Why the World Exists

[Cadfan]

Do you guys really not see what you're doing?

You're constantly justifying things by explaining that they're what's "realistic," and saying that what's "realistic" should happen even if its not pleasant from the perspective of the players.

When people point out that this could lead to unfair results, you come up with all kinds of reasons why the players could have avoided the unfun results if they'd tried harder.

When people point out that not every realistic and unfun thing is actually avoidable, you attack the hypothetical and argue that it really IS avoidable, or if you can't win that fight, you argue that its the allegedly realistic and unfun thing is actually unrealistic.

That's why Mallus shouldn't give you an explanation for why his dragon is killing the low level PCs. It doesn't matter why. Giving you an actual explanation is just giving you a crack to wiggle through on an unrelated objection.

As long as one hypothetical realistic explanation exists for why low level PCs might be killed by a high level dragon, you guys are stuck. Because when your only justification for why things are the way they are in your game world is "because that's how they really are" or "because that's realistic," then you can't explain how you choose between multiple realistic possibilities.

Personally, I suspect you do it exactly the same way everyone else does, you just say you don't.

 

[Thasmodious]

If everything I run into is suddenly "adapted" to my level how does this in anyway give me freedom of choice, it becomes an illusion at this point. Fun again is dependent upon what the PC's want out of a game so I won't argue with you on that point. And I'm sorry but life is full of arbitrary "numbers" when it comes to the challenges one can face... but it's also this uncertainty and challenge that makes life and the game fun for certain players. YMMV of course.

First, suddenly is poor word choice. Its not suddenly for the players at all. The players are not aware of any kind of "sudden" adjustment. They heard rumors that the caves were full of goblins, they go check it out, and find it is full of goblins. This remains true, no story elements change at all, whether those goblins are lvl 1, lvl 4 or lvl 8, or a healthy mix of many different types.

Second, I've repeatedly said "not everything". Range of challenge is informed by the nature of the locale. A cave filled with goblins has a lot of possible ranges, but still an appropriate limit. A powerful monster isn't going to level adjust to low level PCs. In a sandbox, freedom is ALWAYS an illusion (yes, in yours too). You can't freely explore something that isn't there. If the DM doesn't place it in the box, its not an option. If the DM hasn't placed a marauding dragon in the setting, never had villages attacked or even a rumor of such a powerful foe nearby, then the players suddenly deciding they want to find and kill one is not something the setting can reasonably do. Unless, that is, you are willing to adjust your setting for the PCs. If you aren't, then freedom is certainly an illusion. If you are, then, well, what are we really arguing about?

I like my, and my players, freedom. I run sandbox games specifically so the PCs can find the game they want to play and when they do, it will be challenging. If the PCs want to do something that I haven't accounted for in the sandbox at all, I like to have the freedom to work that into the setting, even though it wasn't there. I like to have the freedom to challenge them appropriately when they decide to spend their time and resources on something. The freedom in such a setting is always an illusion, the game is an illusion itself, that's the nature of the beast.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Can I get you to send an email to the guy who ran our Rise of the Runelords game. I don't think he got the memo that protecting my (numerous, very, very dead) PCs from a gruesome, random death is a requirement for running adventure paths.

Just buy him a copy of the 2nd Ed DMG. The "fantastic" advice in that book nearly destroyed the game for me.

YMMV.

EDIT: I hope, for your sake, that you are not suddenly innundated with people who claim that (1) your experiences did not happen, (2) your experiences cannot happen because having them happen doesn't serve the game, and (3) even if your experiences did happen, it is exactly the same as if they did not.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Here's the scenario more fully described: the ancient red dragon was in a fit of pique because its lair was just raided by a party of talented adventurers while it was out hunting near the Forest of Perishables. The adventures beat the dragon's security measures, looted the joint, then teleported away. Unthinkingly angry, the dragon flew off, far outside it's normal hunting range, burning villages as it went. Unfortunately, this included the village the party of 2nd level PC's were currently resupplying in. The attack was brutal, without warning, and fatal to PC's of that level.

Events like this simply don't occur in any of the campaigns I've seen run, sandbox or not. My point --lest we forget what I was trying to illustrate-- was that the reason this does not occur isn't matter of in-game logic. It's metagaming (the desirable kind). That no matter how sandbox-y your sandbox is, there are simply events that the DM takes off the table. Because they would be detrimental to the play experience, not because they are impossible under the internal logic of the setting.

Unless the village is the village closest to the dragon, once the dragon starts marauding, I don't believe that there would be no warning. And if it is the village closest to the dragon, that might well equate to some warning already.

Your example doesn't not occur because of metagaming; it doesn't occur because it could only occur through metagaming of a particularly nasty and vindictive kind.

That said, I have had PCs in towns razed by dragons, while at low level, both as player and DM. In talented hands, it has been very fun from both sides of the screen.


RC

 

[nightwyrm]

I think the basis of the objection to a world that doesn't respond to character levels is that what is realistic doesn't necessarily make for a good game, and a lot of people who plays an RPG wants to play a game.

An underwater earthquake that sets off a tsunami and wipes out hundreds of thousands of people is sudden, tragic and very, very realistic.

An underwater earthquake that sets off a tsunami and wipes out hundreds of thousands of people which included the party of lv 2 PCs is a crappy game.

While one might object that the DM hitting his game world with an unforseen natural disaster is different from the PC deciding to go visit the Caves of Doom or the Fort of Cannonfodders, the truth is that everything that exists or happens in the game world is put there by the DM. The idea that the world runs independently of the DM is itself an illusion.

 

[Mallus]

Unless the village is the village closest to the dragon, once the dragon starts marauding, I don't believe that there would be no warning.

I see you're making some convenient assumptions about the speed at which information travels.

Your example doesn't not occur because of metagaming; it doesn't occur because it could only occur through metagaming of a particularly nasty and vindictive kind.

You're basically stating it's always logical for there to be ample warning. That's nonsense --actually Cadfan describes this well in his last post.

In talented hands, it has been very fun from both sides of the screen.

Agreed. But that's not relevant to my example either.

 

[Imaro]

The game rules aren't relevant to the point I was making. But, since you asked, the dragon I was referring to was a 3e CR18 red dragon. And yes, I know the rules, 1e-4e, though, admittedly, my 1e & 2e is a little rusty. Been a decade since I ran either.

So then you know this dragons breath weapon (and I'm assuming red since we are talking about fire) is only 50" by 50" cone... how can this instantly incinerate an entire village of 400 to 900 people? Not to mention it has to recharge once used..right?

Demonstrate how it's illogical for an angry dragon to torch a village. For extra credit, demonstrate how it's illogical for tornado to obliterate a town in the Midwest when the proper atmospheric conditions are present. .

It's illogical according to the rules for it to happen instantaneously, and if the PC's are inside shopping they are shielded from a direct hit from the dragon's breath weapon,etc., etc. you see there are so many variables that can take place that I fail to see this as an instant death scenario for the PC's.

In-game logic is DM Fiat. Or, rather, in-game logic is a system created by DM Fiat. Which amounts to the same thing.

No a created and adhered to system for determining things is not the same as creating events and things whilly nilly from moment to moment. It's the difference between cops and robbers with no rules except the ones made up while you play and an rpg with rules people adhere to.

Sure. But rarely, if ever, are PC's visited with the equivalent of a pop-up tornado and killed at random. Which shows that simulationist games are rigged too, just not to the extent of tailored games.

See in my game the PC's would be visited with a pop-up tornado (in fact while playing Dragon Warriors my group ran into a sandstorm that appeared out of nowhere), but people don't die instantly from bein in or near a tornado... they die from the actions that take place while they are in or near a tornado... big difference is that tornado in no sense of realism = instant death. People have survived natural disasters and thius in being realistic the PC's also have a chance to survive one.

This is also where I become confused by your arguement in the second part... with you Mallus the above is like you're saying gray is the same as black... just less so since it is mixed with white... No, it's a totally different color that has elements of black in it but is still something different.

Because they're irrelevant.

No they're really not in a smulationist world.

 

[Imaro]

Do you guys really not see what you're doing?

You're constantly justifying things by explaining that they're what's "realistic," and saying that what's "realistic" should happen even if its not pleasant from the perspective of the players.

When people point out that this could lead to unfair results, you come up with all kinds of reasons why the players could have avoided the unfun results if they'd tried harder.

When people point out that not every realistic and unfun thing is actually avoidable, you attack the hypothetical and argue that it really IS avoidable, or if you can't win that fight, you argue that its the allegedly realistic and unfun thing is actually unrealistic.

That's why Mallus shouldn't give you an explanation for why his dragon is killing the low level PCs. It doesn't matter why. Giving you an actual explanation is just giving you a crack to wiggle through on an unrelated objection.

As long as one hypothetical realistic explanation exists for why low level PCs might be killed by a high level dragon, you guys are stuck. Because when your only justification for why things are the way they are in your game world is "because that's how they really are" or "because that's realistic," then you can't explain how you choose between multiple realistic possibilities.

Personally, I suspect you do it exactly the same way everyone else does, you just say you don't.

Do you see what you're doing here? Totally ignoring the question about the portalover the lava where we all said we'd let our players die if they just decided to jump through it.

Our problem is like the example above it really has to be a situation that results in death with no chance of another outcome you step out of space and into lava at level one by the rules, you are dead... a dragon attacking a village, make good rolls, hide well, whatever and you might survive. the same with a mugging by bandits or an attack by wolves... there are too many variables in these situations for us to just kill all the characters.

 

[Ourph]

Your example doesn't not occur because of metagaming; it doesn't occur because it could only occur through metagaming of a particularly nasty and vindictive kind.

Funny, I never thought of Professor Tolkien as being particularly metagamey, let alone vindictive.

On a more serious note, you're right that simply deciding that this happens is both metagamey and a real pooper of a thing to do. But on the other hand, not even considering that it happens is equally metagamey, but in a benevolent way.

In a setting where both red dragons and adventurers (other than the PCs) exist, there is some chance that the outlined scenario happens. In a 100% sandboxy campaign (a hypothetical construct to be sure), the DM should be assigning a percentage chance to this scenario happening and rolling for it. If that's not happening, if the scenario never even makes its way onto a table of random events (i.e. the possibility doesn't exist that the scenario could happen), the DM has exercised just as much metagame fiat as if he simply decided that the scenario does happen.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Do you guys really not see what you're doing?

You're constantly justifying things by explaining that they're what's "realistic," and saying that what's "realistic" should happen even if its not pleasant from the perspective of the players.

When people point out that this could lead to unfair results, you come up with all kinds of reasons why the players could have avoided the unfun results if they'd tried harder.

Full stop.

(1) What's "realistic" should happen even if its not pleasant from the perspective of the player characters. Please note the distinction.

(2) What's "realistic" nearly always includes events that are not level-appropriate (what you herein refer to as "unfair"). Getting hit by a car is "unfair", as is getting mauled by a polar bear, or getting an incurable disease.

(3) What's "realistic" refers to the "reality" of the game world, wherein some things are possible that are not possible in the real world, such as (a) curing an incurable disease, and (b) knowing absolutely whether or not pulling a lever is a good idea.

(4) In both the game world and the real world, what's "realistic" is that, despite the potential for a lot of "unfair" outcomes, some level of prudence can strongly modify the actual potential for said outcomes to occur. It is unlikely that I will get mauled by a polar bear in Florida, for example, and looking both ways before crossing the road (rather than, say, throwing myself in front of cars) modifies the chances of getting an "unfair" outcome.

(5) It is therefore both true that (a) "unfair" events can (and should) happen in a "realistic" game world, and (b) people (PCs included) can (and should) have opportunities to modify the chance and/or outcome of these "unfair" events. Which might mean jumping out the way of a car instead of fighting it.

(6) Within this context, no matter how you try to conflate the terms, what you call "unfair" =/= "unfun".

(7) While claims that "not every realistic thing is actually avoidable" are true, the method by which you then extrapolate to Mallus' dragon (and similar) does not follow. While "not every realistic thing is actually avoidable", it does not therefore follow that "every realistic thing is actually unavoidable". The chances of running into a realistic, unavoidable thing within the game world which also cannot be modified after being encountered is smaller for the PCs than for you or I simply because the PC's world includes magical means to modify the results of said thing that do not exist IRL.

As long as one hypothetical realistic explanation exists for why low level PCs might be killed by a high level dragon, you guys are stuck. Because when your only justification for why things are the way they are in your game world is "because that's how they really are" or "because that's realistic," then you can't explain how you choose between multiple realistic possibilities.

I have yet to hear one realistic possibility.

But, to answer your question: If there are eight villages roughly equidistant from the dragon's lair, and the PCs are in one, I would roll 1d8, with the PCs' village being "1" and the other villages radiating clockwise from the lair to determine which is attacked first.

Which, I believe, Celebrim and Imaro have said in other words several times before.


RC