Be honest, how long would it really take you to notice all of this stuff...?

[Emerikol]

I will confess I've only read the first and last pages of this thread. It seems active and anything active in the all D&D area is usually good conversation.


I do like to create most of the world (continent whatever) with the nations, rules, and major cities with stats. I definitely create the Gods and the cosmos and all the major religions in detail including the practices of priesthood and paladins if appropriate.

I like sandboxes so I will usually zoom in on a region and do that region in tremendous detail. That is the sandbox. I don't mind if the PCs want to leave but they realize that I've put a lot of effort into this expansive sandbox so there is consideration. At the highest levels though they are definitely stretching the sandbox and traveling other places.

I prefer an objective view of npcs and monsters. So their stats are their stats. I wouldn't want to make a creature a solo then a standard and then a minion as the group advances. That is another nick on 4e of course. I don't mind organic natural progression that represents the development of an enemy by natural advancement. So the BBEG could be a 12th level wizard in one adventure and a 15th level wizard later if it made sense the BBEG had advanced.

I'm very much into my players staying in actor stance. I realize this is just one of many choices but it's the approach I prefer. So I avoid metagaming like the plague. I agree with Pemerton on surprises. If it fits the backstory as known to me, I don't mind throwing out a surprise. I am cognizant that threatening the well being of "dependents" is an overused trope so I don't wear out that approach.


I'll try to get the rest of this thread read in the meantime.

 

[Ratskinner]

Numbers - and I mean all numbers, including natural ones, do not appear in nature. Numbers exist only in the mind as abstract tools that are immensely useful in modelling in a meaningful way the 'reality' around us. In that vein, imaginary numbers (i.e. the root of minus 1) are extremely useful. Just to cite a couple of instances they are used in electronics and they are part of the fundamental mathematical structure of Quantum Mechanics.

Umm...yes? I mean, you can say the same thing about a lot of stuff: color, your existence as a distinct entity, etc.

However, I was responding to the challenge of "finding root -1" in nature. In the respect you are bringing up, that's no different than finding 4 in nature, except perhaps in the degree of effort needed to notice it.

 

[Emerikol]

Okay I read some more and I realize this thread started out all about 3e brokenness.

I think my playstyle in general is a strong counterbalance to balance issues. Maybe that style developed from making 1e work and going on from there. I've always felt like the rogue/thief class was too weak in combat but I always made sure out of combat was really interesting and that was okay. The fighter was always great in combat. This is my bafflement because I realize it differs from the views of many people.

I think part of it is that rests are not guaranteed. The number of encounters per day is variable but tend long. So 5 or 6 average and not 4. Magic items for the martials are plentiful and effective. What I did though was not me reacting consciously to the game. It was me just doing what I've been doing since 1e. That playstyle I developed just naturally shielded me from these other issues.

I also know that in 1e/2e I was not averse to houseruling a spell that got out of hand. Stoneskin I'm looking at you. So my players in 3e, likely knew that any genuinely game breaking exploit that they found would ultimately be countered by me as DM. So maybe they just didn't try. I do know that my players are really good "players". Strategically they make short work of anything considered appropriate per the DMG of any edition. They may not in all cases be hyper great charOps guys. They are decent I'm sure but they are not spending their Saturdays figuring out the ultimate broken combination. Again that might be because they know in ten minutes I would negate that Saturdays work so why do it. So in 3e, I really didn't run into problems.

I do know people DMing 3e right now that really up the challenge far above what is faced normally. So my guess is that they've found ways to improve the fighter through items (though arguably fitting to wealth by level) that the entire group is tougher.

Anyway that is my ramble on my 3e experience. It's pretty close to my 2e and 1e experience though in those games I did on occasion houserule a spell.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Honestly, I judge because the stereotype of the overprepared DM can be actively harmful to allowing new people to DM, if that stereotype is the expectation of some of the players. It's perfectly okay NOT to have a deep world all defined for the players.

Plus, are "onanistic" and "wanker" all that pejorative? Everybody does it, man.

You know perfectly well that they're pejoratives, come off it!

I think you're moving the goalposts here, because you were initially complaining about DMs who spent "too much" time detailing the world and suggesting it was a masturbatory activity, and now you're claiming something quite different, which is that it is a "harmful stereotype", and that it's okay to not have a deep, defined world.

That doesn't really seem to be the same argument.

Further, you've conflated enjoying detailing stuff for one's own pleasure (ahem!) with being a sort of obsessively overprepared ultra-detailer and making everything think it has to be that way, and I don't think it's fair to conflate these things. Nor fair to blame someone who enjoys making detailed settings for "promoting a harmful stereotype". It's not his or her fault that this stereotype exists, and he or she shouldn't have to change their activities because of it.

It all just seems really like a bad approach to some real issues, one that makes people feel bad and demonised, whilst not actually solving anything or helping anyone. Calling people wankers for liking to detail stuff doesn't encourage people to realize that less-detailed worlds can work well, does it? In fact I feel it's likely to entrench and inflame opinions on the subject, if anything.

The real problems here, as far as I can see are:

1) Some people mistakenly think you need an ultra-detailed world to start DM'ing. This is something the DMG and the like should probably address.

2) Some people who like detailed worlds are ALSO people who are extremely protective of those worlds, and who want to provide more of a "guided tour" than a typical adventure, and use the effort they put in as an excuse for limiting player agency.

Those are real problems, but some guy writing up the mayor's favourite colour in town of Nevervisit isn't causing a problem unless it's going to lead to #2. If anything, a DM who details stuff which might well never get used is probably less likely to engage in #2 than a DM who obsessively details stuff which probably will get used.

 

[Nikosandros]

Umm...yes? I mean, you can say the same thing about a lot of stuff: color, your existence as a distinct entity, etc.

However, I was responding to the challenge of "finding root -1" in nature. In the respect you are bringing up, that's no different than finding 4 in nature, except perhaps in the degree of effort needed to notice it.

Leaving philosophical questions about abstract and concrete objects aside, I think that we actually agree.

 

[TwoSix]

You know perfectly well that they're pejoratives, come off it!

There's the rub, then. To my mind, they're quite mild.

I think you're moving the goalposts here, because you were initially complaining about DMs who spent "too much" time detailing the world and suggesting it was a masturbatory activity, and now you're claiming something quite different, which is that it is a "harmful stereotype", and that it's okay to not have a deep, defined world.

That doesn't really seem to be the same argument.

I wasn't really aiming to be argumentative, I was honestly just feeling somewhat puckish yesterday and went for a little jab. Getting called out as patronizing (not by you, I know) was the only reason I made any sort of rebuttal.

Further, you've conflated enjoying detailing stuff for one's own pleasure (ahem!) with being a sort of obsessively overprepared ultra-detailer and making everything think it has to be that way, and I don't think it's fair to conflate these things. Nor fair to blame someone who enjoys making detailed settings for "promoting a harmful stereotype". It's not his or her fault that this stereotype exists, and he or she shouldn't have to change their activities because of it.

I don't view it as conflation, although, to be fair, I wasn't really parsing my posts very well, so it's very possible any point I made was muddled. I just think out of those DMs whose pastime is working on detailed write-ups of their setting, there are a subset (only a subset!) who do it to run games to show off their world-building skills.

While I have no issue with whatever people want to do in their off time, my personal belief is that there's a very poor rate of return on time invested in the setting compared to enjoyment at the table. Quite simply, I don't think detailed games make playing any more fun. Now, this is certainly a broad brush view, I know there are people for whom the exploration of a fantastically detailed world is the main draw of play.

It all just seems really like a bad approach to some real issues, one that makes people feel bad and demonised, whilst not actually solving anything or helping anyone. Calling people wankers for liking to detail stuff doesn't encourage people to realize that less-detailed worlds can work well, does it? In fact I feel it's likely to entrench and inflame opinions on the subject, if anything.

I don't want them to feel bad, because they shouldn't feel bad. Everyone has my explicit permission to waste as much of their time as they want. Hell, just posting on this message board by myself pretty much makes me a forum-wanker, after all. I just think that many of the people who engage in the practice may be mistaken if they think it's making their game that much better. Again, not all, just many.

The real problems here, as far as I can see are:

1) Some people mistakenly think you need an ultra-detailed world to start DM'ing. This is something the DMG and the like should probably address.

2) Some people who like detailed worlds are ALSO people who are extremely protective of those worlds, and who want to provide more of a "guided tour" than a typical adventure, and use the effort they put in as an excuse for limiting player agency.

Those are real problems, but some guy writing up the mayor's favourite colour in town of Nevervisit isn't causing a problem unless it's going to lead to #2. If anything, a DM who details stuff which might well never get used is probably less likely to engage in #2 than a DM who obsessively details stuff which probably will get used.

We are in total agreement as to what the problems are, and who perpetrates them.

 

[Hussar]

I used to be a physicist and...that's not what physicists do, IME. As a species, they tend to be very tentative about declaring something real. At best, when referring to mathematical abstractions in physical models, most physicists would refer to their "reality" as irrelevant (barring evidence to the contrary). I mean, I've even had discussions about whether or not electrons are "real".

TBH, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], your paragraph sounds like " disgruntled studentism".

On the other hand, I agree with the general point that HP are hopelessly non-simulatory. In general, I find the whole Sim crowd a little incoherent. That is, physical worlds and laws cannot be used to simulate plot driven (or at least "plot aware") fantasy stories. The resistance to "meta" mechanics (and refusal to accept that HP are one) totally baffle me. It seems to me that the entire effort must be driven by other psychological motivations which remain unclear to me. (At least within the framework of DnD.)

Oh, sorry, I certainly did not meant to imply or state that all physicists do this all the time. It's certainly not true. But, when you start getting into some of the more esoteric ends of quantum physics and whatnot, it does apparently happen.

-----

On the incoherence bit, I tend to be a bit cynical to be honest. The argument is never, "I want sim games, so, I use the best tools to get what I want." It's almost always, "Well, I consider myself to be a sim player, and when I played my favourite edition, I enjoyed the experience. When I played your edition, I didn't enjoy it, therefore, your game must not be sim."

It's quite simply tribalism and a means to try to exclude 4e and 4e fans from the game. You see it all the time. "Every edition before 4e let me do X, and 4e didn't, so...." The only problem is, when you scratch beneath the surface, and not very far usually, most of the time the "every edition" or "players like me" or "everyone did this back then" tends to be pretty idiosyncratic and limited to one table's experience and mostly unsupported by anything actually in the text of the game.

 

[Nagol]

Oh, sorry, I certainly did not meant to imply or state that all physicists do this all the time. It's certainly not true. But, when you start getting into some of the more esoteric ends of quantum physics and whatnot, it does apparently happen.

And sometimes the physicists are right! After all, quarks were initially a abstract convenience -- until they were proven real.

 

[Sadras]

In my view there can be no hard-and-fast rules here, because different players have different degrees of tolerance for GM surprises, and different degrees of desire to have the GM pick up on their backstory and run with it. That said, I wouldn't want to run a game in which every player is a turtle who retreats into his/her shell at the merest hint of GM playing with backstory. That doesn't sound like very much fun to me.

That sounds fair, one has to read/know ones players. As DM I always allow players to come up with their own character backgrounds or if they don't want to they usually let me DM draw up something as the campaign progresses. As a personal preference if I were a player I'm pretty relaxed, so if the DM suddenly introduced the deva backstory your player had without consulting me, I wouldn't care, it is was a great idea. Kinda like surprises in RPGs.

Will respond to the rest later, have to pick up the wife!

 

[pemerton]

I'd rather model that directly by the monsters getting tougher over time (in the fiction) to match the PCs, rather than saying it's the same monster but I changed the stats so he's still a challenge. Although I'm reading my own sentence and I don't think I'm explaining myself well.

Maybe I've misunderstood you - but what you're talking about here doesn't seem related to the whole solo > elite > standard > minion > swarm progression.

The point of restatting a monster as a minion of 8 or so levels higher is to hold the toughness constant in the fiction (ie the monster has not changed in its objective capabilties) but make the mechanical handling smoother, and hence to facilitate the PCs dealing with larger numbers of such creatures without having to track hit point totals for dozens of creatures, without most of their attacks being ineffective misses, etc.

I gave a worked example upthread.