Players: status quo or tailored?

[ThirdWizard]

The leader of a thieves' guild isn't going to be a 2nd-level expert, right?

Nah, usually a 2nd levle aristocrat. But, that's just a matter of preferance, as I love bosses who are physically weak in city-based campaigns.

I do agree with most that many civilized NPCs are going to be statis quo. These NPCs are usually created with a place in society and their abilities dictate their standing. I once had a group of advenurers around level 7 try to take on a wizard who had not shown his power to them. He was level 15. Flesh to Stone first round and then he spared them in exchange for a hefty service. That definately taught them that everything isn't easy.

Status quo does not mean that the CR 15 dragon is the *only* challenge in the area. It just means that the CR doesn't adjust according to the level of the PCs in the area.

Here's where the differing oppinions set in about what status quo and tailored actually mean. You started with a dragon, but you also wanted to give the PCs something to do, so there's an organization under the dragon. To some, me included, that means you tailored the setting to include venues for the PCs. Status quo exists without any relation to the PCs. They arn't there for the PCs to do anything with, they are simply there. By making something specifically accessable by the PCs, you've tailored it, if you understand the reasoning. Plausabilty isn't important, intent is what makes it status quo or tailored.

You simply ask yourself, "Did I make this with how the players will react in mind?" If the answer is, "Yes," then I define it as tailored. I don't think about it as "independant of the PCs" or "Happening with or without PC interaction." The CR 15 dragon to the north could very well be tailored. If you choose for him to be CR 15 because you don't want the PCs to fight him yet (or die if they try), that is tailored. If you chose CR 15 because it will be interesting within the setting and the players just arn't to be able to fight him yet by happenstance, it is status quo.

Now when designing adventures for my players...

They enjoy encounters at or around an EL suitable to have somewhat difficult combats with a few very difficult combats, and a few extremely low or high ones. I try to follow the DMG somewhat in its suggestion: 10% Easy, 20% Easy if handled properly, 50% Challenging, 15% Very Difficult, 5% Overwhalming. Though, of course, this is only a very loose guideline. We can only play twice a month, and I don't want to waste game time on pitiful enemies nor beat them to a pulp just because a random encounter table says TPK [aside - I don't actually use RETs].

In a game with 75+% status quo, I do not see how this could be possible. When that starts happening, I have to wonder if it is really status quo or it just has the appearance of status quo (which is very difficult to do actually!).

 

[MoonZar]

Hello,

I Dm status quo, but i dont give trail to a quest that i know that the players can't handle.

But if they go somewhere that they should not, they could encounter some stuff too much dangerous for them, but i'll give warning with some NPC.

 

[Quasqueton]

Surely they will typically be high level, but I do not see why they always have to be.

I don't disagree. The existance of unusual situations does not invalidate the general assumption and discussion of typical scenarios.

You started with a dragon, but you also wanted to give the PCs something to do, so there's an organization under the dragon.

For the record, does everyone understand that I pulled the dragon scenario out of my ear, just to give a very simple and quick example?

I, personally, in my real campaign planning, don't think "Dragon. But I'll need to add in low level stuff for my low level PCs." I come up with packages, as I described earlier in this thread.

I don't think, "15th-level cleric. But I'll need to add in low-level clerics to challenge the low-level PCs." I think, "Murder cult, with a full compliment of priests."

I don't think, "15th-level rogue. But I'll need to add in low-level rogues to challenge the low-level PCs." I think, "Spy network, with a full compliment of spies."

If I make these packages for an area of my world, I make them to fit the area, not the PCs. They will exist the same if the PCs enter the area at 1st level or at 15th level.

The challenge level of individuals or groups in the packages will probably vary from low-level to high-level. The PCs will figure who, when, and how to take on what level of challenge they feel they can overcome.

The CR 15 dragon to the north could very well be tailored. If you choose for him to be CR 15 because you don't want the PCs to fight him yet (or die if they try), that is tailored. If you chose CR 15 because it will be interesting within the setting and the players just arn't to be able to fight him yet by happenstance, it is status quo.

I agree. And your definition of status quo is what I've been saying.

Quasqueton

 

[frankthedm]

KILL ME NOW!!!!

DO IT!!!

Status quo is my preference, but i prefer to play smart characters who know better than to open most battles with a charge. I LIKE the possibily of encountering a giant at first level, if only for the miniscule chance of earing it as an ally through roleplaying. Unfortunatly 25% to 33% of my play group would say, "We can take it" within its earshot.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I don't disagree. The existance of unusual situations does not invalidate the general assumption and discussion of typical scenarios.

Sure.

But my point is that a leader only needs to be competent at his job. Honing him for combat is a kind of tailoring for the sake of the PCs. It is putting the PCs at the center of the universe and letting the details be rewritten for dramatic effect and convenience.

 

[Quasqueton]

But my point is that a leader only needs to be competent at his job. Honing him for combat is a kind of tailoring for the sake of the PCs. It is putting the PCs at the center of the universe and letting the details be rewritten for dramatic effect and convenience.

"... a leader only needs to be competent at his job." And doesn't levels represent competence in a level-based game? Even if the leader is only using Bluff, Intimidate, or Diplomacy to be the leader, he needs to have enough skill ranks (levels) to be compentent over his minions. A +5 Bluff will fail against +0 Sense Motive 25% of the time. Using Bluff, the BBEG would need at least +11 to be able to Take 10 regularly and keep his minions in line. That means the BBEG needs some levels.

"Honing him for combat..." I haven't even mentioned combat in my posts.

"It is putting the PCs at the center of the universe and letting the details be rewritten for dramatic effect and convenience." And who has said anything about rewriting for the PCs?

If you hadn't quoted me in your post, I wouldn't think you were talking to me. I agree with your definitions. You're trying to convert the choir, here.

Quasqueton

 

[Gentlegamer]

KILL ME NOW!!!!

DO IT!!!

Status quo is my preference, but i prefer to play smart characters who know better than to open most battles with a charge. I LIKE the possibily of encountering a giant at first level, if only for the miniscule chance of earing it as an ally through roleplaying. Unfortunatly 25% to 33% of my play group would say, "We can take it" within its earshot.

You play with Real Men . . .

 

[S'mon]

In the terms you described I prefer status quo, I don't want the dragon CR always matching party level. I do like to feel like the game resolves around the PCs though, that they're the stars of the show not bit players. So there should be meaningful things PCs can do that are challenging but achievable - if the PCs start at 1st level, they should be in area where there are 1st level adventure opportunities. It's ok to have 10th level challenges in the same area as long as they don't arbitrarily squash the PCs. I think a good game involves a mix of status quo & tailoring by the GM.

 

[S'mon]

Status Quo, the players are not the center of the game and should not be tailored to as such

I definitely disagree, the PCs are definitely the centre of my game. They're not the centre of the game-universe, but that's a different matter. I want to see exciting adventures that centre around the PCs and their accomplishments, both as GM & player.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I agree. And your definition of status quo is what I've been saying.

I'm glad. It seems a lot of people's definition of tailored is that the PCs always run into things around their level, at least that's what I've gathered. Most in this thread who have said they run status quo have then stated something along the lines of "I like my players to run into things they can't handle," which is perfectly in line with a tailored encounter. Also people seem to be under the impression that tailored means that the world doen't exist past the PC's perceptions. This is also completely untrue.

EDIT: In other words, I think a lot of people are running tailored aspects to their games and think incorrectly that they are using status quo.

For the record, does everyone understand that I pulled the dragon scenario out of my ear, just to give a very simple and quick example?

I understand.

It's just easy to keep with the same example instead of making up new ones.