Why the World Exists

[The Shaman]

I did, but I think you missed my post.

You're right, I did - thanks for clarifying, Mallus.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I was trying to debunk the notion that it was somehow logical for low-level PC's to be insulated from dangers outside their ability to handle striking them out of the blue. This needs to happen in a campaign in order for it to be playable, but it has nothing to do with the internal logic of the setting.

Yeah, you don't want all of your PCs to die a horrible death to an impossible challenge. It's no fun. So, you insulate them from those challenges either by keeping those challenges out of reach, failing to mention those challenges to keep the PCs focused elsewhere, or giving them enough information to make an informed decision not to go there.

But it is not based on logic. It is based in the needs of the game and in the interest of having fun.

 

[Imaro]

I was making a point that looks to have gotten lost in the shuffle.

I was trying to debunk the notion that it was somehow logical for low-level PC's to be insulated from dangers outside their ability to handle striking them out of the blue. This needs to happen in a campaign in order for it to be playable, but it has nothing to do with the internal logic of the setting.

I really don't understand how you come to this blanket conclusion without examining the particular setting you are making the assertion about. Here's an example... a setting based upon PC's as citizens of a Roman-esque empire, at the height of it's power, who patrol a nearby road that accomodates trade for the city are less likely to die a random horrible death than escaped slaves with nothing but the rags on their backs, lost in a dessert of Athas. This has alot to do with the internal logic of the setting (one of the reasons players in Dark Sun had multiple characters who started at higher levels than characters on other worlds.).

EDIT: I think the multiple characters thing is something often overlooked by people who want to run true sandboxes as well. There is actually an expectation that not all these characters will survive, maybe none of them contrary to your assertions.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I was making a point that looks to have gotten lost in the shuffle.

I was trying to debunk the notion that it was somehow logical for low-level PC's to be insulated from dangers outside their ability to handle striking them out of the blue. This needs to happen in a campaign in order for it to be playable, but it has nothing to do with the internal logic of the setting.

Hasn't gotten lost in the shuffle.

I just think that you are wrong, and that you haven't actually evidenced your point.


RC

 

[Mallus]

Hasn't gotten lost in the shuffle.

It did to the poster I was replying to .

BTW, after you wrote this...

I have never denied that I do in fact put some DM input into the world (doing so would be foolish) or into what the PCs can have encounters with. Clearly, this is the case, especially when setting up any situation that the PCs can become involved in.

... we're basically in agreement (more or less - which for us is about as good as you expect...).

 

[Imaro]

It did to the poster I was replying to .

Also, after you wrote this...



... we're basically in agreement (more or less).

I would say much less... unless RC states that level-appropriatness is a driving force in his decisions...

 

[Mallus]

I really don't understand how you come to this blanket conclusion without examining the particular setting you are making the assertion about.

Because any setting constructed must meet certain baseline requirements with regard to facilitating play (ie, they can't just mete out random PC deaths).

Here's an example... a setting based upon PC's as citizens of a Roman-esque empire, at the height of it's power, who patrol a nearby road that accomodates trade for the city are less likely to die a random horrible death than escaped slaves with nothing but the rags on their backs, lost in a dessert of Athas.

In both cases the PC's will encounter opportunities for adventure (ie danger). Those opportunities/dangers will differ primarily in form.

EDIT: I think the multiple characters thing is something often overlooked by people who want to run true sandboxes as well. There is actually an expectation that not all these characters will survive, maybe none of them contrary to your assertions.

Have to admit I don't have any experience with the whole 'multiple PC' thing. Never saw/played in a campaign that did that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I would say much less... unless RC states that level-appropriatness is a driving force in his decisions...

Correct....much less.

But don't take it personally, Mallus. I certainly admire your creativity, and think your current, very surreal, setting is the best match for 4e's rules structure that I've seen. Much better, in fact, than I imagined could be done with that ruleset.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Because any setting constructed must meet certain baseline requirements with regard to facilitating play (ie, they can't just mete out random PC deaths).

Exhibit A: The original Traveller game. Random PC death occurs during character creation.

Have to admit I don't have any experience with the whole 'multiple PC' thing. Never saw/played in a campaign that did that.

You might consider trying it. Who knows? You might enjoy it!


RC

 

[Imaro]

Because any setting constructed must meet certain baseline requirements with regard to facilitating play (ie, they can't just mete out random PC deaths).

It really depends on your definition of random... IMO, every death in D&D is random since it is either accomplished or staved off through use of a randomized (dice)... one can influence probability but not eliminate randomness in PC death The only question becomes how high or low the probability of dying becomes.

Now if you just mean "I the DM declare you dead" then that isn't random at all it's deliberate and 100% unavoidable if the DM chooses.

In both cases the PC's will encounter opportunities for adventure (ie danger). Those opportunities/dangers will differ primarily in form.

Form...and capability... in a sanbox game at least. That is what you keep missing.

Setting logic dictates that, barring some extraordinary event, on a road that is the center of commerce for a large and powerful empire... I will encounter very few seriously dangerous threats. I would say it is fairly safe to assume that if this road supplies a large portion of trade and revenue, the empire would have long ago taken pre-emptive measures to eleiminat major threats along it. How is this not logical for the setting?

However the very nature of Athas (environmental extremes, mutants, psionics, etc.) creates a logic where I am much more likely to face death being lost in it's desert with no supplies and no water. Again how is this not logical in this particular setting?

Have to admit I don't have any experience with the whole 'multiple PC' thing. Never saw/played in a campaign that did that.

Read the Dark Sun boxed set if you get a chance or even the link I provided to the West Marches sandbox campaign they both talk of multiple PC's and Dark Sun contains the concept of character trees.