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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7694807" data-attributes="member: 42582">This repeats the same confusion I mentioned upthread, which you did not address.From the in-fiction persepctive, the capabilities of the PCs have no bearing on anything in the setting. That is just as true in the "hippy, storytelling" games as in GURPS or Runequest.But when we look at the module in the real world - as a work of authorship - then the capabilities of the PCs absolutely bear upon the content of the module. The module author has written the module so that it will provide a suitable play experience for some particular group of PCs. (In the D&D context, that has most often been PCs of a certain level range, but there have also been modules authored to be used for PCs of a certain class, or PCs of a certain race.)If, for whatever reason, you don't want to talk about how and why GMs and module writers author setting material, that's your prerogative. But if you want to insist that it is somehow undermining the point of RPGing to do so, that seems wrongheaded to me.One of the best RPG publications ever - Moldvay's Basic Set - is great in part because it has a very lucid discussion of how and why a GM might author setting material in a certain way. Here are some choice extracts (pp B51, B60):This section gives a step-by-step guide to creating a dungeon. . . . A. CHOOSE A SCENARIO . . . A good scenario always gives the players a reason for adventuring. The DM should also design a dungeon for the levels of characters who will be playing in it. A good scenario will also give the DM a reason for choosing specific monsters and treasures to put in the dungeon. . . . The success of an adventure depends on the DM and his or her creation, the dungeon. . . . It is important that the DM be fair, judging everything without favoring one side or another. The DM is there to see that the adventure is interesting and that everyone enjoys the game. . . . The DM should try to maintain the "balance of play". The treasures should be balanced by the dangers. . . . If the monsters are too tough, and if the parties are reduced by many deaths, then few characters will ever reach higher levels. . . . It should be very difficult for a character to attain [36th] level, but it should not be impossible.Moldvay is obviously accepting, as a basic proposition of setting design, that the GM is to have regard to the playability of the game (which is, in part, a function of PC level) and the enjoyment that play will generate (which depends upon such things as the fictional motivation/context for the adventure ("the scenario"), the balance of treasure vs danger, etc). The ingame motivations of NPCs, monsters etc are to be authored by the GM so as to ensure that these goals of the game are achieved.Again, for whatever reason one may not want to talk about these metagaming aspects of GMing. But as best I can recall you are literally the only RPGer I have ever encountered who contends that a GM who follows Moldvay's advice is doing his/her job wrong.</blockquote>

Verification