Quote from: jibbajibba;580327Look at my traveller example.... the only genuine differentiator in  traveller game is Tech level and Seriousness and they are very much real in game considerations and not MetaGame considerations.

OK but what that has to do with my point that Class & Level can be used to design settings without Metagame considerations? That level is incidental to why the monster are where they are.

For example if I had a rule of thumb that Dragons are only found one per 10,000 square mile region and consistently apply that throughout the setting adjusting for civilized areas and ecosystem productivity. It is only incidental that the Dragon's lair is a high level adventure because in D&D it is represented as a 10 HD creature with special abilities. It no different than in GURPS where Dragons can have over 500 points of combat and magical abilities.

In short the referee choice to apply metagame consideration to the design of the setting not the system.

Where the rule system has an impact is innate feel of the setting. This is directly related to Lord Vreeg's observation that a campaign/setting will conform to the chosen rule system.  My Majestic Wilderlands run with D&D 4e will have a high fantasy, super power feel to it as opposed to the much grittier feel when using GURPS or Harnmaster. This is with the same placement of locales, monsters, and NPCs.

The fact that D&D 4e has encounter guidelines has no bearing on how I ran the Majestic Wilderlands under that system. Encounter guidelines, monster placement by level (in older editions D&D like S&W), etc are all metagame tools. The referee can use them as they see fit or not. He can bake them into the setting or just develop the setting natural.

In short it is personal preference not an innate characteristic of the rules whether is a setting is designed with metagame considerations or not.

Quote from: estar;580315So what is the exact difference between a 250 pt GURPS character focusing on combat and a 10th D&D Fighter on there relative impact on the setting?

I wouldn't know.  Last time I looked at gurps was 20 years ago and then it was fleeting at best.

Quote from: Sommerjon;580337I wouldn't know.  Last time I looked at gurps was 20 years ago and then it was fleeting at best.

What point-buy/classless system do you play?

Quote from: estar;580335OK but what that has to do with my point that Class & Level can be used to design settings without Metagame considerations? That level is incidental to why the monster are where they are.

For example if I had a rule of thumb that Dragons are only found one per 10,000 square mile region and consistently apply that throughout the setting adjusting for civilized areas and ecosystem productivity. It is only incidental that the Dragon's lair is a high level adventure because in D&D it is represented as a 10 HD creature with special abilities. It no different than in GURPS where Dragons can have over 500 points of combat and magical abilities.

In short the referee choice to apply metagame consideration to the design of the setting not the system.

Where the rule system has an impact is innate feel of the setting. This is directly related to Lord Vreeg's observation that a campaign/setting will conform to the chosen rule system.  My Majestic Wilderlands run with D&D 4e will have a high fantasy, super power feel to it as opposed to the much grittier feel when using GURPS or Harnmaster. This is with the same placement of locales, monsters, and NPCs.

The fact that D&D 4e has encounter guidelines has no bearing on how I ran the Majestic Wilderlands under that system. Encounter guidelines, monster placement by level (in older editions D&D like S&W), etc are all metagame tools. The referee can use them as they see fit or not. He can bake them into the setting or just develop the setting natural.

In short it is personal preference not an innate characteristic of the rules whether is a setting is designed with metagame considerations or not.

No I agree with all of that I am merely saying that the derfault sandbox build with level appropriate areas is just as meta gamey as a x encounters per day.

You can build a sandbox entirely divorced of metagamey considerations. I was trying to get that at that in an earlier post when I was talking about CPT and other methods of distributing predators.

Currently I have opted to remove the concepts of intelligent HD ranges Moster populations in favour of a single monstrous race that levels but based on function as opposed to location as part of a wider attempt to make a world as realistic as I can. I am toying with random populations based on a distribution curve. The result of this in play seems to be that high level characters rarely meet high level opponents.

Using Meta game considerations is not terrible it makes for good games and I suspect may well be a better consideration for design than trying to reflect "reality" which may well proove to dangerous an unpredictable for actual game play. My point merely is that which meta game considerations you decide to adopt is kind of moot.

Quote from: jibbajibba;580341No I agree with all of that I am merely saying that the derfault sandbox build with level appropriate areas is just as meta gamey as a x encounters per day.

I'm not seeing how "The mountains of Dread are home to fearsome and fell creatures. The forest of ho-hum is frequented by a small band of poorly armed bandits" is meta-gamey.

In any case, all uses of meta-game considerations are not created equal. I think the main complaint about "You're guaranteed X encounters at Y difficulty per day" is that it takes its metagame-ness and shoves it in your face in a way that more setting driven ways of distributing difficult encounters don't.

Quote from: Dimitrios;580344I'm not seeing how "The mountains of Dread are home to fearsome and fell creatures. The forest of ho-hum is frequented by a small band of poorly armed bandits" is meta-gamey.

In any case, all uses of meta-game considerations are not created equal. I think the main complaint about "You're guaranteed X encounters at Y difficulty per day" is that it takes its metagame-ness and shoves it in your face in a way that more setting driven ways of distributing difficult encounters don't.

Because the Mountains of Dread are just as likely to have a number of low level predators/creatures with a few high level Apex predators as the forest of Ho-Hum unless someone cleared out the Apex predators from the forest of Ho-Hum in which case they probably cleared out the bandits as well.

There is truth to the encounter  per day model being more transparent I agree. I assume the x encounters a day is just a guideline for the GM though. So the rookie GM knows roughly what an acceptable set of challenges might be for a party.
It's like CR right. Its a rough guide to stop a rookie GM saying the 1st level party okay at night you are attacked by ... (random pull) 6 Trolls.

Quote from: jibbajibba;580347It's like CR right. Its a rough guide to stop a rookie GM saying the 1st level party okay at night you are attacked by ... (random pull) 6 Trolls.

Of course I always thought CR was pointless and ignored it.

How common is the "rookie DM" problem anyway. Has the writing and presentation of monsters in the MM of recent editions just become unclear?

I played with plenty of DMs at all levels of experience back my 1e/2e days, and none of them had any trouble figuring out that you don't throw an iron golem at a 1st level party.

Quote from: Dimitrios;580352Of course I always thought CR was pointless and ignored it.

How common is the "rookie DM" problem anyway. Has the writing and presentation of monsters in the MM of recent editions just become unclear?

I played with plenty of DMs at all levels of experience back my 1e/2e days, and none of them had any trouble figuring out that you don't throw an iron golem at a 1st level party.

That's just it. You have to not throw a golem at them and that's metagaming encounters. Some monsters are harder to judge. I'd wager that most GMs that don't folow the guidelines do a number of other things like dumb down monster tactics, fudge rolls, etc. Often times I am a bit disappointed when playinng under other GMs that have worlds where intelligent monsters don't seem to have their own survival on their minds and lair in places that don't actually make use of their special qualities.

Quote from: jibbajibba;580347Because the Mountains of Dread are just as likely to have a number of low level predators/creatures with a few high level Apex predators as the forest of Ho-Hum unless someone cleared out the Apex predators from the forest of Ho-Hum in which case they probably cleared out the bandits as well.

Sure. The mountains are said to be the home of some hill giants but that doesn't mean all encounters = hill giants. There could be some ogres, and other humanoid tribes living there. Animals suited to the terrain can also be encountered, some of them not at all threatening but a vital source of food.

There is also the possibility of undiscovered caves which could be the homes of terrible solitary creatures the likes of which man has never (thankfully) set eyes upon.

So if the nearby mountains are home to a large tribe of orcs then a party traveling through them will probably encounter orcs at some point. The party may be 1st, 5th, or 12th level it doesn't matter.

What does matter is the party strength vs the nature of the encounter. If the PCs are close to a major den and the encounter is with a patrol of 40 orc warriors then a 1st level party will probably want to evade, a 5th level party might be able to handle things with favorable circumstances, and a 12th level party might just wipe them out for daring to show their faces.

Quote from: MGuy;580354That's just it. You have to not throw a golem at them and that's metagaming encounters. Some monsters are harder to judge. I'd wager that most GMs that don't folow the guidelines do a number of other things like dumb down monster tactics, fudge rolls, etc. Often times I am a bit disappointed when playinng under other GMs that have worlds where intelligent monsters don't seem to have their own survival on their minds and lair in places that don't actually make use of their special qualities.

Or just play whack-a-mole with the characters of stupid players.

The concept of "throwing" a golem at a 1st level party is pretty funny. It assumes that the party will be moved through scheduled fights on a treadmill with little to say about it.

A low level party may decide to explore a place in which there is a golem present. Does the mere existence of something indicate that it has been "thrown" at the party like a sling stone or something?

For the record, I don't claim that using in setting logic to place easy vs tough encounters doesn't involve metagame considerations. I just think that the end result is less bland than the "X encounters of Y difficulty per day" approach.

As for "throwing" an iron golem at a party (actually that sounds kind of cool, taken literally), I run some sandbox style sessions but also some more plot driven ones. So some adventures will have a pretty well defined goal beyond "explore".

So if the party is first level and the goal is "stop whatever's been stealing farmer Joe's sheep", I'll design the adventure such that accomplishing that goal won't require defeating an iron golem.

If the PCs hear rumors of an iron golem up somewhere near CertainDeath Mountain and decide to go after it themselves, well...I won't stop them.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;580355Sure. The mountains are said to be the home of some hill giants but that doesn't mean all encounters = hill giants. There could be some ogres, and other humanoid tribes living there. Animals suited to the terrain can also be encountered, some of them not at all threatening but a vital source of food.

There is also the possibility of undiscovered caves which could be the homes of terrible solitary creatures the likes of which man has never (thankfully) set eyes upon.

So if the nearby mountains are home to a large tribe of orcs then a party traveling through them will probably encounter orcs at some point. The party may be 1st, 5th, or 12th level it doesn't matter.

What does matter is the party strength vs the nature of the encounter. If the PCs are close to a major den and the encounter is with a patrol of 40 orc warriors then a 1st level party will probably want to evade, a 5th level party might be able to handle things with favorable circumstances, and a 12th level party might just wipe them out for daring to show their faces.

So this what I am doing now using larger numbers of low level foes for competition for high level characters. I am not using D&D though where I am not sure how well that methodology would work.

The converse to your point is can there be an Ettin or a tree monster or whatever in the ho-hum forest.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;580357Or just play whack-a-mole with the characters of stupid players.

The concept of "throwing" a golem at a 1st level party is pretty funny. It assumes that the party will be moved through scheduled fights on a treadmill with little to say about it.

A low level party may decide to explore a place in which there is a golem present. Does the mere existence of something indicate that it has been "thrown" at the party like a sling stone or something?

Well no the party might just go somewhere where ther eis an iron golem but no one knows about it.

There is an old haunted house in the village no one ever goes in and no one ever goes out. The PCs decide as its in a village and the village is full 0 level humans so the haunted house is probably a low level adventure for them. Theygo inside and the three ghosts that haunt it kill them and they never come out.
Now that we all agree is dickish. But in terms of itself its not. its called The Haunted House no one every comes out.  Ghosts are quite capacble of being bound to a localised area and not venturing forth from that location.
The only reason its dickish is meta gamey.

Quote from: jibbajibba;580362The converse to your point is can there be an Ettin or a tree monster or whatever in the ho-hum forest.

Totally possible. If the climate and terrain favor those types of monsters then they may be present.

There is a major difference between the presence of something in a given area and throwing the PCs into a thunderdome with it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;580364There is an old haunted house in the village no one ever goes in and no one ever goes out. The PCs decide as its in a village and the village is full 0 level humans so the haunted house is probably a low level adventure for them. Theygo inside and the three ghosts that haunt it kill them and they never come out.
Now that we all agree is dickish. But in terms of itself its not. its called The Haunted House no one every comes out.  Ghosts are quite capacble of being bound to a localised area and not venturing forth from that location.
The only reason its dickish is meta gamey.

Nothing dickish about it so long as the players had the opportunity to gather information about the place before going in. It is located in a town with people so the party wasn't "thrown" in. Information about the nature of threat should have been available to inquisitive PCs. If they don't bother to look for such info then it's their own fault.