Quote from: jibbajibba;579429Sorry waffling a bit

Nah that's cool. Actually, I think that's something one might want to keep in mind to keep the setting coherent. You can intertwine the Central place theory with the abstract layered nature of the theoretical dungeon, and that could result in an environment that could be made sense of and be approachable by the players progressively at the same time, as though they were approaching the concentration of creatures for its outskirts towards the center(s) of activity.

(Love the wikipedia animation btw)

Quote from: LordVreeg;579439No, we dig.  I did similar, but came up with different ends.

My Ogrillite tribal races end up in mixed bands, but normally with Gartier (bugbears) as the leaders, since they are ultra intelligent in my setting.  

One of the Campaigns I started back in 95 in this setting involved the Giantclan Silverworth taking over the nrothern outpost town of a country when siad country was at war in the south.  In this Ogrillite tribe, stone and hill gaints are the rulers, but they take council from a group of gartier.  The Ograks (ogres) are the elite troops, with gnolls as the main troops.

Which is the other route. If this happens though you have to assume that over time one or a mix of more than one thing occurs
i) The races interbreed if this is possible. If you have 1/2 elves and 1/2 orcs in the setting then this is 'likely' which gives rise to a hybrid race.
ii) The weaker races overtime get replaced. You only use kobolds if you can't get goblins, only use goblins when you can't get Skaven etc etc ...
iii) The weak things may be more numerous so they rebel and overthrow the bigger things.

You can see Mameluks become Sultans and drive away the Crusaders, the Aztecs wipe out the Mayans, and are in turn wiped out by the Europeans, Homo Sapiens wipe out Neanderthals etc etc.

There might be a maximal number of intelligent races a global environment can support. It's probably six, it's usually six....

Quote from: jibbajibba;579455ii) The weaker races overtime get replaced. You only use kobolds if you can't get goblins, only use goblins when you can't get Skaven etc etc ...
iii) The weak things may be more numerous so they rebel and overthrow the bigger things.  

Yes. These are the sorts of things I keep in mind when the various levels of a dungeon evolve throughout the campaign (notes in that regard will be included in a later post re: the bandit level in my megadungeon advice - see link in sig). That is, the level does not remain static and may gradually see some populations replaced, some events occur that shift the balance of forces, some group might leave the place or be conquered, new individuals might come into the picture, etc. This may also keep the place relevant to the player characters during the course of the campaign while at the same time ensuring that the place actually makes sense in the setting beyond the static picture one first drafted.

As a matter of interest, what are people's thoughts on having a module stating as being for "starting PCs" or "levels 1 to 3"?

Quote from: Skywalker;579458As a matter of interest, what are people's thoughts on having a module stating as being for "starting PCs" or "levels 1 to 3"?

Elaborate. I'm not sure I understand the question.

Quote from: Benoist;579452Nah that's cool. Actually, I think that's something one might want to keep in mind to keep the setting coherent. You can intertwine the Central place theory with the abstract layered nature of the theoretical dungeon, and that could result in an environment that could be made sense of and be approachable by the players progressively at the same time, as though they were approaching the concentration of creatures for its outskirts towards the center(s) of activity.

(Love the wikipedia animation btw)

That is a great animation. Teaching Year 9 would be so much easier now

My point though is that what is percieved as good world building with areas where its not safe for low level guys to go and areas where it is is just as false as x many encounters per day because on an even plain the distribution of top end predators will be uniform.
In addition because most humanoids are top end predators (orcs don't eat goblins and Ogres don't eat orcs they all eat hobbits, if they can get them....) they are competing for the same resources. So its like Hyena versus Lions versus Vultures...

again waffling

Quote from: Benoist;579459Elaborate. I'm not sure I understand the question.

I am trying to understand the distinction (if any) between suggested power level and suggested encounter per day, in terms of what people are finding offensive in the later.

FWIW I don't like suggested encounters per day either.

Quote from: Benoist;579457Yes. These are the sorts of things I keep in mind when the various levels of a dungeon evolve throughout the campaign (notes in that regard will be included in a later post re: the bandit level in my megadungeon advice - see link in sig). That is, the level does not remain static and may gradually see some populations replaced, some events occur that shift the balance of forces, some group might leave the place or be conquered, new individuals might come into the picture, etc. This may also keep the place relevant to the player characters during the course of the campaign while at the same time ensuring that the place actually makes sense in the setting beyond the static picture one first drafted.

So the question then is in a mega dungeon surely the top level predators live on the top of the dungeon with access to most of the fresh prey and other benefits.

Quote from: Skywalker;579463I am trying to understand the distinction (if any) between suggested power level and suggested encounter per day, in terms of what people are finding offensive in the later.

FWIW I don't like suggested encounters per day either.

I understand exactly what you mean. It's my point made clearer.

Why does the Cave of Peril only have creatures that can be beaten by players levels 1-3. How come in a rich and varied fantasy world a Fire Giant and his family haven't moved in....

Quote from: RPGPundit;579367Seriously, does someone want to try to defend this notion?  In what way can this make sense in roleplaying?

The potential number of encounters you might have should depend on SETTING considerations, not fucking "balance" considerations! If you are traveling through "Dragon Swamp" with your level 2 party you shouldn't expect only level-2 encounters; and it should not happen that the "caves of peril" should have only 1st-level perils for a 1st level party but the moment a 10th level party steps inside suddenly 10th level perils are spawned!
Likewise, the idea that in the course of the day there must be "x" encounters, not more nor less, or something of the sort is absurd.

There should be as many encounters as makes sense in the place the PCs actually ARE, in the fucking SETTING.

RPGPundit

Yes, level based rule mechanics are balls. People tend to pay a lot closer attention to their environment when all you have are your stats and your skills and your puny pool of hit points.

Quote from: jibbajibba;579460That is a great animation. Teaching Year 9 would be so much easier now

My point though is that what is percieved as good world building with areas where its not safe for low level guys to go and areas where it is is just as false as x many encounters per day because on an even plain the distribution of top end predators will be uniform.
In addition because most humanoids are top end predators (orcs don't eat goblins and Ogres don't eat orcs they all eat hobbits, if they can get them....) they are competing for the same resources. So its like Hyena versus Lions versus Vultures...

again waffling

I get you and I think I actually agree. You're saying that just having for instance HD 1 creatures on level 1, HD 2 creatures is just as unrealistic as having X encounters of CR Y creatures, correct? I agree with that premise. If it's implemented that way it's going to feel very fake.

Now if you assume the most dangerous levels of a dungeon to basically be concentrations of high level predators with their own zones of influence, where the farther away you are from the hot spots, the lower level (or closer to the 0 level normalcy of the mundane world, which in AD&D is the same thing) the creatures will tend to be, you can then have each level working as a microcosm of webs of influence connected to others on different levels of the dungeon (for the widest nets of influence/greater monster HD at least), with creatures either roughly within the same range of HDs (but certainly not all being of the exact same number of HD), some isolated levels being completely overtaken by this or that predator, and so on.

Like, imagine each hex on the animation above (previous page) represents the influence of a particular creature around which lower creatures tend to gravitate as servants or slaves or allies etc. Then you can basically end up with the dungeon that does both, assuming the PCs approach the web of influences these hexes represent from the outside (mundane world) in (the underworld of mythic creatures with the largest zones of influence).

Hope this makes sense.

I'm talking 3.5:

Let's say we have a 5th level party.  If we say they can expect to face 4 CR 5 encounters per day with difficulty, we have a baseline from which I can begin designing adventures.  

If I want to put seven or eight encounters in a dungeon with the expectation that they fight them ALL before they get a chance to rest, there's a very good chance that they'll be dead if they're all CR 5 encounters.

If I want to make sure that the Final Boss is a Medusa (CR 7), they'll probably all die.  A fresh party can probably handle a Medusa pretty easily, but worn down - that will be epic.  

So if I want to make sure that this is difficult but not impossible, I can take the 4 CR 5 encounters and start making some adjustments.  

Four CR 5 encounters is effectively the equivalent of an EL 9.

In this case, I decide on the following encounters:

1 Medusa (CR 7)
1 Large Viper (CR 2)
1 Grick (CR 3)
1 Grimlock Wiz 4 (CR 5)
8 Grimlocks (EL 7)

Looking at that, I know the encounters are going to be TOUGH, but because the party can use potions and such between encounters, this is something that they COULD win.  They'll want to make sure to play smart against some of these monsters and conserve resources to the end.  

Now, as far as how it actually works out - 5 encounters, or maybe more, doesn't really matter.  I know that the party should be able to barely manage this if they start out full, so it should be pretty epic.  

It's not about assigning '4 encounters per day' - it's about knowing what a party should be able to handle so you can design your dungeons or adventures with that in mind.  

Now, trying to tell someone how many 'rounds of combat' they should have per day - that's retarded.

Quote from: jibbajibba;579464So the question then is in a mega dungeon surely the top level predators live on the top of the dungeon with access to most of the fresh prey and other benefits.

Not necessarily, because a dungeon is not 'just' a biological ecosystem (food sources need to make sense to some extent, like where does the Red Dragon get his food? Does he have an exit shaft to hunt for stuff?). These considerations do matter to me, but they aren't the only considerations that enter into the picture. If we are talking about magical power, or ore, or other types of resources valued by the baddies, this can be extrapolated to the notion that the meanest baddies will tend to gravitate towards the greatest sources of power and sustainability within the entire complex. If these sources of power are deep in the underworld, that's where you'll find the mean baddies.

It all depends how you make sense of your initial setting/dungeon set up. You can come up with reasons that actually make sense in that regard, I think.

Assuming the OP is referring to D&D4e, is anyone able to identify where the core books suggest a number of encounters per day?

I could be wrong but I think the concept was actually a result of players of 4e making an estimation of what the standard encounters per day would be based on the transparent encounter building mechanics.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;579470I'm talking 3.5:

Let's say we have a 5th level party.  If we say they can expect to face 4 CR 5 encounters per day with difficulty, we have a baseline from which I can begin designing adventures.  

If I want to put seven or eight encounters in a dungeon with the expectation that they fight them ALL before they get a chance to rest, there's a very good chance that they'll be dead if they're all CR 5 encounters.

If I want to make sure that the Final Boss is a Medusa (CR 7), they'll probably all die.  A fresh party can probably handle a Medusa pretty easily, but worn down - that will be epic.  

So if I want to make sure that this is difficult but not impossible, I can take the 4 CR 5 encounters and start making some adjustments.  

Four CR 5 encounters is effectively the equivalent of an EL 9.

In this case, I decide on the following encounters:

1 Medusa (CR 7)
1 Large Viper (CR 2)
1 Grick (CR 3)
1 Grimlock Wiz 4 (CR 5)
8 Grimlocks (EL 7)

Looking at that, I know the encounters are going to be TOUGH, but because the party can use potions and such between encounters, this is something that they COULD win.  They'll want to make sure to play smart against some of these monsters and conserve resources to the end.  

Now, as far as how it actually works out - 5 encounters, or maybe more, doesn't really matter.  I know that the party should be able to barely manage this if they start out full, so it should be pretty epic.  

It's not about assigning '4 encounters per day' - it's about knowing what a party should be able to handle so you can design your dungeons or adventures with that in mind.  

Now, trying to tell someone how many 'rounds of combat' they should have per day - that's retarded.

The world builder wouldn;t work that way though, that is an adventure build.
The world builder would say there is a medusa that lives in this cave complex. What else woudl live with a medusa? Well is it one medusa or more (insert plot reason its 1 or 3 ). On the basis that a medusa must live on some sort of magical energy as she is in the same position as Midas vis a vis lunch. What other creatures would live with her. So in your example She has a bunch of Grimlock servants. Also she is snakey so there may be serpents, make one of them a giant viper. What else might live in the lair of a medusa? etc ... So rather than going from the CR to the dungoen you go from the dungeon to the CR. You don't build it as a challenge for a 5th level party you build it as a place where a medusa would live. It really doesn't matter if the CR rating ends up meaning the lair is only suitable for 7th level characters it just means the 5th level guys can't kill the medusa yet and need to go and do something else instead.