New Dungeoncraft: The Dungeons of Greenbrier Chasm

[Lonely Tylenol]

I don't think you'll find this is true of the basic PoL setup.

Yeah, aren't halflings supposed to be the catch-all for trade and communication?

 

[fnwc]

Trade appears to be almost non-existent

I don't think you'll find this is true of the basic PoL setup.

I agree. However, the PoL setup will probably make the cliché caravan guard scenario a bit more dangerous.

 

[Primal]

I don't want to be snarky here, but 4e can't possibly do away with any of these elements. We may see fewer published scenarios that deal with them, but most adventures are homebrewed.

Oh, certainly. I'm not actually claiming that veteran DMs would change their writing style just because something is omitted from or not encouraged in 4E DMG. I'm really thinking about "new" DMs and what happens if 4E focuses on cinematic and cool action over details or internal consistency.

On this point, I would agree 100%. Not every room must have a challenge in order to be interesting. I would maintain that the examples you've listed above do not equate to empty rooms. They are very pertinent to the scenario at hand.

Actually I should called them "Rooms that contain no traps or monsters and seem empty at first glance" . I agree that some elements might be pertinent to the scenario, but most of them would probably be just 'dressing' (and quite often improvised in my group).

I wouldn't disagree with the first part of this paragraph either. Large empty spaces are good to help distinguish the encounter areas and to make them unique. My own preference, both as a GM and a player, is to gloss over these areas, to use narrative and a few rooms like you mentioned in the first paragraph to make these places interesting. I have never had much patience for endless descriptions of very repetitive rooms that were devoid of appropriate dressing, clues, information, etc....

Often I will use wandering encounters related to one of the encounter areas to spice up these regions as well.

Every group is different, however. If spending hours mapping out empty rooms and stretches of corridor is fun for your group, that's great. I have never been part of such a group.

I don't think we spent hours after hours of mapping empty rooms. I'd say that about one room in five contained some kind of action on the lower levels. As we ascended to the upper levels (which were much smaller) the "action factor" increased and almost half of the chambers contained traps and/or monsters. I think it worked really well, because we could actually take a breath and heal once in a while without fearing that every battle would draw in more monsters from the next room. I think that's actually a pretty "reasonable" rate for action without your players becoming overly bored.

I've once played an adventure which consisted of four sessions of "delving" into a giant-sized dungeon (two levels -- both about the same size as Undermountain's first levels). Every room had some kind of puzzle, trap or combat encounter. After two sessions we *begged* the DM to let us out of there -- it was just an endless "grind" and the pace of action was just too intense and after a while it got really, really boring. Eventually we got out, and in retrospect I can say that not even the magic items or XP we got was worth it -- rolling for Initiative in almost every room is not what I'm looking for in D&D.

If I had to pick between my 'dwarven delve' example and my DM simply noting how hours pass as the PCs journey through the rooms into the next Encounter Area containing chambers filled with challenges and explosive action (which I suspect will be the "4E way"), I'd go for mapping all those empty rooms. Really.

You see, I think it's great that all sorts of aspects of adventuring (even boredom) come out in play. The way that 4E is increasing the "fun factor" (which is a subjective term anyway) in the game may work for many -- especially those groups who only occasionally have time to play or DMs who don't like pre-prep work. It just won't work for me or my group.

 

[Primal]

I'm a historian as well, with a focus in Late Antique/Dark Ages. There is nothing in the campaign hook that wouldn't make sense in such a setting. Coming of Age rituals are pretty iconic in tribal/village cultures. The presence of actual monsters in this setting makes it a bit more problematic, but it is the village cleric, who (seeing something special about the PCs) asks them to go farther and perform a ritual of cleansing in the dungeon itself.

There is nothing a GM can do if faced with a table of contrarian players, but a character built to the setting should have a sense of obligation to the village. The kind of mercenary self-centeredness you describe would not be common in a dark ages (PoL) setting, or any tribal setting. If not motivated by altruism, the characters should at least be motivated by the expected adulation of the villagers.

You may have difficulty with the hook, especially given the apparently contrarian nature of your players, but that doesn't make it illogical at all.

I agree that the 'Coming of Age' ritual would be more suitable for a tribal setting, but I think there are several points here to consider:

1) Are females also required to undergo this ritual? If so, why? My understanding is that these sorts of rituals have been more common in "warrior" societies and related to young men proving their mettle. My group has two female players, so this is actually a very relevant question.

2) Why would a village surrounded by the Darkness (i.e. monsters and bandits) risk needlessly losing its valuable members? It's not as if they can afford to lose even a portion of their young generation, right? If it's tied to religious issues, it'd be more proper to have a Temple of Bane in the village instead of Bahamut.

3) The social "pressure"/obligation is indeed understandable, but it may smack of DM fiat and make players uncomfortable.

I guess you could call my players 'contrarian', but I guess it's just their way of saying: "Look, if you want us to get immersed in your setting, make it feel like believable to us.". It's typical that they pose "tough" questions about details in the setting -- both during character creation and play.

 

[Primal]

Anyone who wants to see a really good example of PoL combined with the "Rite of Passage" should read Michael Stackpole's Dragoncrown War series, particularly the prequel novel - Dark Glory War.

The main characters in that novel are undergoing their "rite of passage," as happens in many tribal communities (as well as warrior ones, like Sparta). They end up running into actually dangerous adversaries. Usually, a youth on his "rite of passage" ends up spending the night on a mountaintop, to no effect. He's faced his fear and he returns home a man, and everyone celebrates.

Occasionally, the lad has to kill a wolf or something equally innocuous (by D&D standards). Usually, that's such a momentous event that the story is embellished and made to seem very heroic, like that of Leonidas in 300.

VERY infrequently, the threat is serious by D&D standards. Something like goblins, dire wolves, or maybe a predatory dinosaur of some kind (again, see Stackpole for a really cool use of a fantasy world creature modeled after JP-like "velociraptors"). And of course, the PCs just happen to be the ones who encounter that serious threat. Why? Well, they're PCs...Duh.

Most of the village youths just aren't that unlucky.

As I posted above, I can relate to these rituals playing an important role in a warrior or tribal society. However, Greenbrier (or the whole 'Points of Light' concept) doesn't really feel like a good example of either of them. If there was a *very* good logical reason for this ritual, I'd buy it -- warrior society or not.

I very much doubt that Greenbrier can afford to lose its few inhabitants -- even if it happened only occasionally. Also consider the fact that it's even less logical if females have to undergo this ritual, too -- they'd practically risk losing the whole next generation.

 

[kennew142]

I agree that the 'Coming of Age' ritual would be more suitable for a tribal setting, but I think there are several points here to consider:

1) Are females also required to undergo this ritual? If so, why? My understanding is that these sorts of rituals have been more common in "warrior" societies and related to young men proving their mettle. My group has two female players, so this is actually a very relevant question.

2) Why would a village surrounded by the Darkness (i.e. monsters and bandits) risk needlessly losing its valuable members? It's not as if they can afford to lose even a portion of their young generation, right? If it's tied to religious issues, it'd be more proper to have a Temple of Bane in the village instead of Bahamut.

3) The social "pressure"/obligation is indeed understandable, but it may smack of DM fiat and make players uncomfortable.

I guess you could call my players 'contrarian', but I guess it's just their way of saying: "Look, if you want us to get immersed in your setting, make it feel like believable to us.". It's typical that they pose "tough" questions about details in the setting -- both during character creation and play.

Off the top of my head, I would respond:

1) The game doesn't make a difference between male and female characters. Unless you are running a simulationist game in which females are second class citizens and barred from spheres of male activity, it makes sense to include female characters in such a rite of passage. The particular setting may allow for a modern style double standard in which females are not required to undergo the ritual, but they are welcome to do so if they want to be able to participate in traditionally male spheres of activity, such as adventuring.

2) To be cynical, most pre-industrial societies had no shortage of youths on the verge of adulthood. Maybe they are winnowing out the weak. Maybe the area the youths traditionally spend the night in isn't all that dangerous, and it is the village cleric who recognizes the potential in this particular group and sends them on a secret mission into the dungeon. Maybe he had a divine vision, or odd dreams brought on by indigestion that he misdiagnosed as a vision, which he interpreted to mean that this particular group should be given something special to do.

3) If the players understand the setting, they shouldn't see this as a case of DM fiat. If the GM has a party who wouldn't respond to such a hook, he shouldn't use it. Not every hook is workable for every group. That's why P&P games are better than video games.

I still don't see why your group would question the believability of the scenario. But if they would, this hook is not for you. See #3 and find another. I would add that this scenario described isn't for publication. If it were, we would likely see more than one available character hook. It's the set-up for the author's own group. Presumably, he knows what will and will not work for this particular collection of players.

 

[Primal]

Off the top of my head, I would respond:

1) The game doesn't make a difference between male and female characters. Unless you are running a simulationist game in which females are second class citizens and barred from spheres of male activity, it makes sense to include female characters in such a rite of passage. The particular setting may allow for a modern style double standard in which females are not required to undergo the ritual, but they are welcome to do so if they want to be able to participate in traditionally male spheres of activity, such as adventuring.

On the contrary -- I was actually thinking that females should be *more valuable* than males in the 'Points of Light' setting that James writes about. Why? Because without young and fertile women there won't be a new generation of villagers (and no, I'm not implying that it's their primary 'role' in the society). Yes, you could say the same for men, too, but the fact is that even a handful of males is enough for a generation or two -- especially as D&D treats mechanically both males and females as equals (and hence there is no 'role division' as such in the game). This means that females can take care of all "traditional" male activities (e.g. hunting and combat) as well as males could, so only a handful of males is actually required for guaranteeing that there will be the next generation of villagers.

2) To be cynical, most pre-industrial societies had no shortage of youths on the verge of adulthood. Maybe they are winnowing out the weak. Maybe the area the youths traditionally spend the night in isn't all that dangerous, and it is the village cleric who recognizes the potential in this particular group and sends them on a secret mission into the dungeon. Maybe he had a divine vision, or odd dreams brought on by indigestion that he misdiagnosed as a vision, which he interpreted to mean that this particular group should be given something special to do.

The fact is that you can't really compare it to any historical RW era, since the existence of voracious monsters and magic makes any such comparison pretty invalid.

My point is that IMO an isolated 'PoL' village would not risk wasting any workers/defenders/hunters just for a 'Coming of Age' ritual, unless it has some sort of *very* important religious or cultural significance. After all, their very existence at the brink of the Darkness hangs in the balance, and every man and woman is needed for their survival. Therefore, why would they "winnow out the weak", if even they would have a role in the setting? And it's not as if this ritual has any mechanical relevance (=XP) to these "non-heroic" NPCs.

3) If the players understand the setting, they shouldn't see this as a case of DM fiat. If the GM has a party who wouldn't respond to such a hook, he shouldn't use it. Not every hook is workable for every group. That's why P&P games are better than video games.

I still don't see why your group would question the believability of the scenario. But if they would, this hook is not for you. See #3 and find another. I would add that this scenario described isn't for publication. If it were, we would likely see more than one available character hook. It's the set-up for the author's own group. Presumably, he knows what will and will not work for this particular collection of players.

I agree, and I wouldn't be using it. As for why my players (or I) would not believe in this scenario -- I hope my posts have clarified my views on this matter. All in all, I just don't feel Greenbrier is a very believable setting -- as it is described in the articles feels to me as a bunch of quickly written ideas without any internal consistency or deeper insight behind it. I could post a bunch of other reasons beyond those I've mentioned on this thread.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

primal, I think that you nitpick details and cut hairs in halves.

 

[Primal]

primal, I think that you nitpick details and cut hairs in halves.

Because I wish to have some basic-level internal consistency and realism in my setting?

 

[BradfordFerguson]

Did you have permission to post the article in its entirety? Otherwise, that's a copyright violation.