You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[pemerton]

Changing those goals and personalities on a whim

Who talked about that?

What I see is that, rather than the players being able to learn about the NPC's - what motivates them, perhaps their weaknesses in that regard, how they might be leveraged - that can all be swept away in favour of "allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors" in the interests of " turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character". Sure, last month, you gained the Baron's trust and gratitude by rescuing his niece, the light of his life and his reason for living, and learned that nothing matters more to him than honour. But this month, he slits her throat as a sacrifice to dark daemonic powers which he pits against you, because that will be more exciting. No reason that Baron's love for his niece, or his gratitude, or his honour, should be in any way consistent from game to game, right?

This doesn't seem to me to have any bearing on what I said, or what I quoted from Paul Czege.

No one is talking about not preserving consistency of NPCs. The Baron doesn't change his personality from moment to moment. But if it would be dramatic, in a given episode, for the Baron to turn on his niece, or on the PCs, then a bit of demonic possession may be in order, yes. Czege is talking about adapting and authoring the fiction to suit a metagame agenda, rather than letting the fiction dictate it's own course.

In the case of the siege, as I stated, one doesn't introduce a siege only if some NPCs are already established in the GM's notes as wanting a siege - you establish a siege because it's dramatic, and then you write in the NPCs with the motivations that underpin it.

For myself, villains who have actual personalities, not just "He's crazy so he does random things - always in the interests of making you lives more difficult" are far more engaging.

<snip>

That does not mean PC's are not the protagonists. It means their status as protagonists does not reduce all around them to cardboard cutouts.

It should be possible to discuss other's playstyles without insulting them.

I have a fairly large number of actual play threads on these boards, some of which I linked to upthread. I have also given actual play examples in this forum. The NPCs in my game have actual personalities. Those personalities, however, are authored to generate dramatic conflict. And the PCs in my game are not cardboard cutouts; they are played by their players, however, with an eye to dramatic flair. And the suggestion that games GMed by Paul Czege - he's the guy who designed My Life With Master - are shallow affairs I find pretty hard to accept.

Taking deliberate steps of authorship - introducing story elements, including NPCs, because of their contribution to the dramatic stakes and pressures of the sitaution - doesn't make a game more shallow. In fact, the experience of many actual authors of fiction would suggest that it can be quite the opposite.

 

[pemerton]

The first, on a metagame level, would likely be because it creates an interesting complication to things and does it in such a way that the players can use it and feel it's relevant to their goal. Not only that, it's close enough to the city/their goals that it doesn't feel disconcerting. A desert encounter dealing with the city would be more likely to not work because of the distance away from their goal.

<snip>

The siege is part of the city though. Well, rather the siege is happening because of the city. It's about as much a part of the desert as the city is part of the desert. So a little bit, but not likely enough that the desert not being there will mean the siege isn't there too.

<snip>

On the story level it has never been established why the city was under siege. But that's something for the players to find out, if they're so inclined. Why it exists, from a story perspective, will likely depend on how the players have done things and what their interests are.

Excellent stuff.

As to why the city was in the desert: Because the module said so.

I'd add to this - a desert is colour. In the typical D&D world it means minarets and genies; or Conan-style city states with lots of sandals, bandits, caravans etc; and palm trees, and oases/wells, and dancing girls in filmy gauze costume. There is a whole lot of fantasy colour that is (stereo)typical of desert settings, including desert cities.

In the module at hand the desert is different from the above - an Abyssal wasteland - but that still is its own form of colour, though a bit more D&D specific rather than generic fantasy.

It makes perfect sense to want to enjoy the colour - whether of a stereotypical fantasy desert, or of an Abyssal wasteland - without wanting to actually interact with it as a serious focus of play. Much like many D&D worlds have the trappings of mediaeval Europe - castles, serfs, knights etc - but the social structures that underpin these trappings are not themselves objects of exploration in game. It's just colour.

 

[N'raac]

As to why the city was in the desert: Because the module said so. And if there's one thing everyone has pretty well agreed on, it's that the module needed to be reworked because it was crap.

But we have moved on from the module. There was no siege. If the city is in the desert then, to me, that has ramifications. It is different than a port town, or a crosroad of trade routes, or a keep on the borderlands. That it is in the desert should create aspects of the city that are, if not unique, at least distinguishing from cities elsewhere.

And I would suggest that it is not the placement of the city in a desert that would make the module crap. It would be failure to populate that desert with interesting encounters that are evocative of this desert setting, rather than have a game that is indistinguishable from one that might take place on a river, in a forest or in the mountains. The creatures selected as wasteland mauraders all seem appropriate. Their use, not so much - let's set some encounters that highlight the nature of these beasts, and the plane that produces them, not just throw out some stat blocks and pay a bit of lip service to the setting.

And, if the PC's have no idea where they are going, perhaps it would be better to establish that they will come acrosss a specific three encounters in this wasteland hopefully with some meaning and connection to the ongoing story), after which they will find that temple - "which direction" in a boundless wasteland makes little difference.

I'd add to this - a desert is colour. In the typical D&D world it means minarets and genies; or Conan-style city states with lots of sandals, bandits, caravans etc; and palm trees, and oases/wells, and dancing girls in filmy gauze costume. There is a whole lot of fantasy colour that is (stereo)typical of desert settings, including desert cities

It makes perfect sense to want to enjoy the colour - whether of a stereotypical fantasy desert, or of an Abyssal wasteland - without wanting to actually interact with it as a serious focus of play. Much like many D&D worlds have the trappings of mediaeval Europe - castles, serfs, knights etc - but the social structures that underpin these trappings are not themselves objects of exploration in game. It's just colour.

It's "just colour" only until we make it not "just colour". If it's a city in the middle of the desert, I don't expect to see a shipyard, or encounter a group of drunken sailors. Pemerton, you mentioned a lot of scimitars and precious few longbows - that naturally extrapolates to the relative ease of purchasing a scimitar versus longbow arrows, and may impact a longbow specialist. I would not expect the fare in the local inn to be fish stew, rice and watermelon. Hiring 6 longspearmen is likely to be pretty tough with a lack of wood resources from which those longspears would be constructed.

An expectation of "lots of bandits and caravans" seems to suggest bandits and caravans would be encountered in the desert. Heavy armor and Priests of the Sea God? Not so much.

 

[pemerton]

BIt's "just colour" only until we make it not "just colour".

But why would we do that? If my players don't want to play a game of mediaevel social oppression, why would I make that a focus of play? Likewise for detailed interaction with the desert.

 

[N'raac]

If my players don't want to play a game of mediaevel social oppression, why would I make that a focus of play? Likewise for detailed interaction with the desert.

If my players don't want to play a game of mediaevel social oppression, why would I incorporate mediaevel social oppression into the setting at all? Likewise for the desert.

 

[Hussar]

It is also one that most annoys many players. Why are there all these crazy wizards running around creating bizarre dungeons with wierd puzzles? Are there any "not crazy" wizards? Are there any ungeons which possess some rational design that I, as a player, can actually interact with, rather than hop from one bizarre encounter to the next?

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that this annoys you. I don't think making broader judgements based on personal preferences is going to be terribly helpful here.

Now, presuming you play with a fairly like minded group, then, likely your group will also find this annoying, thus reinforcing your perception. But, considering that this is a pretty basic, bog standard trope in D&D, and given that you have no problems with Slaad planting flowers as a siege, I'd say that the annoyance level is more a personal thing than anything.

I mean, the standard dungeon crawl is probably the basic unit of D&D play and always has been.

 

[N'raac]

I've gamed with enough players who question just how many crazy wizards are out there building these monstrosities to be confident that "many players" are annoyed by that very specific trope. That does not remove the standard dungeon crawl from the game. It merely asks for some basis for its existence beyond "insane wizard".

 

[Hussar]

If my players don't want to play a game of mediaevel social oppression, why would I incorporate mediaevel social oppression into the setting at all? Likewise for the desert.

Because of genre conventions.

D&D is often played in a Faux Medieval European setting (note, certainly not exclusively, but, certainly often enough). That means that you would expect to see certain things and not others. Seeing fields being tended by serfs would be pretty common enough in many D&D settings. Having Kings and Queens and nobility and aristocracy ruling would be pretty common in many D&D settings. These are all genre conventions and pretty much stock trappings.

But, we don't have to go into the details of any of this. We don't need peasant uprisings and whatnot to establish the setting. The serfs don't have to try to co-opt the PC's into their rebellion in order to establish the setting. All of the things above are setting elements, just like the desert. It paints the backdrop.

Seriously, you don't have any nobility or aristocracy in your D&D games? IF you do, you have included medieval social oppression in your game. Class structure and whatnot.

It's when you start drilling down that you fall into rabbit holes. When you start extrapolating elements you spiral down further and further until you eat your own tail. Wood is so rare that you cannot make spears? Really? How did you build this city in the first place? How is anyone farming? What are they using for tools? They have almost no metal and no wood, so, how is this city actually surviving? For that matter, why is there is a city in the desert? After all, there are no reasons for cities to be somewhere where there is no wood or metal. On and on and on.

When you start kicking the scenery, it's going to fall down. But, because Pemerton and I are not simulationists at heart, we simply accept the scenery as is, and get to the stuff which does interest us - character and plot development. We don't ask the questions that you are asking, because we don't care about that. "Why are there so many crazy wizards" isn't an issue for us. It just isn't a consideration in this style of play.

Sorry [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] for putting words in your mouth. I think you'll agree with what I said though.

 

[Hussar]

I've gamed with enough players who question just how many crazy wizards are out there building these monstrosities to be confident that "many players" are annoyed by that very specific trope. That does not remove the standard dungeon crawl from the game. It merely asks for some basis for its existence beyond "insane wizard".

And that would be the difference between us.

I am only, solely, claiming personal playstyle and not trying to rely on some vague "well everyone else thinks so too" fallacy to try to prove my point.

I mean, heck, one of the most popular modules ever produced by Paizo was Maure Castle. And guess what? Crazy wizard did it.

 

[N'raac]

I am only, solely, claiming personal playstyle and not trying to rely on some vague "well everyone else thinks so too" fallacy to try to prove my point.

I did not say "well everyone else thinks so too". I said that I have met many gamers who question the campaign structure where pretty much every dungeon has "crazy wizard" as its backstory.

And I think the backstory to Maue Castle, discussed at http://www.canonfire.com/wiki/index.php?title=Maure_Castle, goes beyond "crazy wizard built it".