Quote from: deadDMwalking;582158Right.  And the point here is that while you may have an idea of what 'reality' looks like, someone else might have a different 'impression' that can cause problems.

In the vast majority of cases these discrepencies (which do exist, since we all have different minds and experiences and imagine things with different details) are managed just fine, instantly, live, by people playing and talking to each other across the game table. Gamers have been doing it successfully since 1974, so I don't feel the need to go into theoretical la-la-land over this.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;582146Hell, if we go by that logic, then those players shouldn't have problems with machine gun toting giant rabbits in their D&D games.  

I for one would welcome machine gun toting giant rabbits in any D&D game. I think would call them "hoops" and they might look something like this.



I'd probably drop magic and elves, there were always a little lame and add mutations and warbots. I think that would be a good game.

Players need to have certain base-expectations for the game world to even begin to make sense.  

For example, do mountains float all by themselves?  If they do, can a person accidentally step somewhere and fall into the sky?  

The more fantastic the world, the less basis the players have to understand the world and make meaningful decisions.  If the player says 'I'll charge' and the DM has to say 'Your character wouldn't do that - you realize that you'll fall into a null-gravity well and fall into space', that's not going to be a fun game - at least, if it happens a lot.  

For that reason, most fantasy worlds stay pretty close to the real world.  That's something that we all have a pretty firm grasp on, so we can reasonably expect certain things to work in the game-world if we know they're at least possible in the real world.  Conversely, something that's impossible in the real world is unlikely to work in the game world (barring known or at least knowable magic).  

In order to give players (as opposed to characters) a chance to estimate the odds of terrible things happening, they have to be able to determine how often they run into danger.  Do random encounters happen on a 1 on a d12 rolled 4/day or do they happen on a 1-6 on a d12, rolled 12 times per day?  

The 4 encounters/day guideline is a metagame construct to help players understand what their characters should recognize as a 'reasonable challenge' and a metagame construct the DM can use to build an organic seeming world that's still fun to adventure in.  

It's a world-building tool, no different than usually having rivers run into the ocean and usually having mountains give way to hills before they suddenly turn into plains - but just like in the real world, there are exceptions.  If you use the tool correctly, your world is more believable than if you ignore it - and more importantly in the long-run, it's more satisfying to play in.  

Again, there's nothing to keep the Ancient Red Dragon from destroying the village the PCs start their adventure in (and often, there are some good reasons he ought to do it).  But something like that, while 'realistic', isn't 'fun' and probably isn't 'fair'.  Using any kind of 'meta-game' information to make the world more fun and more believeable is good.  Using any kind of meta-game information to make the game less fun or less immersive is 'bad'.  Keep it where it belongs - behind the curtain.  

You don't have to pretend it doesn't exist - but don't pull back the curtain, either.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;582173In order to give players (as opposed to characters) a chance to estimate the odds of terrible things happening, they have to be able to determine how often they run into danger.  Do random encounters happen on a 1 on a d12 rolled 4/day or do they happen on a 1-6 on a d12, rolled 12 times per day?

The 4 encounters/day guideline is a metagame construct to help players understand what their characters should recognize as a 'reasonable challenge' and a metagame construct the DM can use to build an organic seeming world that's still fun to adventure in.

That's the crux of the disagreement. I basically don't agree with that at all. As a player, you are making informed decisions as though you were your character: if you want to know how dangerous the forest is, you go to the farm of the local hunter and ask him what to expect. He'll tell you the forest can be dangerous, and you should expect to meet all manners of animals, some of them benign, others dangerous, within. He'll also tell you that further up north there are monstrous humanoids haunting the hills. You might not meet them, since they are rather reclusive, but if you do, be on your guard: these do not care about the value of human life, and would rather skin you than have you temper with their hunting grounds.

From there, as your character, you take decisions on how to approach the wilderness. Just as your character, you actually don't know the exact odds of meeting animals or monsters. You know what's been told to you by other individuals in the game world, but just as in the real world, that's what you got, and you make decisions from there. The GM will roll for the chance of random encounters behind the screen, and you'll find out what happens.

On the other hand, the notion that as a player you know in advance that you'll have "around 4 encounters per day" and that your character prepares accordingly is completely absurd and unrealistic to me. It'll break my suspension of disbelief.

Quote from: Soylent Green;582169I for one would welcome machine gun toting giant rabbits in any D&D game. I think would call them "hoops" and they might look something like this.



I'd probably drop magic and elves, there were always a little lame and add mutations and warbots. I think that would be a good game.

1E Gamma World is possibly my favorite rpg.

Quote from: Benoist;582181On the other hand, the notion that as a player you know in advance that you'll have "around 4 encounters per day" and that your character prepares accordingly is completely absurd and unrealistic to me. It'll break my suspension of disbelief.

For me this also plays into meta-gamey dangers about which spells to prepare, feats to select, etc.

I realize that 3e and beyond don't have ten foot poles anymore, but there should be some level of uncertainty for the game to retain its exploration theme.

Quote from: mcbobbo;582186For me this also plays into meta-gamey dangers about which spells to prepare, feats to select, etc.

I realize that 3e and beyond don't have ten foot poles anymore, but there should be some level of uncertainty for the game to retain its exploration theme.

I'm going to assume you're trolling with this comment because it in no way makes any sense.

If I were going into any game, doesn't matter what the system is, there are certain metagame elements I can use to my advantage all the time. Knowing the GM is a good place to start. What do I know about the GM? Is he a "role player" type that will side step the rules if I can spin my actions the right way? Is he the "rules or gtfo" type so I know that knowing the rules is my best bet? Is the GM's gf playing with us so I know who to exploit in order to exploit the GM? How much do I know about the GM's knowledge of history,physics, etc? Is he trying to play a "realistic" game where I can use my superior knowledge of how reality actually works to leverage/bullshit my way through certain things?

There are any number of ways I can metagame just by there being a GM present at the table without knowing the system or even having a character sheet out. There are always ways to get into the heads of the people you're playing with and I happen to know a few. The idea that any system at all ever is immune to metagaming is silly as the GMs that are easiest to play off of are the ones that think they are immune to it.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;582173The 4 encounters/day guideline is a metagame construct to help players understand what their characters should recognize as a 'reasonable challenge' and a metagame construct the DM can use to build an organic seeming world that's still fun to adventure in.  

.

This is a preference issue, but I have always found this concept felt too artificial to me, which is why I think there was a call for more organic approaches. If this works for you, by all means embrace it, but the 3E "encounters per day" approach never really clicked with me because of this. Reality is complicated, simulating it is tough, but i am not seeing how that means I ought to embrace "encounters per day" as natural when they feel quite the opposite to me. I think a lot of this stuff is a matter of degree. Having an area that is relatively safe, whether it is 100 percent realistic or not, feels fairly believable to me (though the whole dungeon levels geting progressively more challenging have never worked for me).I can accept that the Amber Valley where my character lives is safer in general than the Mountains of Chaos. I cam accept the GM uses a random encounter chart to help silumate a believable environment and that these charts are tailored to different areas of the campaign setting. But the notion that the Gm ought to throw the party x number of encounters per day or per adventure feels very artificial to me (not saying others have to agree).

Quote from: Benoist;582181As a player, you are making informed decisions as though you were your character: if you want to know how dangerous the forest is, you go to the farm of the local hunter and ask him what to expect. He'll tell you the forest can be dangerous, and you should expect to meet all manners of animals, some of them benign, others dangerous, within. He'll also tell you that further up north there are monstrous humanoids haunting the hills.

If you're the CHARACTER, you've already been speaking to local people about the types of dangers that exist before the PLAYER ever shows up.  When you make a character, you start as an adult or young-adult - someone that already has plenty of 'real-world' experience and should have a reasonable idea of how dangerous their world is.  

Quote from: Benoist;582181On the other hand, the notion that as a player you know in advance that you'll have "around 4 encounters per day" and that your character prepares accordingly is completely absurd and unrealistic to me. It'll break my suspension of disbelief.

It's not that 'you will have around 4 encounters per day', it's that 'approximately 4 encounters per day is usually what a group of four adventurers should be expected to be able to handle.

I think some people are more comfortable knowing or having a feel for the relative danger of an area....

And others are content to enter an area and see what happens; take a risk.


I fall into the second catagory.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;582173The 4 encounters/day guideline is a metagame construct to help players understand what their characters should recognize as a 'reasonable challenge' and a metagame construct the DM can use to build an organic seeming world that's still fun to adventure in.  

It's a world-building tool, no different than usually having rivers run into the ocean and usually having mountains give way to hills before they suddenly turn into plains - but just like in the real world, there are exceptions.  If you use the tool correctly, your world is more believable than if you ignore it - and more importantly in the long-run, it's more satisfying to play in.  

It not a world building tool it doesn't map into anything either in our world or with any genre convention I know about. It is purely a game artifact.

The closest it could map is if the supernatural aspects of the setting (powers, magic, etc) are designed so that that on average they are effective through four encounters per 24 hours. Which is no more arbitrary then decreeing that a single spell can't be cast more than one a day.  

But that still has little bearing on when the players are making a decision whether to take the King's Highway or enter the Forest of Unusually Sized Rodents. Knowing that your magic only will last through four encounter become no different than looking at your quiver and seeing how many arrows you have left.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;582196It's not that 'you will have around 4 encounters per day', it's that 'approximately 4 encounters per day is usually what a group of four adventurers should be expected to be able to handle.

Any the only way to achieve that is that on average the player character will meet opponents of equivalent power. Which means going the WoW route of areas of fixed power for your settings.

Here is a thought for folks to mull over. Can an adventure be fun and difficult to resolve even the party is capable of killing every NPCs/Monsters without significant challenge?

Conversely can adventures can be resolved and still be fun when the party is incapable of seriously challenging any of the NPCs/Monsters in combat?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;582196If you're the CHARACTER, you've already been speaking to local people about the types of dangers that exist before the PLAYER ever shows up.  When you make a character, you start as an adult or young-adult - someone that already has plenty of 'real-world' experience and should have a reasonable idea of how dangerous their world is.

Actually when you start in a sandbox in my games you are generally an adventurer, a newcomer in the area, which explains why you don't know about the forest yet. Asking people around for information is kind of a good idea before making any plans.

Now you might set up the campaign in such a manner that your character is born from the area (I would personally set things up assuming that all characters are either native from the area, or not, to avoid having vastly different amount of knowledge between players and characters at the start of the game). I would then give you a hand out including a map and a short gazetteer about the different features of the area. You would then be free to ask questions about what you feel your character might know at any given moment, which I might answer ("You actually played around that forest before. Your parents told you not to get too far away on your own. You remember someone disappearing years ago. There was that hunter helping with the search for the man who explained the forest was inhabited by all manners of animals and even some monstrous yet elusive beings which could have been the source of the disappearance, but the man was never found, so you don't really know if that was true. Your parents, and most villagers, assumed it was."), and/or, that failing, you can still go see the hunter not far from home to ask him questions if you want...

Quote from: deadDMwalking;582196It's not that 'you will have around 4 encounters per day', it's that 'approximately 4 encounters per day is usually what a group of four adventurers should be expected to be able to handle.

Sure, and that doesn't make any sense in the game world. Characters in the game world traveling in four are not expecting four encounters a day. Kind of like if I step outside my door right this instant and gather three friends to walk up the forested slopes of the mountains I'm not expecting for us to experience "around four encounters this day" with HDs neatly based on my "character level". See what I mean?

Quote from: estar;582204Here is a thought for folks to mull over. Can an adventure be fun and difficult to resolve even the party is capable of killing every NPCs/Monsters without significant challenge?

Conversely can adventures can be resolved and still be fun when the party is incapable of seriously challenging any of the NPCs/Monsters in combat?

In a political intrigue campaign this is often the norm. Other considerations come into play in this sort of campaign. You may be able to destroy the ambassador in a sword fight but the political consequences keep you from doing so. By the same token a foe who can outmatch you in battle may need to be dealt with in less direct ways. Personally I find this style of play rather exciting.