Why the World Exists

[wedgeski]

So long as there is an element of chance built into the game, how do I accept from the beginning that my character is special?

Well, if we're talking 4E, there is an argument that says you have accepted him as special by virtue of the fact that you rolled him up at all. He's 1st Level. He has already mastered his chosen discipline to a degree that puts him head and shoulders above mundanes. His ability scores are, on average, way better than his neighbour's. The dice always come up for this guy. There's something interesting about him... he's gonna do big things. I know I've said that about a couple of people I've met in real life.

But some of those guys drop by the wayside. Some destinies are greater than others... or maybe he has achieved what fate had in store for him already, and doesn't even know it, or maybe a better hero came along. Maybe the forces that earmarked him for an epic future were frustrated by equally powerful forces that just played a better game. He was a potential hero, but it just wasn't to be.

For me it's just a matter of perspective, like the question of why the narrator of a novel, or the viewport on a movie just happens to be following the life of a simple family man before the apocalypse hits and he has to save the world. They were following him because he was where the story was, and that's exactly the same reason why the 4E paradigm suits my campaign style.

I'm not interested in the life of a farm-boy who ascends to mediocrity and is then killed by the carrion crawler under the gate... I'm interested in the farm boy who sees adventurers pass by his window on a weekly basis on their way to plunder the local dungeon, or who has dragon-blood six generations down his family line which chooses to manifest for the first time in him. Just a different preference.

When he discovers those player wish-list items, they are maybe great strokes of luck. But when he fulfils his Epic Destiny and looks back on his life, he will see small pieces of the larger tapestry that got him to 30th level and perhaps wonder what would have been if the dice had turned against him at the wrong moment.

 

[Remathilis]

However, there are different ways to play, different ways the world can facilitate play, and different ideas of what's entertaining. Thus . . .It doesn't matter if the adventurers are powerful enough to face them in combat if the encounter isn't about combat.

So its Ok if the PCs encounter Asmodeus at first level as long as they try talking to him, not attacking him. Ok...

In this instance, the encounter may be about simple survival. Or about rescuing the villagers. Or saving a holy relic from the local temple. Or all of the above.

No. the encounter I laid out involves the next village the PCs enter getting sacked by monsters. The PCs can try to fight, flee, sneak around and cause mischief to the foe's flank, make a deal with them, or join in the carnage.

My question is, is it fair to send monsters so high of level than many of those options are not viable (combat, sneaking, etc)?

It may be about negotiating with the giants, offering them something they want in exchange for sparing the town. It may be about outwitting the hill giants, luring them off, misdirecting them, not facing them down. And it may be setting the stage for the adventurers' return to drive off the giants later.

Still, if I'm using giants, am I not effectively (or subliminally) telling my players "You can't win by fighting", a message that DOESN'T come from using orcs, which opens such options to the table?

In my experience, if the response to everything in the game is swords and spells, the game gets stale very fast.It's only a waste of time if you expect the only reason for creating encounters is combat..That would actually make a perfectly valid motivation for the hill giants to in fact move downriver: the hill giants hear of the adventurers and decide to capture the adventurers, take their treasure, and ransom them to the king. Monsters can be proactive, too, and their intelligence can be as faulty as that of the adventurers.I really don't have to agree to any such thing.

And thanks for validating my point; those giants move downriver to challenge higher-level PCs. Justify it all you want in game, you're using higher level monsters to challenge higher levels PCs because, well, its more fun than having the PCs grind the native orc population to dust. Like it or not, the DM is making a conscious choice to have a much more balanced fight there. He's making the opposite choice if they move downriver to challenge far weaker PCs. Either way, the DM is deciding the challenge the PCs should face based on both the details of his world AND the relative power of the PCs he's challenging.

It's up to the adventurers to decide what's appropriate and what isn't. They need to be alert and use the resources available to them, magical and mundane, to survive. Sometimes they'll be confronted with opponents more powerful than they are; sometimes they get to tee off on some opponent that is laughably far below them. This is the nature of the world in which they live, and these are the consequences of the choices they make.

So its cool to use hill giants as foes for 5th level PCs as long as you don't expect them to fight them.

Got it.

 

[Carpe DM]

The characters, the world, the mat, the beer, and the pretzels, all are there for the sake of the story and of having a good time with friends.

cheers,

Carpe

 

[Vegepygmy]

My question is, is it fair to send monsters so high of level than many of those options are not viable (combat, sneaking, etc)?

Life isn't fair. I like my game to feel more like "life" than "a game." There are some people who like their game to feel like a game. That's all there is to it.

Still, if I'm using giants, am I not effectively (or subliminally) telling my players "You can't win by fighting", a message that DOESN'T come from using orcs, which opens such options to the table?

If you use a fire elemental, aren't you effectively telling your players: "You can't win by throwing fireballs"? So what?

Either way, the DM is deciding the challenge the PCs should face based on both the details of his world AND the relative power of the PCs he's challenging.

I don't think anyone has argued that those should never be considerations. The issue is whether PCs should only ever encounter "level-appropriate" challenges.

So its cool to use hill giants as foes for 5th level PCs as long as you don't expect them to fight them.

I think you're missing the point that some DMs don't make decisions based on what they expect to happen. They prefer to sit back and watch whatever does happen.

 

[Vegepygmy]

So its Ok if the PCs encounter Asmodeus at first level as long as they try talking to him, not attacking him. Ok...

On this point: I played in a campaign once where our just-starting-out 1st-level characters were exploring a mysterious cave. At the back of the cave was a magic vault that had been sealed for eons. One of the PCs (for reasons we never discovered) was able to open it, though no one else could. Inside the vault was something that we suspected could eventually bring phenomenal power to the possessors.

At this point, the DM had a much higher-level (and evil) NPC show up. His idea was that the NPC would take over control of the vault from us, and that the rest of the campaign would focus on us trying to stop the evil NPC and his allies from using the power obtained from the vault. He dropped all sorts of hints that this NPC was beyond our pitiful 1st-level powers to resist, and that it would be crazy for us to do anything other than submit to his demands.

All of the players were following this "script," until the DM foolishly had the NPC enter the vault to examine its contents...at which point one player decided to slam the door shut, trapping the NPC inside.

This was a possibility the DM had never considered: that even though the NPC was a wholly level-inappropriate challenge, and even though we knew the NPC had allies in the world who would look into his disappearance, almost certainly find him (and us), and would exact horrible revenge on us for daring to thwart him, we would do it anyway.

The campaign's story then became "we're running and hiding from enemies vastly more powerful than ourselves, and trying to find a way out of this mess we created," rather than what the DM expected the campaign to be: "stop the bad guys from taking over the world" (or whatever it was supposed to be).

That campaign was incredibly fun for all of us; much more fun, I have no doubt, than it would have been if the DM hadn't thrown a "level-inappropriate" encounter our way, and if we hadn't handled it so differently than he expected us to.

 

[Imaro]

On this point: I played in a campaign once where our just-starting-out 1st-level characters were exploring a mysterious cave. At the back of the cave was a magic vault that had been sealed for eons. One of the PCs (for reasons we never discovered) was able to open it, though no one else could. Inside the vault was something that we suspected could eventually bring phenomenal power to the possessors.

At this point, the DM had a much higher-level (and evil) NPC show up. His idea was that the NPC would take over control of the vault from us, and that the rest of the campaign would focus on us trying to stop the evil NPC and his allies from using the power obtained from the vault. He dropped all sorts of hints that this NPC was beyond our pitiful 1st-level powers to resist, and that it would be crazy for us to do anything other than submit to his demands.

All of the players were following this "script," until the DM foolishly had the NPC enter the vault to examine its contents...at which point one player decided to slam the door shut, trapping the NPC inside.

This was a possibility the DM had never considered: that even though the NPC was a wholly level-inappropriate challenge, and even though we knew the NPC had allies in the world who would look into his disappearance, almost certainly find him (and us), and would exact horrible revenge on us for daring to thwart him, we would do it anyway.

The campaign's story then became "we're running and hiding from enemies vastly more powerful than ourselves, and trying to find a way out of this mess we created," rather than what the DM expected the campaign to be: "stop the bad guys from taking over the world" (or whatever it was supposed to be).

That campaign was incredibly fun for all of us; much more fun, I have no doubt, than it would have been if the DM hadn't thrown a "level-inappropriate" encounter our way, and if we hadn't handled it so differently than he expected us to.

Emphasis mine: This had me dying laughing... PRICELESS...This is the type of creativity that can catch a DM off guard especially when all their focused on is CR or XP levels..

 

[The Shaman]

So its Ok if the PCs encounter Asmodeus at first level as long as they try talking to him, not attacking him. Ok...

If the adventurers are someplace where it makes sense that they might encounter Asmodeus, such as a powerful wizard's summoning chamber, or on the far side of a portal to the Nine Hells, then yes, it's okay if they encounter an archdevil at first level.

No. the encounter I laid out involves the next village the PCs enter getting sacked by monsters. The PCs can try to fight, flee, sneak around and cause mischief to the foe's flank, make a deal with them, or join in the carnage.

Those are some of the options. Put the scenario in front of ten groups of players, you'll probably find fifteen different solutions proposed.

My question is, is it fair to send monsters so high of level than many of those options are not viable (combat, sneaking, etc)?

First, eliminate the concept of "fair." In the kind of setting that myself and others are describing, "fair" doesn't enter into it. The world is what it is, and it's incumbent on the adventurers to use all the resources at their disposal to find their way in it.

Second, how is "sneaking" not an option? Arguably some players could figure out ways for their characters to engage in combat against the giants (a giant, at the very least), so nothing is necessarily off the table except as determined by the players. The encounter is what it is, and the players decide how their characters will respond.

Still, if I'm using giants, am I not effectively (or subliminally) telling my players "You can't win by fighting", a message that DOESN'T come from using orcs, which opens such options to the table?

You're making a critical(ly wrong) assumption here: combat only takes place head-to-head, swords-and-spells against the whole lot of hill giants.

In my experience, smart adventurers will use the ground and creative tactics and weapons, if a fight is what they're looking for.

And thanks for validating my point; those giants move downriver to challenge higher-level PCs. Justify it all you want in game, you're using higher level monsters to challenge higher levels PCs because, well, its more fun than having the PCs grind the native orc population to dust. Like it or not, the DM is making a conscious choice to have a much more balanced fight there. He's making the opposite choice if they move downriver to challenge far weaker PCs. Either way, the DM is deciding the challenge the PCs should face based on both the details of his world AND the relative power of the PCs he's challenging.

Wow, you completely got that wrong.

I'm proposing that the giants go after the adventurers 'cause it makes sense for them to do so in the context of the game-world. Whether the encounter is "level appropriate" or not doesn't enter into it.

So its cool to use hill giants as foes for 5th level PCs as long as you don't expect them to fight them.

Got it.

No, I really don't think you do.

 

[billd91]

So its Ok if the PCs encounter Asmodeus at first level as long as they try talking to him, not attacking him. Ok...

Yep.
As long as it makes sense for the situation they are in. Keep in mind that guys like Asmodeus don't mind sitting and chatting with people, offering them immense power, just for a certain consideration down the line once you shuffle off your mortal coil...

So its cool to use hill giants as foes for 5th level PCs as long as you don't expect them to fight them.

Psst. It's fair even if you think they might take a shot at fighting them. As long as they fight smart and don't just try to just go toe to toe. Hill giants are CR 7, well within a party of 5th level PCs' reach if they're smart about it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Psst. It's fair even if you think they might take a shot at fighting them. As long as they fight smart and don't just try to just go toe to toe. Hill giants are CR 7, well within a party of 5th level PCs' reach if they're smart about it.

It's fair even if you think they are liable to try to take the hill giants on head-on, or they are liable to challenge Asmodeus to a duel of honour.

What is not fair is the DM deciding aforehand how the players will handle any encounter.


RC

 

[Mallus]

In the kind of setting that myself and others are describing, "fair" doesn't enter into it.

Sure it does, in the form of relatively reliable information about the challenges around them. The information that makes informed choices/'smart play' possible. This is all but a requirement of the game part of the game.

I've said this before, haven't I?

In a truly unfair world, one that merely 'was what it was', such reliable information wouldn't necessarily exist. PC's could stumble into certain death despite their best and most diligent efforts, occasionally random, inescapable dooms would sweep, tsunami-like, across these dangerous worlds --be they in the form of a horde of undead, rampaging giants, an elder wyrm having a bad day and an uncharacteristic fit of pique, or even an actually tsunamis, if the PC's are on the coast.

The setting is neccessarily contrived, to a certain extent, in order to make playing the game possible. It's not fair in that it's skewed slightly towards the players.