Scenario starting points and PC's position in the gameworld

[the Jester]

I usually think of "level" in D&D as functioning a bit like "POW" in earlier versions of RuneQuest. High power was needed for strong magic, but the more you had, the more conspicuous you were.

If nothing else, it would be difficult for a high level PC (absent that bluff or disguise) to carry themselves such that they seemed less powerful. Body language can be very telling.

Interesting, but it seems like this would eliminate the old "king moving through the streets disguised as a beggar" kind of scenarios.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Interesting, but it seems like this would eliminate the old "king moving through the streets disguised as a beggar" kind of scenarios.

In literature, doesn't he often pull this off for a time, due to disguise, but eventually gets spotted?

 

[Mort]

On the stronghold issue, I'm not a big fan of the way that AD&D/Expert D&D handled it, because it tends to push the game too much in the direction of a war game, and also is very accounting-heavy (building costs, upkeep costs etc).

The trick is handwaving the "governing" issues unless the PCs like them. In my group, we have a player who is a massive "numbers" guy. He loved the nitty gritty stuff so much, that I just let him handle it pretty much in entirety, it completely wasn't my thing or the other players thing - but boy did it make him happy.

As levels increase I don't particularly want to change the basic structure of the game - I'm still happy with travel, fighting, unmasking dark and mystical secrets, etc - but want the way in which these adventurous events connect the PCs to the gameworld, and reflect those connections, to develop.

I found that giving the players land didn't really change the basic structure of the game much - they were mostly absentee governors - and since that's the way they liked it that's the way I left it. It did however allow for new scenarios to open up, such a a peace summit held on the PCs territory. It was just a fun change of pace for the players to have to make sure others were not killing each other.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I have yet to run across a published adventure that didn't require some tweaking in order to fit smoothly into an ongoing campaign. A good scenario should be able to support multiple methods of introduction.

The bog standard lead-in works for some adventures and not for others. To paraphrase the wise Egg Shen, treat published adventure material as a salad bar; take what you want and leave the rest.

 

[Cerebral Paladin]

I agree that this can be lame, depending on campaign, but it's also easily fixed. If your PCs don't hang out in the local taverns, then you can simply say "While you dine with Baron Westfork, his bard sings you a tale of a lost tower..." Now, that doesn't change the fact that "overheard some stranger talking about something odd" is a pretty lame plot hook regardless of tier, but it is easy to solve the "we don't spend time slumming in taverns" element.

Also, in most campaigns I run or play in, mid-level characters still spend plenty of time on the road. If you're in a small village at the end of the day, you probably do spend some time in the public house--not because you can't afford better or wouldn't be welcomed by a local noble, but simply because many villages won't have anything better to offer. (Obviously, teleportation magic can obviate that, but often characters travel to a place that doesn't have a linked circle (or at least one that they know about).) So in my eye, assuming that big-time heroes won't ever be in a tavern isn't necessarily a fair assumption.

 

[Kaodi]

I think it sort of depends on the circumstances. If the "local" in "local watering hole" means inn and tavern in the countryside, then it may not be all that inappropriate for PCs to find themselves in one from time to time, depending on their mode of travel.

For anyone who watches Game of Thrones, or remembers far enough back in the books, is does Catelyn Stark not take Tyrion Lannister prisoner in a "local watering hole"? And these people are not just any nobles, they are THE nobles of their world.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

For anyone who watches Game of Thrones, or remembers far enough back in the books, is does Catelyn Stark not take Tyrion Lannister prisoner in a "local watering hole"? And these people are not just any nobles, they are THE nobles of their world.

She is, at the time, traveling in secret.

Tyrion is making a grand tour on his way home from the Wall, and he has a character trait of seeking out particularly trashy establishments.

 

[billd91]

She is, at the time, traveling in secret.

Tyrion is making a grand tour on his way home from the Wall, and he has a character trait of seeking out particularly trashy establishments.

Even so, if I recall correctly, it's an inn on the Kingsroad, where you can expect pretty much everybody to stop, including commoners and nobles.

 

[billd91]

But as presented, the scenario begins in this way:

The PCs are visiting or passing through a city that lies near the moorland. While taking a meal at a local watering hole, they overhear a resident relating the following story.​

Now, what the hell is going on when 12-level PCs - Knight Commanders, Demonskin Adpets or whatever - are taking a meal at a local watering hole? As opposed to, for example, dining in the halls of the baron or the mayor! I regard this as yet another weakness in 4e adventure design - beside the inherent lameness of so many of the plot hooks, they tend to expressly contradict the game's default fictional content, which in relation to paragon tier PCs is as follows(PHB pp 28-29):

In the paragon tier, your character is a shining example of heroism, set well apart from the masses.. . the fate of a nation or even the world might hang in the balance as you undertake momentous quests... When you face a dragon, it is a powerful adult who has established a lair and found its place in the world. Again, much like you.​

In my view shining examples of heroism, on whose deeds the fate of the world turns, who have found their places in the world and who are set well apart from the masses, don't start their quests in a local watering hole (absent special circumstances of the Aragorn variety). In my view it is this sort of bad adventure writing, as much as if not more than the mechanical design, that leads to the suggestion that there is no "progression" in 4e, and that as they level the PCs just go through the same dungeons with bigger numbers.

<snip>

Does anyone else feel the way I do about this? Or do some not mind a game in which name-level PCs are still wandering the gameworld from inn to inn, essentially anonymous mercenaries? How important is it that the framing of scenarios reflect the change in status that is implicit in at least some aspects of level gain? I don't think these are questions limited to 4e (for example, one purpose of settings like Sigil and Union seem to be to rationalise the continuation of this sort of play into upper levels), although they are probably more pressing in 4e because so much of the game is meant to take place at these mid-to-high levels.

I think you're over-thinking the situation.

1) The hook for the published adventure is about as simple and generic as you can get. That's OK. Once you're well into a campaign, how specific should a hook get assuming you want it to have wide appeal for sales? Everyone runs their campaign differently and a simple, generic hook is easy to dispense with and replace with your own more suitable one for your campaign. Make it too high-falutin' with nobility and other assumptions about paragon paths, name levels, and other stuff and you'll run the risk of turning away the campaigns that don't incorporate those particulars. Framing it in more particular terms does exactly that - it puts it in a box that fewer people are probably going to try to open.

2) Don't take too much of 4e's assumed lore as gospel. 4e's track record in that regard is far too chaotic and contradictory to read much intent about what the game is about at any particular level. Contrary to at least one statement, D&D isn't about killing monsters and taking their stuff. It's about what you want it to be about at any and all levels.

Taken together, I think these two issues are partly why 1e modules are regarded as good as they are. They tend to have very simple hooks to them, meaning many sorts of campaign styles can use them, from beer and pretzels fun time to more serious dramatic role playing. Therefore, they were used widely and now form a shared experience for thousands of old-timers like myself.

 

[pemerton]

I agree that this can be lame, depending on campaign, but it's also easily fixed.

I think you're over-thinking the situation.

1) The hook for the published adventure is about as simple and generic as you can get.

Sure, but then why have this hook/intro at all? What is it contributing to the design of the adventure or the play experience that it offers?