Why the World Exists

[TwinBahamut]

There are a dozen plus books compiled from his notes on the history, geography and people of Middle Earth that would beg to differ.

And how many books are there out that detail setting information for the Forgotten Realms? Or even Eberron, for that matter?

And, keep in mind, many of those Middle Earth setting books exist solely as an attempt by various people after Tolkien's death to go into Tolkien's setting notes and pull out as much as they can in order to fill a desire by various people to see more stories set in Middle Earth. How many books do you think could be created from unused setting detail created by any other author? Probably as much as a dozen books, I bet.

Because The Lord of the Rings is a book trilogy, it has certain inherent setting detail needs that are very different than other forms of entertainment. It needs less detail than a series of books much longer than a trilogy (can you really write a whole other trilogy of novels in the setting of Middle Earth as it exists now?), and it certainly requires less detail than something like an MMORPG (which literally needs hundreds or thousands of individual characters and dozens of highly detailed locations, all within a strong thematic framework). All told, I am quite certain that Middle earth is very far from being the most detailed setting ever devised. If nothing else, overblown abominations like the DC multiverse and Marvel universe are far more extensive and detailed, simply because so many more stories have been told in them. Even the fact that Tolkien created his own language for the setting is nothing unique anymore.

Truthfully, Middle Earth and The Lord of the Rings have been imitated and used as the model for countless stories and settings since (and quite rightfully so), so there really isn't anything really unique about them anymore other than historical role and quality. Well, I suppose few have dared to copy Tolkien's elaborate writing style, but that isn't really an aspect of the setting.

The greatness of Tolkien's writing has nothing to do with setting detail, and everything to do with Tolkien's own skill in crafting those stories. If anything, I consider the constant inside references to far more obscure works contained within those books to be one of the few flaws of those novels, not one of their assets. Frodo or Aragon invoking the names of Beren and Luthien is something that is meaningless to a reader who hasn't read the Silmarillion, and thus it is something that is just as easily ignored as anything else.

 

[Reynard]

3. They are the exact same thing in that you engineered the game in both circumstances in order to accomodate player character level, placing you squarely in the OPs camp A, "The World Exists for the Sake of the Characters," and clearly exemplifying a "level responsive" setting. It is level responsive both to decline to include a level inappropriate dragon, and to include said dragon while giving the PCs information and options sufficient to make that dragon a plot device that they do not have to face in a level inappropriate manner.

If this is really your perspective on the matter, I'm not sure I can explain it to you in any way that will make you see that they aren't the same thing at all. I might be wrong, so forgive me, but it seems like you are leaning toward a very linear, railroad style view, that the DM is responsible for the events of play (not least what encounters occur, level appropriate or otherwise). I don't subscribe to that view. The DM is responsible for framing the situation but the players are responsible for what actually happens in play by making choices. So, you see, the dragon in this example isn't just a set piece, it is an actual option.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

Seen through the lense of 3E and now 4E - yes, we spent "points" on these items. We call them gold pieces, which we have according to roughly the value of "Magical Item Wealth by level" (at least in 3E).

It's also seems one of the reasons how "wish lists" came into being in 4E. A lot of 3E games assumed something like magic item shop and selling unsuitable magical items and crafting or buying the ones you desire.

So 4E offers to cut the middle man - you don't need to sell your items, because you already get what fits your character.

And I think that is a fitting approach to games if you look at it from the view that they create a "story". Most literary stories don't introduce items that the characters don't use. They might not always want them, but they will use them, and it will propel the story. We don't get to hear the story where they found an item and never used it, often they even become cruicial to the story.

 

[Morrus]

I think you missed the point I was trying to make, which is that for just about anything said or done, someone will be offended. A lot of the more interesting, dare I say "juicy", material on forums like this tend to have some degree of potential offensivosity. I think the key is to not go overboard, to avoid the usual triggers, and try to be respectful. However, I think that if we tried not to offend everyone with everything we said--which is what you seemed to be saying--things would get awfully stale real quickly.

I understand your point completely; while the fact that I disagree with your conclusion is irrelevant, the rule remains, notwithstanding the point. Obviously, by implication, a "reasonable man" test applies to all posts; but one which begins with "I know I'm about to anger some people" automatically fails that reasonable man test. It's served us well for nearly 9 years, and will continue to do so.

Anyway, that's enough of discussing board moderation here. That's another rule, anyway! Back to the thread!

 

[Mallus]

After a good bit of thought I think that the Silmarillion would have been a lot better with some Tauren Death Knights.

Or if it were an actual novel.

(hey, put those pitchforks down, I liked the Silmarillion for what is was, but I would have preferred it to be something else)

 

[Remathilis]

You act like I need permission.

I don't need permission to put anything I wish anywhere. Likewise, players don't need my permission to walk down any path of their choosing.

A dragon rumored to be up in the mountains but which is only encountered if the players seek it out is hardly thrown at anyone. You act as if the DM is secretly gleeful at such a turn of affairs, when probably the DM sees it as a disaster.

If the PC's make bad choices, naturally, they will come to bad ends in all probability despite my best efforts to save them from themselves. But ultimately, the player is in charge of his character. I can't force them not to do something stupid. I can't take away their responsibility for their actions, because to do that is to completely take away their freedom. If their actions always lead to the same ends no matter what I do, then they are truly just my puppets and the whole thing is a sham.

If the PC's make good choice, naturally, they will probably overcome everything and come to good ends despite me playing NPC's with all the cunning and ruthless I can manage. Players are usually pretty cunning, and when you stack the deck in their favor ever so slightly, they generally prevail. Heck, they sometimes prevail when you think the odds are against them. What am I to do, take away their well earned rewards? If I can take away their bad ends and call it fair, then surely I can take away their good ends and call it fair?

What course would you really suggest a DM take? Put up impenetrable forests and uncrossable mountains around every path, so as to perfectly guide the PC's to the places that you think that they ought to go? Shift every obstacle out of the way of the PC's, and shuffle in its place something you prefer? Erect invisible barriers in the campaign world that cannot be crossed until you reach level 15?

I think we're arguing opposite sides of the same coin. (and it goes back to my, and largely Cadfan's, point).

If I'm designing an adventure for low-level PCs, I use orcs, not giants. If I want a dragon, I make it young-to-adult, not a great wyrm. I don't put an epic-level lich's crypt near the PC's home town. If I'm putting powerful monsters in the world, they are in remote locations (far away, lost locales of wonder) not the local goblin-warrens.

That is not to say that a PC can't wander from the goblin-warrens to find an ogre's den. They won't wander into a hill-giant's steading though unless they go seeking the darkest, most remote areas of my world though.

The point Cadfan was arguing (if I'm not incorrect) is that in the infamous "20-level dungeon" scenario, we put the level 1 monsters on level 1 and don't have the level 20 monsters wander up to borrow a cup of sugar, no matter how "realistic" it is. If you're running said dungeon and the PCs open the door expecting kobolds but find a balor, you've just played "gotcha", not matter how much brimstone the PCs smell in the hallway in front of them.

 

[billd91]

Seen through the lense of 3E and now 4E - yes, we spent "points" on these items. We call them gold pieces, which we have according to roughly the value of "Magical Item Wealth by level" (at least in 3E).

I do not agree that the gold pieces characters are expected to be able to have at their command, on average, is really a de facto points system. I will agree that 3e tended to blur the issue by putting out a guideline because players began to look at those wealth levels as if they were entitled to every gp on the table. They're not, but they think they are.

 

[The Ghost]

These things are true, but they are not relevant to whether or not the game world is being engineered by the DM to better serve the players by ensuring that they do not wander or get led into level inappropriate encounters.

They are relevant in that they challenge the initial assumption that the dragon (lich, whatever) only exists to be killed. That is hardly the case. The dragon (etc.) is an option, nothing more, something that the PCs can use how they wish. My job is only to provide them the options, it is the PC's job to value those options.

 

[Mercurius]

After a good bit of thought I think that the Silmarillion would have been a lot better with some Tauren Death Knights.

Aside from the fact that I don't know what Tauren Death Knights are (edit: I just googled and saw they are part of WoW, which I have never played), I don't think you need them--or anything, really--when you have...

GOTHMOG.

(the original from the Silmarillion, not the ugly dude in the LotR movies).

 

[Thasmodious]

I'm a Gothmog, part goth-man, part dog. I'm my own depressed, vampire obsessed, best friend.