Why the World Exists

[Remathilis]

It is the PCs decision to make the choice. Not mine. I let the players determine if the risk is worth the reward.

But, here's the thing: In a world where that dragon exists, the players get to decide what challenges to face. They not only get to decide if "fight the dragon" is a challenge they can face, they get to decide if "talk to the dragon", "serve the dragon", "convince the dragon", and "use the dragon as basis of scams" are challenges they can face. They can make an illusion of a dragon that is credible to NPCs because the NPCs know there is a dragon. They can, frankly, come up with thousands of other, better, ideas than the ones I have outlined here.

Ok, Cadfan I have just one question... what if the PC's find a way to defeat the dragon? Seriously what if they are ingenuous enough to pull it off without going head to head with the creature...does it change your position? Or what if the player's believe they are, even after all their research... how does it become a non-choice?

Wow. I don't know if its generational, editional, or something they put in the water up here, but I don't know a single player (and I've played with countless at this point) who, knowing that the dragon between towns was powerful (and via metagaming would equate that to beyond their scope to handle) would even bother to touch it, let alone attack it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Wow. I don't know if its generational, editional, or something they put in the water up here, but I don't know a single player (and I've played with countless at this point) who, knowing that the dragon between towns was powerful (and via metagaming would equate that to beyond their scope to handle) would even bother to touch it, let alone attack it.

Unless the players have the option to do as they will -- and unless they are allowed to define the challenges -- the game narrows to combat encounters interspersed with role-playing. Give the players their head, and allow them to decide what kind of encounters they seek, and suddenly not only do a plethora of options for the "action" of the game become viable, but a plethora of character types (including many non-optimazed for combat types) become viable as well.

One shouldn't expect players used to cages to suddenly act differently once they are free (or more free), but given time, I bet those same players might surprise you.

It requires some experience of wide-open expanses to see how different (and limiting) those narrow adventure paths are, I guess.


RC

 

[Imaro]

Wow. I don't know if its generational, editional, or something they put in the water up here, but I don't know a single player (and I've played with countless at this point) who, knowing that the dragon between towns was powerful (and via metagaming would equate that to beyond their scope to handle) would even bother to touch it, let alone attack it.

Well I most certainly have played with PC's who came up with pretty creative ways to defeat creatures more powerful than them and even some that got through on pure luck. I do think that when you make sure that everything a group of PC's runs into is killable by them, in direct combat... they tend to start to only think in that direction...just saying.

But I think... a better question is if you don't give your players the ability to choose what they are willing to take on and how much risk they are willing to deal with, how do you know what they can or cannot do? YMMV of course.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well I most certainly have played with PC's who came up with pretty creative ways to defeat creatures more powerful than them and even some that got through on pure luck. I do think that when you make sure that everything a group of PC's runs into is killable by them, in direct combat... they tend to start to only think in that direction...just saying.

But I think... a better question is if you don't give your players the ability to choose what they are willing to take on and how much risk they are willing to deal with, how do you know what they can or cannot do? YMMV of course.

Exactly.

It is often said, "If your only tool is a hammer, pretty soon everything begins to look like a nail".

Flipped over, "If all you are ever presented with are nails, pretty soon all you ever reach for is a hammer."

It may also be said, "If your only tool is a hammer, it shouldn't be odd that you never considered tightening the bolts."



RC

 

[The Ghost]

Wow. I don't know if its generational, editional, or something they put in the water up here, but I don't know a single player (and I've played with countless at this point) who, knowing that the dragon between towns was powerful (and via metagaming would equate that to beyond their scope to handle) would even bother to touch it, let alone attack it.

Added to what RC and Imaro said above... All I can do is give them the opportunity to do great things.

 

[Mallus]

In one paradigm, the world exists, and the players determine what sort of challenge they are capable of facing.

With the help of the DM, who places those challenges on the map, makes sure a few of them are level-appropriate, and then places reasonably legible signposts up that convey the level-appropriateness of each challenge (more or less).

In general, the players need to determine what level of challenge any given in-world location or object represents, based upon information and hints that are presented in the context of the world itself.

In other words, based on the information the DM makes available to them so they don't blunder into level-inappropriate challenges unless the player are determined to be stupid.

It seems to me that these two paradigms are functionally pretty similar. Both take steps to ensure the level-appropriateness of in-game challenges faced, but use different methodologies.

Under one, the DM tightly controls the encounters, ummm, encountered. In the other, DM makes good intelligence available to players so they can make informed choices about the dangers they take on, in addition to setting the play environment up so that appropriate challenges exist nearby.

 

[Imaro]

With the help of the DM, who places those challenges on the map, makes sure a few of them are level-appropriate, and then places reasonably legible signposts up that convey the level-appropriateness of each challenge (more or less).


In other words, based on the information the DM makes available to them so they don't blunder into level-inappropriate challenges unless the player are determined to be stupid.

It seems to me that these two paradigms are functionally pretty similar. Both take steps to ensure the level-appropriateness of in-game challenges faced, but use different methodologies.

Under one, the DM tightly controls the encounters, ummm, encountered. In the other, DM makes good intelligence available to players so they can make informed choices about the dangers they take on, in addition to setting the play environment up so that appropriate challenges exist nearby.

It seems to me that in order to support your reasoning you are assigning motivation without any evidence to back it up. Why is a player "stupid" if they seek out a level inappropriate challenge. First, ignoring the fact that the XP budgets/CR are guesstimations anyway (and it is actually possible for a well played and/or lucky party to defeat challenges that are "inappropriate" according to the book)... if you feel you can defeat a challenge why not go for it? It's a game and for some people part of the fun is in how big of a challenge they can overcome or outsmart, and hey they don't really mind if they might loose a character to do it.

I would argue that the DM makes good intelligence available to the characters so that they can make an informed decision (which is not the same as ensuring "... the level-appropriateness of in-game challenges faced" since nothing is ensured) ... however, what decision the PC's make isn't decided by the DM but instead by the actual players and dependant upon their motivations, goals, sense of what is fun, etc.

How can you not see the difference between these two situations... In one you still have a choice (regardless of what information you recieve you can still choose)... in the other you don't have a choice.

 

[Remathilis]

Still, is it or is it not the DMs job to consider the "balanced" encounter paragrim?

For example, I (as DM) decide that the next adventure will deal with a group of marauding monsters terrorizing local farming communities. My group is (lets say) 5th level.

As a DM I have two choices.

a.) Go with some monsters that are level appropriate (orcs, lizardmen, etc).
b.) Go with something that seems "natural" but might not be an appropriate challenge (kobolds, hill giants).

Both sides have merits. If the world is a natural ecology that doesn't take into account the relative level of the PCs (that is, the world exists for the PCs to make their way in irregardless of thier personal power) then using something wildly underpowered (kobolds) or overpowered (hill giants) are as equally valid as using something level appropriate (orcs). However, we can all agree the game runs better when the PCs relative power is taken into account (the world conforms to the PCs) so that the game isn't a cakewalk or a TPK.

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? The PCs or the World?

It seems one side arguing the world comes first and if its appropriate for the town to be attacked by hill giants the by-gods here come the rain of boulders, it doesn't matter if the PCs are powerful enough to face them in combat, they'll think of something or chalk it up to another lost town.

The other side is saying "but if the DM is going through the trouble of putting something there, then it makes sense the PCs should be able to handle it." There is no point in wasting time statting up monsters the PCs won't fight or creating scenarios that will either bore or crush their characters.

While I DO agree powerful things should exist independent of PC levels (its not like giants magically move downriver and kick the orcs out now that the PCs are 10th level) you have to agree that by-and-large PCs should face appropriate level encounters and receive appropriate level rewards, otherwise its OK to use Hill giants as a challenge for 5th level PCs.

 

[Xyxox]

The answer is "Kender".

The world exists for the entertainment of Kender, whether or not Kender are native to the world.

Xyxox Law: Any world, given enough time, will be discoverd by Kender.

 

[Remathilis]

The answer is "Kender".

The world exists for the entertainment of Kender, whether or not Kender are native to the world.

Xyxox Law: Any world, given enough time, will be discovered by Kender.

I wish I could disagree with you, but every DM I've ever played with (myself included) has used the annoying SoB's at least once as a PC, NPC, or "monster". Not one of them has been running Dragonlance at the time.