Quote from: RPGPundit;580915Real 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

To avoid getting too technical (with quantum physics stuff) I will clarify. None of us thinking people can copy what "reality" does. We just don't have the processing power. So what we do in exercises like running a game is use our own logic. We, being as flawed as we are, have flawed logic and we can't possibly consider anything even mockingly close to the seemingly random circumstance that happens on a day to day basis. Whatever we think is born from our reasoning and therefore is far less "organic" than you would probably believe.

I don't understand the relevance of this line of argumentation I'm seeing. There's an initial thesis that a metagame-able fixed structure for party encounters is bad for both GM and players because it reduces in-game choice to a farce. To which the countering response is everything in life is an abstraction of life's unknowable ineffability -- so therefore you're just as guilty somehow for abstracting anything in your game and thus a metagame-able fixed structure for party encounters is OK, too.

So far I just see a red herring here. Perhaps someone can rephrase the countering argument into something... better? Otherwise I don't see it's validity beyond a post-modern nominalist deconstruction. (And I usually like post-modern nominalist deconstruction; they're usually entertaining. )

"I was born in the vacuum of space and grew up on the South Pole" would make for a rather decent character background.

Quote from: Opaopajr;580931I don't understand the relevance of this line of argumentation I'm seeing. There's an initial thesis that a metagame-able fixed structure for party encounters is bad for both GM and players because it reduces in-game choice to a farce. To which the countering response is everything in life is an abstraction of life's unknowable ineffability -- so therefore you're just as guilty somehow for abstracting anything in your game and thus a metagame-able fixed structure for party encounters is OK, too.

So far I just see a red herring here. Perhaps someone can rephrase the countering argument into something... better? Otherwise I don't see it's validity beyond a post-modern nominalist deconstruction. (And I usually like post-modern nominalist deconstruction; they're usually entertaining. )

I think the arguement is moreorless - Suggested encounters per day as a metagame rule to ensure a session is both fun and challenging to the players is effectively no different from a metagame constructed sandbox where challenges for the players are arranged in a level specific way rather than as mixed and varied as they woudl be in the real world in order to ensure that play is both fun and challenging for the players.

Now as this thread has panned out I can see a definite use for per session encounters in the one off con type game where you have a 4 hour session and want the session to be both fun and challenging you may well plan to have x encounters of various types, encounters here meaning traps and puzzels as well as cretures and of course you don't have to fight all the creatures.
I can see that playing in a campaign where you want the PCs to have more choice about the overall direction they take things instead to use the sandbox option of low level baddies here and higher level baddies over here further from civilisation.

Now I still think the latter is metagamey but not necessarily bad where as a lot of people here seem to be saying that no a sandbox is a perfect recreation of a naturally occuring world in motion that mirrors a real setting. Its not. I am trying to make a more realistical world myself but the only way I can do it is to remove very tough monsters or at least thin them down massively. Why? well because in a world where the PCs are the heroes rather than a world of levelled adventureres too many monsters creates mayhem. the 'you can run away from it' line doesn't really wash. Apex predators are pretty fucking good at catching their dinner. Runnign away isn't always going to work.

Quote from: Melan;580659Meanwhile, on RPGNet:



(Admittedly, there are a bunch of contrary opinions, but the mentality Pundit is drawing attention to is a real thing.)

Just because RPG.net is a real thing doesn't mean it isn't damaging to my sense of verisimilitude.

JG

Quote from: Melan;580945"I was born in the vacuum of space and grew up on the South Pole" would make for a rather decent character background.

"He has hammers for hands and wheels for feet."
"How'd he get those?"
"He was born that way."
"How did he grow up?"
"He was raised by farm implements."
"How does he live?"
"He lives in the woods."

The last chapter of my last campaign, played over nine months, spanned five days in-game. It was basically like a season of "24" - which, incidentally, was the spirit I wanted for my ending. 'Nuff said.

Of course the characters started overpimped-up with everything (spells, scrolls, magic items, potions, divine blessings, holy flying ships...) and gave it all (sleep penalities included) in a rentless orgy of tension and action. But this kind of balance comes from the DM and, often, from the story itself even before the DM.

I can understand, however, how a beginning DM can find useful to start with a rule of thumb, so to find his footing before finding his own rhythm.  But, as usual, a rule should be a help and a tool, not a spoiler.

Quote from: Reckall;580971The last chapter of my last campaign, played over nine months, spanned five days in-game. It was basically like a season of "24" - which, incidentally, was the spirit I wanted for my ending. 'Nuff said.

Of course the characters started overpimped-up with everything (spells, scrolls, magic items, potions, divine blessings, holy flying ships...) and gave it all (sleep penalities included) in a rentless orgy of tension and action. But this kind of balance comes from the DM and, often, from the story itself even before the DM.

I can understand, however, how a beginning DM can find useful to start with a rule of thumb, so to find his footing before finding his own rhythm.  But, as usual, a rule should be a help and a tool, not a spoiler.

(I have run my whole first arc of a new campaign set this way.  Totally changed the Dynamic.  There was some slepp, etc, but lots of other issues.  Still thinking of writing it up, as the group spent two and a half years of play time to play through 16 days...the tension level was unbearable sometimes, since the 3 major exploration areas were either in town or in the boneyard right outside of town..but they were trying to stop/slow down an undead plague)

Quote from: Opaopajr;580931I don't understand the relevance of this line of argumentation I'm seeing. There's an initial thesis that a metagame-able fixed structure for party encounters is bad for both GM and players because it reduces in-game choice to a farce. To which the countering response is everything in life is an abstraction of life's unknowable ineffability -- so therefore you're just as guilty somehow for abstracting anything in your game and thus a metagame-able fixed structure for party encounters is OK, too.

So far I just see a red herring here. Perhaps someone can rephrase the countering argument into something... better?

I'll try another summary.  Basically, I break approaches down into "Fair Fight", "Fair Warning", and "Life's Not Fair".  

"Fair Fight" means that if the party is smart, they can probably tackle all of the challenges they meet in an adventure.  They might run away at some point, but they can find a way through.  In my experience, this is how most D&D modules are designed, at least after 1980 or so.  They are rated for a certain level range (like levels 6-8), and a party of that level can overcome everything in there.  

"Fair Warning" is where the GM will include random encounters and/or adventure hooks that overmatch the PCs.  They aren't expected to be able to overcome these, and the best thing for them to do is run away and/or not explore those options.  The GM takes care so that there is sufficient warning so the PCs can avoid these if they are smart.  

"Life's Not Fair" is where the GM includes such tough encounters, but doesn't ensure that the PCs have an "out".  So sometimes the PCs will just be screwed.  

These have different pros and cons.

"Life's Not Fair" has strong verisimilitude, but some players really don't like no-win encounters that they can't avoid.  This does make players more cautious, but sometimes the GM doesn't want the players to walk away.  For some groups, PCs who act intelligently and take the wisest route don't make for the most fun adventures.  

"Fair Warning" means that the players are challenged with threat assessment.  From the player side, this means that they have to read GM cues, and this can sometimes be a problem - the same problem as mystery scenarios that they may read things differently, so it becomes a challenge of thinking like the GM does.  

"Fair Fight" has the problem of lack of verisimilitude.  There are still choices, and players can still choose to avoid some challenges.  Still, they're less likely to think of options like walking away - and that can give a feeling of same-ness to plots.

OK, first let me thank jibbajabba and jhkim for giving me a summary. They seem to be along a similar vein, though not exactly a similar argument. Naturally I'll be corrected where I'm misrepresenting...

From jibbajabba, I'm getting the counter-argument of a setting's metagame artificiality when world regions (certain terrain areas or dungeon levels) tend to accord encounters to a level range, say 4-7 or something. Which interestingly accords to Justin Alexander's analogy of restating the argument where settings are constructed akin to WoW leveled regions (and also accords to JA's dismissal of such an argument as a misrepresentation of GM settings used here).

And further jibbajabba, you note that people here do claim to design their settings with avoiding this setting artificiality in mind, though you find the thinning and lowering of success of apex predators still artificial. I'll just note most solitary apex predators success rates aren't that overwhelming in real life (unless we count baleen whales "hunting" shrimp ). And though success rate of pack apex predators is better, it too isn't that high and most assuredly not certain doom. But you could play out your fantasy predators as so, if you feel it's necessary.

Which gets to jhkim's summary. Basically the "fair fight/warning" aren't much of an issue. The only possible issue is "fair warning" if you have to read GM cues (which given some random tables can also be circumvented in spirit). And since there seems to be an overlook about encounter distance and encounter reaction -- especially encounter distance -- I'm not seeing impossible situations of "Life's Not Fair" unless the GM just sandbags the PCs.

So, about "Life's Not Fair" how are we defining this? Are we talking about "*boom* lightning hits your cleric as he walks through the town plaza on a sunny day" type of Life-not-fair? As in it is totally impossible to prepare for and nigh-guaranteed instant death? Like the proverbial evil GM "sudden cave in, everyone dies." Because, yeah that would be pretty dickish and generally not allowed in my games without some warning.

However in general I would find those bouts of outrageous mis/fortune rather metagamey myself. The only way I can see these sorts of lethal setting surprises as verisimilitude is if I believed wholeheartedly that outrageous mis/fortune is the norm. But if that's the line of breaking simulative veracity then I guess I wholly embrace that 'metagame fiction' -- however it seems like such an outlier expression of argumentation to equate to the topic's thesis.

So while I will concede that there is a point that I do not go, I will not go further and say that there is equivalence and thus permissibility to both. Though I do not roll to check for congenital heart failure or death-from-above meteor strikes for each PC for every game day, I don't find that concession a valid excuse to any old metagame structure, such as encounters per day. While I may roll for storms on the seas, or diseases from weather exposure, or roll out the death spiral of heat stroke from the desert, there's still a measure of time for player response provided.

Thus the comparison that to deny inescapable surprise death is to conversely accept encounter per diem through both being metagame decisions, and therefore equal in weight, rings wholly false to me.

Quote from: Opaopajr;581248OK, first let me thank jibbajabba and jhkim for giving me a summary. They seem to be along a similar vein, though not exactly a similar argument. Naturally I'll be corrected where I'm misrepresenting...

From jibbajabba, I'm getting the counter-argument of a setting's metagame artificiality when world regions (certain terrain areas or dungeon levels) tend to accord encounters to a level range, say 4-7 or something. Which interestingly accords to Justin Alexander's analogy of restating the argument where settings are constructed akin to WoW leveled regions (and also accords to JA's dismissal of such an argument as a misrepresentation of GM settings used here).

And further jibbajabba, you note that people here do claim to design their settings with avoiding this setting artificiality in mind, though you find the thinning and lowering of success of apex predators still artificial. I'll just note most solitary apex predators success rates aren't that overwhelming in real life (unless we count baleen whales "hunting" shrimp ). And though success rate of pack apex predators is better, it too isn't that high and most assuredly not certain doom. But you could play out your fantasy predators as so, if you feel it's necessary.

Which gets to jhkim's summary. Basically the "fair fight/warning" aren't much of an issue. The only possible issue is "fair warning" if you have to read GM cues (which given some random tables can also be circumvented in spirit). And since there seems to be an overlook about encounter distance and encounter reaction -- especially encounter distance -- I'm not seeing impossible situations of "Life's Not Fair" unless the GM just sandbags the PCs.

So, about "Life's Not Fair" how are we defining this? Are we talking about "*boom* lightning hits your cleric as he walks through the town plaza on a sunny day" type of Life-not-fair? As in it is totally impossible to prepare for and nigh-guaranteed instant death? Like the proverbial evil GM "sudden cave in, everyone dies." Because, yeah that would be pretty dickish and generally not allowed in my games without some warning.

However in general I would find those bouts of outrageous mis/fortune rather metagamey myself. The only way I can see these sorts of lethal setting surprises as verisimilitude is if I believed wholeheartedly that outrageous mis/fortune is the norm. But if that's the line of breaking simulative veracity then I guess I wholly embrace that 'metagame fiction' -- however it seems like such an outlier expression of argumentation to equate to the topic's thesis.

So while I will concede that there is a point that I do not go, I will not go further and say that there is equivalence and thus permissibility to both. Though I do not roll to check for congenital heart failure or death-from-above meteor strikes for each PC for every game day, I don't find that concession a valid excuse to any old metagame structure, such as encounters per day. While I may roll for storms on the seas, or diseases from weather exposure, or roll out the death spiral of heat stroke from the desert, there's still a measure of time for player response provided.

Thus the comparison that to deny inescapable surprise death is to conversely accept encounter per diem through both being metagame decisions, and therefore equal in weight, rings wholly false to me.

Re sandboxes not benong Wow Levels based.... its sometimes true but I have found not very often there is usually a thought process going on about the areas safer for lowerlevel PCs etc.
re Apex predators that might happen when its a tiger or a lion I doubt that it happens when its an ancient red dragon or another D&D style intelligent magically powerful Apex predator.

Jhkim's 'Life's not fair' doesn't mean zap the party with a lightning bolt just for fun or becuase they said the Lord of lightning's name in vain 3 times. It means this forest will be home to a creature. This creature is magically powerful, preys on travellers but is invisible and kills with a death ray, its based on the alien in Predator. The party hear a vague story about people going missing they head out there and on the first day the creature kills 2 of them. The creature realy is a smart Apex predator the party will really have no idea its there until one of them is dead. Then they try to run and the hunt is on. Now at 15th level they might beat it but the way it is means its not well known or a subject of rumour just no one goes to that forest cos peoole vanish.... just the sort of hook most PCs leap on.

There are loads of others. A little old woman in a forest cottage the party arrive she is really nice kindly biddy. Her cottage is attacked by goblinsthey help her fight them off. She poisons all of them at dinner as she is really a witch that lives in the forest and lives on travellers. She is smart and a good actor and the PCs are unlikely to sneak down to her basement to find the 'meat' hanging up. Some PCs might be suspecious but the fight against eh goblins will probably be enough to convince them she is 'good'

these are perfectly fine monsters to place but in each case the party is very probably fucked through no real fault of their own.

So the usual answer is to foreshadow these with warnings the people go missing becomes a powerful grup of knights and a sorcerer went missing the cottage is littered with clues. These things actually detract from the predators in each case. The woman is far too smart of leave clues. She won't be wearing the fur hat they saw the elf in 2 days ago, she won't have a ring that the PCs recognise as he logo of the Kings Rangers. She doesn't need that shit she just needs fresh meat.
The predator may only have arrived recently in that forest rather than have been there for years and this may not be a world with lots of tough adventuring types that can be picked off as foreshadowing example to others.

So the question is do you decide that bad things only happen to bad or stupid people or do you decide that bad things can just happen and if you happen to be in the way of the truck then ....
I think in play meta-considerations probably make a better game and i think that some options are better for some games and situations but we ought to agree that we are all making metagame considerations rather than making a point that these guys ways of balancing play are ridiculous and childish and all about player entitlement and shit roleplaying where as these metagame considerations are mature, sensible and all about how the game should be played everything else being badwrongfun.

Quote from: Opaopajr;581248So, about "Life's Not Fair" how are we defining this? Are we talking about "*boom* lightning hits your cleric as he walks through the town plaza on a sunny day" type of Life-not-fair? As in it is totally impossible to prepare for and nigh-guaranteed instant death? Like the proverbial evil GM "sudden cave in, everyone dies." Because, yeah that would be pretty dickish and generally not allowed in my games without some warning.

However in general I would find those bouts of outrageous mis/fortune rather metagamey myself.

The lightning is ridiculous.  However, there's nothing outrageous about a cave-in if you're wandering about in old, unmaintained underground tunnels - especially if there are circumstances that can trigger such (i.e. fireball, breath weapon, etc.).  

But there are lots of possibilities.  Say, a 3rd-level party hears that some ogres are hiding out in the ruins of an old wizard's tower between their raids.  After the first fight, some ogres retreat underground.  When the party opens a door in the dungeon level, they are attacked by a magical guardian - a large air elemental.  They can't beat it in a fight, and it is faster than they are.  TPK results.  

This is an absolutely standard scenario and typical encounter, except that the DM didn't tailor the monster to be beatable by the party.  But there's no reason that the encounter should be an even match with the party.

Quote from: jhkim;581309However, there's nothing outrageous about a cave-in if you're wandering about in old, unmaintained underground tunnels - especially if there are circumstances that can trigger such (i.e. fireball, breath weapon, etc.).

But isn't this kind of encounter technically 'Fair Warning', because the characters could potentially have a chance to asses those traits before/after entering, depending on their skills/actions?

Quote from: chaosvoyager;581337But isn't this kind of encounter technically 'Fair Warning', because the characters could potentially have a chance to asses those traits before/after entering, depending on their skills/actions?

Depends on if they have a dorf with them or the relevant skills. Plus "abandoned mine" hints at it being unmaintained and if players allow every slightly dangerous sounding place make them not go there (because the dangers could be too great) then in what way are they heroic? What if the haunted house is really just old man Jenkens dressing up and murdering the fuck out of people and the "Haunted House" is just a ruse to keep away any meddling adventurers that might fuck his shit up?

Quote from: MGuy;581353Depends on if they have a dorf with them or the relevant skills. Plus "abandoned mine" hints at it being unmaintained and if players allow every slightly dangerous sounding place make them not go there (because the dangers could be too great) then in what way are they heroic? What if the haunted house is really just old man Jenkens dressing up and murdering the fuck out of people and the "Haunted House" is just a ruse to keep away any meddling adventurers that might fuck his shit up?

So go check shit out and quit crying about danger. Oh, and also don't bitch about getting killed. Adventuring is a dangerous profession, just roll a new character and keep playing.