Why the World Exists

[Mallus]

Why is a player "stupid" if they seek out a level inappropriate challenge.

The players are stupid if they deliberately take on a challenge they cannot possibly defeat nor escape from if they engage it (hello obvious my old friend!). Every edition of D&D provides many of these lopsided match ups.

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.

This doesn't alter the fact that the rules dictate some challenges are insurmountable to the players if they're not high enough in level, and that at any given time during the campaign a good DM has to populate the environment with surmountable challenges, in addition to providing ample information/hints as to which ones are not.

Which means the DM is actively taking steps to ensure level-appropriate challenges exist.

I would argue that the DM makes good intelligence available to the characters so that they can make an informed decision...

Which is what I wrote.

... (which is not the same as ensuring "... the level-appropriateness of in-game challenges faced" since nothing is ensured)

I didn't say they were the same, one method affords more player choice. Both have the same goal: make sure level-appropriate challenges exist for the players to take on. Both methods contrive the world into a place the game can take place.

Both also restrict the number of level-inappropriate challenges the players face, one directly through outright control of the encounters themselves, and the other indirectly through reliable information and use of 'invisible walls (ie, the CR 18 dragon on Mt. Fang that hunts in the Forest of Perishables never decides to torch the village of Starting Hamlet, at least while the low-level PC's are there shopping for 10' poles and flaming oil).

 

[Reynard]

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).

Here's the thing: we're not talking about adventure design, we are talking about setting design. I don't think Imaro, RC or any of us are suggesting that the DM designs a 10th level adventure for a 2nd level party. Rather, that the setting includes elements that cut across the spectrum of the "level spread" and that those things exist, as they are, regardless of the level of the PCs at the time the PCs might encounter them. That Jade Jaws lives within a few days travel of the PCs home village (he likes to occasionally snack on the goat herds and sometimes a traveler or two) doesn't mean that Jade Jaws is the target of the first, or in fact any, of the PCs' adventures. He's a setting element, one with which the PCs may or may not interact with based on their choices and perhaps (un)luck.

"Adventures" are a whole different situation. If the DM is going to put an adventure in front of the PCs and essentially force them into it, then I think it's necessary for it to be generally "level appropriate". This is why I try and stay away from "adventures" and go for "situations" and "locations" and let the PCs decide what to do. Of course, this doesn't work for every group, sometimes because the players aren't particularly self motivated and sometimes because the preference of the group leans toward discreet adventures and "adventure paths" (personal aside: blech). And that's fine. Not every DM is a good fit for every group.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

No.

The DM is obligated to make the world make sense, in that (say) the goblins know that there is a lich down below that they don't bother, but it is incumbant upon the players, not the DM, to make use of whatever means exist to obtain information about the world. Thus, taking prisoners and talking to captives is often as important...and, ultimately, as fun...as outright slaughter.

The DM makes some information about the world available because the PCs would know it. The DM makes some other information about the world available because it is contextually "correct" to do so (i.e., discussing their plans to go through the Wood of Great Peril near a friendly local provokes said friendly local to tell them what he believes the Great Peril to be.....and he may very well be wrong). The players must choose to seek information if they want more than this. Or stumble into it. The choice is theirs.

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.

Again, you conveniently ignore in your summary all the points previously made, including the examples of what is possible -- of what has happened in real games run by real people -- when the DM does not tightly control the encounters, ummmm, encountered.

I can respect that, given options X (expansive) or Y (narrow), one might prefer option Y. However, claiming that, because one prefers option Y, that option X is also option Y seems to me, at best, self-deluding.


RC

 

[Imaro]

The players are stupid if they deliberately take on a challenge they cannot possibly defeat nor escape from if they engage it (hello obvious my old friend!). Every edition of D&D provides many of these lopsided match ups.).

Eh, so you say... but if you are clever enough there are ways to defeat the supposedly "undefeatable". Can't a dragon drown, suffocate, be buried alive, tricked etc.? I also noticed now you've added "or escape from..." that's a pretty big conditional there, and I don't think most PC's walk into even what they think are easy or moderate challenges without some way out.

This doesn't alter the fact that the rules dictate some challenges are insurmountable to the players if they're not high enough in level, and that at any given time during the campaign a good DM has to populate the environment with surmountable challenges, in addition to providing ample information/hints as to which ones are not..).

Insurmountable if they charge in guns a blazin or plain insurmountable no matter what they do? You know defeating a challenge =/= killing it...right?

Also no one has said you shouldn't populate the campaign with "direct combat" surmountable challenges. If you used all "direct combat" insurrmountable challenges it would be just as lopsided and unnatural as using only "direct combat" challenges that are always surrmountable.

Which means the DM is actively taking steps to ensure level-appropriate challenges exist.

Yeah, he is, but I love the way you are trying to twist this... I repeat...No one said there shouldn't be any level-appropriate challenges... what we are ascerting is that there shouldn't only be level appropriate challenges for certain (sandbox) types of games otherwise you are limiting and restricting the choices (and possibly the creativity) of your players.

Which is what I wrote.

If you say so...

I didn't say they were the same, one method affords more player choice. Both have the same goal: make sure level-appropriate challenges exist for the players to take on. Both methods contrive the world into a place the game can take place.

No, they don't have the same goal and that's where you're not understanding. The I only create level appropriate combat challenges DM has that goal... in fact with this method it's the only possible goal he could have. And the player doesn't have a choice plain and simple the DM accomplishes this goal no matter what...

The DM who uses level appropriate as well as non-level appropriate combat challenges can actually have various goals such as... you decide your own fate, destiny, risk and reward... and it is accomplished because the PC's actually have to choose.

Both also restrict the number of level-inappropriate challenges the players face, one directly through outright control of the encounters themselves, and the other indirectly through reliable information and use of 'invisible walls (ie, the CR 18 dragon on Mt. Fang that hunts in the Forest of Perishables never decides to torch the village of Starting Hamlet, at least while the low-level PC's are there shopping for 10' poles and flaming oil).

Wrong, one eliminates the number of level-inappropriate challenges the players face...the other, depending on how the world is constructed could possibly create the result of restricting the number of level-inappropriate challenges the players face... or it may not. As an example what if I just have a wandering monster chart based entirely on environment as opposed to based on level, how does this in anyway restrict level-innappropriate challenges?

You assume alot and you really shouldn't. If I roll the CR 18 dragon on the wandering monster table in the village of Starting Hamlet... then the PC's will deal with it. Of course since the villagers are scared, giving the dragon tribute and doing whatever it wants, I gotta ask... why would it attack an insignificant village and destroy everything it's getting from the villagers?

(logically there's probably like a 1% chance of this happening unless something major changes the situation... would be the reason it isn't likely happening in my campaign...YMMV of course).

 

[Mallus]

The DM is obligated to make the world make sense...

Within the larger context of making the game playable. This is true no matter how many layers of rationalization you layer on top.

The DM makes some information about the world available because the PCs would know it. The DM makes some other information about the world available because it is contextually "correct" to do so.

Again, within the larger context of making the game playable. If the DM doesn't make enough information available, then informed choices and, consequently, 'smart play' become impossible.

Again, you conveniently ignore in your summary all the points previously made, including the examples of what is possible -- of what has happened in real games run by real people -- when the DM does not tightly control the encounters, ummmm, encountered.

I think you're misunderstanding me RC. I didn't say DM needed to control encounters. I said that's one way of addressing level appropriateness and sandbox games use other methods.

Heh... I didn't even claim one approach was better]/i].

 

[The Ghost]

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.

Partly true. While they can, and, often times do, produce similar outcomes, they will often produce dissimilar outcomes as well. My feeling is, I would rather have the PCs make that determination.

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.

To start, I do not plan out adventures, I just create opportunities for my players to find adventures. The world is what it is and it rewards the PCs based on the level of risk they wish to pursue. Not the level of risk I choose to give them. Part of the fun is in overcoming situations that should be well beyond our capabilities. We prefer playing knowing that the next encounter could be a cakewalk or a TPK. We don't know. We can guess. We can figure probabilities, strategies, and tactics. After that, it is just left to the roll of the dice, but we made that choice as players. We took the risk and that was the result.

As a player, I cannot find joy in success unless I can also fail. In fact, I love when my character fails, it motivates me as a player. My friends play the same way. I'll paraphrase ABC's Wide World of Sports - It's about the thrill of victory AND the agony of defeat. I give my players the opportunity to take a chance and experience both, if that's what they choose and that's the way the dice fall.

As to level appropriate, well, what is level appropriate? That is on the players to determine. They know better than me what powers, spells, items, skills, abilities, strategies, tactics, etc. they have. Regardless of edition, with all the information that is available to players, they can better determine what an appropriate level challenge is to them than I can. I just give them the opportunities and react to their decisions.

I do agree with you that there is merits to both sides of this argument. I am just trying to explain why I do what I do. And we all should do what is best for our individual groups. This just happens to be how my players and I enjoy the game.

 

[RefinedBean]

Either way of designing one's game is fine, so long as people are having fun.

I would like to point out that if a group of level 1 adventurers goes out and defeats a level 10 dragon, that dragon must have been having one heck of an off-day.

 

[Imaro]

Either way of designing one's game is fine, so long as people are having fun.

I would like to point out that if a group of level 1 adventurers goes out and defeats a level 10 dragon, that dragon must have been having one heck of an off-day.

Not if they beat it through the new eratta'd skill challenges...

 

[RefinedBean]

Not if they beat it through the new eratta'd skill challenges...

I suppose I could picture some long-winded Bard talking a White Dragon to death.

If the DM decides to let a group of level 1 adventurers defeat a level 10 dragon through some skill challenges, that's all fine and dandy. But that's still "designing the setting/scenario around the PCs," or else the skill challenges wouldn't be in place and the dragon would just chortle a bit before eating them.

 

[Imaro]

I suppose I could picture some long-winded Bard talking a White Dragon to death.

If the DM decides to let a group of level 1 adventurers defeat a level 10 dragon through some skill challenges, that's all fine and dandy. But that's still "designing the setting/scenario around the PCs," or else the skill challenges wouldn't be in place and the dragon would just chortle a bit before eating them.

What do you mean the skill challenges wouldn't be in place? I would think the PC's would come up with a plan and execute it through skill challenges. Using a level 10 challenge level for the skill challenges a 1st level PC is still pretty capable of succeeding. And again, defeating a challenge doesn't mean murderizing it...