Real vs. Theoretical problems and Grudging DMs

[Mark]

I think Psion has addressed your point, Mark. At least, my reading of his posts indicates so. Basically, what I'm getting from his posts is: don't worry about it on the level of individual adventures, just make sure that it balances out in the campaign as a whole. So the wizard that uses a lot of fire spells does well in the "Assault on Fire Mountain" scenario; just make sure he goes through a few underwater adventures at some point.

But, maybe I'm reading him wrong.

Well, no, he doesn't address my point, but that's due to it not being understood, for whatever reasons. In fact, I advocate the opposite of what you are suggesting he is saying about levels not being considered (and I am not completely sure that is what he meant). To my mind, "level" is the first of things that should be considered when designing a scenario. The point being that a DM shouldn't approach building a scenario with the characters in mind, from the standpoint of their strengths and weaknesses, beyond level and relative party strength compared to that flat level. It's the only way to avoid META thinking from a design perspective. It doesn't matter whether an individual player's character is geared toward one style or another. The players make those choices and the scenarios should not reflect those choices in design to the character's benefit or detriment. An exception to this is when the DM uses an NPC who would actually have access to knowledge regarding the characters.

I find this to be the main distinction between published modules that spring from a designer's home campaign and published modules that attempt to create a location, simply as it is. It's often easy to see that someone has geared a scenario for a given group. True in a home game, if one player doesn't show and the DM has to make adjustments because an item they possess is the only way past a particular encounter. True in a published scenario when a broad rule-based change needs to be layered over the scenario as an afterthought, I.E. "the entire valley is magically inclined to disallow teleportation of any kind." Often this type of situation points to a scenario written specifically for one group, or type of group, that needs to be fixed at a later time. There are other examples, but these two come to mind.

The best scenarios (while they can be thematic) are fashioned to a given level (with a few options for scaling kept at the ready) and retain their verisimilitude by balancing what is in the module with itself. Even if the players never opt to go there, the placement and make up of that location makes sense, in and of itself. Similar encounter levels help explain how disparate creatures can occupy the same region. It goes toward there being an unresolved standoff or understanding of (perhaps, begrudging) respect. To go where I was leading before the breakdown in communication, it behooves a scenario designer (home or published) to include a variety (of attack forms, defenses, resistance types, etc., et al) sprinkled through the encounters of a scenario. This keeps it from being a walk-through or a series of insurmountable obstacles.

BTW Col_H – Take a look at this thread- http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?threadid=19486

 

[Lord Ben]

If you're designing for your group then you SHOULD take them into account. If you know that the Wizard takes an empowered cone of cold every day and is complaining because he never gets to use it then have your cleric summon a fire elemental. Let them have their fun. At the same respects if your rogue has been dominating the scene with sneak attacks throw in a vampire or barbarian with enough levels to negate flanking sneak attacks. If the PC's bought a +1 flaming shocking keen greatsword instead of a +4 greatsword throw in something with DR X/+3 and make them pay for their choice. If they're complaining that combat relflexes was a useless feat then let them use it in some wierd scenario like a Monk who tries to grapple them 5 times in one round.

Sometimes let them feel like the hero for their choices, sometimes make them feel they don't know what's going on.

 

[Umbran]

...The point being that a DM shouldn't approach building a scenario with the characters in mind, from the standpoint of their strengths and weaknesses, beyond level and relative party strength compared to that flat level. It's the only way to avoid META thinking from a design perspective. It doesn't matter whether an individual player's character is geared toward one style or another.

If you're building something for publication, I suppose this is reasonable. If you're building something for a game at home that is highly story-driven, I'm not at all sure I agree. While a game designer should be neutral, a DM is playing to a very speciifc audience.

To a degree, you are correct - the world is bigger than the PCs, not everything should be designed as if it's for them and them alone. However, the game's story is about the PCs, and thus things should be designed (or chosen and tweaked, if you use published adventures) with the PCs and players in mind.

The desired end result is to challenge the players, and tell a good story. How on earth can you tell a good story if you don't consider the characters? If you don't, you'll tend to have the equivalent of Putting Conan in a Tom Clancy novel...

If the party is all urban social characters, you take that into account, and usually don't take them on long wilderness and dungeon crawls, right? Well, the same philosphy carries down onto smaller scales. You don't specifically design it to be terribly easy or terribly difficult, but you do keep their abilities in mind, and occasionally play to them.

 

[Mark]

If you're building something for publication, I suppose this is reasonable. If you're building something for a game at home that is highly story-driven, I'm not at all sure I agree. While a game designer should be neutral, a DM is playing to a very speciifc audience.

To a degree, you are correct - the world is bigger than the PCs, not everything should be designed as if it's for them and them alone. However, the game's story is about the PCs, and thus things should be designed (or chosen and tweaked, if you use published adventures) with the PCs and players in mind.

The desired end result is to challenge the players, and tell a good story. How on earth can you tell a good story if you don't consider the characters? If you don't, you'll tend to have the equivalent of Putting Conan in a Tom Clancy novel...

If the party is all urban social characters, you take that into account, and usually don't take them on long wilderness and dungeon crawls, right? Well, the same philosphy carries down onto smaller scales. You don't specifically design it to be terribly easy or terribly difficult, but you do keep their abilities in mind, and occasionally play to them.

I largely agree with you with a caveat-

The game has no story, in and of itself. The world or setting has a story that exists regardless of the direction of the players, until they actually interact that world in some way. I don't think the DM is actually telling a story so much as facilitating the means by which the players can tell their own stories. If the players only involve themselves with the world in a cursory way, their story is small compared to that of the world or setting and separate from it. If they build themselves up to a position where they make a huge impact on that world, their story is large and combines with the story of that world or setting, in some cases overshadowing it.

 

[ForceUser]

I generally don't build encounters specifically tailored to anything other than the CR of the party. I prefer to throw in monsters that are germaine to the adventure and to not worry too much about the specifics of what's on a player's character sheet. In fact, I prefer it when players surprise me with their character's abilities, because I'm doing my best to run my monsters how I think they'd react to the group, and not necessarily trying to "win." My evil wizard is playing to win, but my giant spider is just looking for its next meal.

 

[Mark]

If you're designing for your group then you SHOULD take them into account. If you know that the Wizard takes an empowered cone of cold every day and is complaining because he never gets to use it then have your cleric summon a fire elemental. Let them have their fun. At the same respects if your rogue has been dominating the scene with sneak attacks throw in a vampire or barbarian with enough levels to negate flanking sneak attacks. If the PC's bought a +1 flaming shocking keen greatsword instead of a +4 greatsword throw in something with DR X/+3 and make them pay for their choice. If they're complaining that combat relflexes was a useless feat then let them use it in some wierd scenario like a Monk who tries to grapple them 5 times in one round.

Sometimes let them feel like the hero for their choices, sometimes make them feel they don't know what's going on.

If the world or setting has sufficient variety, those opportunities come about through the course of play. At that point they become memorable. Setting up scenarios so that a player can show off one particular aspect of their character is like holding their hands. They will find ways to use their talents without steering them.

 

[reiella]

Agreed. Although after the first few times, the enemies will wisen up and realize that a 2nd level spell negates them near entirely. Especially if something becomes Cliche. Of course, I also do fun stuff like Fire Trolls .

 

[Femerus the Gnecro]

It strikes me that some DMs are a little to quick to say "nay nay" to anything the players might do to give them a small advantage.

Hear, hear!

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment.

Lately I've felt like many of the DM's who post on this board are more interested in 'balance' than in providing fun gamplay for their players. Now I'm not condoning having a crazy wild bard of uber freakiness take monkey grip so that he can wield dual fullblades, but arbitrary banishment of reasonable feats/spells/sourcebooks seems overly reactive to me. If there's a real, solid reason behind the DM's decision then fine... the DM should discuss it with his players before limiting their options. However, IMO, "because I don't like it" is a totally invalid justification for limiting a player's resources, as is "because I say so."

Take, for example, the hearty dislike that so many people (mostly dm's) have for the splatbooks. They're "unbalanced" or "munchkin."

Whatever. Hasn't it occured to the splatbook naysayers that the enemies have as much right to use this stuff as the players? Expanding the player's power base isn't unbalancing simply by virtue of the fact that the player's enemies should be given access to the information as well. When both sides have the same options, is the game still unbalanced? I think not.

This is a game. The most important feature of a game is to be fun for the players. Though the DM should be having fun as well, it's primarily his responsibility to make sure his players are having a good time.

Also, Dungeons and Dragons should not be a competition between the players and the DM. Though the DM is responsible for providing fun challenges for the players to overcome (yes, the players should be allowed to overcome the occasional obstacle), it is unfair for the DM to make his challenges in such a way as to negate the powers/skills of his players. The challenges of the world should be set up in a way that makes sense from the internal standpoint of the world, not because the DM knows what strengths and weaknesses are inherant in his players.

Hope that didn't stray too terribly far off topic

-F

 

[Umbran]

The game has no story, in and of itself. The world or setting has a story that exists regardless of the direction of the players, until they actually interact that world in some way.

I'm not convinced that this is the case. Many worlds don't have a large scale "metaplot", but are still fine places to have a game. The world or settign can be pretty static on the whole, but yet have action for the PCs.

I don't think the DM is actually telling a story so much as facilitating the means by which the players can tell their own stories. If the players only involve themselves with the world in a cursory way, their story is small compared to that of the world or setting and separate from it.

To use an old adage - size doesn't matter

The size of the story is irrelevant. Whether the world shakes under the tread of their boots, or they never leave their home neighborhoods and personal petty concerns, the story surrounding the PCs should be interesting. Whether anyone in the world will ever remember their names and deeds or not, the players should be engaged and interested. You won't be able to do that if you ignore who the PCs and the players are. You will design encounters that frustrate them, and plots and adventures that bore them.

You are correct in saying that the DM is mostly a facilitator - but any time you try to help, to facilitate, you need to have a basic understanding of the needs and concerns and wants of the person you're trying to help.

 

[Mark]

I'm not convinced that this is the case. Many worlds don't have a large scale "metaplot", but are still fine places to have a game. The world or settign can be pretty static on the whole, but yet have action for the PCs.

I think we are actually saying the same thing but let me put it another way. The world does have it's own story and it is made up of many, many plots. Some interconnect and others are divergant, never having anything to do with others. This requires no single "metaplot" but simply means that it exists regardless of players until they interact.

To use an old adage - size doesn't matter

The size of the story is irrelevant. Whether the world shakes under the tread of their boots, or they never leave their home neighborhoods and personal petty concerns, the story surrounding the PCs should be interesting. Whether anyone in the world will ever remember their names and deeds or not, the players should be engaged and interested. You won't be able to do that if you ignore who the PCs and the players are. You will design encounters that frustrate them, and plots and adventures that bore them.

You are correct in saying that the DM is mostly a facilitator - but any time you try to help, to facilitate, you need to have a basic understanding of the needs and concerns and wants of the person you're trying to help.

I've never met a player who couldn't bring their own likes to the fore if given every opportunity that can be made available. Presenting challenges doesn't require designing encounters tailored to their particular characters (it shouldn't unless the players are new to the game as a whole). If built properly, a world or setting allows players to get more than they put into it and always has a feel that, while they are a part of it, it is much larger than they will ever know or explore.