Why the World Exists

[Cadfan]

This:

You're still not making sense.

If I had to guess, I'd say you mean this: That the PCs might encounter the ancient wyrm for legitimate reasons instead of just due to a failure of information.

Which is true, but misses the point, which isn't about the proper home of ancient wyrms but rather about the degree to which the world should be designed so that the players have a good time and don't all lose characters due to random ancient wyrms that pop out of unexpected places and kill them.

When people argue that an ancient wyrm shouldn't be living next door to the town as a sort of trap for the PCs to stumble into and die, the issue isn't the wyrm itself, its the dangerousness of the encounters the PCs are likely to get into due to the wyrm.

If you:

1. Put the ancient wyrm next to the town,
2. Inform the PCs of its presence and make sure they're adequately aware of the guarantee of death if they fight it, and
3. Engineer it so that if or when they have to go into the wyrm's territory they don't have to actually fight it if they play things right,

Then you've done basically the same thing as the guy who didn't put the wyrm there in the first place due to a desire not to screw over low level PCs who can't fight the wyrm.

Both of you are designing the game world such that the PCs will encounter level appropriate fights. You're just including the risk of a level inappropriate fight if the PCs so choose, and then telling the PCs not to so choose. Both worlds are equally engineered and the outcome is the same.

Of course, this could be completely non responsive, because I'm just guessing the meaning of your cryptic writings.

 

[Ourph]

It was very contrived, and required serious suspension of disbelief.

I see we agree. The rules obviously weren't there to help make a believable world, they were there to help make that world more play-friendly for the PCs.

 

[Jack7]

I want to thank everyone who has handed me out experience points for this thread. I appreciate it. It was generous. I also wanted to hand out some experience points but for some of you I have to wait apparently. So I'll catch ya later on that.

I also appreciate the interesting discussion that has erupted as a result of this thread. I had hoped for that.

I've read some really interesting comments I hope to respond to later but today has been much busier than planned. And so I don't have the time right now. Later though, as I get the chance.

Otherwise, carry on.
I'm finding many of the observations and opinions kinda fascinating.

Jack.

 

[Cadfan]

I think this is my problem with it, to be honest. I just plain don't like the concept of defining a character by a "signature" item -- especially at creation (an emergence defining item can be interesting, mostly because its emergent). One of the really big issues here is that if a player incorporates a piece of equipment into the core of their character design, issues may arise when that item gets lost, stolen, broken or whatever. I use Sunder. I use item saving throws. I use Disarm. I use thieves in the night. A character's tools are just that, tools. We aren't playing HERO (a game I love, btw) where you spent "points" on the item. it's a shiny sword. if it gets melted by a red dragon's fiery breath, find another one and count yourself lucky you didn't also get equally slagged.

1. Then you should have said that instead of writing the OP that you did.

2. This is no different than any other sort of characterization that relies on matters that are somewhat within DM control. For example, having a family. I know people who WILL NOT create a character with living, named family members because they've been burned by a DM who immediately used that opportunity to murder/rape/torture/zombify that character's every relatve. Characters with possessions to which they're attached are no different. Making them fun to play requires a bit of cooperation from the DM, yes. But that doesn't rise to the level of turning the game into some sort of farce where you ask and receive whatever you want from the DM. It just requires either not smashing your desert dervish PC's twin Scimitars of the Scorching Wind, or, if you do, giving him some quest to reforge them, ideally better than before and ready to taste the blood of the NPC who shattered them.

3. Personally, I really, really like trademark items. I find them much more interesting than generic items that you use for a while and then throw away when you find something better. I spend a lot of effort making sure every magic item has at least some small, unique detail that makes it more memorable. This has the side effect of making those items more personal and more desired by the players, meaning that they'd often prefer magically enhancing the broach they wear that contains a lock of unicorn hair (amulet of resistance +2 with cosmetic adjustment) to hawking it and replacing it with something else, even if it costs them extra money.

Not that you have to play that way. But playing my way doesn't make the game some sort of entitlement-fest, nor does playing your way make the game into a Diablo style hunt for l00t that's incrementally better than your current enormous collection of l00t.

 

[ProfessorPain]

I see we agree. The rules obviously weren't there to help make a believable world, they were there to help make that world more play-friendly for the PCs.

I don't know if we do or not. My position is that going too much in the direction of making it "play-friendly" ruins my experience of the game. If I want that kind of playability I will play X-box or warcraft. For D&D, I need the setting to make sense. Having multi-level dungeons that correspond perfectly to player level, somehow don't work for me.

 

[Remathilis]

I am surprised that no one seems to have yet posted the position that I would hold, namely, the world exists for the sake of the DM, who is the author of the world. Part of the joy of DMing is then in presenting this world to others for their enjoyment. It is very similar, IMO, to the actions of an author who creates a world and then gives it to readers for what he hopes is their approval.

As a player, when I get to play, the enjoyment comes from exploring someone elses world.

There is a fine line here: a world that solely exists for the entertainment of the DM (and not necessarily the PCs enjoyment) can create some of the biggest hobgoblins in our hobby; railroading (my plot must not be disturbed), God-NPCs (lucky My NPC protagonist was here to save the day), PC dis-empowerment (The bartender does 57 points of damage to the thief; did I mention he's a retired 15th level fighter?) and DM "self-pleasuring" (It doesn't matter if my PCs are having fun, as long as I am. Now save vs. death).

While not always true, there is a slippery slope between putting the DMs fun before (and not equal to) the other players and becoming a DM Tyrant whose game topples over the Chasm of Badwrongfun.

However, there is nothing wrong with creating a world for the enjoyment of others and receiving enjoyment at the process (and results) of it. That is the joy of DMing.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Very contrived? Maybe. But if you work from the assumption that the situation gets wilder and the risks grow greater the farther you radiate from a core (like, say, the farther you get from tilled and regularly patrolled fields), then it's not so hard to believe. In this case, the default core is the ground level.

.

I don't see how this is easy to swallow. This was always one of the things that jumped out at me with the older editions. The dungeons always seem to have been engineered for the purpose of exploration, without considering their original use. And the monsters settled into strange hierarchy, with the weak ones at the lower levels and the harder ones up top. To be fair, 3E went too far in the other direction. With a call for dungeon ecology, that was not only pedantic, but absurd. I guess I like something more in the middle.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't see how this is easy to swallow. This was always one of the things that jumped out at me with the older editions. The dungeons always seem to have been engineered for the purpose of exploration, without considering their original use. And the monsters settled into strange hierarchy, with the weak ones at the lower levels and the harder ones up top. To be fair, 3E went too far in the other direction. With a call for dungeon ecology, that was not only pedantic, but absurd. I guess I like something more in the middle.

See, in the end D&D is an absurd notion. A group of complete strangers, often of different species (with different outlooks and lifespans) and of wildly different vocations (a clergy member, a soldier, a cutpurse, and a scholar) meet in a local drinking establishment, decide to trust each other with their lives, and set out to find locally-located lost ruins full of dangerous monsters, hazardous traps, and mysterious magic all in the hopes of finding gold coins, magical trinkets, and improving (somehow) in their chosen profession.

 

[ProfessorPain]

See, in the end D&D is an absurd notion. A group of complete strangers, often of different species (with different outlooks and lifespans) and of wildly different vocations (a clergy member, a soldier, a cutpurse, and a scholar) meet in a local drinking establishment, decide to trust each other with their lives, and set out to find locally-located lost ruins full of dangerous monsters, hazardous traps, and mysterious magic all in the hopes of finding gold coins, magical trinkets, and improving (somehow) in their chosen profession.

I was calling the 3E call for realistic ecologies absurd, largely for the reasons you laid out. But I also think, given how fantastic D&D is, you have to have some level of believability. For me, where this used to break down, was the multi-level dungeons that got progressively more difficult as you worked your way from level to level. I don't need to know what the rats are eating to stay alive, to enjoy a dungeon; but I do want it to resemble a real life structure and not a video game.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Let me throw out a third possibility:

The World Exists For The Sake Of Challenging The Players - There is, naturally, a certain amount of fantasy wish-fulfillment going on. For some, that is part of the attraction of playing a fantasy role-playing game. However, the players have to earn their characters' rewards by displaying minimum levels of intelligence, tactics, planning, co-operation, courage, honor, luck, etc. (actual levels of intelligence, tactics, planning, co-operation, courage, honor, luck, etc. required will vary from DM to DM and from campaign to campaign).

I understand the appeal of this, but frankly I can't think of anything more boring than this sort of "competitive", challenge-the-players gameplay. I don't really like most competitive, "prove yourself" sorts of games - and, especially when it comes to roleplaying, what I want from the game is much more about the story of the characters' lives in the fictional setting than it is about the challenges faced by the players along the way to producing that story.

But then, I also don't really care about "wish-fulfilment" or identification with the character or any of that either. I don't even have to like my PCs to enjoy playing them and seeing what happens when their goals and desires run up against the rocks of the world.