Elements of a realistic campaign

[Slife]

A fundamental point.

Indeed. It exists for the sole purpose of the players and DM

 

[Li Shenron]

Indeed. It exists for the sole purpose of the players and DM

No. That would be "fun!".

 

[Slife]

No. That would be "fun!".

Can a game be fun with nobody playing it?

 

[Warren Okuma]

Money doesn't just mean buying power in terms of goods and services, it can also symbolize status. So, humanoids might want to collect human money not because they want to trade with humans, but because the amount of human money they collect symbolizes their status and power within their own communities. An Orc that has a lot of human money has obviously killed, beaten, and raped a lot of humans, and will thus be more respected among his own kind than an Orc that can't prove his power in that way. Because humanoids really can't spend their wealth, money would actually tend to accumulate in their communities, staying there for generations. Therefore, humanoids really would have hoards of treasure, by virtue of the fact that they never put their money back into circulation.

It could be buying power. Humans who sold their soul to the various evil outsiders, and those who worship the god of slaughter or the hand and eye or that necromancer guy would deal with monsters, hell, some even rule them.

 

[Li Shenron]

Can a game be fun with nobody playing it?

Who knows what the PC do when their "users" are asleep...

 

[Clavis]

It could be buying power. Humans who sold their soul to the various evil outsiders, and those who worship the god of slaughter or the hand and eye or that necromancer guy would deal with monsters, hell, some even rule them.

All true, of course. I meant to simply point out a reason for monsters (and especially humanoids) to collect treasure, even if they can't spend it.

 

[Hairfoot]

Some great discussion here. I wasn't expecting such considered replies to the thread.

I think the biggest quandary I've had with verisimilitude are the economic ramifications of dumping piles of gold in to small, local economies, and I like Clavis' rationale for treasure-hoarding, even when trade isn't a priority for monsters.

Regarding episodic vs serial campaigns, another quibble of mine is the rapid advancement of PCs. In all of the 3E campaigns I've played, the characters rocketed to about 12th level in less than a year's campaign time. That just smashes my suspension of disbelief with a hammer.

I intend to run my next campaign in "episodes" of about a month's duration, during which the PCs have tasks to accomplish, and can spend the rest of the time as they choose, whether that's adventuring, trading, or working in a profession. Hopefully, it will mean that a significant amount of time passes between adventures, which also allows the consequences of the PC's actions to have an effect on the game world.

Is anyone using a similar method for pacing campaigns, and does it work?

 

[William drake]

In a game which focusses on magic, monsters, and high heroics, realism* is only a relative notion. But what elements do you believe a campaign should contain or omit to become [deep breath] verisimilitudinous, and how much trouble should a GM put into maintaining it?

For instance, why do monsters in the wilderness have cash? If a tribe of wild gnolls is reviled by the local civilised communities, who are they trading with? And if the GM substitutes trade goods for money, does it spoil the fun to have the PCs haul away a cartload of prime grain instead of 100gp?



* If, for you, "realistic" is one of those trigger-terms (like "anime" or "spiked chain") which makes your blood boil and inspires you to write lengthy posts telling the OP that he has no imagination, is playing the game wrong, and is probably ugly, you may be better off not reading further.

...wounds hurt, well, at least as much as they should normaly. A good DM can make his players understand that as much as they'd like to keep fighting they might want to sit this one out since they still have a spear in their side and the stab wound from the daybefore wouldn't help much either. This style of gameplay however isn't liked by many...so that might be hard to do.
...yes. I second the notion that monsters Shouldn't have money. I do however think that perhaps they should be Worth money: their skin, their vital organs. Perhaps they can be taken into town and sold to the local wizards who use parts of their bodies for magical compents in their spells...seems like a likely option, and then they would get paid the amount said part is worth. (yes, this may be gross..and time consuming to find and sell parts of a slaughterd monster...but what did trappers and bear hunters or exotic fishermen do?) Same thing. And you can't always say "well they took it becasue it was Shinny"
I think most monsters, who have things they don't need, have them becasue those they killed had them on them at the time...or if they have food or w/e, its becaues they raided things to get them.
...down time to learn things, heal, or move across the world. Time jumping is fun, but if you time jump alot its like fast forwarding through the bad parts...and then it makes what is going on less Real.
...my fave besides making damage more realisitc *see Elric/ or any modern style Rp game that deals with guns and human healing times for rules* is making magic more distant, dangerous, mysterious and did I say DEADLY. Even to those who cast it. Less magical items, and then even less people who would wish to even touch one. *think Conan and his dislike for magic*

Just some thoughts.

Game On

 

[Hairfoot]

I do however think that perhaps they should be Worth money: their skin, their vital organs. Perhaps they can be taken into town and sold to the local wizards who use parts of their bodies for magical compents in their spells

That's one I like to use, too: kill the monsters, take their stuff, and take their bits for spell components!

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Some great discussion here. I wasn't expecting such considered replies to the thread.

I think the biggest quandary I've had with verisimilitude are the economic ramifications of dumping piles of gold in to small, local economies, and I like Clavis' rationale for treasure-hoarding, even when trade isn't a priority for monsters.

I've told this one before, but it fits here.

Back in 1E our stalwart adventurers agreed to rid a hamlet of some monsters. (We were about 5th or so level.) So we killed them and took their stuff. Then, being the mercenaries most adventurers are, we went back to the town for our just reward. Imagine our chagrin when it turned out to be chickens and goats, mostly! In fact, we were so insulted that one of the guys gave them all his copper pieces to show his contempt.

Then someone else, not to be outdone, gave them all of his silver pieces. It ended up with everyone pitching in to show that they weren't pikers either! Ok, so off we go feeling pretty good about ourselves. We'd been generous, we had. True heroes in every sense of the word!

But then, some time later we heard that a small village had been found deserted. Thinking that this was a plot hook we looked into it. Imagine our surprise when we found that it was the same place we'd given all that (useless to us) small change to. What had happened? Bandits? More monsters? Nope, the place was just deserted, like everyone had packed up and left.

A while later the GM let us in on what had happened. The villagers, with more money than they'd seen in several lifetimes at one time, had, indeed, packed up and left. Gone to the Big City they had, now that they were rich and all. Somehow we never did get around to 'solving' the mystery for the rest of the world!