Some Thoughts on Campaign/Game Design

[Roger]

A faster-paced game has more encounters per session

I'm not entirely sure this is true in my experiences. I've been in games that seemed very fast-paced, and had few encounters per session. Other games had lots and lots of encounters per session, and seemed very slow-paced.



Cheers,
Roger

 

[darkwing]

Fudging becomes a tool in WotC-D&D simply because any attempt at a stellar encounter in those systems balances on too fine an edge. This is, IMHO, primarily an artifact of the combat engine. IMHO, this makes the game both tedious and meaningless, which is the antithesis of “fun”. There are several good suggestions for speeding up the combat engine in various EN World threads, both for 3e and 4e. In the case of each game, though, speeding combat only solves half the problem. IMHO, 3e enables player choice at the cost of encounter design efficiency, whereas 4e enables encounter design efficiency at the cost of player choice. There has to be a happy middle between those two extremes (5e? C&C? RCFG?).

I find the combat engine in 4e is quite good overall. It's not as simple as some say it is. We're always looking up rules for one thing or another. But it is relatively solid and balanced. I don't see how a character has fewer meaningful choices in 4e relative to other editions. In fact, non-casters have *more* choices than they did in 3e. The new "limits" on casters mainly ensure the non-casters aren't overshadowed, making the game more fun for more players overall. I see 4e as that happy middle you fail to see.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't have time for a great long post, but suffice it to say my preference lies somewhere between RC's and Mustrum's - yes the game world has to be internally consistent (vitally important, this), but I as DM also have to have the means and power to wing it when necessary and-or desireable.

If they miss a batch of treasure, tough.

If they miss a plot-significant encounter because they turned left at the pass instead of right, that encounter's gonna move (if it can) such that they at least have a chance of meeting it.

And I fudge the occasional roll, but not many; and not as many as I should from the perspective of my long-suffering players (who I hope are not reading this...).

Lanefan

 

[FireLance]

Reading this thread made me wonder if D&D is not a single game, but a collection of sub-games. Furthermore, not every group plays all of the sub-games.

My own group hasn't played the treasure-hunting sub-game for years, for example. In 3e, whenever a PC gained a level, the player could equip him however he wanted, up to the standard wealth for a character of that level. In 4e, I give the players the choice between: lose all current equipment and gain a magic item of up to level+1, a magic item of up to the same level, a magic item of up to level-1, and gold equal to the value of a magic item of level-1; or keep all current equipment and gain a new magic item of up to level+1 and gold equal to the value of a magic item of level-5.

Others might play the treasure-hunting game, but play it differently. A DM might place treasure in his adventure but tell his players upfront that any treasure that they do not find will be given to the PCs as rewards or gifts from patrons before the start of the next adventure in order to ensure that the PCs are not under-equipped. The challenge then becomes finding the treasures during the adventure so that they can be used immediately to give the PCs an edge in subsequent encounters.

As for the broader issues of coherence and challenge, I would say my rule of thumb is to have enough coherence to make informed decision-making feasible. This, to me, is the key point of a role-playing game. Die rolls and guesswork may help or hinder the PCs from time to time, but the main determinant of the success or failure of the PCs should be the informed decisions of the players.

Yes, I stress the word informed. In my games, I would never deliberately set up a situation where taking a reasonable action would result in the certain or even probable death of a PC unless I make sure that they will receive sufficient warning beforehand. If I happen to slip up (e.g. I forget to provide the PCs with a crucial piece of information) I would rather sacrifice the coherence of the world than let the PC die because of what I would essentially feel to be my mistake.

However, if I design the world and run the adventures carefully enough (not including too many opportunities for certain or probable death, for example ), this is unlikely to happen very often, and handful of times that it does occur, the players will hopefully not notice and never find out!

 

[ronin]

Fudging becomes a tool in WotC-D&D simply because any attempt at a stellar encounter in those systems balances on too fine an edge. This is, IMHO, primarily an artifact of the combat engine. IMHO, this makes the game both tedious and meaningless, which is the antithesis of “fun”. There are several good suggestions for speeding up the combat engine in various EN World threads, both for 3e and 4e. In the case of each game, though, speeding combat only solves half the problem. IMHO, 3e enables player choice at the cost of encounter design efficiency, whereas 4e enables encounter design efficiency at the cost of player choice. There has to be a happy middle between those two extremes (5e? C&C? RCFG?). It seems to me that Pathfinder is following the course of 3e. I suspect that 5e, when it comes, will be a better game than 3e or 4e, WotC having learned from the problems and benefits of those games.

I never really thought about it in this way before but I think you are on to something. The choices in 4e are an illusion of sorts- you choose a paragon path and are locked in for 10 levels (I think this is correct but I could be wrong). You do the same thing with an epic destiny. In 3e however you can mix things up in almost any way you choose which makes it tougher to run a game for the DM. 4e gives you alot of choices in combat though which I think is part of it's appeal.

 

[ProfessorPain]

The OP makes a bunch of good points, but the one about PC protection seems key; and this one has frustrated me as well. Personally, I think the threat of PC death, is what makes the game fun. If the DM is fudging to keep them alive, it ruins my enjoyment as a player (unless he is compensating for a bad call or a poorly designed encounter). What's worse, players have gotten sensitive about it now. They expect the DM to cheat for them. I am of the view that character death is important to the game. It can be spectacular, it kind of sucks when it happens, but hey, if it does, go out with a bang (if you still have HP). In most games I have played in, the majority of players want charcters to die when the dice say they should, but there is usually one or two guys who make a big fuss when the DM tells them their out. And most DMs seem to give into this behavior.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Reading this thread made me wonder if D&D is not a single game, but a collection of sub-games.

The latter. Differences in playing style are almost entirely caused by each group's perceived "fun level" in the various games. Some see all the fun in the combat; others, in the RP and the world. Most perceive some mix, but each mix unique.

Me, I'm with Raven Crowking. I don't fudge D&D rolls any more than I fudge the hands dealt in a game of poker. The game (to me) is taking on the odds; getting any particular PC up to 30th level isn't.

The "parcel problem" (which existed in 3e too, and is intrinsically tied to the idea of a "magic item economy") is why I've done what I can to make items unnecessary in my games. I don't ever want to hand out an item for a "meta" reason. Items only come into and out of the PC's possessions for reasons that make sense within the game world. The only "meta" reward is XP, never gold or items.

The "scaling problem" has also been addressed (adequately I hope) with house rules.