Why the World Exists

[Ariosto]

One wonders why roll in the first place?

Indeed. Why choose rules designed to serve ends just the opposite of one's own? Arneson and Gygax designed D&D with probabilistic elements on purpose!

Nowadays, there are plenty of designs in which dice determine not the outcome but rather who gets to narrate a scene -- or in some other way the mechanics directly serve the purposes of a "story-telling" game.

If a "good game" requires cheating, then change the rules.

 

[The Shaman]

*snip*

Ourph, where I come from we call this picking the fly(excrement) out of the pepper.

You're parsing two sentences and ignoring the context in which they were written. I considered putting quotes around story in the second sentence, but I thought that most people reading my post would discern that I was talking about the difference between taking the approach of crafting a story through play preparation and recounting the events of actual play.

In fact I still think that most people are perfectly capable of discerning that difference.

If Mallus was using the word story in a way different from the way I interpreted it, then I'd be glad if Mallus would correct my misreading of the post. I haven't seen anything to suggest that was the case, but I'm certainly open to clarification.

 

[Ariosto]

I think the basis of the objection to a world that doesn't respond to character levels is that what is realistic doesn't necessarily make for a good game, and a lot of people who plays an RPG wants to play a game.

An underwater earthquake that sets off a tsunami and wipes out hundreds of thousands of people is sudden, tragic and very, very realistic.

An underwater earthquake that sets off a tsunami and wipes out hundreds of thousands of people which included the party of lv 2 PCs is a crappy game.

While one might object that the DM hitting his game world with an unforseen natural disaster is different from the PC deciding to go visit the Caves of Doom or the Fort of Cannonfodders, the truth is that everything that exists or happens in the game world is put there by the DM. The idea that the world runs independently of the DM is itself an illusion.

So what? How does it follow from this sophistry that the illusion must be of a particular form?

You can have an opinion of what makes a "good game," and I can have a different one. The designers of D&D had opinions of their own. You can make up a game to suit your tastes. That is in fact what the original D&D set was explicitly intended to facilitate!

 

[Ariosto]

To me, trying to make every encounter an "appropriate challenge" for PCs would be an unacceptable blow to verisimilitude. Taking it to an absurd (but logically consistent) extreme: One day, Joe the Greengrocer is just a normal man, but the next he's a superhero ... and then he's back to being normal Joe again?

Moreover, it would seem a logistical headache unless I were always dealing with the same PCs.

I think many style-of-play issues have to do with the notion that "the party" is a singular entity always made up of pretty much the same characters of about level X (continually rising over the course of the campaign).

That seems to be a very common approach today, and an eminently practical response to some needs. It's problematic (if understandable) when folks take it to be ubiquitous or somehow "the right way to play."

It was not the assumed scheme in early D&D, nor has it in fact been universally adopted. Some of us still run more or less what what was meant by a "campaign" in the original context.

 

[Lanefan]

You can count me in the group that wants this possibility super deadly foes in unexpected places (though to be fair, not while I am shopping in the city). As a player I do want to feel like everything around me is trying to accomodate my character level. I don't think it fair to force a party to confront a super potent foe; but the experience of seeing it or running away from it is fine. Even the occassional character death from an uber foe is okay with me. If every door leads to something that perfectly matches our party level, thats a little less exciting for me.

Am I right in thinking you meant to say "As a player I don't want to..." in the sentence I highlighted above?

Otherwise, I agree with you.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

I think many style-of-play issues have to do with the notion that "the party" is a singular entity always made up of pretty much the same characters of about level X (continually rising over the course of the campaign).

You've hit a good point here.

That seems to be a very common approach today, and an eminently practical response to some needs. It's problematic (if understandable) when folks take it to be ubiquitous or somehow "the right way to play."

It was not the assumed scheme in early D&D, nor has it in fact been universally adopted. Some of us still run more or less what what was meant by a "campaign" in the original context.

::raises hand:: Guilty as charged, y'r honour.

Multi-interacting-party campaign, levels overall rising but not very fast at all (and just wait till they start meeting level-drainers!), lots of retirements, lots of death, lots of fun.

Single-party (I call them "linear") games/campaigns really are a different breed of animal, and are - unfortunately, IMO - much more common now than the multi-party campaigns. The style of play, for one thing, is much different. In a multi-party game, one can easily have one's character find a good reason to leave a party it doesn't want to be with, and then (usually with some DM co-operation) find a way to have it join one of the other active parties. The only difference for the player is she has to show up on a different night of the week. The game is able to be more chaotic. In a single-party game, you either have to abide by the wishes of the party (or the party bully, depending on the characterizations being played) or leave. The game tends to be more lawful.

Multi-party games do require a DM with more than one night a week available for play; that alone is probably why they're less common than during the 1e days.

Lan-"which party am I in this week?"-efan

 

[Piratecat]

Hey, everyone -

There's a lot more hostility and veiled (heck, even blatant) sniping than we want to see in this thread. It's fine to disagree; just be polite and respectful to the other people. If you're planning on taking a cheap shot, better to just push away the keyboard for a bit.

My thanks to everyone who's worked to be polite, and to stay on topic.

 

[Jack7]

Hey, everyone -

There's a lot more hostility and veiled (heck, even blatant) sniping than we want to see in this thread. It's fine to disagree; just be polite and respectful to the other people. If you're planning on taking a cheap shot, better to just push away the keyboard for a bit.

My thanks to everyone who's worked to be polite, and to stay on topic.

I appreciate that as well. Because of work and personal matters I haven't had much time to respond here directly, but I'm enjoying trying to catch up with what many people have been writing. Much of it is very interesting.

But don't think me rude if some of you have directed stuff at me and I haven't had time to properly respond yet. For me better no response than a shoddy or incomplete one.

I also had no idea this thread would get this big or complex. I never expected it to take off like this, but sometimes in cases like this I think the best thing you can do is sort of sit back and relax and not clutter up the thread with just your opinion, and instead let everyone else run in the way they see best. So I've tried to stay out of the way.

I'm enjoying reading of it what I can though so I hope some of you guys will remain cool and not take things personally.

Carry on ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Mallus]

If Mallus was using the word story in a way different from the way I interpreted it...

I am.

...then I'd be glad if Mallus would correct my misreading of the post.

I did, but I think you missed my post.

When I use the word 'story' to describe D&D play I'm not implying fudging, plot immunity or railroading. No predetermined course of events or resolution. I'd call the course of play in a sandbox box campaign the 'story' as it's unfolding.

A story is something with fictional characters taking action in a fictional setting. Something doesn't become a story after it's completed. It's still a story while it's being written or told, when the outcome or even direction is completely up in the air.

 

[Mallus]

I have never encountered in D&D, and unless you have I must wonder why you consider it relevant.

I was making a point that looks to have gotten lost in the shuffle.

I was trying to debunk the notion that it was somehow logical for low-level PC's to be insulated from dangers outside their ability to handle striking them out of the blue. This needs to happen in a campaign in order for it to be playable, but it has nothing to do with the internal logic of the setting.