• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

I don't DM 4th edition, but when I do

We are also, more generally, happy to shape adventures to fit with our players' preferences.

As am I. I just thing our level of granularity is different. Before I start running a game I give the players several options because usually when I ask "Is there any thing you guys have in mind that you'd like me to run?" I usually get "Whatever you want is fine"

That's from several different groups over several years.

So them I have to present options? City based adventure that may or may not lead to massive conspiracies? Hexploration where you are settling the frontier and killing stuff? Shipwrecked on a strange isle of fantastical beasts and lizard cultists? and usually it gets them either thinking or the pick one.

But the type of granularity that your talking about doesnt sit well with me at all. and I'm not talking about them coming up with thier own personal nemisis' or things like that. They are more than welcome! Takes work off my hands. But for me an the PC's creating their own nemesis types and a banned monster list are two different things.

I hope that clarifies things a little bit.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

it's not at all that difficult to pick up the ball and keep it rolling with a PC. It's not. It's a ROLE PLAYING GAME for pete's sake. If people are having problems coming up with new hooks especially when there are other hopefully still alive PC's at the table to hook into? Then there's a problem.

I'm sorry I dont think that rust monsters are a deal breaker. For me as a GM if I throw a rust monster at my players characters and someone's valued weapon or armor gets hosed, it's just an opportunity for them to get some newer, cooler weapons and armor. The trick is not to be a dick about I guess. If your players know that you're not out to screw them and you want it to be challenging and so do they then it's not a problem.

<snip>

I dont fool myself into thinking that D&D is a work of fiction. I like that there's no guarantee for the heroes. No plot immunity. I like that if the heroes have fought and survived they've done so not because there's some greater story arc they have to finish but that they've legitimately done everything they could to survive against odds that would have killed any other person (any may have done exactly that) and have in fact SURVIVED.

As a GM? That is where I derive the most of my joy from. The player characters surviving.
This is a pretty clear statement of a D&D playstyle.

Other people sometimes play with other playstyles. For them, it can be pointless to start a new PC.

In my current campaign, there have been three PC deaths. One one occasion a single PC died. I asked the player whether or not he wanted to keep playing the PC (who was level 2 at the time). He said yes - so together we devised a reason why the god of death would sent this person back into the world. That reason has gone on to be one major element of the campaign, although neither I nor the player knew that this would be so at the time.

On another occasion the PCs suffered a "TPK" - not really a "K", though, except for one who was dropped below negative bloodied hit points. For the others, they were just below zero hp, and in 4e that can be either dead or unconscious. I again consulted with the players as to what they wanted to do. All but one wanted to keep playing the same PC - so the next session began with 3 PCs regaining consciousness in a prison cell, which they were sharing with a stranger (the new PC), and able to smell the smell of roasting half elf (as the goblins helped themselves to the PC whose player didn't want to keep playing him). Meanwhile, the dead paladin was laid out on a ritual slab somewhere else in the goblin warrens, but soon dramatically returned to life as the ritual that the goblin shaman was using to someone the spirit of the dead paladin's nemesis also brought the spirit of the paladin back into his body.

This has nothing to do with "pantywaists" or "player entitlement". It's about what different players are trying to get out of the game. Not everyone is playing it for the same reason that you seem to be. (If they were, there wouldn't be any need for a unity edition.)

Personally, I also don't feel the attraction of placing a rust monster, and then making sure that the PCs find new treasure to replace what they lost. I just don't think that would add anything to my game. Why not just let the players keep the items they've got (which, in my game, are - at the ingame level - frequently gifted by patrons or the gods - and are - at the metagame level - based on player "wishlists").
 

I think what pemerton is trying to get at is that if the group is trying to create a story together, things like rust monsters can ruin that story in a way that is just... not even cool, or interesting.
Yes. The reason that I pick on the rust monster, in particular, is because - in 4e, at least, but also 3E I think - item bonuses are a mechanically presupposed aspect of the PC build, so destroying items is analogous to level draining in AD&D. If you then combine that with an approach to play in which regular level gain is part of the backdrop against which the story unfolds - and 4e is certainly written in a way that supports such an approach - all the rust monster does is pointlessly disrupt or delay the progression of the story. Everyone was expecting to move on from the goblins to the hobgoblin overlords (or whatever it might be), but now we can't because the maths won't work. I mean, what's the point of that?

As I said, in a game like Basic D&D or Burning Wheel, in which destroying equipment is not going to wreck the PC build in the same sort of way, it would be a completely different thing (although I still think a bit too gonzo for BW).
 

If the GM let's the players make their own choices in what they have their PCs do, and then takes account of those choices, and the feedback that they represent, in designing future encounters, then the game will be very non-linear.

I think we are using linear differently here. By linear I don't mean that the plotline can't change or that we are only following the DM's script. I simply mean that it will be a sequence of events based on which direction the DM and/or the players want to steer the plot.

This is opposed to simply having the story arise from interaction with the dungeon, and the characters are secondary to the monsters and features of the dungeon/world. Whatever the characters do is for the purposes of exploring this dungeon/world, and any plot an story arises from the events (and consequences) of that exploration.

There are of course infinite degrees between the two, which most of us fall into.
 

Another, but maybe related, difference of playstyle is this: are the players "entitled" to have their PCs gain levels?

My assumption, as a GM, is "Yes, of course". Level gain is the backdrop against which the events of the campaign play out. It provides the default momentum - whatever exactly happens, we know that, in the fiction, the stakes will get progressively higher, as the PCs go from fighting goblins to fighting demons to fighting drow to fighting Lolth (or whatever it might be). For me, this is what D&D-style heroic fantasy is about.

But for other approaches to play - including AD&D, as described by Gygax in the DMG (and, to a lesser extent, the PHB) - levels are not an entitlement but a reward for good play, and level gain is not a backdrop but a major goal of play. Whereas the sort of game I play takes for granted that the PCs will, somehow or another, come to the attention of the powers in the world and the cosmos (whether for good or for ill, whether as heroes or blunderers), in Gygaxian play coming to the attention of the powers that be is one of the things a player might strive for.

A unity edition presumably needs to create scope for both sorts of approaches, plus whatever other approaches are widespread too.
 

I think we are using linear differently here. By linear I don't mean that the plotline can't change or that we are only following the DM's script. I simply mean that it will be a sequence of events based on which direction the DM and/or the players want to steer the plot.

This is opposed to simply having the story arise from interaction with the dungeon, and the characters are secondary to the monsters and features of the dungeon/world. Whatever the characters do is for the purposes of exploring this dungeon/world, and any plot an story arises from the events (and consequences) of that exploration.
OK, makes sense.

Part of my motivation for the post that you replied to is that there is a tendency, on these boards, to assume that the only way to get a directed plot of the sort you describe is to have it be predetermined ("the GM's script"). Some posters, at least, don't seem very familiar with non-sandbox techniques for permitting player agency.
 

Whereas I said, and I think that [MENTION=55966]ferratus[/MENTION] agreed, that if our players handed us a list of monsters that they weren't interested in having their PCs fight, we'd be happy to take account of that.

We are also, more generally, happy to shape adventures to fit with our players' preferences.


I'm going to disagree with you here. It might be, but it needn't be. And you yourself have given the reason why:


If the GM let's the players make their own choices in what they have their PCs do, and then takes account of those choices, and the feedback that they represent, in designing future encounters, then the game will be very non-linear. Because the players typically won't know what they are going to have their PCs do until they do it. And the GM therefore won't have the feedback to build on until the players actually play the game. And so the whole thing develops in unexpected directions.

TL;DR: dont' let the sandboxing crowd persaude you that the only alternative to setting-exploration sandboxing is linear adventure paths!
Hmmm, part of me wants to say that I would pay no attention to such a list, but the fact is that my players have never handed me a list of monsters that they don't want to face.

However, the one time a player gave me a list of situations that went outside of her comfort zone I did avoid those situations.

Not quite the same thing, she had issues that she was trying to work around, rather than not wanting to be eaten my a gelatinous cube or something.

So... I don't know. I don't think that I would drop rust monsters if asked, but then I don't use them to screw my players, either.

The wizard really did try to block the passage and whaled away at the rust monster with his staff, and the fighter did get away because of it, even if the wizard's attempts at hand to hand were laughable. (Bad BAB and bad rolls. :p )

The Auld Grump
 

Hmmm, part of me wants to say that I would pay no attention to such a list, but the fact is that my players have never handed me a list of monsters that they don't want to face.

However, the one time a player gave me a list of situations that went outside of her comfort zone I did avoid those situations.
Right. I've never been presented with such a list either. And I've never had an explicit conversation about comfort zones (but I know all my players well, and try to exercise sensible judgement in this respect).

But suppose it did come up - I certainly wouldn't be dimissing out of hand!
 

Right. I've never been presented with such a list either. And I've never had an explicit conversation about comfort zones (but I know all my players well, and try to exercise sensible judgement in this respect).

But suppose it did come up - I certainly wouldn't be dismissing out of hand!
However, between the two of us, I think that we have classified it as an 'ain't gonna happen' scenario - hypothetical, as is our possible reactions to such a list.

My players trust me, and I suspect that yours trust you. So, I do not think that we actually need contingency plans.

I have had requests for critters that the PCs want to see, on the other hand. Gargoyles, not a surprise, given the source. :) Not to mention the Inevitable Zombie Apocalypse... but that request was from someone who wanted to use the scenario later. That is the one where I got to use 300 zombie miniatures in a single encounter....

A bit of a hat trick, the PCs could beat the 30 fast zombies, and out run the 260 regular zombies, which only left the 10 ju-ju zombies as a wildcard, depending on how the fight with the fast zombies went.... The point was to give the PCs a fighting retreat rather than a rout.

The Auld Grump
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top