Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9744966" data-attributes="member: 6799660">This is a consistent place where the game rules and worldbuilding mesh... poorly? Inexactly? Something along those line. There are any number of monsters out there that could completely wipe out a town. Mind you, the game works with this dichotomy in place -- those monsters show up in  dungeon (not in town), and maybe on wilderness encounter charts (not in town), with no specified rules for how often they attack people in town. It just makes the worldbuilding (which I feel the game never really leaned too closely on, see also the game economics) rather implausible. The basic explanations I've heard that make sense to me are: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Scarcity: despite dragons and wraiths and whatzits and whatnots being positively bubbling over in every dungeon and every wandering encounter chart, they are actually really rare overall. Somewhere, hundreds of miles away, there are people who've barely heard of a whight, much less seen one. That's the place that set the standards such that giant rats are called giant rats instead of, y'know, rats--if PCs set the standards, they would be the normative form and regular rats something like 'mini-rats' or 'nearly harmless (unless you are a level 1 magic user) rats.' It's just that the PCs have a habit of ending up in the places where all the chaos is going down these days. This is the same reason that castles are built like IRL castles (maybe with some extra ballista up high) instead of roofed structures more suitable for worlds with griffins and dragons -- those just aren't common enough to build your defenses around (why that isn't true in areas with a persistent griffin problem remains to be seen, and sometimes/some DMs, it does change). </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">World based on PCs: It does seem like there are problems out there that only the PCs (or someone like them) can solve. Well, what a coincidence that the PCs are right there. It's almost as if the people who built this town ten leagues from a desecrated ancient temple knew that, (on average) 2 major undead incursions happened per season and there would be (again, on average) 3 level 2-4 adventuring groups coming along looking for purpose each season (and that third group could by plied with a bandit quest or something else that'll keep them from stirring up trouble on their own). So the world is built with the expectation that adventurers like the PCs are there to solve the problems that townsfolk can't. These two combine in: </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Frontier as an exception: everyone's heard the analysis that D&D, despite being 'medieval' (or whatever they've landed on instead in the medieval vs. steampunk thread) themed, is really kind of a western. It certainly makes sense with the main location of PC action being an exceptionally wild and untamed locale. In this model, it literally and deliberately is a place one wonders how humankind can survive -- because that's a gamble the settlers there are actively making. They think they can survive (and thrive) in a place where they shouldn't, partly because they think they will be the ones (through pluck or good luck) to not get hit with the bad effects, and part because they know that some enterprising adventuring party will be out there thwarting the deeds which would keep them from surviving. </li> </ul>These work wonderfully right until the world gets filled in, and you see that everywhere is just like where the PCs are: perfect for adventurers, and hell for peasants. It makes sense in that you build your worlds for the PCs, and why bother with huge swaths of map you deem 'too boring for adventuring' that your PCs aren't going to go visit? It just once again leaves the worldbuilding in a bind.</blockquote>

Verification