Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[Fenes]

Let's look at a game world with a wide variety of levels realistically (well... we can't really look at it "realistically"... but at least "internally consistently"). Sure... there aren't many LG level 20 wizards out there, but when something big happens happens, say, level 12, what keeps the level 20 wizard from taking five minutes out of their day to 'port in and take care of it for the PC's? You have two ways about it: come up with a reason the level 20 wizard can't take care of it for the players (which means contriving events to fit the narrative [which I approve of as a DM tool]), or simply do what I do in my campaigns now: there are no allies above the party's level. There is no one to bail them out. Once they hit level 2, they became the go-to guys. It's the party saving the day, or it's no one. I have no problem with this (pretty blatant) tip of the hat to pure gamism and narrativism, since the very idea of "levelling" is already chucking verisimilitude out the window in favor of cinema.

Well, I'll take option 1.5: Remove teleport.

Much of the problems many have with high-level NPCs disappear once you remove teleport (and other means of near-instant travel) from the game. "What does Elminster do about this? He must be aware of this threat!" "I guess he is currently scrying us, and praying for our success - there's not much else he can do, being hundreds of miles away..."

Stationary portals can serve to make travelling the world faster without allowing people to pop in to any battle or dangerous situation.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Ripping off Lanefan above for those my personal approaches would be:

World Design:

I generally don't design complete worlds. I probably don't even know what NPCs or specific appearance of say the city the PCs appear in till a week prior when preparing for the game.

What I do instead is design a variety of different elements that guide my design of the world/adventure. So stuff like; colour theme, atmosphere/mood, themes, tone, etc.

I then develop more concrete ways of expressing these things. This forms the basis for the actual content so I develop stuff from either my own imagination, literature, movie, etc. that I put in build these elements.

When it comes to Houserules and such. I write down as I generate ideas any houserules that may be necessary. Then when I bring the concept for the game to my friends we hash out both the concept and houserules. I go back revise, we relook it and then play.

Snowflakes:

I would say that in my campaigns they are and they are not. They may not accomplish the greatest of tasks, or become famous, etc. But they are the sole focus of the game and the world is built around them, even if they don't directly alter the whole world around them.

Most of my games are fairly personal where it is more personal stakes and issues that are brought to conflict not larger "epic" issues. As such the campaign focuses entirely on the PCs and how they resolve these personal stakes throughout the campaign.

I think should probably be said that generally the PCs aren't, "adventurers" nor are there other "adventurers" running around. It is more simply they are people thrown into whatever circumstances have come about and must confront it.

Sandbox vs. adventure path:

I have a general overarching plotline that usually ties all the PCs together. As well as developing parallel running plots that involve the personal stakes of the PCs. Which plots get resolved depends on the players.

As for how these plots are approached. I usually call it "mystery gaming" but that Matrix term works as well. I essentially run my games as one where the plot and events must be uncovered by the PCs. So as such various clues, hints, plot-points, events are scattered about my mind-map of the campaign and it is up the players to uncover these and piece together the plot. Generally of course certain events and plot-points tie together and lead down certain dramatic pathways but it is up the players to take these.

So while there is a centrally developed plot to the game how it unfolds is really entirely up in the air. Whole segments of the plot may never be unravelled depending on the actions of the players or they may find themselves reaching one of many different endings.

 

[jbear]

You could play an average joe in any game. It doesn't require a well-built world to play such a character, but, arguably, only in a well-built world is anyone even remotely likely to find it fun.

There is a difference between "You're a special snowflake because you're a PC!" and "Here's the world. Wanna be a special snowflake? Go and make your mark."



I didn't imagine that it was. But I bet if you wrote an essay on why you don't thow zombie bananas at your PCs, you would perforce gain a better understanding of why some folks want a more consistent game than you are creating.

I will also admit that attempts to run a game this way, while gaining a big thumbs up when they work, are also more likely to crash and burn than other setups. I'm not sure why. Once the gears start moving, a sandbox is actually often easier to run than an "adventure path", but the gears have to be well designed.



What if the players decide not to save the world? What do you do then?

One obvious maxim of the sandbox world is "Never allow a consequence for failure that you are unwilling to see occur."

Would you allow the world to die in order to make the players' choices meaningful? I would. It's a no brainer. Because, IMHO, unless the players' choices have meaningful consequences -- and always arriving for the climactic finale, no matter what choices you made up to that point -- they aren't heroes. They didn't do anything; the plot did. And they didn't choose the plot.

IMHO, and IME, of course.



RC


P.S.: Two countries (U.S. and Canada), one continent. In the US, in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Missouri, Louisiana, Virginia, and California, as well as pick-up games in other states. My observations are pretty consistent in all those areas. Maybe the people on other continents are very, very different, but I tend to believe that human beings are basically the same everywhere.

I think it's safe to say people aren't the same the world over or we wouldn't be having this discussion, for example.

I also doubt people in Rwanda would have much in common with either of us either, and it's in the world, so it counts.

As far as the inconsistency of my world and the level of fun anyone could have plaing in my game, well I don't think you'd have anymore clue than I'd have about playing in yours. What I do know is people do have fun playing in my games and that for me is the essence of playing a game.

I used to represent my region at cricket. I stopped playing because it wasn't fun for me anymore. I would apply the same idea to any other game including dnd.
So we have different styles. Ok, but can you really criticise 4e for including 'everyone should have fun' in the design philosophy of their new system?

That is what this thread is about. I haven't criticised world building at any moment. My suprise came when GM suggested that fun, drama and a rich consistent world were incompatible.

I attempt to make a world with depth. I don't box my players in to my story. If things twist away from what I have prepared, I run with it, taking notes on what I improvise, carrying the story as far as I can. When things stop we don't play again til I have developed the new area where the story has gone. My players know that if they want to develop some part of their back story, or do something completely different, then they just let me know and I'll put hands to the task.

No one really wants to wait 3 years for me to flesh the world out.

And if my PC's didn't want to save the world... well for a start I'd never put them in a stuation where it was either do this or the world dies. Make a choice, the world ll be irrevocably changed dependinging on your decision, would be more likely.

But these types of situations are result of a natural progression of actions and decisions they have made following the story that they have been interested in. It wouldn't be Hamish Destroyer of worlds is undertaking a Ritual in the far off land of Atomarporculo. In 10 days the ritual will be complete. You'd better get cracking or everyone is going to die.

 

[Halivar]

Just for the record: I have no intention of forcing the players to perform any specific action or take any specific quest. The intervention I'm talking about is simply forcing them to do something. Stand and fight. Run away. Start a business. Go explore. Steal something. Kill some pirates. The choice is up to them, and I have decided to intentionally remove from myself the ability to dictate where they go by giving the party a ship with FTL. Here's the galaxy, go play. If the players don't want to move and shake, that's okay... I'll have someone else move and shake for them.

BTW, Fenes, you're right about teleport. In my sci-fi game, I'm making space-folding a ritual that takes 24 hours, and requires a ship with arcane turbines (or faith batteries for divine casters) to make it work. I hope the time-delay will remove the critical "BAMF" quality that makes instant travel so broken. We'll see.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I, for one, would hesitate before saying "Those folks over there ain't like us folks over here".

I, for one, believe that the similarities far outweigh the differences.

(But, we are not all clones, either, and we have different experiences. Hence, we also have different points of view.)


RC

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The sticking point is that the greater world design dictates some of the house rules. Determining what languages exist (and by extension, what languages the PCs might speak) means determining what cultures exist, and where, inrelation to the PCs' starting point. Also, unless all the PCs are going to be natives of the starting village (unlikely, as most parties aren't all the same race) you need enough design in place to allow character backgrounds to make sense.

Which is why my world design goes like this:
-No house rules
-The languages listed in the PHB are the only ones you can know. Others might exists, but you don't know them(and thus, I don't have to make them up until I need them)
-Your background can include almost anything, let me know what it is so I can work it into the world, should it ever become necessary. It likely won't, because my games revolve around the plot, you'll only see your home country if the plot has a reason to go there or you specifically decide to go there for personal, character reasons.

Then start the game with whatever plot hook I have designed to start the game.

My take on this is "You're a snowflake among countless others. Go out and make yourself special...or melt." And yes, there's other adventurers out there. And powerful non-adventurers, be they retired, types who gained levels slowly in ways other than adventuring (there badly needs to be a mechanism for this; all editions), or whatever.

Yeah, in my game there ARE other adventuring parties. But they almost always appear offscreen. They meet people who USED to be adventurers or will find a place looted because other adventurers got there first. They'll meet powerful people, but those people have no desire to adventure. And they'll hear about them rarely, not every barkeep is a former adventurer.

Pretty much everything points to "You are snowflakes, while that is extremely rare, you aren't the only ones. But right now, there are no other snowflakes to help."

But the storyboard isn't cast in stone, and I've no way of predicting what they'll actually do with a given story or adventure.

Yeah, there's no way of predicting EXACTLY what they'll do, but you can heavily influence it.

Keep in mind the game has to be fun for the DM too. The example given earlier where the party would do nothing but trade runs if given the chance might be fun for the players but would bore the crap out of me as DM.

This is the primary reason why I don't run sandbox games. Every time that I give the players too much freedom turns into a game that is absolutely no fun for me. It almost always becomes a form of narcissism for the players. They walk around town attempting to prove how much better they are than everyone else, beating up or killing anyone who challenges them until they are defeated. If I defeat them without killing them, they just take it as a challenge to do better next time. Until I kill them. Then they get bored of the game and quit.

Or it becomes simply about their personal endeavors that I care nothing about at all. They want to run a bar and discuss the weather with the patrons all day. They want to become mayor of the city and want to play out every single detail of their campaign. They want to walk around the city peeing on random passersby just to see what will happen to them. And when they get arrested or killed, they make up new characters with equally annoying traits and see what happens then.

And none of it is any fun for me at all. I'd rather not be playing at all than DMing a game of "run a tavern", "become the mayor", "bully the town", or "hit on women". If the game isn't about something important, something bigger than life, it loses all interest for me. My qualification for an adventure is pretty much "Could I see a Summer Blockbuster movie about this session? If not, then it doesn't belong in my game."

 

[Lanefan]

I think should probably be said that generally the PCs aren't, "adventurers" nor are there other "adventurers" running around. It is more simply they are people thrown into whatever circumstances have come about and must confront it.

Fair enough, but their main profession soon enough *becomes* adventurer.

I have a general overarching plotline that usually ties all the PCs together. As well as developing parallel running plots that involve the personal stakes of the PCs. Which plots get resolved depends on the players.

I don't get quite that involved, and certainly don't tie things that closely to the characters themselves; through death, retirement, etc. there's way too much turnover for me to be able to rely on character X being around 3 or 4 adventures down the road when his plot resolves. I more try for an overarching plotline that ties all (or most of) the adventures together, and leave it at that.

As for how these plots are approached. I usually call it "mystery gaming" but that Matrix term works as well. I essentially run my games as one where the plot and events must be uncovered by the PCs. So as such various clues, hints, plot-points, events are scattered about my mind-map of the campaign and it is up the players to uncover these and piece together the plot. Generally of course certain events and plot-points tie together and lead down certain dramatic pathways but it is up the players to take these.

So while there is a centrally developed plot to the game how it unfolds is really entirely up in the air. Whole segments of the plot may never be unravelled depending on the actions of the players or they may find themselves reaching one of many different endings.

Ayup.

And not all the endings are happy.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Which is why my world design goes like this:
-No house rules

One of the key things for me when designing a new world that makes it different is that things just work differently in some ways than they did in the last game. Others might accomplish this by changing what edition of the game they play. Me, I just look at what worked/didn't work in the last game, tweak to suit that and the setting I have in mind (example: in my current game Gnomes are very rare, so I had to tweak the racial abundance table - yes, I have players who roll randomly for race - to reflect that) and go. But I'm using the same base rule set, built on the 1e platform, that I've been using since 1984.

-The languages listed in the PHB are the only ones you can know. Others might exists, but you don't know them(and thus, I don't have to make them up until I need them)

Fair enough, though I as a player would find that a bit dull.

Yeah, there's no way of predicting EXACTLY what they'll do, but you can heavily influence it.

Oh, absolutely. But "heavily influence" does not equal "dictate", and things can still take sharp left turns sometimes.

This is the primary reason why I don't run sandbox games. Every time that I give the players too much freedom turns into a game that is absolutely no fun for me. It almost always becomes a form of narcissism for the players. They walk around town attempting to prove how much better they are than everyone else, beating up or killing anyone who challenges them until they are defeated. If I defeat them without killing them, they just take it as a challenge to do better next time. Until I kill them. Then they get bored of the game and quit.

And none of it is any fun for me at all. I'd rather not be playing at all than DMing a game of "run a tavern", "become the mayor", "bully the town", or "hit on women". If the game isn't about something important, something bigger than life, it loses all interest for me. My qualification for an adventure is pretty much "Could I see a Summer Blockbuster movie about this session? If not, then it doesn't belong in my game."

Fortunately, perhaps, I've got players who also favour the dramatic, and field adventuring is usually far more dramatic than talking about the weather in a tavern. ("So, why *is* it snowing in this tavern?")

I'm firmly on record with my players as refusing outright to DM a game where the PCs do nothing but get involved in buy-low-sell-high trade economics - and they would, if I let 'em.

That said, most of the time my games don't so much resemble summer blockbusters as they do the comedy skits being put on by the local amateur theater company down the road. And that's just how I like it.

Lanefan

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Fair enough, but their main profession soon enough *becomes* adventurer.

Yeah I just never been much of a fan of the "goes to career office and gets a job as an adventurer" style. So they become adventurers but don't consider themselves as such. It is more common in many of my games that they would wish to get away from the "adventurer's life", like a common trope I use is they are escaped convicts (either actually or wrongly convicted) and wishing to escape pursuit/clear their name or what not.

 

[Wik]

For what it's worth, there are real-world adventurers. Those who are fairly well-off who seek to view the world, and live a life on the edge. There are also explorers, who do the same.

In the medieval world, there were plenty of adventurers. One guy, whose name I forget, was an English mercenary who did a bunch of adventuring (read: killed some people and took their stuff) before setting himself up as a semi king in Italy. I think his name was... uh... Hawkwing? Hawkwood? Something "hawk". Anyways, a real-world adventurer.

So, yeah, it can be a profession. Doesn't have a good pension plan or dental though... medical's alright.