Why the World Exists

[Ourph]

It is a genre convention in older D&D that more dangerous things exist on deeper dungeon levels.

It's not a genre convention, it's a nod to playability and ensuring that characters have a good chance of facing level-appropriate challenges. It BECAME a genre convention because, after being used for a while, people realized it worked really well.

But if the 1st level PCs find the stairs down (and they often did because there tended to be multiple points of entry to each level) and they hit level 2, the creatures on that level don't suddenly change "CR" to accomodate the PCs' level. More to the point, the dungeon exists in its state, with weaker monsters up top and more powerful ones deeper down and the PCs have the freedom to (attempt to) move about those levels as they wish.

And I would argue this is a perfect example of the world conforming itself to the needs of the characters/players rather than the world conforming itself to the imperatives of the world. While the tougher, bottom-level monsters didn't change their nature if lower-level PCs encountered them on their level, they also didn't roam around, changing levels in the dungeon so that 1st level PCs met the Balor that usually lived on the bottom level of the dungeon while he was upstairs on level 1 looking for a tasty Kobold snack. Are you honestly proposing that every dungeon in the game world having a top-weakest/bottom-toughest hierarchy was a "natural" design choice rather than an articifial construct based on accomodating the ability's of the characters?

 

[ProfessorPain]

It's not a genre convention, it's a nod to playability and ensuring that characters have a good chance of facing level-appropriate challenges. It BECAME a genre convention because, after being used for a while, people realized it worked really well.

Doesn't that make it a Genre Convention?

And it didn't work very well. It was done becuase it had been done for so long no one questioned it. But toward the late 80s we all started to question its believability. It was very contrived, and required serious suspension of disbelief.

 

[Celebrim]

Inherently? No, I don't see that at all. I can see how you, as a particular player, may have needs and desires that are in conflict with wish lists.

Err... hmmm....

Indeed. I thought I just said that.

I do not see that there is any *inherent* conflict at all between players (including DMs) and wish lists. If you don't want to use them, don't feel you have to. It's the tone of moral and ethical disapproval towards wish lists that seems ridiculous to me.

I very much think you are going to see what ever you want to see. For example...

Such items were introduced, developed and placed in the story for the writer's convenience, not the characters.

Sure. And if you go off on a completely different topic than the one that has been under discussion, then you will find it very easy to disagree with things I haven't even addressed as long and as loudly as you like.

Are you seriously contesting that magic items introduced in fantasy stories are not frequently done so by authors as a convenient way to further the story? Note that, again, we are speaking of the convenience of the author, not the characters.

Are we really? When did that happen?

 

[Dragon Snack]

What if the PCs have to get somewhere and their choices are to spend more time going around the Big Wood or taking a "shortcut" through and have a possibility of being dragon snack.

Your PCs can't be me, I'm a beautiful and UNIQUE snowflake!

 

[ProfessorPain]

Your PCs can't be me, I'm a beautiful and UNIQUE snowflake!

Hey, we're all beautiful and unique snowflakes. My 7th grade Social Studies teacher said so.

 

[Mallus]

The 4E DMG.

I totally missed that. Learn something new every day...

Wish lists aren't used in our campaign. The idea seems odd to me, but that could just be last gasp of my inner old-school viking hat DM. I mean, there's nothing inherently wrong with a player having some say in what treasure items defeated foes have.

Or from the other side, what's inherently right about the DM choosing the contents of treasure parcels? (or using a chart)? DM's frequently dole out items with specific characters in mind. Why guess what your players might be interested in when you can simply ask?

It's really just an extra level of character customization.

 

[billd91]

Doesn't that make it a Genre Convention?

And it didn't work very well. It was done becuase it had been done for so long no one questioned it. But toward the late 80s we all started to question its believability. It was very contrived, and required serious suspension of disbelief.

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.

Of course, it's also worth pointing out that the assumption that less dangerous stuff was at the top of a multi-layered dungeon is merely a tendency. There are limits, but also variability. You can still end up with pretty tough stuff up there by the old random encounter tables.

 

[Reynard]

Are you honestly proposing that every dungeon in the game world having a top-weakest/bottom-toughest hierarchy was a "natural" design choice rather than an articifial construct based on accomodating the ability's of the characters?

No. I don't even know how you got there, to be honest with you.

 

[Reynard]

It's really just an extra level of character customization.

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.

 

[Reynard]

I cannot, for the life of me, see how that affects anything I said.

This:

Now that isn't to say that there isn't sometimes reason to have Jade Jaws the ancient wyrm who lives in the Big Wood nearby, even though the players are first level. And if the players have enough information to make meaningful decisions (very key, this point), I suppose that if they decide to go suicide themselves in a futile battle of level 1 PCs versus Jade Jaws the ancient green dragon wyrm, then I guess that's what happens.

Though I generally find that players don't intentionally suicide the whole party fighting ancient wyrms they know they can't beat, so if they DO attack Jade Jaws at level 1, that suggests that they weren't as clued in to the whole "ancient wyrm in the Big Wood will kill you DEAD" thing as the DM probably thought.