Quote from: Sommerjon;580733Yes those are a result of D&D being level based.

No they are not a result of D&D being level based

Quote from: jhkimYou can manage risks in your life in general, but the modern-day world is vastly better mapped and cataloged and risk-assessed than the typical fantasy world.

Quote from: GameDaddy;580737Not really. I have been in very dangerous environments for extended amounts of time (Not so much in recent years, ...earlier on though).  ....  Even in the dangerous areas the risks were considerably less than one would first guess, and could be considerably reduced by exercising an increased immediate awareness of everything happening within a close proximity. Ones senses and habits literally change to accomodate the environment.

Living in the relatively crime free Rural Midwest is not safer by any significant margin. In fact its probably less safe statistically speaking, as the same skills of awareness that were practiced daily when I worked and lived in the Far East, in the Middle East, in LA, Boston, and Miami are not perceived to be needed (and therefore not used) for the cornfields and cows around here.

It sounds like you're saying that even less developed places in the modern world (like the Far East or Middle East) are still relatively safe.  I would agree with that, and that seems to be in line with my general point about the modern world being fairly safe.  Note that by "modern world" I didn't mean only America - I meant the modern world in general.  

I think most fantasy worlds are less safe than this - i.e. it is more likely for there to be deadly threats or disasters popping up, based on how things are for the PCs.

Quote from: jhkim;580761I think most fantasy worlds are less safe than this - i.e. it is more likely for there to be deadly threats or disasters popping up, based on how things are for the PCs.

Keep in mind also that the PCs are adventurers who go out of their way looking for trouble while most normal folk tend to stick to safer areas.

That would kind of be like basing overall life insurance rates on the worlds craziest thrillseekers.

Quote from: jhkim;580761It sounds like you're saying that even less developed places in the modern world (like the Far East or Middle East) are still relatively safe.  I would agree with that, and that seems to be in line with my general point about the modern world being fairly safe.  Note that by "modern world" I didn't mean only America - I meant the modern world in general.  

I think most fantasy worlds are less safe than this - i.e. it is more likely for there to be deadly threats or disasters popping up, based on how things are for the PCs.

I don't think that what he means. He is saying that daily living in a dangerous environment causes an individual to develop situational awareness which allow them to function safely (more or less). With a further point that living in a relatively safe environment breeds complacency to dangerous situations.

This would hold true regardless of time period or technological development. It part of how people function and deal with their environment.

Quote from: estar;580772I don't think that what he means. He is saying that daily living in a dangerous environment causes an individual to develop situational awareness which allow them to function safely (more or less). With a further point that living in a relatively safe environment breeds complacency to dangerous situations.

This would hold true regardless of time period or technological development. It part of how people function and deal with their environment.

OK, let me try to summarize what I understand of the disagreement.  

There is the argument that "Fair Warning" is fully realistic.  So in a realistic fantasy world, even though they go into dungeons or similar environments, smart PCs will never be forced into a fight or other threat that they can't handle (like 3rd level PCs fighting a golem, or similar).  The whole idea of an unforeseen threat they can't avoid (i.e. something "thrown at them") is ridiculous.  The parallel to support this is that people can live in relative safety in the Third World.  

My argument is that "Fair Warning" is not realistic - it is a metagame imposition.  If a dangerous fantasy environment like dungeons existed, there are likely to be some unforeseen threats in there.  The PCs might encounter things they can't deal with.  My parallel to support this is a historical war zone, where a good plan never survives contact with the enemy, and individuals may die through no fault of their own.  

Does that sound about right?

Quote from: estar;580772He is saying that daily living in a dangerous environment causes an individual to develop situational awareness which allow them to function safely (more or less).

I noticed this when I moved from park ranger to resource ecologist - my law enforcement contact skills definitely lost their sharp edge because I wasn't patrolling and checking permits and such every day anymore.

Quote from: jhkim;580782OK, let me try to summarize what I understand of the disagreement.  

There is the argument that "Fair Warning" is fully realistic.  So in a realistic fantasy world, even though they go into dungeons or similar environments, smart PCs will never be forced into a fight or other threat that they can't handle (like 3rd level PCs fighting a golem, or similar).  The whole idea of an unforeseen threat they can't avoid (i.e. something "thrown at them") is ridiculous.  The parallel to support this is that people can live in relative safety in the Third World.  

My argument is that "Fair Warning" is not realistic - it is a metagame imposition.  If a dangerous fantasy environment like dungeons existed, there are likely to be some unforeseen threats in there.  The PCs might encounter things they can't deal with.  My parallel to support this is a historical war zone, where a good plan never survives contact with the enemy, and individuals may die through no fault of their own.  

Does that sound about right?

You are leaving out the huge excluded middle:

There may be the rare extremely dangerous threat that could not be anticipated. This doesn't mean hacking through it is the only option.

Quote from: jhkim;580782There is the argument that "Fair Warning" is fully realistic.  So in a realistic fantasy world, even though they go into dungeons or similar environments, smart PCs will never be forced into a fight or other threat that they can't handle (like 3rd level PCs fighting a golem, or similar).  The whole idea of an unforeseen threat they can't avoid (i.e. something "thrown at them") is ridiculous.  The parallel to support this is that people can live in relative safety in the Third World.  

My argument is that "Fair Warning" is not realistic - it is a metagame imposition.  If a dangerous fantasy environment like dungeons existed, there are likely to be some unforeseen threats in there.  The PCs might encounter things they can't deal with.  My parallel to support this is a historical war zone, where a good plan never survives contact with the enemy, and individuals may die through no fault of their own.  

Does that sound about right?

Not quite. "Fair Warning" is given when it make sense to do so based on circumstances. For example a party may know the forest they are in is filled with Lions and Tigers and Bears (oh my) but may not not know that at that very moment a Tiger is stalking them and has gained surprise on the party.

It no different than judging how far an 15 strength fighter can jump. You look at the character experience and background and make decision whether that character would know the type of danger they are getting into.

"Hey Bob, now that the party is several hundred years into the forest, Fafhrd just noticed that there are a lot of tracks around of Lions, Tigers, and Bears. And for the record Bob don't say 'Oh my' or you owe me a Coke."

Quote from: estar;580787"Hey Bob, now that the party is several hundred years into the forest, Fafhrd just noticed that there are a lot of tracks around of Lions, Tigers, and Bears. And for the record Bob don't say 'Oh my' or you owe me a Coke."

I certainly hope the party is all elves!  

Quote from: jhkim;580599I'm just saying that the setup can be broken into three broad categories, "Fair Fight", "Fair Warning", and "Life's Not Fair".

I think risk assessment (or more specifically, information flow) is at the heart of most RPGs, and this is an excellent breakdown on the kinds of risk presentation RPGs typically have. And what I've found like you is that 'Fair Warning' is simply not possible through the fiction alone, and depends on either knowing the GM well enough, or having game mechanics (such as HP) which provide information, to asses the actual risk.

Quote from: jhkim;580599Some people have been arguing against fairness, but always bringing up examples about how the players are to blame for their own doom.

I consider this a sign of a crappy GM.

Quote from: jhkim;580599If you're actually running a "Life's Not Fair" game, then there are going to be situations where the PCs are just screwed and it's not their fault.  (I play Call of Cthulhu regularly - which is often like this and still fun.)

But again, it's about having information to make informed decisions. If I'm playing CoC, I KNOW life's not fair, and that will drive the choices I make as my character.

Metagamey? Perhaps, but all the character's in CoC are crazy anyway.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;580615To review Sommerjon's contributions to the thread:

(1) It is impossible to stay in-character while playing a roleplaying game.

(2) It is impossible to have an organic campaign world because all campaign worlds are created by GMs.

I strongly urge everyone to keep this insanity in mind when attempting to converse with this guy.

And I will as I fight the Strawmen of Excluded Middle Earth.

You cannot stay in character 100% of the time, and you cannot have a 100% organic campaign world, when it comes to tabletop RPGs.

Quote from: James Gillen;579619Depends.  What monster level are Rodents of Unusual Size?

I don't believe such monsters exist in D&D.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;579698if it did, I'd make a fighter, then once we got a fair share of gold, I'd start up a bank.  Imagine the constant flow of xp!  In a year you could not only be high enough level for a castle, but you could afford it too!

If that isn't realism, then I don't know what is

Quote from: RPGPundit;580214Old School D&D treats its setting organically, that is, as a virtual world with internal consistency.

*spittake*

Seriously? Those dungeons made sense? I must have missed the memo.

Quote from: jibbajibba;580369all they know is no on ever come out and the place is haunted.

And that's meaningful information.

Quote from: Sommerjon;580386That grain merchant who saw an 'ogre' and ran like a npc will, was actually a hill giant, but using 'organic setting logic' the grain merchant wasn't wrong in his description.  Or what he thought was a cat was actually a displacer beast.

And this is why you should never consider rumors to be 'facts', especially in a made up setting

Quote from: Justin Alexander;580396This whole line of thinking assumes, once again, that the GM is required to force feed content to the players.

That's not even possible.

And it's better to give players too much information they can ask questions about than it is to give them too little information to form questions with.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;580785You are leaving out the huge excluded middle:

There may be the rare extremely dangerous threat that could not be anticipated. This doesn't mean hacking through it is the only option.

Quote from: estar;580787Not quite. "Fair Warning" is given when it make sense to do so based on circumstances. For example a party may know the forest they are in is filled with Lions and Tigers and Bears (oh my) but may not not know that at that very moment a Tiger is stalking them and has gained surprise on the party.

I do cover the case of fair warning not being given - that was my "Life Isn't Fair" option that I described earlier.  The point is that you can't have "Life Isn't Fair" and still say that if bad stuff happens to the PCs, then it's their own fault.  

These two examples both sound like trying to say that a surprise encounter can still be fair - because the PCs have a way to get out of it other than hacking if they're smart, or because they should have known that tigers were in the forest (since fair warning was given that the forest was filled with them).  

I'm not saying not to do those.  However, in the "Life Isn't Fair" option, there will also be some encounters that truly aren't fair.

Quote from: jhkim;580782OK, let me try to summarize what I understand of the disagreement.  

There is the argument that "Fair Warning" is fully realistic.  So in a realistic fantasy world, even though they go into dungeons or similar environments, smart PCs will never be forced into a fight or other threat that they can't handle (like 3rd level PCs fighting a golem, or similar).  The whole idea of an unforeseen threat they can't avoid (i.e. something "thrown at them") is ridiculous.  The parallel to support this is that people can live in relative safety in the Third World.  

My argument is that "Fair Warning" is not realistic - it is a metagame imposition.  If a dangerous fantasy environment like dungeons existed, there are likely to be some unforeseen threats in there.  The PCs might encounter things they can't deal with.  My parallel to support this is a historical war zone, where a good plan never survives contact with the enemy, and individuals may die through no fault of their own.  

Does that sound about right?

It does make sense as far as you went, but there is a whole lot of other stuff in there.  It depends largely on the skill set of the adventurers in question and their ability to leave an escape clause open.

A good plan may never survive contact with the enemy, but we are talking specifically about the time Before Contact, in your example, the decision to engage has already been made.  If the PLayers are smart enough to plan to avoid engagement and to really explore very thoroughly, they can avoid a great many issues.

The level of largesse needed by the GM is also somewhat determined by the system; the proper skills and knowledge might exist more in one game set or another.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;580795It's better to give players too much information they can ask questions about than it is to give them too little information to form questions with.

Sigworthy

Quote from: jhkim;580523You can manage risks in your life in general, but the modern-day world is vastly better mapped and cataloged and risk-assessed than the typical fantasy world.  

To a degree.  First, let's say "than a typical historical world", because of course mileage varies enormously with fantasy worlds; there are some where you get the feeling that even though it shouldn't be that way, every peasant has access to Volo's tourist guides.
Second, in historical cases, the world was smaller, but the scenario no different: you could stay in the village where its safe, go to the city where there's more opportunities but you could also get stabbed and no one would know you from adam, you could travel by road which is relatively safe in times of peace, or go through the forest where there's known to be bandits and bears. You could go on a pilgrimage or a crusade to the holy land, which would be an amazing thing to do, but chances are you'll never come back.

QuoteWhat we're talking about here is being able to go somewhere that you can definitely get 6th level threats, but be safe from surprise 10th level threats.  That doesn't exist in the real world.

That shouldn't exist in a game world, either. You could say that "we know the bone hills are infested with goblins, and there are some minor undead, but we haven't heard of any dragons there for over 300 years... and on the other hand we have heard that a dragon still roams in the black mountains".  This shouldn't be a guarantee of anything... I mean seriously, read the random encounter tables for wilderness terrain in either the AD&D 1e DMG or the RC; in either case, there's no effort there at trying to make encounters level-appropriate.

In my upcoming Arrows of Indra game, I have random encounter tables for just about every wilderness area in the setting (note, area, not just terrain type), so you could say that in the Khandava Jungle, where there's known to be a kingdom of Nagas, you are very likely to run into Nagas (a "mid-level opponent"); but my players when they traveled there spent days inside and through luck only managed to run into some wild boars, giant centipedes, a couple of the Naga's Rakshasa mercenaries, and (less lucky, you could say) an Asura Demon (a "high level" opponent of which an encounter was something like 1%).  They ran from that last one.
On the other hand, the Madhu forest is known to be entirely pacific, its smack dab in the middle of the Bharata kingdoms, is used for hunting parties to go in search of game, and there are large communities of hermits who live there. Everyone knows you're not going to find Nagas or Asura Demons there unless something really weird is going on (ie. unless there's a reason outside the encounter table why it should be there); if you're really lucky/unlucky, the nastiest thing you'll find in the Madhu forest is a tiger, which Kshatriya nobles hunt for sport.

That's the kind of emulation I'm talking about here.

QuoteThe question is, would you as GM put in situations that truly aren't fair - like a deadly golem already activated as opposed to a golem that is activated if you break the glass.  In other words, sometimes there are no-win situations, and sometimes the best plans fail due to unforeseen circumstances.

I would and have. And I'm often amazed by how players find ways to make what I think are no-win situations "winnable", or at least survivable.  Those are often the most memorable of sessions.  Encountering an appropriate number of appropriate-hd opponents for their average level, on the other hand, is mostly just forgettable routine in between those spectacularly memorable moments.

RPGPundit

Quote from: MGuy;580628Secondly since no matter how good of a GM you are you can't compete with real life. You can't indeed claim that your game is "organic" (in that things just happen to be where they are through circumstance) since you probably place things according to your own logic which is not as random as real life.

Real life is not "random", it is the product of a huge flow of circumstances.  Characters starting out in a village or town in some moderately civilized area rather than in the south pole or in the vacuum of space is no more or less "random" than the fact that you were born in a hospital rather than at the south pole or in the vacuum of space. It is a reasonable outcome of the circumstances of the world.

RPGPundit