Lack of ability to effectively communicate.
2. Survivors are too worried about surviving then helping other survive.
3. Fit Shappens.
4. No survivors.
5. Other stuff.

Unless the village is the village closest to the dragon, once the dragon starts marauding, I don't believe that there would be no warning. And if it is the village closest to the dragon, that might well equate to some warning already.

Isn't this sentence indicating that you DO in fact put some DM input into the world and you DO in fact choose what the PCs will encounter.

Whats the difference between you think logic says there should be warning of a dragon attack and you think logic says the people of the land choose to build their dwellings far away from the BIG threats of the world, and thus the giants live in remote places? (Especially if the giants know adventure groups LOVE to target them for all their phat loots.)

And it makes realistic sense too: Osama Bin Laden... probably considered one of the most dangerous men alive- I don't think he lives in South Jersey.

My point really is no matter how little DM input you strive for, at some point you're going to have some. Whether you like to create level appropriate challenges most of the time or just random groupings of encounters.

In my opinion this is one of those why tabletop games rule moments.

The DM can create a realistic world, but unlike a computer, can override that realism for the sake of "Yo man that kicked arse!"

So, if Tolkein is the example we should go by, please tell me where what he demonstrates differs from what I am saying?

What Tolkien demonstrates is that the mechanics of being a solo author differ greatly then the mechanics of a group of people collectively playing an RPG.

You cannot use an authors methods to further a "what happens happens" mentality, because nothing could be further from the truth in writing a book.

In a book, what happens happens because the author believes it will make a better story. People are either ready for a dragon attack, or not ready for a dragon attack based on what the author feels will best further the story, and nothing else.

In an RPG the "story" is being told by the DM, the Players, and the dice. Each one has input on what happens in that story.

The DM has some input, the players have some input, the dice determine the final results. It's up to each group to determine if they lean towards any one group having more or less input.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Nice. I might use that.......

The PCs know that the thing hasn't been used in a long time, and the players know that the world changes.

Me, I would probably pull the lever anyway (I do that sometimes), but I wouldn't consider the result unfair.


RC

What lever?

 

[ProfessorPain]

A lot of this boils down to the individuals in the group. The thing to focus on is fun. Some groups have more fun with gamist stuff, some have more fun with simulationist stuff. Most probably fall somewhere in between. I know anytime I game with a GM that is too far on the simulationsist side or the gamist side, I don't enjoy myself. For me an adventure should "feel" like a good book or movie. So I am okay with suspicious coincidences once in a while, if they keep the story entertaining. I am also cool with balance. But at the same time, I don't want to feel like I live in a world encased in bubble rap. Sometimes, I want to be forced to run away from something I cannot possibly beat. I don't want to to read like a children's story though, where there are no consequences for bad rolls or stupid decisions. Character death is needed to maintain the drama, and to make success meaningful. If Heroes are under the protection of the GM, then there greatness is pre-ordained, and that is a little hollow. I said I want a great adventure to feel like a great novel or movie. But I don't want the whole process replicated. The thing that seperates and RPG from a novel, is the characters' ability to deviate from the plot. To do things the GM didn't intend. And it wouldn't be very fun, if straying didn't involve danger.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Dragons are fast. Dragons move at 15-20 miles an hour. Let's say that the towns are 6 hours apart - that's about 18 miles.

I don't think it's outside the realm of plausibility that the dragon can wipe out a few towns (well, villages maybe) without people being alerted to the danger.

Ever seen a big fire? I find it unlikely that 18 miles away, no one knows.

The PC's might manage to escape. Or they might get caught in the initial flame cone as they exit the general store. Or killed in a burning building. Or chewed on. Or trampled...

Exactly. A lot of things might happen.

Isn't this sentence indicating that you DO in fact put some DM input into the world and you DO in fact choose what the PCs will encounter.

I have never denied that I do in fact put some DM input into the world (doing so would be foolish) or into what the PCs can have encounters with. Clearly, this is the case, especially when setting up any situation that the PCs can become involved in.

This is especially true when the players are new to the world, because they don't generally choose where their PCs begin play, or what their starting resources are (i.e., they don't start with a Ring of Unlimited Wishes simply because they want it).

While I would also argue that hooks are okay (in fact, good) in a sandbox, the primary goal of the sandbox DM isn't to showcase his design, but to allow PCs to evolve, and player choice to be the engine of that evolution.

As I said earlier, from other discussions, I have the impression that most of the sandbox-type DMs here are non-fudgers when it comes to the dice. After all, fudging the dice to determine what happens invalidates the point of allow the players to make choices.

I also have the impression that most of the "There's no difference" folks here are fudgers when it comes to the dice. After all, not fudging the dice to determine what happens invalidates the way they planned the encounters to go.

And that is, perhaps, a good encapsulation of the difference: Whose choices does the DM empower? His, or his players'?


RC

 

[Scribble]

Ever seen a big fire? I find it unlikely that 18 miles away, no one knows.

I used to live right on the inside edge of the Jersey pine barrens. I'd see smoke in the air and think, oh oh fire... Wonder where? What's up? My house ok? Hrmm. Sometimes it wasn't until days later that I found out what happened, and sometimes I never found out.

They might know "something" happened, but the nature of that thing being a dragon is attacking might not be so common as you seem to indicate. If the wind is right, they might not even know something happened to begin with.

But the point wasn't to debate whether knowing about a dragon attack or not would be more realistic. The point was that DM input on the game is DM input no matter which way you slice it.

I have never denied that I do in fact put some DM input into the world (doing so would be foolish) or into what the PCs can have encounters with. Clearly, this is the case, especially when setting up any situation that the PCs can become involved in.

This is especially true when the players are new to the world, because they don't generally choose where their PCs begin play, or what their starting resources are (i.e., they don't start with a Ring of Unlimited Wishes simply because they want it).

So you're still indicating what the players can become involved with, you just sometimes make it vastly higher level challenges sometimes while others choose not to.

While I would also argue that hooks are okay (in fact, good) in a sandbox, the primary goal of the sandbox DM isn't to showcase his design, but to allow PCs to evolve, and player choice to be the engine of that evolution.

Cool. I'd say you can still do this while making challenges level appropriate.

As I said earlier, from other discussions, I have the impression that most of the sandbox-type DMs here are non-fudgers when it comes to the dice. After all, fudging the dice to determine what happens invalidates the point of allow the players to make choices.

I also have the impression that most of the "There's no difference" folks here are fudgers when it comes to the dice. After all, not fudging the dice to determine what happens invalidates the way they planned the encounters to go.

I think you are unfairly painting anyone that fudges die rolls as someone that wants things to happen in a predetermined fashion. I think this is just a cheap shot.

There are a variety of reasons a DM might fudge the dice, none of which are based around his idea of how the adventure should go being invalidated.