Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5456908" data-attributes="member: 42582">Ok, I think this is where we part ways. When I GM I generally don't know what is to come in the story. I do know what some of the key game elements are likely to be - the PCs, perhaps a few central antagonits, maybe a few prominent locations - but I don't know precisely who, when or (most importantly) how and what until the game gets there.For example, and focusing on some key moments in my current game - I didn't know that the PCs would enter into a contract with the duergar slavers for the redemption of slaves until it happened; I didn't know that the wizard would brutally execute the defeated hobgoblins, or brutally kill the tiefling devil-worshipper as he and the party fled a collapsing demonic temple, until it happened; I didn't know that the chaos sorcerer would bargain with an imp to try and gain better control of the chaotic forces utnil it happened; I didn't know that the dwarven fighter would become a warpriest of Moradin until it happened; etc etc.At the moment the party is likely either to enter the Feywild, or to strike of to the city of Threshold (Night's Dark Terror - which is also the city of Adakmi from Heathen). Very different things await them in each place. I won't know what the story is until it happens.Well, the ruler of a town was created because the players wanted their PCs to meet with him.The history of the minotaurs as past rulers over the dwarves was introduced by me in order to put some pressure on the player of the dwarf.The gods worshipped by a particular cult - Bahamut, Kord, Pelor and Ioun - were introduced in the course of play, as was their hostility to the Raven Queen and the notion that their burial practices were intended to stop the Raven Queen getting to deal with their souls. Also introduced in the course of play was the reason why the wizard who was one of the leaders of this cult, as well as a chief wizard of Nerath, was killed by an apprentice: the wizard was trying to develop a process that would permit him, without violating those burial practices, to nevertheless harness the energy of the shadowfell to defend Nerath from invading gnolls (perhaps by making undead or golems).That's probably enough examples for the moment. Given what I've already posted upthread about PoL, about my PCs, and about my game, I think it's pretty obvious how the second and third of these are highly significant for my game.Maps can actually be the least important part of a setting.In my current game I am using the maps from Nights Dark Terror, because that is the scenario that I am (loosely) running, and it has some nice maps. A few times my PCs have wandered off the map, and I haven't needed to fill in the blank spaces - a bit of logical extrapolation in the context of an overland travel skill challenge has done the job.In my previous Rolemaster campaign one important scenario involved the PCs travelling to an island where they knew that a dragon was guarding a portal to hell. I ran multiple sessions of the PCs searching the island, fighting trolls and dragonspawn on the island, finding the dragon's lair beneath an illusion, entering the lair, sneaking past the dragon and entering the portal without any maps drawn in advance. (Rolemaster doesn't need tactical battle maps, so when a fight breaks out, if distances become important a quick sketch of the terrain and the locations of the combatants does the job. Likewise for sneaking past a dragon - a quick diagram of the dragon's cave drawn up on the spot does the job.)As to things having to have been figured out in advance, that's just not true. For example - do the witches the PCs are talking to know the name of the wizard who helped them? I didn't know the answer to that question until it became important to decide it in the course of the conversation with the PCs. I decided that they did, and that they would share it with the PCs, because this seemed likely to drive the game forward in a more interesting way. Why did the witches send the PCs travelling back in time? I didn't know the answer to this question when I started the scenario. I only worked out an answer after running the scenario - in the course of running the scenario it became clear, as I described above, what had been motivating the wizard whose manor the PCs were exploring in the past (namely, a desire to harness necromantic magic), and I was then able to use this idea to impute a motivation to the witches. Some of that motivation then emerged in the next session.In short, you are saying that things can't be done, that can be done - and I know this because I do them.As does 4e, presumably, when you look at the illustrations, the armour and weaopns list, the paragon paths (Warpriest, Knight Commander, Sword Marshall, Kensai, Battle Archer, Hospitaller - I'm getting a consistent vibe here).The Hobbit does not take place in a human-centric world - the world of the is centred on Elves, Dwarves, Goblins and Hobbits. I think it is still fair to say that it is a roughly medieval backdrop.Ok, so now I think I can see where you might be coming from.Let's look at it another way. In 1st ed AD&D only 10% of humans can gain levels. Furthermore, classed NPCs have different stat requirements from classed PCs. (Both these rules are set out in the DMG.) Does this mean that 90% of humans are in some sense defective? Or that PCs are defective, because they have stricter stat requirements than NPCs? No, it does not. These aren't simulationist rules, trying to model some causal process in the gameworld. They're metagame rules, setting the parameters for play. The result of these metagame rules, for the gameworld, is that (i) heroic-types are only a small part of the population, and (ii) all players play characters who are heroic-types, and (iii) all player heroic types tend, stat-wise, to be at the upper end of the spectrum.The PC- and NPC-build rules in 4e are likewise metagame rules.The only edition of D&D I'm aware of that tries to have the build rules be simulationist rather than metagame is 3E. In this it resembles games like Traveller, Runequest and Rolemaster.Both sorts of games can be fun to play, although the different buid rules will tend to produce different play experiences. But it is a mistake to read the rules for one sort of game as if they were rules for the other. If your own suspension of disbelief can't handle metagame character build rules, that's fine by me. But it doesn't follow from your own personal preferences that 4e is badly designed.Except that they created the world, send angels about in the world, and are likely to be the pre-eminent antagonists in high level play. Of all editions of D&D, 4e is the only one that starts from the premise that high level play will involve the players directly in dealings with, and perhaps fighting against, the gods. (As is evidenced by the Demigod epic destiny appearing in the PHB.)Well, you are offered names and histories. And a cosmology. And a creation myth. But yes, if you throw all that out then you will have nothing. Much like if I pick up Greyhawk but decide I don't like Suel, pseudo-Arabs (sorry, Baklun), pseudo-Amerindians (sorry, Flan), pseudo-Vikings (sorry, the Thilronian kingdoms) and pseudo-medieval Europeans (sorry, the Oeridian kingdoms) then I'll have nothing.Luckily, when I use Greyhawk I don't throw those things out. It's because I want them that I use the setting. And when I use PoL I don't throw out it's elements either.As for empires, we get Nerath (the most recent, human empire), Bael Turath (the fallen tiefling empire) and Arkhosia (the fallen dragonborn empire). Plus the eladrin cities of the Feywild. Plus various other bits and pieces in the Monster Manual.Is you complaint simply that there's no map? No timeline? Both those things are true. But if you are saying that a fantasy RPG can't be run without a map and a timeline, I think you're just mistaken.Does the market want maps and timelines? I'm pretty sure it does - hence my comments on the OP, that I think the problem for 4e isn't so much the lack of setting, but the design features that mean that it's not best suited to a "map and timeline" style game.But you appear to be asserting that a game run without a map and timeline cannot be anything but a string of random combat encounters. And that assertion is just nonsense.</blockquote>

Verification