You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Celebrim]

I don't think anyone has suggested anyone is "totally in the wrong". And I see it's OK for you to use "many" or even "many, many" as a descriptor. I'd also say there is a difference between "the journey is the most imortant thing", "the journey is an important aspect" or even "the journey is also significant" versus "the journey should just be skipped" or even "there can't possibly be anything relevant in the journey".

I'd also suggest "setting is not important" cuts both ways. If the setting is unimportant, how is it that whether the scene is set in (or just outside) the city, or in the heart of the desert, is determinative of its relevance or interest?

This. Just as tactics is the intersection of weapons with terrain, so plot is the intersection of character and setting.

Even in a play, the first act normally involves 'setting the stage', where the setting is described to the audience to provide a framework for the character development and conflict that is going to make up the remainder of the acts. So, in the first act we might learn that in the city of Verona there are two rival famlies, whose youths are in violent conflict with each other in the streets. Or we might learn that in Denmark, the king is dead and his brother has usurped his crown and queen. The setting is critical because it drives the decisions and emotions of the characters.

...right down to "indoors with more than one room = Dungeon"

I'd go with that, except I'd remove the 'indoors' qualifier. Any two rooms with a corridor between = Dungeon. And here we can have very loose definitions of "rooms" and "corridors". You can actually develop a wilderness area as a dungeon by having a 'room' stand in for each hex and a corridor stand in for each adjacency between hexes. In fact, this is very much the classic old school cRPG way of building a 'wilderness'. If you look at a map of something like King's Quest, or of a MUD, it's all dungeon. So, a desert island with a series of connected locations where resources can be found or hazards faced = dungeon.

 

[N'raac]

I'd go with that, except I'd remove the 'indoors' qualifier. Any two rooms with a corridor between = Dungeon. And here we can have very loose definitions of "rooms" and "corridors". You can actually develop a wilderness area as a dungeon by having a 'room' stand in for each hex and a corridor stand in for each adjacency between hexes. In fact, this is very much the classic old school cRPG way of building a 'wilderness'. If you look at a map of something like King's Quest, or of a MUD, it's all dungeon. So, a desert island with a series of connected locations where resources can be found or hazards faced = dungeon.

True - those "wilderness" settings bordered by impassable terrain that basically forced you from encounter area to encounter area are just as much "dungeons". Taken broadly enough, though, the entire world is a Dungeon - "in this city are these buildings with these inhabitants, these hazards and these resources". It just has large boundaries and walls that are fewe and farther between.

 

[pemerton]

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?

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] answered this - it's part and parcel of bogstandard fanatsy tropes (knights, nobles, peasants etc).

But why have loas of treasure in the first place, then? What use is it if there is nothing to buy - and why does it (or is it assumed to) motivate the PC's? If it does not motivate them, why do they bother hauling it out - why not just leave it there if all it does is weigh you down?

This is another point where flavour and mechanical detail can come apart. For instance, in a Conan or pirate game, gaining loot is a big incharacter motivation for the PC, and the PC is going to haul it all out. But I could easily imagine playing such a game where, at the table, loot is not such a big deal at all, because the point of the game lies somewhere else (say, swashbuckling in the pirate game, and swords-and-sandling in the Conan one). So there would be quick narrations of hauling out loot, but little or no tracking of it as a mechanical matter.

If the setting is unimportant, how is it that whether the scene is set in (or just outside) the city, or in the heart of the desert, is determinative of its relevance or interest?

Because it's about situation, not just setting. The GM Hussar critised tried to turn the desert into situation although, from Hussar's point of view, there were no dramatic stakes. The siege, on the other hand, takes the city - a situation in which the players are already invested - and intensifies the dramatic stakes.

As to Maure Castle, its construction, over many generations, does not strike me as "crazy wizard creates a labyinth which has no apparent purpose other than creating wild challenges for adventurers".

I am 100% with Hussar. This is exactly the sort of "crazy wizard did it" that I had in mind in my post upthread. It's not as if someone created this family, as NPCs in the game, and then extrapolated out their behaviour - "Hey, I know, they might have built this castle and labyrinth for experimenting with ancient Sueloise magics." Rather, Rob Kuntz (? relying on memory here) wanted a dungeon, and came up with one, and then NPCs and backstory were created to give it a home in the setting.

This is exactly the sort of metagaming in the deployment of NPCs that I was describing upthread - NPCs and their motivations are created so as to supply the game with situations that the players can confront via their PCs; situations are not being extrapolated from pre-given NPCs.

 

[N'raac]

Because it's about situation, not just setting. The GM Hussar critised tried to turn the desert into situation although, from Hussar's point of view, there were no dramatic stakes. The siege, on the other hand, takes the city - a situation in which the players are already invested - and intensifies the dramatic stakes.

Or, as has been suggested numerous times, the siege is a roablock between the players and the city - an obstacle which must be cirvcumvented to access a situation in which the players are already invested, just as you and Hussar view the desert.

"We need to get into the city, and that requires getting through the desert" is not as different from "We need to get into the city, and that requires getting through the seige" to al of us as it is to you and Hussar.

I am 100% with Hussar. This is exactly the sort of "crazy wizard did it" that I had in mind in my post upthread. It's not as if someone created this family, as NPCs in the game, and then extrapolated out their behaviour - "Hey, I know, they might have built this castle and labyrinth for experimenting with ancient Sueloise magics." Rather, Rob Kuntz (? relying on memory here) wanted a dungeon, and came up with one, and then NPCs and backstory were created to give it a home in the setting.

I interpret "crazy wizard did this" as "some lunatic set this up for no discrenable motive", not as "this location has a rich backstory which explains where it came from and why it is here". The family that constructed it over many years have a lot more going for them than "crazy wizards built a dungeon with no discernable reason other than frustrating adventurers". The same players I have seen get annoyed with the "crazy wizard did it" explanation would not, I believe, be bothered by the Maure Castle "family constructed this over the generations to achieve various goals it has fallen into ruin/been co-opted to other uses/whatever over many years" backstory. Now, if we know The Statuary was created "as a private place of worship and reflection for House Maure, where they kept a shrine to their gods (including "Y") as well as statues of famous Maure of the past", I would not expect it to be stocked up with magical tras, winding endless corridors and numerous secret doors. But if I'm looking to figure out some link to a past member of the Maure family from a portrait, coming here to seek out his statue and ientify him may be something I can leverage.

Tomb of Horrors and White Plume Mountain have no such logic in their backstory or design. The one I waffled over was "In Search of the Unknown", where backstory says this served a purpose as a fortress for two adventurers, the layout, magical and mundane traps, etc. does not seem consistent with that backstory (so "crazy wizard" takes over).

This is exactly the sort of metagaming in the deployment of NPCs that I was describing upthread - NPCs and their motivations are created so as to supply the game with situations that the players can confront via their PCs; situations are not being extrapolated from pre-given NPCs.

Do we create advesaries? Absolutely. Do I look to the PC's actions and activities and assess what they might lead those now established NPC's to do? Again, absolutely. As an example, you introduced Kas to your own game because he was linked to Vecna, and there was an existing link to the characters. Did his personality change radically to suit your PC's? Did you create a character from whole cloth to introduce as an "enemy of my enemy" character? Or did you take a pre-existing character whose personality and backstory dovetailed nicely with the PC's activities and backstories, assess the action he would reasonably take based on his established character (and, I stress, only established in backstory, not in play, as he had yet to meet the PC's) and play out the results of his actions? It seems like the last - such that situations were extrapolated from a pre-given NPC.

 

[Hussar]

Huh? Metal is a relatively recent human invention an there are plenty of places people have settled where there is very little wood. You can build with stone and mud; lots of people did. Plenty of places get by with scraps of brush or tiny amounts of imported would (for tool handles and such).

True. But did they build cities? Without wood?

 

[Hussar]

I would not expect it to be stocked up with magical tras, winding endless corridors and numerous secret doors. But if I'm looking to figure out some link to a past member of the Maure family from a portrait, coming here to seek out his statue and ientify him may be something I can leverage

Then you would be very, very disappointed. The dungeon is chock a block with winding endless corridors, numerous secret doors and a bajillion traps.

Like I said, it would help to read more than just the precis when discussing the module.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Well, as one of three words in the name (and I don't think & can be counted as an equal partner), I suspect we will always have Dungeons in Dungeons & Dragons. But we can have campaigns without dragons, and campaigns without dungeons. I've also seen a lot of different definitions of "Dungeon" over the years, right down to "indoors with more than one room = Dungeon"

I've seen this definition, too, and use something similar to it. Like, the wizard's tower = dungeon, to me, as does the ogre's castle, etc. But, I definitely don't use it as widely as some people do ("indoors with more than one room"). I, personally, wouldn't count the castle of the friendly king as a "dungeon" unless, for whatever reason, it became hostile or there was a reason to investigate it. Nor would I count inns as dungeons (unless they became hostile or needed to be investigated), etc.

Agreed. I do, however, find it interesting when the posts about "those bad GM's" with whom "I tend to get shirty" get juxtaposed with an offended statement that "you aren't using your argument to prove how we are having badwrongfun".

This struck me, too, but Hussar has occasionally qualified it with "[bad GM] for me" in this thread, so I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. As always, play what you like

This is another point where flavour and mechanical detail can come apart. For instance, in a Conan or pirate game, gaining loot is a big incharacter motivation for the PC, and the PC is going to haul it all out. But I could easily imagine playing such a game where, at the table, loot is not such a big deal at all, because the point of the game lies somewhere else (say, swashbuckling in the pirate game, and swords-and-sandling in the Conan one). So there would be quick narrations of hauling out loot, but little or no tracking of it as a mechanical matter.

I'm not 100%, but I think in the Conan game based on 3.X rules, at the end of the adventure, you basically mark off extra money. It's assumed that you spend it between this adventure and the next adventure (which is actually why you play the next session, I think; "well, you've blown all your money, and you're broke. Time to go adventuring again!"). Again, not 100%. Water Bob would know, though.

Anyways, this would strike me as what you're talking about. Money does, of course, serve a function in the game; you have this much, and things cost that much. But, building wealth obviously isn't the goal in the long term for the players, even if the PCs are constantly motivated by it. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

This struck me, too, but Hussar has occasionally qualified it with "[bad GM] for me" in this thread, so I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. As always, play what you like

Yeah, thanks for that. I've tried, throughout this thread to be careful about not moving beyond my own personal preferences. I haven't always been successful. But, the "for me" is there. Honest. Really. Ok, I didn't put it there, but it SHOULD be there. ... erm...

But, yeah, when I said many, many DM's, it should have read, Many of the DM's I have played with over the years. And, as someone who has moved rather a lot, I've played with quite a number of DM's over the years. Certainly at least one a year for most of high school and university, and typically a fair number more. Heck, my experience with RPG's was rotating DM's in groups for most of it. The One DM Group has always been a rarity IME.

 

[Hussar]

This. Just as tactics is the intersection of weapons with terrain, so plot is the intersection of character and setting.

Even in a play, the first act normally involves 'setting the stage', where the setting is described to the audience to provide a framework for the character development and conflict that is going to make up the remainder of the acts. So, in the first act we might learn that in the city of Verona there are two rival famlies, whose youths are in violent conflict with each other in the streets. Or we might learn that in Denmark, the king is dead and his brother has usurped his crown and queen. The setting is critical because it drives the decisions and emotions of the characters.

Really?

I can set Romeo and Juliet in pretty much any setting and it's still the same plot. I can set Hamlet in the Serengeti Planes and use singing lions and it's still the same plot. I can take seven Edo period Samurai, plop them down in the American Old West, change the characters to fit, and it's still the same plot.

Setting has virtually nothing to do with the plot in either of the plays you mention. You can entirely change the setting and get exactly the same plot. Setting does nothing to drive the decisions or emotions of the characters.

Heck, you can take the plot of Lord of the Rings, remove any reference to Middle Earth and get exactly the same plot - Terry Brooks built a career out of doing exactly that. Sword of Shanarra is an almost word for word rip-off of LotR.

I can understand why you would think that setting is central to plot, Celebrim, but, I really don't think it's that cut and dried. Setting is largely interchangeable while plots remain largely the same. Set Romeo and Juliet in Verona, New York or in space and it's still easily recognizable as Romeo and Juliet.

 

[pemerton]

I think in the Conan game based on 3.X rules, at the end of the adventure, you basically mark off extra money. It's assumed that you spend it between this adventure and the next adventure

<snip>

Anyways, this would strike me as what you're talking about.

It's similar, yes. I didn't mention it as an example because (at least as I remember it - I haven't read it lately!) I think it's a little incoherent as a design - you have standard D&D-style equipment lists, for instance, which really only make sense if you track money in detail, but then you also have this rules which says "start your tracking again each session".

I think the game would be more coherent if it had a different way of handling the gaining of equipment (eg Conan doesn't buy his stuff from shops, he is kitted out as a mercenary or takes it from his enemies), which fitted better with it's "wealth as colour, not mechanics" approach.