The Call of the World Builder

[D'karr]

Last time I checked, Demogorgon wasn't elected. He became prince of demons by killing his way to the top. How did he do that if an advanced balor should take him to town?

This only happens when the DM forgets his own baseline. If a Balor is CR 20 and Demogorgon is CR 23, as soon as the DM decides that he wants to advance the Balor, he has changed the baseline. Either he lets the Balor advance and take on Demogorgon (kill him and take his stuff) or he also advances Demogorgon, preserving the relative power curve of the baseline.

But first the DM has to decide what reason exists for doing the advancement. In my case, the only reason I'd need to advance a Balor is to face extremely powerful PCs, if I want Demogorgon to face the same PCs I better advance him too.

But, at the end of the day, Demogorgon is there to be fought. If you set him at CR 30 (or higher) then 99.9% of groups will NEVER get to fight him. They won't even get the possibility of fighting him. So, you set the CR at 23 and now, with a bit of work, you can place Demogorgon at the end of an epic style campaign (perhaps featuring several classic locations in Greyhawk) and the players can step up to the plate.

Because, at the end of the day, "I ran away from Demogorgon" isn't a whole lot of fun.

I agree, conditionally. If the DM has a reason for the players to run from Demogorgon, then it should not matter what level they are, he can always up the ante and increase the opposition.

So the real question for the DM becomes, what do I need this monster to do in THIS encounter? The encounter can be a combat, or not. Maybe the PCs need to negotiate with Demogorgon instead of killing him. That is where all of this becomes adventure / world design instead of just combat.

For 8 years I've had no problem with DMing in 3e. But some of the rules, made it more difficult to "break" them when I needed to. This was significantly the case for out-of-combat stuff.

I welcome 4e, because it looks like I won't have to "wrestle' against the rules so much. The less wrestling I have to do with the rules system, the more time I have to have fun playing and DMing.

 

[loseth]

Not to turn this into a 'simulationist vs gamist' argument, but:

I recently heard a really good analogy, or explanation. There are three kinds of game systems, from that perspective.

Realism
Verisimilitude
Authenticity.

I'll use an example: Let's say you are playing an RPG and one of the characters is Batman. A low-life thug comes around the corner and shoots at Batman.

That's an interesting split; I definitely like the idea. But it looks to me like it was written by someone who views genre-emulation as the best/most advnaced/most mature way to play RPGs, as evinced by the author's use of the extremely positive word 'authentic' to refer to genre-emulation, while employing the more usual terms to refer to the other two camps. I also think that, in the example you gave, verisimilitude is defined somewhat differently from its normal definition (which--as it applies to storytelling--has been worked out over the past 100 years or so by fiction writers and editors). Trying to stick more closely to neutral/accepted definitions, I'd go with:

Realism -- Attempts to achieve an authentic, and almost always highly detailed, simulation of the way that the fantasy world would function if its main fantastic conceits were true and interacted logically with realworld physics, chemistry, etc., providing the world with coherent, quantifiable natural laws. Prioritizes what is true (or would be true given the logical interaction of realwolrd and fantasy physics) over what seems to be true or is generally thought to be true.

Verisimilitude -- Attempts to achieve the authentic feeling of reality and immediacy, while avoiding the difficulties of genuine realism (e.g. realism takes the more difficult approach of providing consistent detail throughout the system, while verisimilitude takes the easier approach of providing convincing detail only where the players will need it to achieve the feeling of authenticity). Prioritizes what seems or is generally thought to be true (again, given the logical interaction of fantasy and realworld physics) over what is true.

Genre-Emulation -- Attempts to achieve the authentic feeling of the original source material (though identifying/defining the 'original source material' for D&D is problematic). Prioritizes what seems to happen consistently in the source material over what is, or is generally thought to be, true.

I'd also note that these different approaches are only sometimes mutually incompatible. At other times, they coincide quite nicely. Further complicating things, I think we'd have to do some serious subdividing of these categories before we could start saying who will have a more/less difficult time with the 4e rule set, as opposed to 3.5e one.

 

[med stud]

I consider myself a world builder in the sense that I like to build game worlds. Here, it seems like the term is used to describe people who wants to build worlds using the rules as a foundation; if a monster can spawn like a 3e wraith, then the world is filled by wraiths if you don't find some anti-wraith that explains why wraiths aren't everywhere. That kind of world builder also seems to be after consistency to a large degree. If monster A does something one time, then it should do A at all times, if there is not a reason for A not to be valid.

I'm on the opposite side of what is described above. Rules exist in contact with the PCs and the general sense of the rules exist when it comes to NPCs. That is, the greatest swordsman in the world won't be killed by a gopher. OTOH, I don't stat out the greatest swordsman unless he comes into contact with the PCs.
I also defenitly don't provide consistency. I think the #1 way of killing the sense of magic and mystery of a setting is to detail everything, especially for the players. If the players see that Vampire Lord Arkhan is a brute that lives like an animal and eats his victims, they can't expect that from all vampire lords. The next one may be like Dracula instead. Why is it like that in the game world? Of course there are theories. There exist vampire scholars who try to come up with an explanation, but the general knowledge is that vampires are something to be afraid of.

My players like it this way, and for our suspension of disbelief it's imperative to keep the amount of meta-game knowledge to a minimum.

 

[Celebrim]

4e seems to be countering this attitude. They are starting with the effect that you want to get and then working backward. You want game elements to be viable to be used right out of the box. Anything beyond that is handed to the DM to do.

And, no, it's not simply Make Up. That's terrible rules. True. It's, "Ok, here's the baseline, if you want to move beyond that baseline, here are several ways you can do so - Templates, advancing monsters, rituals, etc.

But, what really surprises me is that the world builders here are annoyed about this. This really does shock me. Why? Why be annoyed about this?

Because I think you are seriously misreading or misunderstanding the nature of the complaints.

The people who are annoyed look at 4e and do not see "game elements that are viable right out of the box". They are seeing game elements in what they percieve as a less finalized state than what they saw in 3e, so that to get things to the way that they want them actually takes more work rather than less.

The people who are annoyed percieve that you could take those game elements and apply templates, advance the monsters, add to them rituals and engage in exception based design to make those monsters unique, but they also believe that in 3e they could apply templates, advance the monsters, and engage in exception based design to craft unique monsters. The difference I think that they percieve is that much of what they think of as harder work has been left for the interested student.

I think you would understand more readily sometimes if you didn't try to reduce peoples complaints against 4e to generic abstractions in a mass categorization. Not everyone who is unhappy with 4e is unhappy for the same reasons or to the same degree. We've got to the point that we are exclusively using such technical jargon and elaborate metaphors to describe positive and negative views of 4e, that we are making things far more complicated than they need be and then standing back and scratching our heads and going, "I don't understand this at all."

Big surprise, that.

 

[Cadfan]

That's an interesting split; I definitely like the idea. But it looks to me like it was written by someone who views genre-emulation as the best/most advnaced/most mature way to play RPGs, as evinced by the author's use of the extremely positive word 'authentic' to refer to genre-emulation, while employing the more usual terms to refer to the other two camps.

Not to disagree, but genre- emulation has an awful lot going for it. We talk a lot 'round here about baselines and how players need them to make meaningful decisions. A lot of people seem to believe that you need pretty close to comprehensive simulationist rules so that players can make informed decisions in game.

But there's another, simpler way, and that way is genre emulation.

The "simulationist rules as a baseline for informed decisions" requires a player who wants to make informed decisions to know an awful lot of information, including not only the fundamental game mechanics, plus the rules for unusual situations, but usually an awful lot of monster manual type information.

Using genre emulation as a baseline, your players don't need this degree of near encyclopedic knowledge. You just tell them, "Make decisions as if you were in a movie of genre X. If you did X, would the audience think it was cool? Then do it. If you think it would be lame for the audience, don't do it. And if you think the audience would be disappointed if you didn't do it, then definitely do it."

Then you just have to make sure that the game (and your decisions as a DM) corresponds with the genre. Reward them for in-genre actions, and penalize them for out-of-genre actions. If you tell them that you're doing a bloody sword and sorcery action game, don't get mad at them when Thog, the Strongest Barbarian of the Northern Wastes, refuses to back down from the Weezarch, the wizened, evil, elderly sorcerer. Thog isn't supposed to back down from that fight. He's supposed to charge. Reward him with either a victory, or, with a non-lethal defeat that builds Thog's reputation, deepens his hatred of Weezarch, and sets him up for another fight. In contrast, if you're doing a gritty Lovecraftian horror genre game, don't even allow characters like Thog. Insist on characters like Tim the Grocer, who flees, gibbering madly, before the onslaught of Weezarch's summoned imps.

Over time, as the players learn more about the game, this will start to blend a bit with rules-based informed decision making. They'll start to get a "feel" for the game. But this is a great way to get things started, and to cover the inevitable holes in player knowledge.

Player 1. "Guys? I don't recognize that monster."
Player 2. "I think its a... Umber Hulk?"
Player 3. "Can we fight that? How tough is an Umber Hulk?"
Player 4. "I think its CR is a bit above our level, actually."
Thog. "THOG COWERS BEFORE NO CREATURE OF THE PITS! DIE, BLASPHEMOUS DEMON BEAST! YOUR ILK SHALL HAUNT THE NOBLE NORTHLANDS NO LONGER!"

 

[hong]

Then you just have to make sure that the game (and your decisions as a DM) corresponds with the genre. Reward them for in-genre actions, and penalize them for out-of-genre actions. If you tell them that you're doing a bloody sword and sorcery action game, don't get mad at them when Thog, the Strongest Barbarian of the Northern Wastes, refuses to back down from the Weezarch, the wizened, evil, elderly sorcerer. Thog isn't supposed to back down from that fight. He's supposed to charge. Reward him with either a victory, or, with a non-lethal defeat that builds Thog's reputation, deepens his hatred of Weezarch, and sets him up for another fight. In contrast, if you're doing a gritty Lovecraftian horror genre game, don't even allow characters like Thog. Insist on characters like Tim the Grocer, who flees, gibbering madly, before the onslaught of Weezarch's summoned imps.

This is exactly what I do. Life is so much easier when everyone is working off the same expectations.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But, that point of view entirely ignores one salient point - monster exist to be fought and defeated. A CR 50 Demogorgon will never, ever see play at 99.9% of game tables. You may as well just declare him unkillable and not bother with any stats at all.

It's entirely possible -- perhaps, preferable -- to get a system that satisfies both needs.

One that is expected and balanced to be played at level 50, where some demon prince resides.

Or one where the demon prince is level 30 and the balor is level 20.

Wait, you mean 4e is satisfying that? Hmmm....looks like perhaps the game *does* like the world builders....

Why? Because almost no one plays Epic games to that high of a level. The vast majority of games out there tap out at around 20th at best. So, giving us a CR 33 Demogorgon, while fitting from a world building POV, is pretty much a waste of page count from the POV of the game.

This isn't a universal truth, merely a situational occurrence. It's a new edition, man, they can make level 50 palatable if they want, or they can knock down the power of a balor if they want, or whatever. They get to do what they want to do.

And, no, it's not simply Make Up. That's terrible rules. True. It's, "Ok, here's the baseline, if you want to move beyond that baseline, here are several ways you can do so - Templates, advancing monsters, rituals, etc.

That's all good, but if the baseline is boring or nonsensical or otherwise uninspiring, I'm not really going to want to bother modifying it when there are so many other games out there that don't have that problem, both on the table and otherwise.

Think about it for a moment. In 3e, monster abilities were extremely well defined. Very carefully constructed. But, because they were defined so clearly, your game world became defined by the mechanics of the game. If a given element always works in a particular way, your game world has to reflect that. So, if you had an idea that wasn't really covered by the mechanics, you had to bend and twist the mechanics to fit, or you had to change your idea. Typically changing your idea was easier.

....I don't forsee that being any different in 4e, really. I mean, what's going to be easier after getting the PH, running a mass combat with an aerial army in mythic Greece involving triremes with magical Antlantis Lazers?, or running a party through a dungeon stocked with monsters?

I think any game has this. There are certain things they define well, and if you go apart from those things, you're going to need to do a lot of work.

I want to do as little work as possible, thanks.

4e appears to be far more permissive. In 4e, it appears that you start with the effect that you want to achieve, and then use the tools they give you to explain that effect. A succubus rules a kingdom from the sidelines? Ritual power. A phane has a bunch of "evil twins"? NPC templates.

But does the book suggest that the succubus should be manipulating the king? Is there anything about time duplicates to suggest that the phane uses them?

Is there any story behind these statblocks?

In other words, it appears that your world building will actually be far less constrained by the mechanics than it was in 3e. It has to be since the 4e mechanics are less concretely defined.

So, why are all the world builder's here pissed off?

I wouldn't consider myself much of a world builder, or really that pissed off. I'm disappointed that the MM won't be full of inspiring beasties to menace my nameless NPC dirt farmers with, that I'll have to do extra work to fit a succubus into my kingdom's plot, that there's nothing in the bodak that helps me bring in a story about how he was killed hunting fiends and has returned to slaughter the family he only vaguely remembers.

I'm not that interested in stats. I want them to work without getting in the way, and 4e should be able to accomplish that. I don't want to have to work extra hard at crafting a basic plotline involving a monster's unusual traits, though. What I'm interested in are the story possibilities of these critters.

It is something that, so far, most of the critters have sorely lacked. This makes me do extra work to create a story around them. No longer does an adventure with a phane or a succubus or a bodak practically write itself.

Part of this is why I'm looking forward to the Tome of Horrors. From what Clark has mentioned, it seems much more in line with what I actually need out of a monster manual -- essentially, a book of plot hooks based on creatures, and the stats to use those creatures, a package of 200 or so mini-campaigns, where all I have to do is turn to a page with a level vaguely appropriate as we're beginning the game and I get an entire night of enjoyment handed to me.

If all I knew of the 4e phane was what the 4e mm excerpt has told us, I wouldn't be able to run an adventure featuring the phane. An encounter, sure, but the encounter needs a broader context then "monster attacks you." A Monster Manual entry has, for 3 editions, given me that broader context.

If 4e doesn't give it to me, it has failed for my games.

I'd prefer if it didn't.

 

[loseth]

Not to disagree, but genre- emulation has an awful lot going for it.

Erm...if you like genre-emulation, then yeah.

[BTW. All three are forms of simulationism.]

For me, the three approaches rank as follows:

Verisimilitude: Produces the most fun for me: priority 1
Genre-emulation: Produces lots of fun for me: priority 2 (subordinate only to verisimilitude)
Realism: Only useful insofar as it can support verisimilitude: not a priority in and of itself

But this is just me. Others get fun from different priorities and that's equally legitimate.

Using genre emulation as a baseline, your players don't need this degree of near encyclopedic knowledge.

I don't think players need a near-encyclopaedic knowledge for any of the three approaches. With realism, they just need confidence that the rules do, in fact, simulate reality; they also need to derive enjoyment from that confidence. With verisimilitude, they just need to feel that the rules produce results that seem as if they were real, and again need to derive enjoyment from that feeling. I don't see that either of those cases requires near-encyclopaedic knowledge on the part of players. Not knowing 'what my character should/shouldn't do' can crop up with any of the three, and, IMHO, especially with genre-emulation:

Player 1: I do X.
Player 2: Batman would never do that.
GM: Uggh...

The designer, on the other hand, would clearly benefit from high knowledge for the realism and genre-emulation approaches, and arguably for verisimilitude.

EDIT: Didn't properly address one of Cadfan's concerns.

 

[Rex Blunder]

I wouldn't consider myself much of a world builder, or really that pissed off. I'm disappointed that the MM won't be full of inspiring beasties to menace my nameless NPC dirt farmers with, that I'll have to do extra work to fit a succubus into my kingdom's plot, that there's nothing in the bodak that helps me bring in a story about how he was killed hunting fiends and has returned to slaughter the family he only vaguely remembers.

4e has a story team, and they have said that they are trying to make a place in the world and a story for the various monsters.

Seems like it's too early to be disappointed.

 

[I'm A Banana]

4e has a story team, and they have said that they are trying to make a place in the world and a story for the various monsters.

Seems like it's too early to be disappointed.

It's quite possible that they haven't shown us the true woweezowee yet, but the word "exerpt" implies that it's from the book, and if that's what the monster entries consist of, it looks like it will be more disappointing than not. We have no real reason other than pure blind trust to think that they consist of anything more. I'm a Scully at heart, I like to trust in what I've seen (at least when it comes to this ).

I don't see that either of those cases requires near-encyclopaedic knowledge on the part of players.

One of the biggest annoyances of reading about 4e has been all the people falsely characterising "simulationist" as needing an exhaustive representation of all possible minutae.

I mean, even if you're hardcore into realism, we don't have that for reality, so I think an abstract game representing that reality wouldn't really need it either.