Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579846No, grinding on low end challenges is the logical way to go. PCs have little fear of death because the can get ressed/reroll but if you're not in a hurry grinding on low level stuff is ideal for NPCs. No risk of death and they're still gaining exp. Unless this is 3e we're talking about where stuff 8 levels below you nets you no xp.

So if there are enough high level dudes around the that only means the orc/kobald/goblin genocide is happening even faster. On the other hand if there are no high level dudes it behooves you to explain why the PCs aren't under the heel of the Dragons/Giants/Mindflayers/whatever.

There is a caveat on 1e Experience that hasn't been explained yet. It's a bit archaric even for some of the OSR guys I suspect. Whilst XP is gained for gold it should be modified by the risk of the challenge. So in 1e if a 10th level fighter beats 10 orcs to take their gold the power disparity is about 10 to 1. Even though the ratio is not explicit it's meant to be based on the average level of the opponent and the relative risk. it's an inexact science . But in this case the Xp gained from the gold is divided by 10. So 1000gp gets you just 100xp the same is true for the 20xp per orc you kill (ie you get 2xp)
This is a double whammy because your xp needs are exponentionally higher.

However, in roleplay/immersion terms this doesn't matter. The 10th level lord that would head out to drive the orcs off has no concept of XP he knows there is gold that will fix his castle or feed his serfs, he knows the serfs are being attacked by a group of orcs and he knows he can easily defeat them with no risk to himself. So the fact he gets no XP from it is meta knowledge that should have no influence on his actions.

In XP terms you are better off planning for 10 days to kill one big monster and get lots of treasure. In 'real' terms you are better off killing 1 smaller monster that is no risk to you each day for 10 days and getting 10 smaller lots of treasure. You probably only go for the big bad is circumstances change, if they are cuasing real damage or if they are the only one left.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579846No, grinding on low end challenges is the logical way to go. PCs have little fear of death because the can get ressed/reroll but if you're not in a hurry grinding on low level stuff is ideal for NPCs. No risk of death and they're still gaining exp. Unless this is 3e we're talking about where stuff 8 levels below you nets you no xp.

So if there are enough high level dudes around the that only means the orc/kobald/goblin genocide is happening even faster. On the other hand if there are no high level dudes it behooves you to explain why the PCs aren't under the heel of the Dragons/Giants/Mindflayers/whatever.

You assume:

1) there's enough high level dudes

2) they don't have other things to do

3) big monsters are epidemic upon the land

I think your assumptions that all settings run this way are false.

Quote from: Opaopajr;579862You assume:

1) there's enough high level dudes

2) they don't have other things to do

3) big monsters are epidemic upon the land

I think your assumptions that all settings run this way are false.

The default assumption is that the population of bad stuff remains at a sort of equilibrium with the adventuring population. If that balance breaks down then either the adventures finally complete the kobald genocide and low level PCs have nothing to fight. Or it breaks the other way and everyone gets eaten by Dragons.

You assume:

1) an equilibrium (or disequilibrium) that lasts throughout time

2) the world is small enough to be easily managed by one side, be it race, alignment, etc.

The setting world can be large and things can stay in flux and change hands repeatedly. The adventures of your PCs is but one in a grand, living, breathing setting. Or you can assume the world's dial settings stay static...

Quote from: Opaopajr;579873You assume:

1) an equilibrium (or disequilibrium) that lasts throughout time

2) the world is small enough to be easily managed by one side, be it race, alignment, etc.

The setting world can be large and things can stay in flux and change hands repeatedly. The adventures of your PCs is but one in a grand, living, breathing setting. Or you can assume the world's dial settings stay static...

No I'm arguing that the sort of equilibrium that gives low level PCs something to do is inherently unrealistic. If you stay in civilized lands then there probably aren't any dragons, there probably aren't any kobalds or orcs either because those are threats to the dirt farmers as well and they much easier to get rid of. On the other hand in the places with orcs and kobalds to genocide here there be dragons that'll devour your low level ass.

Quote from: mcbobbo;579782Those reasons, I believe, are what qualify as 'absurd and incoherent'.  For example, you're a first level fighter.  You were trained by a tenth level fighter.  He tells you about a local cave with goblins in it - the town is offering a reward, or some such.

Couldn't that tenth-level fighter go and claim that reward, single-handedly and in a single afternoon?  Without breaking a sweat, I'd wager.

So, aside from arbitrary 'there has to be something for first level characters to do' style reasons, why hasn't your trainer already cleared that dungeon and claimed the reward?

To put Pundit's concern in reverse, why do the high level people in the campaign only ever elect to face high level challenges?  Do low level gold pieces not spend equally as well?  Is there not any easily-attainable level where 'grinding' low content becomes so completely safe that it out weighs the prospect of meeting equal-level challenges?  And if such a level exists, how big would a population need to be to reach a 100% likelihood that someone of a high enough level has considered this already?  I'd wager, not very big.

Right, but that is a systemic placement issue.  My point is that other people have thought of this and matched setting and system better than this ham-handed example.

I switched to a much more dangerous system with higher critical issues and a much slower grwoth curve to solve these issues.  my highest HP for any PC in my system currently is 44.  For a 5 year old character.  An average mdeium sized dragon has 105.  damage for a bastard sword is (1d8+1d6+16)/d6, and critcal % is about 10% for most PCs, reducing the divider.  Just a quick example.

so, as I said...
"But the idea that every GM has created the same setting or that some have not looked at these issues is also a characterization, a simplification. whether it be through tweaks in tha magic system or the function of how undead work, genetics, the nature of dragons, etc, assuming that some GMs have not at least tried to address the lack of logic either from the system side, the settign side, or both (creating setting/system congruency)."

Quote from: jibbajibba;579679I would do the same thing. But if the Thief had hidden a bag of gold they get extra XP, so if the Theif robs the paladin on the way home and takes all the gold, does the theif get extra XP? Does the Paladin get none?

If a thief manages to pocket treasure he finds without telling the party then any XPs for that loot are his and his alone. Stealing from the group or members of the group after the loot is tallied and/or divided would not.

QuoteAs an aside does the Thief get XP from stealing from PCs? and if so can you get multiple XP for the same gold? We all kill the dragon we get a horde of 50,000gp. We all get 10,000xp.  Then the thief steals the Paladin's share on the way home, is that worth 10,000xp? If the Paladin then gets it back by catching and imprisoning the thief is that worth an extra 10,000xp?

No. No double-dipping.

QuoteDoes a GP carry a potential XP which can only be garnered once or is the act of caputring gold the thing that provides value ?

My own method is that once the PCs have cleared any monsters or obstacles, and start rummaging through the known treasure, it should count for the group's XPs. Stealing and/or holding out on the group will earn the PC doing it that many more XPs (those don't go to the group).

Of course a PC that gets caught holding out or outright stealing from the group stands a good chance of earning a sword through his skull by angry teammates...

Quote from: jibbajibba;579700Well the bad part of a somali port has somali pirates I would asume...

The fact that the Caves of Peril only has 1-3rd level stuff becuase they are close to humanity doesn't make sense in a points of light setting and only really makes sense in a more civilised setting if its lawful.  

The police patrol the bad bit of town and control its excesses but sometimes that doesn't work and you get projects where the police don't go and then you get Bad Men.
If there are no Police one assumes you get Bad Men everywhere.

Or lowly monsters are drawn to little podunk villages and farms because that's about all they can handle -with or without The Man coming down on them like a load of bricks.

Or their needs are small. For example, the bandits in The Seven Samurai aren't after gold, glory or conquest. They are simply starving outlaws waiting to steal the peasants' rice and barley harvests so they can eat during the upcoming winter. They actually wait til harvest time before attacking.

Such puny monsters wouldn't dare attack richer targets because those are actually defended. On the flip side, The Man might have bigger fish to fry than dealing with a few dozen bandits, so he either does nothing or he leaves to underlings or ambitious nobodies looking to gain his favor.

It makes perfect sense.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579842Your theoretical high-level fighter is probably a Lord with his own stronghold to manage, or army to lead, or what-have-you, and a little too busy planning to take down something that will net him 100000gp instead of 1000gp.

Again, the point here isn't "realism", though. Its emulation of a setting that makes internal sense.

RPGPundit

Exactly. There's a reason tigers don't bother hunting mice: too much effort with nothing to show for it even if you succeed.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579846No, grinding on low end challenges is the logical way to go. PCs have little fear of death because the can get ressed/reroll but if you're not in a hurry grinding on low level stuff is ideal for NPCs. No risk of death and they're still gaining exp. Unless this is 3e we're talking about where stuff 8 levels below you nets you no xp.

It's usually not worth the effort for high-level PCs to bother with such puny monsters unless they can somehow slaughter them by the thousands. To hunt down and kill a humanoid clan like the ones in KotB would be a major waste of time, effort and money.

QuoteSo if there are enough high level dudes around the that only means the orc/kobald/goblin genocide is happening even faster. On the other hand if there are no high level dudes it behooves you to explain why the PCs aren't under the heel of the Dragons/Giants/Mindflayers/whatever.

Can high-level characters be everywhere at once? No, so they let low-level upstarts take a stab at it. Kinda like how generals usually don't do point or sentry duty themselves.

Man, people are spending an awful lot of time arguing for a pedantic level of realism in a fantasy game.  Just create your world and have fun.  Who cares that it might not be realistic because last fall a 10th level hero happened to stay at an inn in the area.

Quote from: daniel_ream;579812FWIW, the standard High-to-Late Medieval inspiration for FRPG is part of the problem.  You simply don't have isolated city-states surrounded by monster-infested wilderness as much as you have a lot of rival warlords and kingdoms all jostling up against each other for territory.

The city-states of the Ancient Near East and the pre-Columbian Mexican peninsula have much more in common with the Points of Light concept and one can draw a lot of interesting inspiration from that history[1].  The Bronze Age Greek city-states not so much, though, as there wasn't a lot of land territory for monsters to be infesting.  Major travel was mostly nautical, and the existing Points of Light-style settings haven't really done much with that.

Yes, but only partly. You have a good point in the contrast between Mediaeval and Ancient Near Eastern/Mediterranean state organisation, which is why I have adopted the latter for my campaigns (it works pretty well for D&D-style adventuring).

However, we should also keep in mind that territorial control in the Middle Ages was also very limited. You can depict countries with borders if you want to, but this was a polite fiction: outside the developed areas (Flanders, Ile-de-France, around cities etc.), there were still vast stretches of untamed wilderness, where the Points of Light concept is still applicable. Even local lords would only have power over the areas they could reach from their castles. Roads and rivers (especially rivers) would connect "islands" of cultivated areas in a "sea" of forests (this is illustrated rather well in the 1st edition WFRP rulebooks). The German Schwarzwald was practically a D&D wilderness full of outlaws, raubritters, kobolds and fairies. The mountains of the Alps were untamed (and largely considered worthless), which is how a bunch of peasants and mountain brigands could get it into their heads to form the Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft. Scandinavia, Poland and Eastern Prussia all had immense tracts of woodlands, and Russia's population was minuscule in a great wilderness.

So I would say the Points of Light concept is applicable to Mediaeval environments, you just have to pick an area that's either a frontier, or weakly urbanised.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;579918Man, people are spending an awful lot of time arguing for a pedantic level of realism in a fantasy game.  Just create your world and have fun.  Who cares that it might not be realistic because last fall a 10th level hero happened to stay at an inn in the area.

I guess the point is that setting up adventuring areas with mostly low level challenges is in its own way just as gamist as trying to stick to a set number of encounters in a given adventuring day.

One may be a more traditional way of ensuring the Party don't get hosed but in its own way its equally gamist.

There is nothing wrong with that, as you say the idea of the game is to have fun, but both paradigms are just tools for helping novice DMs ensure their games are are challenge for their players without overwhelming them.

If you want to go down a serious world creation route then some of hte base parameters of traditional D&D probably need to be discarded as well.

Quote from: mcbobbo;579714You're actually describing the 3e system of reward.  An encounter is worth Y amount of XP, regardless of how you overcome it.  If you lump 'mosters, situation, and treasure' all together under an 'encounter' umbrella, you're on the same page in both systems.  The only possible gap between the two approaches would be if you penalized for treasure left on the ground.  Or, in the 3e PoV, you'd need to make hidden treasures, e.g. a gem under the alter, a separate encounter with its own CR.

Bullshit.

In 3.x/Pathfinder, the XP gained from overcoming a Chalenge is completely independant from treasure acquired.

Quote from: jibbajibba;579960I guess the point is that setting up adventuring areas with mostly low level challenges is in its own way just as gamist as trying to stick to a set number of encounters in a given adventuring day.

One may be a more traditional way of ensuring the Party don't get hosed but in its own way its equally gamist.

.

Um...no, they are not.  There's a big difference.  In one (low level monsters happen to be in this area), the GM has created the game world by plopping down it's inhabitants, and then the game world moves on independent of what the characters do.  In the other (encounters per day), the GM is constantly stopping or adjusting the living game world whenever the PCs happen to have hit their max encounters.  The PCs essentially have a pause button wherever they go, and their actions directly impact a game world.

I.e., in the first, it's "Here's where the orcs live because it's cool and here's a little history on the clan." and that's it.  They live there no matter what the players do.  In the second, the players control the game world based on their actions that may not even be related to what's being changed.

Two completely different things.