DM Limits for building adventures

[Janx]

You know, part of this could be used to provide a challenge for the GM, too. If a GM is given a random plot, and has some nasties that don't make sense, part of the fun could be combining those elements to make an interesting plot.

For example, let's say most of the challenges are themed around Orcs and some large animals, and the plot is "A nobleman seeks to stage coup at a ballroom party", getting the orcs there could be difficult. There could be a lot of "Winging it" involved on the part of the GM.

Most of my favourite sessions have involved such juxtapositions. A system like this, especially if it were semi-controllable (ie "No construct fights, please") would really save me time from statting up baddies (blah) and focusing on creating an interesting session.

Plus, I like the idea of a fair system that would allow me to be an "adversarial" GM without feeling too guilty. I had my first PC death in a while last week, and I've re-discovered my taste for blood.

As a side note on Adversarial DMing (which some DMs do, normally, I do not), my friends and I also play a variant of WizKids MageKnight Dungeon. Normally the game pits 2 teams of adventurers (2 players), and the players also control the monsters at various points (pushing them into the other players, then running combats). We've taken that at flipped it D&D style, one player controls the monsters. Using pretty much the same placement rules and a few rules about controlling the monsters pre-encounter, we generally get a fair contest between PCs and GM. The point being, we've done it with one system, can we do it with another, plus a few more bells and whistles....

 

[Diremede]

For first time DM's they should run a few premade modules (or adventures or whatever you want to call them), just so that they can get there feet wet. It gives them a good idea of what level of encounters to throw at charcters, how many monsters at a time, how easy or hard it is to manage multiple monsters or NPC's at once in combat etc. After a few of these any DM worth his salt at all will be able to create adventures on his own without making them too powerful as long as he follows the basic guidelines of CR's and EL's.

In my own experience I find that if I think that I might be making a combat scene to difficult I try it out on the PC's anyway. If the battle is obviously lop sided and the PC's are dropping like flies, I usually fudge the encounter a bit to bring the encounter back into the scope of the PC's abilities and not go for the TPK. I don't like TPK's though I don't hesitate to have characters die if the situation make it so. Usually though encounters I think are too hard usually come out okay and I rarely have to fudge an encounter. In the current campaign I have only had one players character die, with some very close calls for some of the others.

 

[Psion]

Anyone own "Burning Empires"? In it the players and GM cooperatively build the setting. Further, there is no fudging per se, but what the GM can do is sharply curtailed by the rules. The power of foes, how many rolls you can call for, etc., are sharply curtailed by the system.

Its an interesting effort... perhaps one of the best books of the year.

And yet, I don't want my D&D game to be like that. Putting your trust in the DM is part and parcel of D&D. If your game is such that forbidding the DM to utilize Mordenkainen's Disjunction is going to make a difference to the flow of the game, you are hosed in the first place, because the DM could do much worse.

Better to develop as a DM who understands the point of a fair challenge.

Point the second... even if you could come up with a system that could be used in a non-intrusive manner, it would be very limited. Witness how much angst is still unleashed to this day over the (IME very effective) CR system. You want to make something that more completely models all challenges in the game and have it be sensitive to all the tactics and choices the players might come up with? Good luck with that.

 

[Umbran]

Here's an idea I've been pondering for some time. The recent "should DM's use Disjunction" kinda reinforces it. The "busywork" thread also ties into this.

The thought is this, is it possible to devise a system of adventure building that limited the DM from building an adventure that was too powerful for the party. I think there are a good number of "adventure" elements that could be codified into a system for creating fair adventures, BOCTAOE.

It is certainly possible: All encounters are CR 1. Done.

Having gone over the degenerate case to prove the possibility, we are left with the question of whether it is possible to make it interesting, and if the thing would not have some inherent design quirks.

Basic quirk number 1: Such a system has a basic assumption - the PCs are supposed to win, every time. There is nothing too difficult, so the only way to lose is if you have bad dice luck or are particularly stupid. The event of gaming is then not to find out if they are clever or powerful enough to win, or how you deal with overwhelming situations, but just to figure out how the PCs do it this week that's different from all the other weeks.