Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takasi" data-source="post: 4037025" data-attributes="member: 20194">One of the players in my group dislikes Eberron and he leans very heavily towards simulationism.  Along with concepts like 'moving at the speed of plot' and noir's dependence on overwhelming cities, he also didn't like the emphasis of an Indiana Jones style red line of quick travel.  (You can still do a lot of Wilderness adventures in Eberron, but it's not emphasized.) Removing the journey removes a sense of freeform exploration from players and reduces a DM's world simulating needs.  Another player in our group has argued that regardless of setting at higher levels the 'Journey' phase becomes easier for players and harder for DMs to simulate (PCs can see more and travel faster, requiring more details to be generated); this often leads to planar exploration in our group.Some people have pointed out that the three work together.  I'm running Conquest of Bloodsworn Vale (Paizo GameMastery product) in one group right now.  There is just a tiny little fort in the middle of the wilderness, but one player (who loves intrigue and roleplaying) wants to spend a lot of time there.  He is a following of Abadar, the gold fisted god of merchants, and roleplays with incoming travelers.  I have to come up with backstories and plots for him to work with, and we've had a few 'Urban Adventures' there already (including the cliched 'Mystery of the Missing Merchant Goods').  If it were up to this player the group could easily spend every session hanging out in this fort.  The Vale itself is filled with a lot of terrain, and setting up the locations of monsters and their lairs involves a look at how the world works.  As players travel through the Vale, we use a hex map and encounter tables.  The random encounters aren't 'pointless'; they add a sense of realism and verisimilitude to the journey.  And in some cases they may lead to various lairs throughout the land.  I have one player who always likes playing a ranger; he encourages the party to go out and explore.Finally you have the lairs themselves.  Most of them are simple, but there are a couple of old ruins and dungeons that are designed to be a 'good crawl'.  I have another player who frequently plays some type of multi-classed, heavily optimized rogue.  He loves beating traps and dealing a lot of skirmish/sneak attack/sudden strike/magical damage.  (He also likes playing a wizard and having the right spell at the right time.)  As soon as the party finds a good crawl his eyes light up and he takes charge of the group.  If I had a group of people who were primarily like the Abadar Cleric, I would probably be better off running a game in a really big city.  If I had a party of players like the Ranger I would probably want to get a sourcebook for a new campaign setting with a bunch of new towns, monsters, maps and items to run and explore.  And finally, for a group like the Wizard/Rogue I could run something like Undermountain or Castle Whiterock, or even just a few tournament style games and have a blast.I know some players hate simulating wilderness journeys because it can interrupt the 'pacing of the plot', and I know some DMs who avoid big cities and stories because it can reduce the amount of combat they want to referee.  I'm hoping the designers take all of these playstyles into consideration when developing 4th edition, and I'm looking forward to seeing how they present their adventures.</blockquote>

Verification