TheRPGSite

Seriously, does someone want to try to defend this notion?  In what way can this make sense in roleplaying?

The potential number of encounters you might have should depend on SETTING considerations, not fucking "balance" considerations! If you are traveling through "Dragon Swamp" with your level 2 party you shouldn't expect only level-2 encounters; and it should not happen that the "caves of peril" should have only 1st-level perils for a 1st level party but the moment a 10th level party steps inside suddenly 10th level perils are spawned!
Likewise, the idea that in the course of the day there must be "x" encounters, not more nor less, or something of the sort is absurd.

There should be as many encounters as makes sense in the place the PCs actually ARE, in the fucking SETTING.

RPGPundit

A lack of interest in the campaign world seems to be one of the attitudes that grew up around 4e. Reading over at rpg.net, a lot of folks are very vocal about the fact that the setting only exists when the PCs are interacting with it and is irrelevant otherwise. It seems this attitude is now considered "sophisticated" compared with the naive old school view.

Granted, rpgs aren't fiction, and I'm not interested in writing novels about the campaign world. But having some idea of what's going on in the background (and how time marches on and the situation changes, even if the PCs are off doing something else) makes for a better experience in play IMHO.

As a game design or player advice matter, it makes a certain degree of sense.  If you're going to build a campaign from scratch and use Vancian magic or limited health recovery (or other slow-to-regenerate resources, such as Nobilis' various expendable stats), a playtest-driven set of information about the typical group's performance is kinda vital for newer GMs.  Without one or if the rule is ignored or poorly developed, I can say from personal experience it's quite easy to develop a set of encounters or dungeon that becomes frustrating for your player group, or worse, encourages very stupid behavior such a turtling after every encounter.

As an actual mechanical rule, it's ludicrous and nonsensical and tedious; player groups that make consistently and obviously poor decisions probably should find themselves being eaten by something vastly more powerful than them, or be able to avoid fights if they wish, or sometimes even run into stuff that isn't balanced for them.

((Of course, the fundamental issue is more likely that, especially in earlier D&D games, dungeons were typically built with little or no space for serious recovery.  Long-recovery resources were intended basically as free and constantly available consumables, which makes sense but fits gamist better than simulationist focuses.))

Quote from: RPGPundit;579367Seriously, does someone want to try to defend this notion?  In what way can this make sense in roleplaying?

The potential number of encounters you might have should depend on SETTING considerations, not fucking "balance" considerations! If you are traveling through "Dragon Swamp" with your level 2 party you shouldn't expect only level-2 encounters; and it should not happen that the "caves of peril" should have only 1st-level perils for a 1st level party but the moment a 10th level party steps inside suddenly 10th level perils are spawned!
Likewise, the idea that in the course of the day there must be "x" encounters, not more nor less, or something of the sort is absurd.

There should be as many encounters as makes sense in the place the PCs actually ARE, in the fucking SETTING.

RPGPundit

+1
And more.  IN-seting logic and player action/reaction should be the determinates.

I have a hard time groking how in a role-playing game, the world is not a living world, but something that molds itself to fit the PCs current situation.  

"There be dragons" to the north?  Not until the party is level 15.  That makes no sense.

"Hey, as long as you don't level up, there are no giants in the entire world!"


Ludicrous.  If a first level party hears about rumors of dragons to the north, and goes north, they shouldn't be surprised if they get eaten.  Encounters per day should only be limited by party actions, and not by some set number.  I.e., if the party only goes into one small cave for the entire day, maybe there's only one encounter.  If they start making their way through the Caves of Chaos, they could have over a dozen as long as they are still alive.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579367The potential number of encounters you might have should depend on SETTING considerations, not fucking "balance" considerations! If you are traveling through "Dragon Swamp" with your level 2 party you shouldn't expect only level-2 encounters; and it should not happen that the "caves of peril" should have only 1st-level perils for a 1st level party but the moment a 10th level party steps inside suddenly 10th level perils are spawned! Likewise, the idea that in the course of the day there must be "x" encounters, not more nor less, or something of the sort is absurd.

There should be as many encounters as makes sense in the place the PCs actually ARE, in the fucking SETTING.

+1. You said it far better than I could.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579367Seriously, does someone want to try to defend this notion?  In what way can this make sense in roleplaying?

The potential number of encounters you might have should depend on SETTING considerations, not fucking "balance" considerations! If you are traveling through "Dragon Swamp" with your level 2 party you shouldn't expect only level-2 encounters; and it should not happen that the "caves of peril" should have only 1st-level perils for a 1st level party but the moment a 10th level party steps inside suddenly 10th level perils are spawned!
Likewise, the idea that in the course of the day there must be "x" encounters, not more nor less, or something of the sort is absurd.

There should be as many encounters as makes sense in the place the PCs actually ARE, in the fucking SETTING.

Agreed 100%

I would add that it is far easier to manage a campaign when you run it as realistically as possible with only the bare minimum of changes needed to add the desired fantastic elements. The players can then assume things naturally. This lessen the amount of description and exposition the referee has to do. It increase the comfort level of the players as they better plan their actions and reactions.

Realistically as possible doesn't mean rules details to the nth degree. Abstract mechanics can be realistic despite not having a lot of detail.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579367Seriously, does someone want to try to defend this notion?  In what way can this make sense in roleplaying?

So what prompted this post?

Quote from: gattsuru;579374I can say from personal experience it's quite easy to develop a set of encounters or dungeon that becomes frustrating for your player group, or worse, encourages very stupid behavior such a turtling after every encounter.

From my experience such problems are 9 times out of 10 the fault of the referee not adequately communication the situation that the PCs find themselves in.

Something that was thrown in stark relief between the times I roleplayed tabletop and when I roleplayed boffer LARPs. The live-action aspect of playing a boffer LARPS really showed to me all the stuff I wasn't telling the players. There are a lot of little clues that you use to figure out whether you are walking into danger or not or how to resolve the situation you are in. The experience has improved my tabletop referee as I point out advantageous terrain and elements that a veteran character would notice or use.

Doesn't mean that the characters never get surprised or make dumb mistakes. But there is a better acceptance of the result because the player felt they had the information in the first place.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579367Seriously, does someone want to try to defend this notion?  In what way can this make sense in roleplaying?

The potential number of encounters you might have should depend on SETTING considerations, not fucking "balance" considerations! If you are traveling through "Dragon Swamp" with your level 2 party you shouldn't expect only level-2 encounters; and it should not happen that the "caves of peril" should have only 1st-level perils for a 1st level party but the moment a 10th level party steps inside suddenly 10th level perils are spawned!
Likewise, the idea that in the course of the day there must be "x" encounters, not more nor less, or something of the sort is absurd.

There should be as many encounters as makes sense in the place the PCs actually ARE, in the fucking SETTING.

RPGPundit

I agree, but trying to play devil's advocate, there's something to be said for some sort of guidance along the following lines.

If the party are 4 x level X with all major types represented (fighter, cleric, magic-user, thief, or, say, DPS, Healer, Tank and Controller), then if you pit them against CR=X [level equivalent] encounters, the way the numbers work out in this game...

... 1-2 encounters per day will be a walk in the park
... 3 encounters per day will be low risk
... 4 encounters per day will be moderate risk
... 5 encounters per day will be tough
... 6-8 encounters per day will be severely challenging
... 9+ encounters per day will be over 50% likely to result in a TPK

[NB this is a hypothetical example for a hypothetical system, not actual guidelines!!!]

It may be useful to know these sorts of things.

There is, after all, always room to wing things a bit, bend the setting this way or that, so that the party have a reasonably tough time but, if they play things cleverly, don't walk into a TPK every afternoon. Note that I say bend, not break.

Having said all this, I have never, EVER followed or even taken any notice of anyone's guidelines for suggested encounters per day, and I've never set any such guidelines for myself or anyone else as far as I can recall.

But perhaps, subconsciously, I keep an eye on how the party are doing and even things out a bit so they don't TPK. I mean, I must be doing something - because I don't fudge things (or rather haven't in recent years) but I've never had a TPK, and hardly any character death, and even what I've had was probably PvP.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;579377I have a hard time groking how in a role-playing game, the world is not a living world, but something that molds itself to fit the PCs current situation.  

"There be dragons" to the north?  Not until the party is level 15.  That makes no sense.

"Hey, as long as you don't level up, there are no giants in the entire world!"


Ludicrous.  If a first level party hears about rumors of dragons to the north, and goes north, they shouldn't be surprised if they get eaten.  Encounters per day should only be limited by party actions, and not by some set number.  I.e., if the party only goes into one small cave for the entire day, maybe there's only one encounter.  If they start making their way through the Caves of Chaos, they could have over a dozen as long as they are still alive.

I take it as a given that a party of 1st-level adventurers knows better than to go looking for fights they can't win. In whatever setting you like, the PCs simply don't have any motivation to actively seek out encounters that aren't "level appropriate" and lots of reasons to avoid them. Sure, the setting may have giants, dragons, and high-level horrors galore; shall we role-play our heroes' noble efforts to run away and hide from them on a daily basis? Is that fun? Any fun at all? Maybe once in a while, but as a GM or player I wouldn't want to make it a regular thing.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;579377"There be dragons" to the north?  Not until the party is level 15.  That makes no sense.

"Hey, as long as you don't level up, there are no giants in the entire world!"

It's a gauge, not the Club.  And that's not really how it works.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;579377I have a hard time groking how in a role-playing game, the world is not a living world, but something that molds itself to fit the PCs current situation.  

"There be dragons" to the north?  Not until the party is level 15.  That makes no sense.

"Hey, as long as you don't level up, there are no giants in the entire world!"

Ludicrous.  If a first level party hears about rumors of dragons to the north, and goes north, they shouldn't be surprised if they get eaten.  Encounters per day should only be limited by party actions, and not by some set number.  I.e., if the party only goes into one small cave for the entire day, maybe there's only one encounter.  If they start making their way through the Caves of Chaos, they could have over a dozen as long as they are still alive.

I agree.
However, i have to point out that there are really two problems here, and the thread's name only adresses one of them, and that is even the minior one.

I'll explain:
The title adresses the "Suggested Encounters Per Day".
Even though this in itself is unrealistic depending on the area that the characters is in and what they do, it is dwarfed by the other problem so elegantly described in the above quote, that i bolded the specific comments.
This, i dare say, is a real problem, if you want something that even resembles realism.

Either way, the game world is there, from orcs to dragons.  They move on with their lives regardless if a PC ever sets foot in their realm, no?  Or does the game world just stop until the PCs show up?

If the PCs hear about rumors of dragons to the north, they should be the ones to either go or not go; it shouldn't be per-determined by an encounters-per-day or level-appropriate encounter rule.  The dragons are there regardless.  By eliminating these high risk scenarios, it sends the message that the players don't really have to try.  They can skip rumors or research, they can skip travel prep, etc because they know that you're changing the game world to fit them.  Don't eliminate high risk encounters because "I assume the players wouldn't go there anyway."  Don't assume the players will do anything.  You're the referee, if the players do something foolish like no research and no travel prep, then let them pay for it because they'll learn the next time.  That isn't you being a dick as a DM.  That's you being impartial and not catering to the player's mistakes.

It sounds like another layer of entitlement to me.

Quote from: estar;579386From my experience such problems are 9 times out of 10 the fault of the referee not adequately communication the situation that the PCs find themselves in.

That's a separate issue, and an unfortunately complicated one to fix.  I'm talking more about times where the referee doesn't know the situation the PCs find themselves in.  It's not terribly rare for a newer GM to come from experience with non-Vancian settings or video-game-esque settings -- and snark all you want, but that's a lot of players -- and think that it might be reasonable for a 1st level party to take on fifteen normal encounters in a row.  That's a stupid and tedious sort of dungeon design anyway, so it doesn't need a rule change to make it so that player groups can handle it, but it's also not so nonoptimal that it results in Eaten By Grue; it's just tremendously boring paper-keeping if people rest regularly, or boring and resulting in rerolls if people don't.

QuoteDoesn't mean that the characters never get surprised or make dumb mistakes. But there is a better acceptance of the result because the player felt they had the information in the first place.

Agreed; as a hard-enforced mechanical rule "encounters per day" is nonsensical, and very few people like that sort of auto-leveling of enemies anyway even if you're willing to suspend disbelief (see The Elder Scrolls : Oblivion for one example).  If you decide to go Grue-hunting without a flashlight, you might well get eaten by a Grue.  I don't know that conflicts with the idea of a suggested encounter rate.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579367Seriously, does someone want to try to defend this notion?  In what way can this make sense in roleplaying?

The potential number of encounters you might have should depend on SETTING considerations, not fucking "balance" considerations! If you are traveling through "Dragon Swamp" with your level 2 party you shouldn't expect only level-2 encounters; and it should not happen that the "caves of peril" should have only 1st-level perils for a 1st level party but the moment a 10th level party steps inside suddenly 10th level perils are spawned!
Likewise, the idea that in the course of the day there must be "x" encounters, not more nor less, or something of the sort is absurd.

There should be as many encounters as makes sense in the place the PCs actually ARE, in the fucking SETTING.

RPGPundit

I pretty much completely agree with this.

I mean, don't be a dick and just drop a red dragon your third level party Just Cuz, but if they hear warnings that There Be Dragons Over Yonder, and they go Over Yonder expecting to find Kobolds because they're level 3, that's kinda on them, not you.

And if they're running low on resources...get fortified somewhere, don't expect the encounters to magically taper off because your Wizard overused his spells.

Being ambushed by a flying dragon out of nowhere: dick move
Spotting a flying dragon moving in your direction and not even trying to hide somewhere, or bribe the dragon, or at least beg for mercy: death wish

Being forced to go into Dragon Swamp: dick move
Going into Dragon Swamp after seeing several piles of charred corpses, a ruined village and several large footprints: "So don't go into Dragon Swamp next time."

And so on. Unfortunately, since railroading has become the standard in some game styles (both the "string of tactical battles" and "following an adventure path while being fed plot tokens" variety), challenges are assumed to be within party range, and ideas like assessing the potential risks around you, calibrating threat levels yourself by venturing into or avoiding harder or more distant areas, and just running if things get tough are not being considered as options.

There are pros and cons without excluding the middle. I agree with the sentiment of the OP, but in reality all encounters per day, CRs and the like are tools for DMs to use if they wish to do so.

That doesn't mean you have to slavishly use them. You want Dragon Swamp? Great, be at pains to point it out to your players that here be Dragons. If they still want to go there, that's their look-out.

Quote from: Omnifray;579387I agree, but trying to play devil's advocate, there's something to be said for some sort of guidance along the following lines.

If the party are 4 x level X with all major types represented (fighter, cleric, magic-user, thief, or, say, DPS, Healer, Tank and Controller), then if you pit them against CR=X [level equivalent] encounters, the way the numbers work out in this game...

... 1-2 encounters per day will be a walk in the park
... 3 encounters per day will be low risk
... 4 encounters per day will be moderate risk
... 5 encounters per day will be tough
... 6-8 encounters per day will be severely challenging
... 9+ encounters per day will be over 50% likely to result in a TPK

[NB this is a hypothetical example for a hypothetical system, not actual guidelines!!!]

It may be useful to know these sorts of things.

Yeah, as a guideline for new GM's who don't know what their players can handle, it's fine. And for explaining what the characters are "expected" to be able to handle, it's okay.

If the players bite off more than they can chew, that's their problem. And the books should say that, too. If the GM has all the information they need to balance or unbalance a game, they can produce a more fun game for everyone.

With 0D&D, I traditionally roll for random encounters six times a day. Morning, Noon, Evening, Night, Midnight, and Dawn. On average there's a 1-in-6 chance of a meaningful encounter.

That may vary depending on the population density in a given region. In the wilderness, 1-in-12. In the city especially a busy urban zone, 3-in-6.

In the wilderness players can typically go days without an encounter, but usually every two or three days something interesting develops. Some days can be very busy and test the limit the players resources. Sometimes they need to return to civilization for a rest and refit.

The encounters are random. When the players are lower level, they need to be sneaking around often and carefully choose their battles. When they are mid-to-high level they have more latitude in choosing what fights they want to participate in.

I was writing a 0D&D random encounter generator in Inspiration Pad Pro, it's inherent limitations have persuaded me to switch to Python, and it's a real slow go, mostly composed of organizing data, gathering statblocks and variants, and designing the generator to account for different locales and conditions..

'Level appropriate' (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/03/level-appropriate.html) and 'tailored' (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/08/tailor-made.html) encounters or situations are rare to the point of being effectively non-existent in my Flashing Blades campaign. The burden is wholly on the players to assess risks and respond accordingly, and even then, dangerous or deadly situations may be very difficult to avoid; it's possible to give offense to the wrong person - the rough equivalent of the 'ancient red dragon flying by' in D&D - with little warning.

As :pundit: notes, "suggested encounters per day" is wholly a function of the 'reality' game-world. Random encounters have no regard for the condition of the adventurers, and other encounters are based on what makes sense for a given situation; if you attack the chateau of the baron de Bauchery, expect his guards to have an organised response, and should you attempt to withdraw, expect a pursuit or perhaps later retribution.

I also warned my players to expect the npcs in the setting to think like the clever sort of evil overlord (http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html), not idiots, and plan accordingly. Frex, last game-day they were trying to free a prisoner from a fortress. In my notes, I wrote that if they attempted to poison the prisoner to feign death, then Don Alvaro, the fortress governor, would immediately bury the body in the fortress cemetery and post guards to make sure the grave remained undisturbed . . .

I agree with the OP.  The whole idea is a crippling mental disease for new GM's.  

How about instead of "Suggested Encounters Per Day" which carries with it the implication that if you don't follow the suggestion you're a cockblocking, pixel-bitching DM Tyrant, and completely ignores the individual conditions of the party and campaign - and instead provide something useful like a sample party and some sample encounters to show a newbie DM what is likely to be a cakewalk for your players, what will be tough, and what will wipe them out. (and NO, that's not what "Suggested Encounters Per Day" does).

The only use "suggested anythings" are for is to give the newbie GM a hand on developing his own eye for what will work in his campaign, not for training the next gen of Screen-Monkeys to feed the RPGA's Cult of Entitlement.

Quote from: Omnifray;579387If the party are 4 x level X with all major types represented (fighter, cleric, magic-user, thief, or, say, DPS, Healer, Tank and Controller), then if you pit them against CR=X [level equivalent] encounters, the way the numbers work out in this game...

... 1-2 encounters per day will be a walk in the park
... 3 encounters per day will be low risk
... 4 encounters per day will be moderate risk
... 5 encounters per day will be tough
... 6-8 encounters per day will be severely challenging
... 9+ encounters per day will be over 50% likely to result in a TPK

[NB this is a hypothetical example for a hypothetical system, not actual guidelines!!!]

It may be useful to know these sorts of things.

In theory this is good and well but in practice it is very hard to do these estimations reliably. Either it depends on a really narrow baseline for which it is accurate (3.x? I mean CRs must have been accurate for some cases right? But in general I'm not impressed with the system) or in order to make it work you have to homogenize the game to where all entities are different paintjobs on the same thing (4e). I'm not aware of other games who really tried this thing, though there might be some.

So if such a system already works (which I'm skeptical of but okay) go ahead and put it in the GM guide or whatever, but don't make the game more boring in order to make encounters more predictable.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579367Seriously, does someone want to try to defend this notion?

Not me.  I agree with you that it's a ridiculous approach (and I'd never use it).

Quote from: Melan;579404Being ambushed by a flying dragon out of nowhere: dick move
Spotting a flying dragon moving in your direction and not even trying to hide somewhere, or bribe the dragon, or at least beg for mercy: death wish

Being forced to go into Dragon Swamp: dick move
Going into Dragon Swamp after seeing several piles of charred corpses, a ruined village and several large footprints: "So don't go into Dragon Swamp next time."

And so on. .

I agree with you 100% on this.  It's unfortunate though, that we've got a large % of gamers who seem to think that if you're not following these guidelines to a rule, then you're a dick DM.  We see it all the time.  Just look at the wizard v fighter thread.  Unless you allow the PC to do whatever they want if there's even a hint of it being in the rules, you're a dick DM.

That's why I have a hard time taking it for face value when I hear people say, "It's only a guideline" because so many people will hold your ass to it as a hard and fast rule if you don't use it as said hard and fast rule.  I believe it was Mistborn or MGuy who just said, "If it's mentioned in the rules, I expect the game to be that way."  Ergo, if encounters per day and level appropriate encounters are in the book, then they expect the DM to adhere to them and if you don't, you're a dick DM trying to enforce a mother-may-I game style.

That's bullocks.  The DM isn't there to coddle players and protect them from their own mistakes.  They are there to facilitate an adventure and remain as impartial as they can.

But if you dig into it deeper why would the cave of perils just have 1st level threats?

I mentioned in another thread how you should really distribute monsters based on Christaller's central place theory or a similar model. Or based on the required resources to support x many creatures.

If there are dragons why do they live up north? is there a population of x that the dragons feed on? did they used to live in the south but the people got together and drove them away? if so what keeps them away and limits their numbers?

I totally agree with the original premise but think it really needs to be logically thought through in all directions.

So I can see that Yetis need to live in conditions less than x digress so you find them above the snow line and maybe in summer they retreat but in winter you get attacks in the highest villages so the people get used to moving into the valleys in Winter.

I think if you have mixed humanoid groups rather than using them interchangeably to make a challenge for 1st (kobolds), 2nd (goblins), 3rd (Orcs), 4th , 5th .... etc level parties you try to work out the why for a population of kobolds here but no bugbears. So what would do that?

So I guess what I am saying is rather than just populate the world with a range of level appropriate challenges in certain areas, like a MMO game, you should work out the why behind different populations occupying different areas.

When I tried to do this I found I couldn't justify it satisfactorily. I couldn't work out why there were so many sentient intelligent populations that seemed on one hand to be able to interbreed (1/2 orcs) but weren't integrated or eliminated by conquest. Either the world is new and these populations are just coming into contact or there is some divine action involved that protects them.

Basically the Bugbears take over goblin lands and use goblins as slaves or kill them all off and take their stuff.

My decision was to remove all but one humanoid race. And have them all but eliminated by humans (I kept Gnolls but make them level like humans) . So there are monsters, but they are real monsters, tentacled, hairy beasts that live in the dark places. The main enemies for PCs are other Humans. This also means that all the bad guys are generally 1st level, but they operate in groups and have leaders and the like.

Sorry waffling a bit

Quote from: jibbajibba;579429I mentioned in another thread how you should really distribute monsters based on Christaller's central place theory or a similar model.

Hah! :D I did use a horribly butchered version of Christaller's theory for my domain management rules, so it would not be the first time it was applied to gaming.

Quote from: Dimitrios;579372A lack of interest in the campaign world seems to be one of the attitudes that grew up around 4e. Reading over at rpg.net, a lot of folks are very vocal about the fact that the setting only exists when the PCs are interacting with it and is irrelevant otherwise. It seems this attitude is now considered "sophisticated" compared with the naive old school view.

It's video game mentality taken to it's logical conclusion. Notions of balanced encounters started with computer games because computer games lack the intelligence of a GM and therefore can only allow the players to interact with the world in limited ways. This requires that the encounters be winnable with that limited menu of options. With D&D 3 and culminating in 4e, this has been enshrined on the table top, embracing the limitations of the computer game medium, both in limited options and in encounters designed to be winnable with that menu of options, as though they are the pinnacle of design.

I've heard of people re-inventing the wheel before, but never un-inventing it. I can't imagine how this is seen as a good thing.

Quote from: jibbajibba;579429But if you dig into it deeper why would the cave of perils just have 1st level threats?

I mentioned in another thread how you should really distribute monsters based on Christaller's central place theory or a similar model. Or based on the required resources to support x many creatures.

If there are dragons why do they live up north? is there a population of x that the dragons feed on? did they used to live in the south but the people got together and drove them away? if so what keeps them away and limits their numbers?

I totally agree with the original premise but think it really needs to be logically thought through in all directions.

So I can see that Yetis need to live in conditions less than x digress so you find them above the snow line and maybe in summer they retreat but in winter you get attacks in the highest villages so the people get used to moving into the valleys in Winter.

I think if you have mixed humanoid groups rather than using them interchangeably to make a challenge for 1st (kobolds), 2nd (goblins), 3rd (Orcs), 4th , 5th .... etc level parties you try to work out the why for a population of kobolds here but no bugbears. So what would do that?

So I guess what I am saying is rather than just populate the world with a range of level appropriate challenges in certain areas, like a MMO game, you should work out the why behind different populations occupying different areas.

When I tried to do this I found I couldn't justify it satisfactorily. I couldn't work out why there were so many sentient intelligent populations that seemed on one hand to be able to interbreed (1/2 orcs) but weren't integrated or eliminated by conquest. Either the world is new and these populations are just coming into contact or there is some divine action involved that protects them.

Basically the Bugbears take over goblin lands and use goblins as slaves or kill them all off and take their stuff.

My decision was to remove all but one humanoid race. And have them all but eliminated by humans (I kept Gnolls but make them level like humans) . So there are monsters, but they are real monsters, tentacled, hairy beasts that live in the dark places. The main enemies for PCs are other Humans. This also means that all the bad guys are generally 1st level, but they operate in groups and have leaders and the like.

Sorry waffling a bit

No, we dig.  I did similar, but came up with different ends.

My Ogrillite tribal races end up in mixed bands, but normally with Gartier (bugbears) as the leaders, since they are ultra intelligent in my setting.  

One of the Campaigns I started back in 95 in this setting involved the Giantclan Silverworth taking over the nrothern outpost town of a country when siad country was at war in the south.  In this Ogrillite tribe, stone and hill gaints are the rulers, but they take council from a group of gartier.  The Ograks (ogres) are the elite troops, with gnolls as the main troops.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579367Seriously, does someone want to try to defend this notion?  In what way can this make sense in roleplaying?

The potential number of encounters you might have should depend on SETTING considerations, not fucking "balance" considerations! If you are traveling through "Dragon Swamp" with your level 2 party you shouldn't expect only level-2 encounters; and it should not happen that the "caves of peril" should have only 1st-level perils for a 1st level party but the moment a 10th level party steps inside suddenly 10th level perils are spawned!
Likewise, the idea that in the course of the day there must be "x" encounters, not more nor less, or something of the sort is absurd.

There should be as many encounters as makes sense in the place the PCs actually ARE, in the fucking SETTING.

RPGPundit

Ditto.

Quote from: Melan;579404Being ambushed by a flying dragon out of nowhere: dick move
Spotting a flying dragon moving in your direction and not even trying to hide somewhere, or bribe the dragon, or at least beg for mercy: death wish

Being forced to go into Dragon Swamp: dick move
Going into Dragon Swamp after seeing several piles of charred corpses, a ruined village and several large footprints: "So don't go into Dragon Swamp next time."

And so on. Unfortunately, since railroading has become the standard in some game styles (both the "string of tactical battles" and "following an adventure path while being fed plot tokens" variety), challenges are assumed to be within party range, and ideas like assessing the potential risks around you, calibrating threat levels yourself by venturing into or avoiding harder or more distant areas, and just running if things get tough are not being considered as options.

Ditto.

Quote from: jibbajibba;579429Sorry waffling a bit

Nah that's cool. Actually, I think that's something one might want to keep in mind to keep the setting coherent. You can intertwine the Central place theory with the abstract layered nature of the theoretical dungeon, and that could result in an environment that could be made sense of and be approachable by the players progressively at the same time, as though they were approaching the concentration of creatures for its outskirts towards the center(s) of activity.

(Love the wikipedia animation btw)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Christaller%27s_central_place_theory_animation.gif)

Quote from: LordVreeg;579439No, we dig.  I did similar, but came up with different ends.

My Ogrillite tribal races end up in mixed bands, but normally with Gartier (bugbears) as the leaders, since they are ultra intelligent in my setting.  

One of the Campaigns I started back in 95 in this setting involved the Giantclan Silverworth taking over the nrothern outpost town of a country when siad country was at war in the south.  In this Ogrillite tribe, stone and hill gaints are the rulers, but they take council from a group of gartier.  The Ograks (ogres) are the elite troops, with gnolls as the main troops.

Which is the other route. If this happens though you have to assume that over time one or a mix of more than one thing occurs
i) The races interbreed if this is possible. If you have 1/2 elves and 1/2 orcs in the setting then this is 'likely' which gives rise to a hybrid race.
ii) The weaker races overtime get replaced. You only use kobolds if you can't get goblins, only use goblins when you can't get Skaven etc etc ...
iii) The weak things may be more numerous so they rebel and overthrow the bigger things.

You can see Mameluks become Sultans and drive away the Crusaders, the Aztecs wipe out the Mayans, and are in turn wiped out by the Europeans, Homo Sapiens wipe out Neanderthals etc etc.

There might be a maximal number of intelligent races a global environment can support. It's probably six, it's usually six....

Quote from: jibbajibba;579455ii) The weaker races overtime get replaced. You only use kobolds if you can't get goblins, only use goblins when you can't get Skaven etc etc ...
iii) The weak things may be more numerous so they rebel and overthrow the bigger things.  

Yes. These are the sorts of things I keep in mind when the various levels of a dungeon evolve throughout the campaign (notes in that regard will be included in a later post re: the bandit level in my megadungeon advice - see link in sig). That is, the level does not remain static and may gradually see some populations replaced, some events occur that shift the balance of forces, some group might leave the place or be conquered, new individuals might come into the picture, etc. This may also keep the place relevant to the player characters during the course of the campaign while at the same time ensuring that the place actually makes sense in the setting beyond the static picture one first drafted.

As a matter of interest, what are people's thoughts on having a module stating as being for "starting PCs" or "levels 1 to 3"?

Quote from: Skywalker;579458As a matter of interest, what are people's thoughts on having a module stating as being for "starting PCs" or "levels 1 to 3"?

Elaborate. I'm not sure I understand the question.

Quote from: Benoist;579452Nah that's cool. Actually, I think that's something one might want to keep in mind to keep the setting coherent. You can intertwine the Central place theory with the abstract layered nature of the theoretical dungeon, and that could result in an environment that could be made sense of and be approachable by the players progressively at the same time, as though they were approaching the concentration of creatures for its outskirts towards the center(s) of activity.

(Love the wikipedia animation btw)

That is a great animation. Teaching Year 9 would be so much easier now :)

My point though is that what is percieved as good world building with areas where its not safe for low level guys to go and areas where it is is just as false as x many encounters per day because on an even plain the distribution of top end predators will be uniform.
In addition because most humanoids are top end predators (orcs don't eat goblins and Ogres don't eat orcs they all eat hobbits, if they can get them....) they are competing for the same resources. So its like Hyena versus Lions versus Vultures...

again waffling :)

Quote from: Benoist;579459Elaborate. I'm not sure I understand the question.

I am trying to understand the distinction (if any) between suggested power level and suggested encounter per day, in terms of what people are finding offensive in the later.

FWIW I don't like suggested encounters per day either.

Quote from: Benoist;579457Yes. These are the sorts of things I keep in mind when the various levels of a dungeon evolve throughout the campaign (notes in that regard will be included in a later post re: the bandit level in my megadungeon advice - see link in sig). That is, the level does not remain static and may gradually see some populations replaced, some events occur that shift the balance of forces, some group might leave the place or be conquered, new individuals might come into the picture, etc. This may also keep the place relevant to the player characters during the course of the campaign while at the same time ensuring that the place actually makes sense in the setting beyond the static picture one first drafted.

So the question then is in a mega dungeon surely the top level predators live on the top of the dungeon with access to most of the fresh prey and other benefits.

Quote from: Skywalker;579463I am trying to understand the distinction (if any) between suggested power level and suggested encounter per day, in terms of what people are finding offensive in the later.

FWIW I don't like suggested encounters per day either.

I understand exactly what you mean. It's my point made clearer.

Why does the Cave of Peril only have creatures that can be beaten by players levels 1-3. How come in a rich and varied fantasy world a Fire Giant and his family haven't moved in....

Quote from: RPGPundit;579367Seriously, does someone want to try to defend this notion?  In what way can this make sense in roleplaying?

The potential number of encounters you might have should depend on SETTING considerations, not fucking "balance" considerations! If you are traveling through "Dragon Swamp" with your level 2 party you shouldn't expect only level-2 encounters; and it should not happen that the "caves of peril" should have only 1st-level perils for a 1st level party but the moment a 10th level party steps inside suddenly 10th level perils are spawned!
Likewise, the idea that in the course of the day there must be "x" encounters, not more nor less, or something of the sort is absurd.

There should be as many encounters as makes sense in the place the PCs actually ARE, in the fucking SETTING.

RPGPundit

Yes, level based rule mechanics are balls. People tend to pay a lot closer attention to their environment when all you have are your stats and your skills and your puny pool of hit points.

Quote from: jibbajibba;579460That is a great animation. Teaching Year 9 would be so much easier now :)

My point though is that what is percieved as good world building with areas where its not safe for low level guys to go and areas where it is is just as false as x many encounters per day because on an even plain the distribution of top end predators will be uniform.
In addition because most humanoids are top end predators (orcs don't eat goblins and Ogres don't eat orcs they all eat hobbits, if they can get them....) they are competing for the same resources. So its like Hyena versus Lions versus Vultures...

again waffling :)

I get you and I think I actually agree. You're saying that just having for instance HD 1 creatures on level 1, HD 2 creatures is just as unrealistic as having X encounters of CR Y creatures, correct? I agree with that premise. If it's implemented that way it's going to feel very fake.

Now if you assume the most dangerous levels of a dungeon to basically be concentrations of high level predators with their own zones of influence, where the farther away you are from the hot spots, the lower level (or closer to the 0 level normalcy of the mundane world, which in AD&D is the same thing) the creatures will tend to be, you can then have each level working as a microcosm of webs of influence connected to others on different levels of the dungeon (for the widest nets of influence/greater monster HD at least), with creatures either roughly within the same range of HDs (but certainly not all being of the exact same number of HD), some isolated levels being completely overtaken by this or that predator, and so on.

Like, imagine each hex on the animation above (previous page) represents the influence of a particular creature around which lower creatures tend to gravitate as servants or slaves or allies etc. Then you can basically end up with the dungeon that does both, assuming the PCs approach the web of influences these hexes represent from the outside (mundane world) in (the underworld of mythic creatures with the largest zones of influence).

Hope this makes sense.

I'm talking 3.5:

Let's say we have a 5th level party.  If we say they can expect to face 4 CR 5 encounters per day with difficulty, we have a baseline from which I can begin designing adventures.  

If I want to put seven or eight encounters in a dungeon with the expectation that they fight them ALL before they get a chance to rest, there's a very good chance that they'll be dead if they're all CR 5 encounters.

If I want to make sure that the Final Boss is a Medusa (CR 7), they'll probably all die.  A fresh party can probably handle a Medusa pretty easily, but worn down - that will be epic.  

So if I want to make sure that this is difficult but not impossible, I can take the 4 CR 5 encounters and start making some adjustments.  

Four CR 5 encounters is effectively the equivalent of an EL 9.

In this case, I decide on the following encounters:

1 Medusa (CR 7)
1 Large Viper (CR 2)
1 Grick (CR 3)
1 Grimlock Wiz 4 (CR 5)
8 Grimlocks (EL 7)

Looking at that, I know the encounters are going to be TOUGH, but because the party can use potions and such between encounters, this is something that they COULD win.  They'll want to make sure to play smart against some of these monsters and conserve resources to the end.  

Now, as far as how it actually works out - 5 encounters, or maybe more, doesn't really matter.  I know that the party should be able to barely manage this if they start out full, so it should be pretty epic.  

It's not about assigning '4 encounters per day' - it's about knowing what a party should be able to handle so you can design your dungeons or adventures with that in mind.  

Now, trying to tell someone how many 'rounds of combat' they should have per day - that's retarded.

Quote from: jibbajibba;579464So the question then is in a mega dungeon surely the top level predators live on the top of the dungeon with access to most of the fresh prey and other benefits.

Not necessarily, because a dungeon is not 'just' a biological ecosystem (food sources need to make sense to some extent, like where does the Red Dragon get his food? Does he have an exit shaft to hunt for stuff?). These considerations do matter to me, but they aren't the only considerations that enter into the picture. If we are talking about magical power, or ore, or other types of resources valued by the baddies, this can be extrapolated to the notion that the meanest baddies will tend to gravitate towards the greatest sources of power and sustainability within the entire complex. If these sources of power are deep in the underworld, that's where you'll find the mean baddies.

It all depends how you make sense of your initial setting/dungeon set up. You can come up with reasons that actually make sense in that regard, I think.

Assuming the OP is referring to D&D4e, is anyone able to identify where the core books suggest a number of encounters per day?

I could be wrong but I think the concept was actually a result of players of 4e making an estimation of what the standard encounters per day would be based on the transparent encounter building mechanics.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;579470I'm talking 3.5:

Let's say we have a 5th level party.  If we say they can expect to face 4 CR 5 encounters per day with difficulty, we have a baseline from which I can begin designing adventures.  

If I want to put seven or eight encounters in a dungeon with the expectation that they fight them ALL before they get a chance to rest, there's a very good chance that they'll be dead if they're all CR 5 encounters.

If I want to make sure that the Final Boss is a Medusa (CR 7), they'll probably all die.  A fresh party can probably handle a Medusa pretty easily, but worn down - that will be epic.  

So if I want to make sure that this is difficult but not impossible, I can take the 4 CR 5 encounters and start making some adjustments.  

Four CR 5 encounters is effectively the equivalent of an EL 9.

In this case, I decide on the following encounters:

1 Medusa (CR 7)
1 Large Viper (CR 2)
1 Grick (CR 3)
1 Grimlock Wiz 4 (CR 5)
8 Grimlocks (EL 7)

Looking at that, I know the encounters are going to be TOUGH, but because the party can use potions and such between encounters, this is something that they COULD win.  They'll want to make sure to play smart against some of these monsters and conserve resources to the end.  

Now, as far as how it actually works out - 5 encounters, or maybe more, doesn't really matter.  I know that the party should be able to barely manage this if they start out full, so it should be pretty epic.  

It's not about assigning '4 encounters per day' - it's about knowing what a party should be able to handle so you can design your dungeons or adventures with that in mind.  

Now, trying to tell someone how many 'rounds of combat' they should have per day - that's retarded.

The world builder wouldn;t work that way though, that is an adventure build.
The world builder would say there is a medusa that lives in this cave complex. What else woudl live with a medusa? Well is it one medusa or more (insert plot reason its 1 or 3 ). On the basis that a medusa must live on some sort of magical energy as she is in the same position as Midas vis a vis lunch. What other creatures would live with her. So in your example She has a bunch of Grimlock servants. Also she is snakey so there may be serpents, make one of them a giant viper. What else might live in the lair of a medusa? etc ... So rather than going from the CR to the dungoen you go from the dungeon to the CR. You don't build it as a challenge for a 5th level party you build it as a place where a medusa would live. It really doesn't matter if the CR rating ends up meaning the lair is only suitable for 7th level characters it just means the 5th level guys can't kill the medusa yet and need to go and do something else instead.

Quote from: Benoist;579473Not necessarily, because a dungeon is not 'just' a biological ecosystem (food sources need to make sense to some extent, like where does the Red Dragon get his food? Does he have an exit shaft to hunt for stuff?). These considerations do matter to me, but they aren't the only considerations that enter into the picture. If we are talking about magical power, or ore, or other types of resources valued by the baddies, this can be extrapolated to the notion that the meanest baddies will tend to gravitate towards the greatest sources of power and sustainability within the entire complex. If these sources of power are deep in the underworld, that's where you'll find the mean baddies.

It all depends how you make sense of your initial setting/dungeon set up. You can come up with reasons that actually make sense in that regard, I think.

I agree you can but often I find people haven't. The base setting for D&D for example doesn't. My hate is the room where the orcs are playing cards... are they always playing cards? if he PCs came back in a week would they be playing cards? whatabout in day time when they ought to be sleeping? etc etc ... Pet Gripe
Also the Dragon who has no way of getting out of their lair, the goblins that never need to take a shit, the Manticore that is still alive in a room that was trapped by the archmage Kastas 200 years ago and all the traps are still armed so it hasn't eaten for like 200 years .... etc etc

Quote from: Skywalker;579458As a matter of interest, what are people's thoughts on having a module stating as being for "starting PCs" or "levels 1 to 3"?

Quote from: Skywalker;579463I am trying to understand the distinction (if any) between suggested power level and suggested encounter per day, in terms of what people are finding offensive in the later.

FWIW I don't like suggested encounters per day either.

OK thanks for the clarification. I think that when you state on a module that it is intended for "level 2-5 player characters" it basically gives a theoretical approximation unconnected to the actual play of the general degree of danger involved in playing with that piece, i.e. it doesn't preclude anything about the way said characters then choose to confront these challenges and tackle them, whether they choose to push on, camp on site, retreat regularly, whatnot. The terms of engagement are basically up to the PCs.

Whereas when you say that your module is built with the assumption there are 4 encounters a day it's basically having preconceptions about the nature of the game play itself, how the module ought to be played and approached by the adventuring party. It's a much narrower and more intrusive way of conceptualizing an adventure setting. You see what I mean?

Suggested Encounters Per Day implies that you are designing encounters to always be tough, but winnable.  That doesn't mean they won't die, but it does mean that if they play smart and do not get real bad luck, they won't run into anything that they can't defeat.  Are you designing an amusement park or a world?  If you intend the experience of the game to be based around the individual gaming session, then you're going with the Amusement Park model, like DDMW's design.

What's wrong with having a lair of monsters you can't defeat in one go?  You head there, take them by surprise and inflict casualties before you have to leave.  After that, they might be on alert, so you can't do that same thing again.  Now you might have to play defense for the next few sessions as the Orcs counter-raid the village you were protecting in the first place, or your group rangers around killing orc hunting parties, thinning them further.  If you start off at low level, it might take a few levels and many sessions to finally once and for all, clear out an Orc lair.  Is that what flaccid purple calls FFV?  I call it Not An Amusement Park.

Quote from: Benoist;579478It's a much narrower and more intrusive way of conceptualizing an adventure setting. You see what I mean?

Yep. Thanks. I think the two concepts are related but they are aggravated if the scale is reduced as it has a seemingly more constrained effect on the way the adventure plays out.

I am definitely not a fan of the x encounters per day approach.

Quote from: Melan;579404Being ambushed by a flying dragon out of nowhere: dick move
Spotting a flying dragon moving in your direction and not even trying to hide somewhere, or bribe the dragon, or at least beg for mercy: death wish

Being forced to go into Dragon Swamp: dick move
Going into Dragon Swamp after seeing several piles of charred corpses, a ruined village and several large footprints: "So don't go into Dragon Swamp next time."

And so on.

As I see it, if every danger in the world has appropriate warning signs - that is just as unrealistic as there being only level-appropriate opponents to fight.  Both of these come from the same principle - that if the players die, they should have had a fair chance.  The difference is adding in threat-assessment challenges.  

In my experience, though, threat assessment in D&D is based mostly on reading GM cues rather than any realistic in-game-world logic - because the whole setup of monsters isn't really logical.  The vast majority of D&D adventures that I've seen - published or not - are based more around making challenges appropriate to the PCs, not around "what would an underground dungeon really look like".  

If you're really following in-game-world logic, then sometimes the PCs won't have a fair chance.  This isn't necessarily a dick move - but it should be clearly understood from the beginning that this is the case.

Quote from: Skywalker;579458As a matter of interest, what are people's thoughts on having a module stating as being for "starting PCs" or "levels 1 to 3"?

Originally, modules were designed for tournament play. In a tournament situation, it makes sense to have a level playing field. Somehow this shifted at some point into being a design ethos.

Of course, it's nearly impossible to design an adventure module for sandbox play, so to some extent you can't fault that as a design choice since it's much easier than trying to just make a location-based non-linear sandbox adventure that can be played by anyone and be commercially viable.

Ultimately, I've always viewed adventure modules like those you describe as Training Wheels, not as a goal to emulate. Like training wheels, once you've gotten some experience, you are supposed to get rid of them. I can see that they have value for beginning GMs who don't have any idea what to do, but once that GM gets some experience, they should be able to shed the constraints of the module, including the level-locked encounters.

Quote from: jibbajibba;579477I agree you can but often I find people haven't. The base setting for D&D for example doesn't. My hate is the room where the orcs are playing cards... are they always playing cards? if he PCs came back in a week would they be playing cards? whatabout in day time when they ought to be sleeping? etc etc ... Pet Gripe

Actually, alot of the original dungeon modules had information on who would be in a room and what they'd be doing based on the time of day. They had a routine.

QuoteAlso the Dragon who has no way of getting out of their lair, the goblins that never need to take a shit, the Manticore that is still alive in a room that was trapped by the archmage Kastas 200 years ago and all the traps are still armed so it hasn't eaten for like 200 years .... etc etc

I don't really remember any of that happening. People bring that stuff up, but I've never actually encountered it in a game. I'm sure there's poorly designed dungeons with those sorts of things, but I've never run into them.

Quote from: jhkim;579485As I see it, if every danger in the world has appropriate warning signs - that is just as unrealistic as there being only level-appropriate opponents to fight.  Both of these come from the same principle - that if the players die, they should have had a fair chance.  The difference is adding in threat-assessment challenges.  

In my experience, though, threat assessment in D&D is based mostly on reading GM cues rather than any realistic in-game-world logic - because the whole setup of monsters isn't really logical.  The vast majority of D&D adventures that I've seen - published or not - are based more around making challenges appropriate to the PCs, not around "what would an underground dungeon really look like".  

If you're really following in-game-world logic, then sometimes the PCs won't have a fair chance.  This isn't necessarily a dick move - but it should be clearly understood from the beginning that this is the case.

More over if you're going for "realistic" things attacking you that you can't stop is a very real thing that really happens in the real wold all the time. If DnD if you're doing anything to hamper a more powerful being's plot, even at low levels, you're likely to be targeted by that higher power and be ambushed/killed without warning or respite. It goes unsaid a lot but players aren't really keen on their character's dying to higher level challenges.

Quote from: jibbajibba;579476The world builder wouldn;t work that way though, that is an adventure build.

And the two tend to go hand-in-hand.  Unless every possible hex of the map has been fully detailed, there are things that are still 'nebulous' until the PCs decide to go there.  Once you start deciding on what reasonably should be there, you can work with the PCs you have to try to make the session fun.  It is a game, after all.  If everywhere the PCs went wasn't fun or resulted in instant death, it wouldn't be a very good game.

And a good DM would be ensuring that PCs have a reason to go there (and reasons to do a dozen other totally different things).  That is, every adventure has a 'hook' - something to alert the PCs to the possibility of undergoing an 'adventure' and achieving some kind of reward.  A villager is in trouble; a family member just lost the family fortune in a rigged game of high stakes poker; a mage is offering a small fortune for a medusa's head.  The PCs decide what they want to deal with - now, assuming they decide to go for the medusa's head, there's a good chance that the DM knew 'sort of' what would be there, but not 'exactly' what would be there.  So, he's fleshing out a piece of his world that has been mostly abstract - ie, the medusa might have shown up on a 'random encounter chart', but the rest of the information wasn't specifically known.

Quote from: jibbajibba;579476The world builder would say there is a medusa that lives in this cave complex. What else woudl live with a medusa? Well is it one medusa or more (insert plot reason its 1 or 3 ). On the basis that a medusa must live on some sort of magical energy as she is in the same position as Midas vis a vis lunch. What other creatures would live with her. So in your example She has a bunch of Grimlock servants. Also she is snakey so there may be serpents, make one of them a giant viper. What else might live in the lair of a medusa? etc ... So rather than going from the CR to the dungoen you go from the dungeon to the CR.

The two can go hand-in-hand.  In this particular case, since I decided that the 'medusa' was the boss, I didn't want to include any more 'challenging' monsters.  Basically the Medusa set a 'challenge' cap for my purposes.  I could have had 'non-aligned' monsters that were more difficult, but since I'm making the dungeon and I want the medusa to be the 'focus', that's the way I decided to roll.  

Grimlocks make sense as 'servants' because they're immune to the gaze attack (since they don't have eyes).  Rather than a wizard, I could make the grimlock caster a cleric or possibly an adept - but someone that has come to worship the medusa and has his thralls working with her.  

Of course, I could choose to make a straight up fight a disaster - I could increase the number of grimlocks and put in a grimlock barbarian champion - he wants to wrest control of the tribe from the wizard (or cleric or whatever), so the PCs could end up in an agreement to kill the leader and let the next-in-line take over leadership and abandon the medusa.  

Lots of possibilities.  

Quote from: jibbajibba;579476You don't build it as a challenge for a 5th level party you build it as a place where a medusa would live. It really doesn't matter if the CR rating ends up meaning the lair is only suitable for 7th level characters it just means the 5th level guys can't kill the medusa yet and need to go and do something else instead.

You can do both.  If I have level 5 PCs, and they're going to take on a medusa, I want to make sure that doing so is challenging.  If it's too easy, it's boring.  If it's too hard, they all die.  

Even with a 'sandbox' approach, there tends to be some customization to make it interesting for the PCs at your table.  

Play the game, not the world!

Quote from: Doctor Jest;579492Ultimately, I've always viewed adventure modules like those you describe as Training Wheels, not as a goal to emulate. Like training wheels, once you've gotten some experience, you are supposed to get rid of them. I can see that they have value for beginning GMs who don't have any idea what to do, but once that GM gets some experience, they should be able to shed the constraints of the module, including the level-locked encounters.

Cool. So, suggested encounters per day may be something that has value for beginning GMs, at least by that standard?

Quote from: Skywalker;579506Cool. So, suggested encounters per day may be something that has value for beginning GMs, at least by that standard?

Nope.  Suggested encounters for a party that level, sure - it lets the new GM get a feel for what a party can or cannot handle.  Suggested Encounters Per Day trains a GM to provide a specfic playstyle experience- period.  X amount of Y level encounters expends Z level of resources, which means A number of set encounters to reach B level, etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;579503Play the game, not the world!

Excluded middle - again.

Play the game and the world.

I would rather avoid any random encounters in game play.

I can't defend it. I believe it removes from player choice and might dangerously justify GM railroading.

Suggested Encounters Per Day means that I set aside the random encounter table, because wherever my players go I "should adjust" locale to SEPD#, thus making the world a predictable pablum wherever they go. Their choices suddenly don't mean much. Throw in CR/EL into the equation (along with projected Lvl advancement rates) and suddenly a flat, knowingly meta-game-able probability exists where GM setting decisions are now reduced to color palette swaps on re-skinned stats. And now PC decisions, though "empowered" through this meta-game, have no real consequences in setting or its challenges. The whole game dynamic changes with little in the way of exploration and strategic risk, IME.

Removal of Wandering Monster Tables and Morale were two big things that led to (unforeseen?) shifts in play. The game's scope becomes tighter (and I think smaller, too), but it's a net loss exchange for me. It's a different game, which is obviously pleasurable for some, but not all that interesting for my RPG desires.

Quote from: CRKrueger;579507Nope.  Suggested encounters for a party that level, sure - it lets the new GM get a feel for what a party can or cannot handle.  Suggested Encounters Per Day trains a GM to provide a specfic playstyle experience- period.  X amount of Y level encounters expends Z level of resources, which means A number of set encounters to reach B level, etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Cool. I agree with that distinction.

I note that "encounters per day" and "encounter per level" are two different concepts though, unless you are somehow connecting days with levels. Did you mean to throw in the second concept?

Quote from: One Horse Town;579508Excluded middle - again.

Play the game and the world.

In a good game, they are the same thing....

Quote from: jibbajibba;579429I think if you have mixed humanoid groups rather than using them interchangeably to make a challenge for 1st (kobolds), 2nd (goblins), 3rd (Orcs), 4th , 5th .... etc level parties you try to work out the why for a population of kobolds here but no bugbears. So what would do that?

I don't think the monsters have ever been so neatly segregated in older modules (or home made ones that copied them). For example KotB is meant for beginner PCs but the monsters in the first level of the Caves of Chaos include an owlbear and an ogre in addition to the kobolds and goblins.

QuoteSo I guess what I am saying is rather than just populate the world with a range of level appropriate challenges in certain areas, like a MMO game, you should work out the why behind different populations occupying different areas.

When I tried to do this I found I couldn't justify it satisfactorily. I couldn't work out why there were so many sentient intelligent populations that seemed on one hand to be able to interbreed (1/2 orcs) but weren't integrated or eliminated by conquest. Either the world is new and these populations are just coming into contact or there is some divine action involved that protects them.

Or the small/weak ones eke out a living off the scraps left by the bigger/stronger ones, or by inhabiting less desirable territory (or the margins of the better areas takes over by the strong), or by targeting prey the big and strong don't bother with for some reason. In other words, The Law of the Jungle.

You can see this play out among wild animals: Not only do jackals NOT go extinct when lions are nearby, but they thrive since the lions leave scraps and usually don't bother jackals unless the little canines annoy them, since jackals pose almost zero threat against the big cats. On top of that, they aren't even big or numerous enough to provide a meal for lions, and don't compete with them for big game. On the other hand, leopards, hyenas and Cape hunting dogs DO pose a threat and DO compete for game and are not content with a few scraps, but prefer to take the whole kill if possible and guess what -lions kill them every chance they get.

So it should be among monsters.

QuoteBasically the Bugbears take over goblin lands and use goblins as slaves or kill them all off and take their stuff.

Instead of making bugbears and goblins separate species, I simply make bugbears the huge goblin leaders and the small bands and lone bugbears are leader(s) who have been ousted.

QuoteMy decision was to remove all but one humanoid race. And have them all but eliminated by humans (I kept Gnolls but make them level like humans) . So there are monsters, but they are real monsters, tentacled, hairy beasts that live in the dark places. The main enemies for PCs are other Humans. This also means that all the bad guys are generally 1st level, but they operate in groups and have leaders and the like.

Sorry waffling a bit

It makes sense, though I haven't gone as far as you have. As Arthur Collins pointed out in Dragon many years ago, just because there are dozens of humanoids or demi-humans in the game doesn't mean you have to include them.

If you don't want your campaign to become a Serengeti of humanoids but you want a wide selection just do what I've done: Start merging monsters. For example, I've made the Hags (annis, sea hag, green hag) female ogres and trolls, kinda like Grendel's mother. I only use one type of dragon. I lump ettins and hill giants together. I've made the campaign into less of a monster zoo while keeping some of the diversity.

Quote from: Elfdart;579521Instead of making bugbears and goblins separate species, I simply make bugbears the huge goblin leaders and the small bands and lone bugbears are leader(s) who have been ousted.

My goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears have formed a nation based on social collectivism that resembles the old Soviet Union and her satellite states.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579367Seriously, does someone want to try to defend this notion?  In what way can this make sense in roleplaying?

The potential number of encounters you might have should depend on SETTING considerations, not fucking "balance" considerations! If you are traveling through "Dragon Swamp" with your level 2 party you shouldn't expect only level-2 encounters; and it should not happen that the "caves of peril" should have only 1st-level perils for a 1st level party but the moment a 10th level party steps inside suddenly 10th level perils are spawned!
Likewise, the idea that in the course of the day there must be "x" encounters, not more nor less, or something of the sort is absurd.

There should be as many encounters as makes sense in the place the PCs actually ARE, in the fucking SETTING.

Preach it. A minimum number of encounters per day sounds like those corporate KPI crap that they force you to fulfil in your annual employee evaluation...

Quote from: estar;579385So what prompted this post?

A recent post where someone mentioned the idea of "x encounters per day" (balanced to CR, no doubt) being an important part of (I think) 4e rules, and they seemed to be taking it seriously.

RPGPundit

Is anyone able to point to an RPG which includes suggested encounters per day?

EDIT: To clarify, as I said above (and confirmed by Pundit's post), I assumed this was a cite from 4e but I can't find a reference to it in the 4e books.

Quote from: Skywalker;579512Cool. I agree with that distinction.

I note that "encounters per day" and "encounter per level" are two different concepts though, unless you are somehow connecting days with levels. Did you mean to throw in the second concept?

Yeah I tossed it in, because it usually ends up being part of the whole paradigm where you know you have a set, small range of encounters to hit next level.

Quote from: CRKrueger;579565Yeah I tossed it in, because it usually ends up being part of the whole paradigm where you know you have a set, small range of encounters to hit next level.

*gah!!!!*
I still remember the first time I read that.  I still can't wash my eyes out enough.

Quote from: Skywalker;579564Is anyone able to point to an RPG which includes suggested encounters per day?

EDIT: To clarify, as I said above (and confirmed by Pundit's post), I assumed this was a cite from 4e but I can't find a reference to it in the 4e books.

3.5 DMG for sure.

Quote from: CRKrueger;579565Yeah I tossed it in, because it usually ends up being part of the whole paradigm where you know you have a set, small range of encounters to hit next level.

So, suggested encounters per level also trains a GM to provide a specfic playstyle experience?

I don't agree with your comment then, as I can't distinguish "suggested encounters per level" from "its 2,000 XP to hit level 2 and Goblins are 5 XP".

Suggested encounters per day is a different idea IMO and I agree that its a problem as it imposes and mixes a game concept over the natural flow of action/play.

Quote from: Benoist;5795713.5 DMG for sure.

Do they actually include a reference to "suggested encounters per day"? I am genuinely curious (and I don't want to sound pedantic) and would be cool to be shown otherwise. I just don't remember that concept every being explicitly mentioned.

Suggested encounters per level is definitely in 3.5 though. I remember that.

Well, a set amount of XP is in itself a framing of what's necessary to level up, but in AD&D for instance, this doesn't mean "this number of encounters" but rather how much treasure you've obtained (counting as about 2/3 of total XP in actual play), the monsters defeated, the occasional awards for problem solving and RPing... cf. DMG. So it can unfold differently for each character, in practice, depending on play style, character type, campaign specifics etc.

Quote from: Benoist;579574Well, a set amount of XP is in itself a framing of what's necessary to level up, but in AD&D for instance, this doesn't mean "this amount of monsters killed" but rather how much treasure you've obtained (counting as about 2/3 of total XP in actual play), the monsters defeated, the occasional awards for problem solving and RPing... cf. DMG. So it can unfold differently for each character, in practice, depending on play style, character type, campaign specifics etc.

True but encounters effectively are just an aggregation of those same components.

Also IIRC isn't treasure obtained in AD&D determined through monsters killed, given how the treasure system worked? Its been a while since I ran AD&D by the book, so I am bit rusty :D

Quote from: Skywalker;579575Also IIRC isn't treasure obtained in AD&D determined through monsters killed, given how the treasure system worked? Its been a while since I ran AD&D by the book, so I am bit rusty :D

No.  No one says you had to kill the monsters. In fact, it was better if you found a way not to.  That way you didn't have to put your character at risk for beating something not worth very many XP (the monster) when the treasure was the real goal.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;579576No.  No one says you had to kill the monsters. In fact, it was better if you found a way not to.  

That's true of every edition of D&D, right?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;579576That way you didn't have to put your character at risk for beating something not worth very many XP (the monster) when the treasure was the real goal.

So, basing PC advancement on treasure (includng having treasure based on adversaries) rather than overcoming adversity trains a GM to provide a specfic playstyle experience?

Quote from: Skywalker;579578So, basing PC advancement on treasure (includng having treasure based on adversaries) rather than experiencing dangerous, dramatic or exciting situations trains a GM to provide a specfic playstyle experience?

I don't think I'm following.  Tricking/avoiding the monster to get to its treasure is typically a dangerous, dramatic, or exciting situation.  They aren't exclusive.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;579579I don't think I'm following.  Tricking/avoiding the monster to get to its treasure is typically a dangerous, dramatic, or exciting situation.  They aren't exclusive.

I agree. In fact, I see gaining treasure as a subset of the overcoming adversity (which is IMO a better overall measure for PC advancement).

The line you have jumped in on follows CRKrueger's comment that having encounter per level somehow trains a GM to provide a specfic playstyle experience. I am not sure how basing PC advancement on treasure gained is any real difference, given that treasure is attached to mosnters in a very definite way in AD&D.

I actually think Benoist's comment is a sidetrack in that the heart of CRKrueger's point is that by using the encounter measure you are suggesting a band of difficulty appropriate to PC power/level and this creates an artificiality in the design of the adventure.

FWIW I have some sympathy with that comment, but again it raises the question brought up by jibbajabba above as to who actually runs their D&D games with no reference to PC power/level.

Quote from: Benoist;5795713.5 DMG for sure.

What page?

Quote from: Skywalker;579580I agree. In fact, I see gaining treasure as a subset of the overcoming adversity (which is IMO a better overall measure for PC advancement).

The line you have jumped in on follows CRKrueger's comment that having encounter per level somehow trains a GM to provide a specfic playstyle experience. I am not sure how basing PC advancement on treasure gained is any real difference, given that treasure is attached to mosnters in a very definite way in AD&D.

I actually think Benoist's comment is a sidetrack in that the heart of CRKrueger's point is that by using the encounter measure you are suggesting a band of difficulty appropriate to PC power/level and this creates an artificiality in the design of the adventure.

FWIW I have some sympathy with that comment, but again it raises the question brought up by jibbajabba above as to who actually runs their D&D games with no reference to PC power/level.

I'm willing to bet that people would rather have PCs advance based on accomplishments not necessarily wealth gained. If you base advancement on how much wealth you can garner that makes gaining wealth disproportionately more important to players. If you give rewards based on the PCs getting to some benchmark or achieving some greaet feat that will make doing great things more important to PCs. I'd think that kind of influence is what people want in the end because it doesn't matter what that great thing the PCs do is or how they accomplish it. They don't have to horde or be milked into doing something purely for how much wealth it brings them but the challenge/glory of doing it and that sounds pretty damn heroic. Plus it tends to work out when I run so there's that to.

Quote from: jeff37923;579581What page?

The idea of having Encounters per Day in 3.5e gives me hives. You could almost manage it in 4e as the resource management system is relatively transparent (not sating that 4e does contain the concept) but in 3.5e the system variables are obscured so much that "Encounters per Day" would be very dangerous.

Quote from: jeff37923;579581What page?

I don't have my DMG next to me and would have to unearth it, but it's either where ELs are first introduced along with the table showing CR X + CR Y = EL N, or the part where you have the table showing XP earnings per EL (not the same chapters). It is expressed as an amount of resources expected to be spent per EL plus minus or equal to APL, and the mention somewhere that the system was designed to handle on average 4 encounters of CR = APL per day.

I do recall a reference in 3e about an equivalent level encounter normally using up about 25% of the resources of a 5 person party. I don't recall it going so far as suggesting 4 Encounter per Day though. Admittedly, that would be a logical conclusion for a DM to make based on that benchmark.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579563A recent post where someone mentioned the idea of "x encounters per day" (balanced to CR, no doubt) being an important part of (I think) 4e rules, and they seemed to be taking it seriously.

RPGPundit

And then they wonder why 4E gets compared to MMOs...

I build a world, you explore it. If you do it carefully and with planning, with luck you will survive and get rich. Blunder about and charge in without thinking and you will probably die.

Quote from: Lilaxe;579593And then they wonder why 4E gets compared to MMOs...

I build a world, you explore it. If you do it carefully and with planning, with luck you will survive and get rich. Blunder about and charge in without thinking and you will probably die.

The same thing is in 3rd edition but, outside of RPGA I've never met someone who tried to stick to the idea. Encounters per day goes on my no no list because it simply cannot account for the way each individual table will run a given game and it serves no real purpose. It is good enough to attempt making a decent CR system so you can at least gauge what is close to a level appropriate encounter/enemy and let the chips fall where they may after that.

Quote from: MGuy;579594The same thing is in 3rd edition but, outside of RPGA I've never met someone who tried to stick to the idea. Encounters per day goes on my no no list because it simply cannot account for the way each individual table will run a given game and it serves no real purpose. It is good enough to attempt making a decent CR system so you can at least gauge what is close to a level appropriate encounter/enemy and let the chips fall where they may after that.

Codifying a "strength" or CR of monsters is not new. They were trying it in 1978 as well. Check out the Monstermark System in the early issues of White Dwarf. I think issues 2 - 5? Don Turnbull came up with it, he later went on to run TSR, UK.

Quote from: Lilaxe;579593And then they wonder why 4E gets compared to MMOs...

Last I checked MMOs didn't have a set number of encounters per day.

Also, last I checked they also don't predate the idea of balance for the sake of the game over the imagined world.  And those debates have been around since TSR-era D&D.  Unless people have forgotten the RuneQuest grognards and the "Why the fuck can't my rogue use a longsword?" type discussions.  You can still find RuneQuest dudes on Youtube bitching about it.

Quote from: jhkim;579485As I see it, if every danger in the world has appropriate warning signs - that is just as unrealistic as there being only level-appropriate opponents to fight.  Both of these come from the same principle - that if the players die, they should have had a fair chance.  The difference is adding in threat-assessment challenges.  

In my experience, though, threat assessment in D&D is based mostly on reading GM cues rather than any realistic in-game-world logic - because the whole setup of monsters isn't really logical.  The vast majority of D&D adventures that I've seen - published or not - are based more around making challenges appropriate to the PCs, not around "what would an underground dungeon really look like".

Realistically, dungeons as they exist in D&D should not exist. Excavating as many tunnels as even a relatively small one would be a colossal undertaking, and would also produce extreme quantities of rock that would need to be placed somewhere. And that doesn't even address food chains, ventilation, territorial predators, socio-cultural impossibilities or any of those other things. We can reduce any D&Desque setting to its internal contradictions, but that's - no offence - missing the point or trolling.

There is a whole range of possibilities between an ecology experiment (pure setting logic) and a game which doesn't even pay lip service to internal consistency (pure game logic). A game which employs GM cues, for instance, is an excellent middle ground.

• Part of that is to create chains of cause-and-effect, which I believe are rather central (http://fomalhaut.lfg.hu/2011/04/08/the-alternate-primer-for-old-school-gaming/) to the enjoyment of roleplaying games.
  
• Part of that is because player characters have a "limited field of view" - since their connection to the game world is through the GM's spoken word, they do not have the range of faculties a human does, and they need some sort of information to make meaningful decisions (http://ravencrowking.blogspot.hu/2011/05/c-is-for-choices-context-and.html).
  
• And part of it is to make the setting seem richer, more lived in.

Do the players always need warning? Not necessarily an immediate one. There are multiple possible levels, such as:

• they find information about Dragon Swamp, stating that there be bad things;
• they Travel to Dragon Swamp and find clues pointing to the dragons' presence;
• they light their lanterns and enter a cave whose entrance is littered with human bones and ashes;
• they investigate a side room and get jumped by a giant spider without warning;
• after defeating the spider, they start a loud argument about how they should be more careful. By the time they hear the approaching footsteps, they are trapped and get a full blast of dragon fire in the face. They die.

Here, we had GM cues which told the players they would be facing significant danger in the swamps. We had cues pointing at the cave as the main source of danger. There was a possibility of finding even more with a little bit of caution - but the group's carelessness negated them. So it goes.

I tend to give my players a good amount of environmental feedback (a lot of which I learned from Thief, the excellent first person sneaking game). Guards mutter and grumble. Floorboards creak. The wind wails through the towers and footsteps clatter. There are threats which are silent, or invisible, or come by surprise, but they are fairly rare. And the really bad stuff - yeah, it tends to have flashing lights and loud alarm sounds for the people willing to listen. And, unlike the "spherical cow on an infinite flat plain" arguments that characterise online discussion, there is always a logical explanation. Actually, hiding a dragon so well that the players get no cue of its approach would break my suspension of disbelief - and it does not even break too easily.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579367Seriously, does someone want to try to defend this notion?  In what way can this make sense in roleplaying?

The potential number of encounters you might have should depend on SETTING considerations, not fucking "balance" considerations! If you are traveling through "Dragon Swamp" with your level 2 party you shouldn't expect only level-2 encounters; and it should not happen that the "caves of peril" should have only 1st-level perils for a 1st level party but the moment a 10th level party steps inside suddenly 10th level perils are spawned!
Likewise, the idea that in the course of the day there must be "x" encounters, not more nor less, or something of the sort is absurd.

There should be as many encounters as makes sense in the place the PCs actually ARE, in the fucking SETTING.

RPGPundit

Depends.  What monster level are Rodents of Unusual Size?

JG

Quote from: MGuy;579583I'm willing to bet that people would rather have PCs advance based on accomplishments not necessarily wealth gained. If you base advancement on how much wealth you can garner that makes gaining wealth disproportionately more important to players. If you give rewards based on the PCs getting to some benchmark or achieving some greaet feat that will make doing great things more important to PCs. I'd think that kind of influence is what people want in the end because it doesn't matter what that great thing the PCs do is or how they accomplish it. They don't have to horde or be milked into doing something purely for how much wealth it brings them but the challenge/glory of doing it and that sounds pretty damn heroic. Plus it tends to work out when I run so there's that to.

It could actualy be worse than that.
You can imagine a Paladin or Ranger PC who is there to destroy the big Evil and clear the land of the monsters never taking treasure at all because they have no need for it. Thus reducing their XP gained by 70 or 80%.

And as a connection to Ben's post on greed its an interesting dilema (yes the paladin could take all the gold back to the village and distribute it as alms but surely they should be off slaying the next big bad even more true of rangers).

Quote from: Benoist;579585I don't have my DMG next to me and would have to unearth it, but it's either where ELs are first introduced along with the table showing CR X + CR Y = EL N, or the part where you have the table showing XP earnings per EL (not the same chapters). It is expressed as an amount of resources expected to be spent per EL plus minus or equal to APL, and the mention somewhere that the system was designed to handle on average 4 encounters of CR = APL per day.

Yeah, Table 3-2, that is not set as "per day", but as "per adventure". Pretty significant difference there.

So, what RPGs actually include "suggested Encounters per Day" then?

Quote from: Skywalker;579628So, what RPGs actually include "suggested Encounters per Day" then?

I don't know. I'm curious about that one myself.

That must be Spherical Cows and Cubical Swine. I hear it is a popular storygame in Uruguay. :hatsoff:

Quote from: Melan;579639That must be Spherical Cows and Cubical Swine. I hear it is a popular storygame in Uruguay. :hatsoff:

is this a character illustration then?

(http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/165/b/7/Office_pig_by_jasona.jpg)

Quote from: RPGPundit;579367Seriously, does someone want to try to defend this notion?  In what way can this make sense in roleplaying?

The potential number of encounters you might have should depend on SETTING considerations, not fucking "balance" considerations! If you are traveling through "Dragon Swamp" with your level 2 party you shouldn't expect only level-2 encounters; and it should not happen that the "caves of peril" should have only 1st-level perils for a 1st level party but the moment a 10th level party steps inside suddenly 10th level perils are spawned!
Likewise, the idea that in the course of the day there must be "x" encounters, not more nor less, or something of the sort is absurd.

There should be as many encounters as makes sense in the place the PCs actually ARE, in the fucking SETTING.

RPGPundit

Because tabletop RPG's are something you play with real people, not computers, and controlled by a DM, not immutable programming.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;579641is this a character illustration then?

Please don't bring my portrait into this. Besides, I never wore that tie again after the photoshoot. :hatsoff:

Quote from: jibbajibba;579620It could actualy be worse than that.
You can imagine a Paladin or Ranger PC who is there to destroy the big Evil and clear the land of the monsters never taking treasure at all because they have no need for it. Thus reducing their XP gained by 70 or 80%.

If the goal of good guys is to defeat evildoers, then it's pretty stupid to leave treasure laying around for the next gang of bad guys to find and use if it can be avoided.

QuoteAnd as a connection to Ben's post on greed its an interesting dilema (yes the paladin could take all the gold back to the village and distribute it as alms but surely they should be off slaying the next big bad even more true of rangers).

I award XPs based (in part) on treasure recovered. What the PCs do with it after that doesn't matter, whether it's a monk giving most of it to his order or a magic-user buying eye of newt or a thief blowing it on slow horses and fast women.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579367Seriously, does someone want to try to defend this notion?  In what way can this make sense in roleplaying?

The potential number of encounters you might have should depend on SETTING considerations, not fucking "balance" considerations! If you are traveling through "Dragon Swamp" with your level 2 party you shouldn't expect only level-2 encounters; and it should not happen that the "caves of peril" should have only 1st-level perils for a 1st level party but the moment a 10th level party steps inside suddenly 10th level perils are spawned!
Likewise, the idea that in the course of the day there must be "x" encounters, not more nor less, or something of the sort is absurd.

There should be as many encounters as makes sense in the place the PCs actually ARE, in the fucking SETTING.

RPGPundit

No arguments, here. That's always been how I've seen it.

How do you see this thesis vs. 5e?

Quote from: jeff37923;579627Yeah, Table 3-2, that is not set as "per day", but as "per adventure". Pretty significant difference there.

I don't know if it represents that much of a significant difference given the way it's been used by the fans as a bludgeon to tell adventure designers they were "wrong" to get away from the suggested baseline of ELs in the DMG, but I'll take your word for it (I honestly can't afford to go hunt for the book's references right now - they were packed for the repairs on my chimney this summer, and this doesn't seem quite over yet).

Quote from: Melan;579431Hah! :D I did use a horribly butchered version of Christaller's theory for my domain management rules, so it would not be the first time it was applied to gaming.

Interesting I never knew what I did for my mapping had a formal name and theory. GURPS Fantasy has a write up that must of come from Christaller although they don't label it as such.

But I was doing a similar setup before then by following a distance rule between village, market village, town, and city. And it often resulting in a triangular pattern when geography is relatively flat.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mFjy4EWzmtg/S2JmRso-NEI/AAAAAAAAAuI/9W0k5mpWaIU/s320/Region,+Gormmah+Sm.jpg)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mFjy4EWzmtg/S2JmRso-NEI/AAAAAAAAAuI/9W0k5mpWaIU/s1600-h/Region,+Gormmah+Sm.jpg

Each small hex is 2.5 miles or one hour walking on level terrain. The larger hexes are 12.5 miles or five hours walking.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;579492Of course, it's nearly impossible to design an adventure module for sandbox play, so to some extent you can't fault that as a design choice since it's much easier than trying to just make a location-based non-linear sandbox adventure that can be played by anyone and be commercially viable.

Well for my part I am trying to prove that can be commercially viable. Like Blackmarsh
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/89944/Blackmarsh

And my upcoming release of the Scourge of the Demon Wolf is typical of the sandbox adventures I run.

I am torn between whether I overdid it in stressing that the order in which I write the encounters is not the order in which they have to be run. Or I didn't stress it enough and people think it is a railroad.

Quote from: Elfdart;579668If the goal of good guys is to defeat evildoers, then it's pretty stupid to leave treasure laying around for the next gang of bad guys to find and use if it can be avoided.




I award XPs based (in part) on treasure recovered. What the PCs do with it after that doesn't matter, whether it's a monk giving most of it to his order or a magic-user buying eye of newt or a thief blowing it on slow horses and fast women.

Agreed but I can see the Ranger saying to the trusted townsfolk that accompanied him 'take the treasure and distribute it to the folk of the town', just liek I can see hte Paladin saying "take the treasure aand donate to the temple I must ride to blah blah as there is danger afoot".

It just starts to feel a little odd.

Quote from: jibbajibba;579675Agreed but I can see the Ranger saying to the trusted townsfolk that accompanied him 'take the treasure and distribute it to the folk of the town', just liek I can see hte Paladin saying "take the treasure aand donate to the temple I must ride to blah blah as there is danger afoot".

It just starts to feel a little odd.

I would think the paladin and ranger should totally get xp for treasure in that scenario.  We always played that the characters all got an equal share, and all got xp for their share.  What they did with the treasure afterward was after the fact.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;579677I would think the paladin and ranger should totally get xp for treasure in that scenario.  We always played that the characters all got an equal share, and all got xp for their share.  What they did with the treasure afterward was after the fact.

I 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?
As 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?

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

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?
As 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?

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

I can only speak from my games.  But no, you don't get multiple xp for the same treasure.  XP is given out depending on how treasure was split amongst the party.  If the thief stole from the paladin in a game?  It would be a short game, let me tell you that ;)

But then again, I never really played with that many players who liked to play evil characters, so I guess I never ran into that problem.

And yes, we have had thieves sneak in and steal some treasure for himself before the rest of the party got there, and yes, they got xp for it.  That, combined with the xp tables, often had the thief about 2 levels higher than everyone else.  But it was never a balance problem because a 7th level thief in a party of 5th level fighters, magic users, and clerics was not overpowered by any means.

Strangely enough, as somebody who values game balance far above setting considerations, I find "suggested encounters per day" just as offensive. It's a false definition of balance, limited to a single too-narrow scenario. Good game balance should occur regardless of how many encounters happen.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;579680I can only speak from my games.  But no, you don't get multiple xp for the same treasure.  XP is given out depending on how treasure was split amongst the party.  If the thief stole from the paladin in a game?  It would be a short game, let me tell you that ;)

But then again, I never really played with that many players who liked to play evil characters, so I guess I never ran into that problem.

And yes, we have had thieves sneak in and steal some treasure for himself before the rest of the party got there, and yes, they got xp for it.  That, combined with the xp tables, often had the thief about 2 levels higher than everyone else.  But it was never a balance problem because a 7th level thief in a party of 5th level fighters, magic users, and clerics was not overpowered by any means.

But the Paladin won't know thief stole from him.... if he found out then the paladin could get the gold back (short game for the thief perhaps) ....  XP all round.:)

Its a bit like aladin's lamp a new owner gets 3 wishes. Once you use the 3rd wish you give it to the next guy in the party who gets 3 wishes etc etc ...

So the best bet would be for the Paladin to get all the gold. Then for the theif to steal it all. That way they increase the available XP for the party....

As an aside I would say stealing gold isn't evil. I have played thieves that kill the whole party steal everything and fuck off ...that is evil.

Quote from: jibbajibba;579684But the Paladin won't know thief stole from him.... if he found out then the paladin could get the gold back (short game for the thief perhaps) ....  XP all round.:)

In my game, you only get XP for treasure spent -- and you can't get XP for the same treasure multiple times. Just like you can't normally get XP for defeating the same monsters in multiple ways.

QuoteIts a bit like aladin's lamp a new owner gets 3 wishes. Once you use the 3rd wish you give it to the next guy in the party who gets 3 wishes etc etc ...

Granting three wishes frees the djinni in my games.

So if the Paladin pays the Thief 2,000 GP for a blowjob (spending the money) he gets 2,000 XP.  If the Thief then takes that money and spends it on a den of iniquity, he also gets 2,000 XP, no?  

Or does it matter that the Thief got the treasure 'fair and square' and not by killing something.  

Would it matter if the Thief used disguise and 'tricked' the Paladin into giving him the treasure?  Ie, what if instead of a blow job, he pretended to be a down on his luck widow and the Paladin 'donated' the money to him?

Quote from: jibbajibba;579467I understand exactly what you mean. It's my point made clearer.

Why does the Cave of Peril only have creatures that can be beaten by players levels 1-3. How come in a rich and varied fantasy world a Fire Giant and his family haven't moved in....

Why does the bad part of town only have hoodies and no somali pirates... or tigers?

It would make sense that the Caves of Chaos have nothing more dangerous than an Ogre, because they're close enough to civilization that if they had a red dragon, the Grand Duke would be absolutely forced to send someone to slay it because of its devastation.  

Hence, less dangerous pests (that are nevertheless still dangerous) can go on a much longer time without the Powers That Be actually culling them, until there's enough public outcry to demand it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: deadDMwalking;579690So if the Paladin pays the Thief 2,000 GP for a blowjob (spending the money) he gets 2,000 XP.  If the Thief then takes that money and spends it on a den of iniquity, he also gets 2,000 XP, no?  

Or does it matter that the Thief got the treasure 'fair and square' and not by killing something.  

Would it matter if the Thief used disguise and 'tricked' the Paladin into giving him the treasure?  Ie, what if instead of a blow job, he pretended to be a down on his luck widow and the Paladin 'donated' the money to him?

I dont see why you get the additional xp for spending the money, but turning a trick seems just as roguish as pan handling.

Quote from: Skywalker;579458As a matter of interest, what are people's thoughts on having a module stating as being for "starting PCs" or "levels 1 to 3"?

I would assume the module would be put somewhere that made sense in the setting.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;579690So if the Paladin pays the Thief 2,000 GP for a blowjob (spending the money) he gets 2,000 XP.  If the Thief then takes that money and spends it on a den of iniquity, he also gets 2,000 XP, no?  

Or does it matter that the Thief got the treasure 'fair and square' and not by killing something.  

Would it matter if the Thief used disguise and 'tricked' the Paladin into giving him the treasure?  Ie, what if instead of a blow job, he pretended to be a down on his luck widow and the Paladin 'donated' the money to him?

Well if its money spent then the thief buys stuff from the paladin who uses the money to buy stuff from the cleric etc and you have an infinite loop.

On the monster front. If you trapped the monster you would get XP for defeating it. If it escaped and you beat it again would that be worth zero XP? What if the next time you killed it?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;579690So if the Paladin pays the Thief 2,000 GP for a blowjob (spending the money) he gets 2,000 XP.  If the Thief then takes that money and spends it on a den of iniquity, he also gets 2,000 XP, no?

No. You get XP from treasure, not from buying and selling to other party members -- or stealing from other party members. XP for treasure is a way of handing out experience for adventuring in general. So you don't get XP from spending money you earn from a mundane job in town either.
 

QuoteWould it matter if the Thief used disguise and 'tricked' the Paladin into giving him the treasure?  Ie, what if instead of a blow job, he pretended to be a down on his luck widow and the Paladin 'donated' the money to him?

No XP.  Just like I would not give XP for executing prisoners for as the town hangman even though that's "killing something".

Quote from: jibbajibba;579684But the Paladin won't know thief stole from him.... if he found out then the paladin could get the gold back (short game for the thief perhaps) ....  XP all round.:)

Its a bit like aladin's lamp a new owner gets 3 wishes. Once you use the 3rd wish you give it to the next guy in the party who gets 3 wishes etc etc ...

So the best bet would be for the Paladin to get all the gold. Then for the theif to steal it all. That way they increase the available XP for the party....

Except that's not how it works.  I'm pretty sure you don't get XP every time the treasure changes hands.

QuoteAs an aside I would say stealing gold isn't evil. I have played thieves that kill the whole party steal everything and fuck off ...that is evil.

I would say stealing from a friend and/or companion for selfish reasons is evil.  That's how I would rule it anyway.  Not to mention there's no way you could keep that secret out of character, and distrust among players is never good.  It only causes drama, and is not welcome at my table.

Quote from: Skywalker;579475Assuming the OP is referring to D&D4e, is anyone able to identify where the core books suggest a number of encounters per day?

I could be wrong but I think the concept was actually a result of players of 4e making an estimation of what the standard encounters per day would be based on the transparent encounter building mechanics.

I don't remember if that is explicitly in the 4e books from the one time I read them; but I DO remember the 4e DMG explicitly stating that you should make both encounter levels and treasure found scale according to PC level always (ie. a DM has to determine beforehand and non-randomly what creatures are in an "encounter area" based not on anything that has to do with the setting but on the PCs' level; and player characters are basically entitled to x amount and type of magic items at each level).

RPGPundit

Quote from: Sacrosanct;579696Except that's not how it works.  I'm pretty sure you don't get XP every time the treasure changes hands.

if 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!

Quote from: RPGPundit;579367Seriously, does someone want to try to defend this notion?  In what way can this make sense in roleplaying?

The potential number of encounters you might have should depend on SETTING considerations, not fucking "balance" considerations! If you are traveling through "Dragon Swamp" with your level 2 party you shouldn't expect only level-2 encounters; and it should not happen that the "caves of peril" should have only 1st-level perils for a 1st level party but the moment a 10th level party steps inside suddenly 10th level perils are spawned!
Likewise, the idea that in the course of the day there must be "x" encounters, not more nor less, or something of the sort is absurd.

There should be as many encounters as makes sense in the place the PCs actually ARE, in the fucking SETTING.

RPGPundit

Amen and well said.

Quote from: Dimitrios;579372A lack of interest in the campaign world seems to be one of the attitudes that grew up around 4e. Reading over at rpg.net, a lot of folks are very vocal about the fact that the setting only exists when the PCs are interacting with it and is irrelevant otherwise. It seems this attitude is now considered "sophisticated" compared with the naive old school view.

Granted, rpgs aren't fiction, and I'm not interested in writing novels about the campaign world. But having some idea of what's going on in the background (and how time marches on and the situation changes, even if the PCs are off doing something else) makes for a better experience in play IMHO.

When this attitude is combined with deck-building character development the game world becomes not so much a setting for players to interact with, instead serving as a 2D scrolling videogame backdrop that exists just so that they have somewhere to perform their super kewl moves besides a greenscreen soundstage.

For WOTC era D&D in general the characters,their mechanical capabilities, and the mechanical workings of their foes become the focus of the game. The setting is a secondary consideration. With the unit of XP measurement being 'the encounter' it was bound to become like this.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;579391I take it as a given that a party of 1st-level adventurers knows better than to go looking for fights they can't win. In whatever setting you like, the PCs simply don't have any motivation to actively seek out encounters that aren't "level appropriate" and lots of reasons to avoid them. Sure, the setting may have giants, dragons, and high-level horrors galore; shall we role-play our heroes' noble efforts to run away and hide from them on a daily basis? Is that fun? Any fun at all? Maybe once in a while, but as a GM or player I wouldn't want to make it a regular thing.

The thing to remember is that the risk vs reward paradigm exists to give players a choice about what types of threat they will face. Some groups like to live on the edge and try to steal treasure from monsters who would just kick their ass.

Changing XP to defeating encounters instead of treasure denies players these options. A low level group might try and steal treasure from a bunch of trolls but if they had to defeat them in combat to earn any XP it wouldn't be much of a choice at all.

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?
As 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?

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

The way we played it, characters could divide loot up however they wished. XP was awarded evenly no matter how the division was done. Once XP was awarded for that treasure that was it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579691Why does the bad part of town only have hoodies and no somali pirates... or tigers?

It would make sense that the Caves of Chaos have nothing more dangerous than an Ogre, because they're close enough to civilization that if they had a red dragon, the Grand Duke would be absolutely forced to send someone to slay it because of its devastation.  

Hence, less dangerous pests (that are nevertheless still dangerous) can go on a much longer time without the Powers That Be actually culling them, until there's enough public outcry to demand it.

RPGPundit

Well 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.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;579699Changing XP to defeating encounters instead of treasure denies players these options. A low level group might try and steal treasure from a bunch of trolls but if they had to defeat them in combat to earn any XP it wouldn't be much of a choice at all.

.

But in this scenario why is the figther getting better at fighting and the Cleric getting better at clericing. If you created a diversion, snuck in and stole the treasure then shouldn't you really get better at sneaking and stealing?

Quote from: jibbajibba;579701But in this scenario why is the figther getting better at fighting and the Cleric getting better at clericing. If you created a diversion, snuck in and stole the treasure then shouldn't you really get better at sneaking and stealing?

In the fighting scenario how does the cleric, magic user, and thief improve at their respective arts? This was explained in the AD&D DMG.

Recovering treasure is something all adventurers can do using whatever talents they have to do it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;579703In the fighting scenario how does the cleric, magic user, and thief improve at their respective arts? This was explained in the AD&D DMG.

Recovering treasure is something all adventurers can do using whatever talents they have to do it.

Not only that, but fighters often do "fightery" things, and clerics often do "clericy" things during an adventure that doesn't have an XP reward mechanic tied to it.  So it all balances out in the end.

Quote from: Skywalker;579580FWIW I have some sympathy with that comment, but again it raises the question brought up by jibbajabba above as to who actually runs their D&D games with no reference to PC power/level.

The short answer: anyone who runs a sandbox.

The long answer: sandboxes and other old-school games aren't about 'making no reference to the PC power/level', but they don't do this in a mechanistic way, rather in an organic fashion in accordance with the setting; ie. starting the PCs out in a relatively safe area of the world, having less dangerous dungeons more closeby; nothing then to stop the PCs from wandering off into the deep wilderness or even intentionally going to Dragon Mountain in a suicidal fit of pique, but also nothing regulating "well, you've encountered 4 orcs today so that's your limit, whether or not you're in orcville you're not running into anything else until you've had a chance to regain your per/day powers".

RPGPundit

Quote from: Peregrin;579597Last I checked MMOs didn't have a set number of encounters per day.

Actually, yes, they absolutely do at the end-game and the gear-up phases prior to the end-game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;579677I would think the paladin and ranger should totally get xp for treasure in that scenario.  We always played that the characters all got an equal share, and all got xp for their share.  What they did with the treasure afterward was after the fact.

You'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.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579706The short answer: anyone who runs a sandbox.

The long answer: sandboxes and other old-school games aren't about 'making no reference to the PC power/level', but they don't do this in a mechanistic way, rather in an organic fashion in accordance with the setting; ie. starting the PCs out in a relatively safe area of the world, having less dangerous dungeons more closeby; nothing then to stop the PCs from wandering off into the deep wilderness or even intentionally going to Dragon Mountain in a suicidal fit of pique, but also nothing regulating "well, you've encountered 4 orcs today so that's your limit, whether or not you're in orcville you're not running into anything else until you've had a chance to regain your per/day powers".

RPGPundit

 The absurdity of your own answer nullifies your prune-facedness about encounters/level based encounters.

I know my knee-jerk reaction to it was "Why haven't these low-level dungeons been cleared out already? Surely the PCs aren't the only adventurers in the world."

One of the reasons I don't pay much attention to the "verisimilitude! sandboxes!" crowd is that their ideal setting is just as absurd and incoherent if you look at it too closely, it's just absurd and incoherent in a different way than whatever they're throwing their little pantswetting hissyfits about.

Quote from: daniel_ream;579751I know my knee-jerk reaction to it was "Why haven't these low-level dungeons been cleared out already? Surely the PCs aren't the only adventurers in the world."

Some have been, repeatedly over the years.

Megadungeons (in two of my world, at least) are very different. They are manifestations of Chaos and their deeper levels connect directly to the planes of Chaos, corrupting the entire complex and allowing its constant growth and repopulation. The "laws" governing a megadungeon are not those that govern the normal world.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579706The short answer: anyone who runs a sandbox.

The long answer: sandboxes and other old-school games aren't about 'making no reference to the PC power/level', but they don't do this in a mechanistic way, rather in an organic fashion in accordance with the setting; ie. starting the PCs out in a relatively safe area of the world, having less dangerous dungeons more closeby; nothing then to stop the PCs from wandering off into the deep wilderness or even intentionally going to Dragon Mountain in a suicidal fit of pique, but also nothing regulating "well, you've encountered 4 orcs today so that's your limit, whether or not you're in orcville you're not running into anything else until you've had a chance to regain your per/day powers".

RPGPundit

I actually make sure I tell players this before joining up.  That in-setting logic is the determinate factor.  I will also admit to tryong to make sure that players will learn about major threats or have some chance to escape or choose a different path if they are smart and prudent.

ANd this shows up in play a lot.  A group of adventurers in my Igbar game ran into a Bone Golem in the second level of a tomb they were investigating.  Vigor Sheering, the eldest member of that family, had created the golem, which was within his abilities, but this was far tougher than anything the group had run into before.  This was about 3-4 years ago in real time,  and the group wisely took one look at it, realized they were tired and low on resources, and outclassed anyways.  They beat a hasty retreat.
Two sessions ago, the same group, with a few different members, went back to the same second level, encountered the same creature, and narowly defeated him.

welcome to Sandboxing.

Quote from: daniel_ream;579751One of the reasons I don't pay much attention to the "verisimilitude! sandboxes!" crowd is that their ideal setting is just as absurd and incoherent if you look at it too closely, it's just absurd and incoherent in a different way than whatever they're throwing their little pantswetting hissyfits about.

:)

All true. The highly touted sandbox is just another type of illusion-ism. It's a game framework, designed to provide adventures to the players. Nothing more.

Quote from: Skywalker;579628So, what RPGs actually include "suggested Encounters per Day" then?

I'm really curious; are you trying to argue that there's no group of gamers who play like this or advocate this?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;579697I don't remember if that is explicitly in the 4e books from the one time I read them; but I DO remember the 4e DMG explicitly stating that you should make both encounter levels and treasure found scale according to PC level always (ie. a DM has to determine beforehand and non-randomly what creatures are in an "encounter area" based not on anything that has to do with the setting but on the PCs' level; and player characters are basically entitled to x amount and type of magic items at each level).

OK. So we are no longer talking about "suggested Encounters per Day". You seem to have shifted to "required Encounter Level by PC Level" and "required Treasure by PC Level".

In terms of the first, this is not accurate. In 4e, a DM is free to choose whatever Encounter Level he or she wants. What 4e does provide is a a pretty accurate estimate of how difficult that Encounter will be and it does provide "suggested Encounter Level by PC Level" as a logical result of that.

I personally don't see this as being that offensive. It provides me with a good indication of challenge but I am free to choose whatever Encounters I desire. If you don't want to take into account the idea of the level of challenge explicitly, don't.

The danger here is really only for newbie GMs who may feel compelled by the suggestions. However, any GM with some experience shouldn't have any issues.

As for "required Treasure by PC Level", that's a fair call and its a good reason why it is probably the universally disliked part of 4e :) On saying that, there is flexibility built into that system which can help alot, such as Relics and the way Treasure Parcels are undefined. But I agree the way its mechanically driven makes it a poor idea.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579706The short answer: anyone who runs a sandbox.

The long answer: sandboxes and other old-school games aren't about 'making no reference to the PC power/level', but they don't do this in a mechanistic way, rather in an organic fashion in accordance with the setting; ie. starting the PCs out in a relatively safe area of the world, having less dangerous dungeons more closeby; nothing then to stop the PCs from wandering off into the deep wilderness or even intentionally going to Dragon Mountain in a suicidal fit of pique, but also nothing regulating "well, you've encountered 4 orcs today so that's your limit, whether or not you're in orcville you're not running into anything else until you've had a chance to regain your per/day powers".

But old school gaming and AD&D don't require running a sandbox, right? The beauty of AD&D was its flexibile playstyle and TBH I find the suggestion that it can only be played in one way to be a ridiculous assertion. I have played as many non-sandbox campaigns as sand-box campaigns with AD&D. Hell, I even played in a sand-box D&D4e campaign.

I am getting a little confused as to what your point in this thread has become. It seems to be that "mechanics that drive the flow of play are an abomination to a sandbox style of play".

If that's your point, then I agree. You are blindingly obviously correct.

Quote from: daniel_ream;579751I know my knee-jerk reaction to it was "Why haven't these low-level dungeons been cleared out already? Surely the PCs aren't the only adventurers in the world."

One of the reasons I don't pay much attention to the "verisimilitude! sandboxes!" crowd is that their ideal setting is just as absurd and incoherent if you look at it too closely, it's just absurd and incoherent in a different way than whatever they're throwing their little pantswetting hissyfits about.

Really?
Let me get this straight.
So...a setting that tries to use setting-internal logic instead of non-related systemic derived placement is equally 'absurd and incoherent'?

I must be missing something.

And in many games, there are reasons why adventures may not have been found or are remote enough or the challenge was not there until recently...believe it or not, other people have thought of this.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579763I'm really curious; are you trying to argue that there's no group of gamers who play like this or advocate this?

I am sure there are RPG groups that try and determine a benchmark for how much challenge the PCs can handle in a set period of time. Some RPGs make this easier to determine given the transparency of mechanics, but the concept is not inherent or exclusive to those RPGs. I know DMs who took this exact matter into consideration when running AD&D.

Quote from: LordVreeg;579768Really?
Let me get this straight.
So...a setting that tries to use setting-internal logic instead of non-related systemic derived placement is equally 'absurd and incoherent'?

It might be more fair to say that 'setting-internal logic' is determined in part by what would be GOOD for the game, rather than strictly logical.  

For example, people in this thread have explained that a dungeon near civilization is more likely to have lower-level challenges than dungeons in the far wilderness.  Apparently, if a dragon is too close to civilization, the local lord exterminates it.  

That in itself is not logical.  There's no reason that a dragon can't be surrounded by a horde of weak enemies - and in fact, that's what you'd really expect.  If they're individually weak, they pose no threat to the dragon.  So one form a 'logical world' might take is low-level challenges surrounding a much tougher opponent.  In such a world the presence of the 'tough opponent' might attract the attention of the 'lord', but the low-level threat would help prevent organized action - a small army of goblins is still a threat for a small army of retainers.  

Of course, in such a world, the monsters probably win and civilization as we know it wouldn't exist.  

So, in a world with dragons, and wights, and greater earth elementals, having a 'safe' civilization zone is probably not 'realistic' - but it serves the game.  The rest of the 'sandbox' game-logic is similarly self-serving.  

It is this way because that makes for a good game, so that is the 'setting-expectation'.  If you make the 'setting-expectation' unsuitable for a game, than while the world would follow the 'game-world' logic, the game would be unplayable.  

Essentially, the game-world-logic is self-serving, so you can come to the exact same position from two directions.  As One Horse Town has pointed out, there's a huge overlap of common ground.

Somehow, using my magic powers of awesomeness, I have never in thirty years of gming used an 'encounter per day system'

I am not sure why anyone would actually use such a system; if only because I don't use encounters of the same relative challenge every time.

Ok, devil's advocate time.

Who out there DOES use 'ten level appropriate encounters between full rest'
or something similar, and does it work for your group?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;579773It might be more fair to say that 'setting-internal logic' is determined in part by what would be GOOD for the game, rather than strictly logical.  

For example, people in this thread have explained that a dungeon near civilization is more likely to have lower-level challenges than dungeons in the far wilderness.  Apparently, if a dragon is too close to civilization, the local lord exterminates it.  

That in itself is not logical.  There's no reason that a dragon can't be surrounded by a horde of weak enemies - and in fact, that's what you'd really expect.  If they're individually weak, they pose no threat to the dragon.  So one form a 'logical world' might take is low-level challenges surrounding a much tougher opponent.  In such a world the presence of the 'tough opponent' might attract the attention of the 'lord', but the low-level threat would help prevent organized action - a small army of goblins is still a threat for a small army of retainers.  

Of course, in such a world, the monsters probably win and civilization as we know it wouldn't exist.  

So, in a world with dragons, and wights, and greater earth elementals, having a 'safe' civilization zone is probably not 'realistic' - but it serves the game.  The rest of the 'sandbox' game-logic is similarly self-serving.  

It is this way because that makes for a good game, so that is the 'setting-expectation'.  If you make the 'setting-expectation' unsuitable for a game, than while the world would follow the 'game-world' logic, the game would be unplayable.  

Essentially, the game-world-logic is self-serving, so you can come to the exact same position from two directions.  As One Horse Town has pointed out, there's a huge overlap of common ground.

I have no disagreement that there can be a large amount of overlap.  I can see that.

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).

However, a good GM might also create said congruency absed around what is considered a 'good game' to him and his groups.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579706The long answer: sandboxes and other old-school games aren't about 'making no reference to the PC power/level', but they don't do this in a mechanistic way, rather in an organic fashion in accordance with the setting; ie. starting the PCs out in a relatively safe area of the world, having less dangerous dungeons more closeby; nothing then to stop the PCs from wandering off into the deep wilderness or even intentionally going to Dragon Mountain in a suicidal fit of pique, but also nothing regulating "well, you've encountered 4 orcs today so that's your limit, whether or not you're in orcville you're not running into anything else until you've had a chance to regain your per/day powers".

I like a well-designed sandbox.  However, there is also a well-established old-school tradition where the DM creates a module or runs a published module intentionally designed for particular levels - i.e. "This module is designed for 4-6 characters of levels 6-8."  

One can criticize this, but the style has been around for ages and lots of people have played this way (and continue to do so).  

I just played in my first Pathfinder Society games this weekend, and there was a special event that was designed so that there would be parallel challenges for different level characters all taking part in the same adventure arc.  It was contrived, but it was also fun to be in a room full of 72 people all playing sort-of the same adventure.

Quote from: LordVreeg;579768Really?
Let me get this straight.
So...a setting that tries to use setting-internal logic instead of non-related systemic derived placement is equally 'absurd and incoherent'?

I must be missing something.

And in many games, there are reasons why adventures may not have been found or are remote enough or the challenge was not there until recently...believe it or not, other people have thought of this.

Those 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.

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.

Only if the setting you're dealing with is truly post-apocalyptic, and even then people would tend to try to settle in a "safer area" (whether its "safer" on a long-term basis would be another story).  Even in a "Chaotic" kingdom, the rulers would have an interest in getting rid of anything dangerous enough to challenge their rule, so a dragon that got too close (or a humanoid tribe that got too big or powerful) would very quickly lead to a situation where either the monster would no longer be there, or the humans wouldn't.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;579787Even in a "Chaotic" kingdom, the rulers would have an interest in getting rid of anything dangerous enough to challenge their rule, so a dragon that got too close (or a humanoid tribe that got too big or powerful) would very quickly lead to a situation where either the monster would no longer be there, or the humans wouldn't.

Right, but again, in a world where these things happen, why is there anything around for the heroes to do at all?

It's normally a catch-22.  Either the world is arbitrarily set to match the PC's level, or it assumes that the PC's are the only heroes in it.  Otherwise, it seems there would be a lot of already-cleared dungeons about.

Quote from: mcbobbo;579793Right, but again, in a world where these things happen, why is there anything around for the heroes to do at all?

It's normally a catch-22.  Either the world is arbitrarily set to match the PC's level, or it assumes that the PC's are the only heroes in it.  Otherwise, it seems there would be a lot of already-cleared dungeons about.

I quite like the PCs being the only heroes about (one of the reasons I hate the AD&D training rules) but in that points of light style setting there is no friendly Lord of 9th level with a retuine of suitable chaps to come and drive away the Ogres. The townsfolk themselves actually might drive away the goblins though so what you would probably be left with is tough bad guys clustering round human habitation as its an easy to access resource.
People become the Wildebeast and Zebra to the monsterous menance. As they migrate the bad guys follow...

FWIW, 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.


[1] The stories of the Hero Twins, Hunapu and Xbalanque particularly

Quote from: Sommerjon;579732The absurdity of your own answer nullifies your prune-facedness about encounters/level based encounters.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the absurdity. Do you care to elaborate on what, exactly, you find absurd about sandbox play?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Skywalker;579766But old school gaming and AD&D don't require running a sandbox, right? The beauty of AD&D was its flexibile playstyle and TBH I find the suggestion that it can only be played in one way to be a ridiculous assertion. I have played as many non-sandbox campaigns as sand-box campaigns with AD&D. Hell, I even played in a sand-box D&D4e campaign.

Certainly. But no old school play would suggest that the emulation of the game world should take a back seat to some kind of absurd balance quota. The notion that the players are entitled to x amount of encounters (only level-appropriate at that) per day, and not more nor less regardless of how absurd that seems in context of the setting is something you would never see in any style of old-school play.

QuoteI am getting a little confused as to what your point in this thread has become. It seems to be that "mechanics that drive the flow of play are an abomination to a sandbox style of play".

If that's your point, then I agree. You are blindingly obviously correct.

No, the point is that since the goals of an RPG are Emulation and Immersion, mechanics that determine some kind of prefabricated circumstances of play while completely ignoring setting are an abomination to any kind of RPG play.

RPGPundit

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.

Your 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

Quote from: RPGPundit;579838Certainly. But no old school play would suggest that the emulation of the game world should take a back seat to some kind of absurd balance quota. The notion that the players are entitled to x amount of encounters (only level-appropriate at that) per day, and not more nor less regardless of how absurd that seems in context of the setting is something you would never see in any style of old-school play.

I agree. Then again I think this is true of more than just old-school play too including 4e, being the offender you identify.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579838No, the point is that since the goals of an RPG are Emulation and Immersion, mechanics that determine some kind of prefabricated circumstances of play while completely ignoring setting are an abomination to any kind of RPG play.

I agree, I think. On saying that, if I can have Emulation and Immersion and a mechanical transparency which gives me a better idea as a GM of the difficulty of challenges and adversity I place in my game, I don't see that as an abomination. Its an added benefit.

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

No, 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.

Very simple, high level people are often busy with high level tasks. If you've ever ran a named level or the domain management part of the game, like Birthright, you'd easily understand this. Just like business or government or any large hierarchical organization, the people at the top usually have better things to do with their limited time.

When you have a lot on your plate, you delegate.

(For example, I assume that 10th lvl fighter isn't giving one-on-one training as much as teaching a new batch of recruits. It also makes questing for hermit master trainers more of a quest, too. Yes Virginia, magic shops and a plethora of bored veteran heroes waiting for apprentices don't happen in my settings -- though you're welcome to play your setting as you please.)

And yes, it's perfectly reasonable for a Great Wyrm Dragon to have a demesne of low power cities and strongholds under his thrall. In fact, I'd expect it - a spare servant horde helps make the treasure hoard more defensible, no? As long as great dragons and other powerful monsters don't have an overwhelming spawn rate, there shouldn't be a problem. All you have to do is sub out mortal fiefdoms for monster ones. IME this is not hard.

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.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;579978Um...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.

I understand the principles and it certainly can work. However, the fact you have here is where the orcs live and over here there are gnolls and over here ogres but don't worry because we won't mix them up so you have a nice upgrade path from 1st to 4th level... this is much more how the design ends up.

Likewise the encounter per day model can be ok we have had 6 encounters now so you can rest for the day.... but it can also be in the background the DM uses the idea that roughly 6 challenges of this strength are about right so they create an adventure that aims to hit the party with these encounters on the first day. The party can avoid them, they can trade with them etc etc they can fight them all... the point is its just a meta concept guide for new DMs to try and make a game enjoyable and challenging.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;579978The PCs essentially have a pause button wherever they go, and their actions directly impact a game world.

No.  That's not correct.  

Encounters per day is a suggestion for the DM for planning purposes.  When stocking a dungeon, if he includes 'level-appropriate' foes, if he doesn't plan on them taking a break after that number of encounters, the likelihood of a character death increases dramatically.  Combat when the party is low on resources is much more 'swingy'.  A foe that they easily defeated when at 'full strength' might overwhelm them.  

So if you want to make the fights all 'about equally tough' and you don't want the PCs to be overwhelmed, you have to plan those breaks into the dungeon design.  For example, maybe the first several rooms are home to kobolds.  The next several rooms are home to goblins.  The kobolds and goblins are at war, so if the PCs start killing kobolds, the goblins won't come to help them (and if they take out the kobolds, the goblins will wait 1 or 2 days to start investigating because it could be a trap).  

There you go - you have a suggestion for the DM to plan the dungeon in a way that the party can have some fun/interesting/challenging fights without making death a real possibility.  

This is also good from a 'narrative' standpoint.  Rising action, rising action, climax, break.  Repeat.  

But if the PCs decide that they're still feeling pretty good after the kobolds, there is nothing that makes the goblins 'disappear'.  And if they engage the goblins and/or reveal that the kobolds are all gone and the only people left if the kobold warrens are the weakened PCs and they're loaded down with kobold treasure - well, that's a bad decision and even though a 'break' was 'available', it doesn't mean that they're guaranteed to have it.  

The world still responds to the PCs in a believable way.   But the design of the world takes into account that the DM wants to provide a challenge for the party without always trying to overwhelm them.  And there is NOTHING indicating that the party will always fight level-appropriate foes.  There is also NOTHING requiring that they fight every possible opponent they meet.  

Encounters/day makes sense from a DM perspective because so many class abilities are on a 'per day' refresh rate (most importantly spells).  If spells refreshed on a weekly basis, the number of encounters the party could reasonably expect to beat would be described in those terms.  It is simply an attempt to estimate how 'far' a party should be able to stretch their resources.  A party that consistently fights fewer or weaker encounters won't be challenged as much as one that fights more or stronger encounters - but a mix of challenges is the expectation.

I guess i am just not a fan of the gm pacing things so that the players have the ideal amount of challenge at any given point. This is one of the reasons i hate fudging, because it usually comes out of either a desire to save the pcs or a desire to appropriately challenging them. Nothing more irksome than the GM beefing up a foe midfight just so the fight lasts longer, or vice versa. That doesnt mean you need to constantly overwhelm or underwhelm the player but it gets tiing when adventures start following obvious pacing and challenge patterns. I prefer a bit of randomness and reactive environment to th e gm planning a series of staged encounters. So i think that is what i read into "x number of encounters per day". My own experience running d&d during 3E, where there was a lot of encouragement to design adventures around an encounter structure, just left me unimpressed. It wasnt what i was looking for as a gm or player. That said i take no issue with others desiring that...it just wasnt for me.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;579993No.  That's not correct.  

Encounters per day is a suggestion for the DM for planning purposes.

I believe a part of the complaint is players who feel the the DM is somehow "cheating" if he/she doesn't slavishly adhere to those suggestions.

Quote from: Dimitrios;579999I believe a part of the complaint is players who feel the the DM is somehow "cheating" if he/she doesn't slavishly adhere to those suggestions.

But the same players would complain if they found a troll guarding a giant diamond in an adventure for 1-3rd level PCs.

They don't have to kill the troll they don't have to get the diamond but some of them will still bitch about it.

Quote from: Dimitrios;579999I believe a part of the complaint is players who feel the the DM is somehow "cheating" if he/she doesn't slavishly adhere to those suggestions.

This is exactly it.  Because we've already had people here say if you don't follow the guidelines, you're a dick DM.

Quote from: Opaopajr;5798732) the world is small enough to be easily managed by one side, be it race, alignment, etc.

Ask your local jaguars, grizzly bears, wolves, Aztecs, and Apaches if this is or is not the case ITRW.

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 don't see it as pedantic, but a juxtaposition.  OP said that arbitrary PC-to-NPC level/challenge match ups were bad.  I'm saying we are selective about which 'bad' we're willing to accommodate.

Then at least point out that the guidelines have additional flexibility.  I don't have my 3.5 DMG in front of me, but it had suggestions for encounters of EL below average level, equal to average level and above average level.  

In any case, if every party has a single fight and then they rest or retreat (5 minute work day) they can handle a much more difficult fight than if they have several encounters during the course of the day.  An environment is more fun if there is the possibility of multiple encounters (it feels more dynamic).  A DM 'slavishly following' the guidelines still doesn't tell the players what to do.  If the DM has a safe spot where they COULD rest after the suggested number of encounters, but they CHOOSE not to, then they'll have more encounters than suggested, and that's 'by the book'.  

I'm so spoiled by access to the SRD.  I actually have 3 gaming books at work, but not the DMG.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579835I'm sorry, but I fail to see the absurdity. Do you care to elaborate on what, exactly, you find absurd about sandbox play?

RPGPundit

The absurdity is your insistance that D&D sandbox isn't mechanical but organic.

D&D is a level based game.  Level is pure mechanical.

Quote from: Sommerjon;580018D&D is a level based game.  Level is pure mechanical.

Yes it is. AC, HP, levels, these are all purely mechanical representations

Planning out the number of levels of things the PCs will encounter in a given time frame is pure bullshit. Doing this tells them that their choices on where to go and what to do are meaningless because they will be facing N encounters of W-Z difficulty per day.

On reflection, this is the kind of shit that makes players disregard the setting so damn much. If the underlying "engine" remains constant no matter how they engage the setting then the setting really is just window dressing so why pay much attention to it?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;580026Yes it is. AC, HP, levels, these are all purely mechanical representations

Planning out the number of levels of things the PCs will encounter in a given time frame is pure bullshit. Doing this tells them that their choices on where to go and what to do are meaningless because they will be facing N encounters of W-Z difficulty per day.

How is it meaningless?

Quote from: Sommerjon;580029How is it meaningless?

In such a model the players have no input as far as the level of assumed risk goes.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;580030In such a model the players have no input as far as the level of assumed risk goes.

And they have input on assumed risk through an "oldskool sandbox"?
 How?  
Isn't their assumed risk purely dependent upon; quality of description from the DM, encounter chart, and how metagamey they feel like being?

Quote from: Sommerjon;580018The absurdity is your insistance that D&D sandbox isn't mechanical but organic.

D&D is a level based game.  Level is pure mechanical.

Then all roleplaying system for progression are mechanical. I see D&D levels little different then how GURPS handles follow on options for templates. Lenses that cost X Points that modified the base template (also in points) in some way.

Level is abstract and there are a large jump in power level but doesn't make it any less organic than any other arbitrary method of measuring character progression.

It boils down to a preference issues. Whether you like the detail that point based (or percentile based) systems give you. Or you like something simpler and more abstract.

Quote from: Sommerjon;580039And they have input on assumed risk through an "oldskool sandbox"?
 How?  
Isn't their assumed risk purely dependent upon; quality of description from the DM, encounter chart, and how metagamey they feel like being?

Hardly.

Well lets see, according to the rumors we picked up around town there appears to be several things worth checking out:

- the old abandoned mine to the West. Word is that the goblins that have been stealing goats & sheep are hold up there.

- The ruined keep the South. People say that those who get too close are never seen again. JoBob the grain merchant says that he saw a bunch of ogres near that place once. He ran for his life!

- The mountains to the North are said to be home to a tribe of hill giants. The folks up that way give them a lot of livestock to get left alone.


These options represent different levels of difficulty. Chances are the rewards for the more dangerous areas are greater, as is the risk of getting splattered. Thus the players can decide what level of risk they would like to assume.

Quote from: estar;580042Then all roleplaying system for progression are mechanical. I see D&D levels little different then how GURPS handles follow on options for templates. Lenses that cost X Points that modified the base template (also in points) in some way.

Level is abstract and there are a large jump in power level but doesn't make it any less organic than any other arbitrary method of measuring character progression.

It boils down to a preference issues. Whether you like the detail that point based (or percentile based) systems give you. Or you like something simpler and more abstract.

D&D levels are completely different then most skill based games.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;580044Hardly.

Well lets see, according to the rumors we picked up around town there appears to be several things worth checking out:

- the old abandoned mine to the West. Word is that the goblins that have been stealing goats & sheep are hold up there.

- The ruined keep the South. People say that those who get too close are never seen again. JoBob the grain merchant says that he saw a bunch of ogres near that place once. He ran for his life!

- The mountains to the North are said to be home to a tribe of hill giants. The folks up that way give them a lot of livestock to get left alone.


These options represent different levels of difficulty. Chances are the rewards for the more dangerous areas are greater, as is the risk of getting splattered. Thus the players can decide what level of risk they would like to assume.

Like I said metagamey.

I fail to see the difference between
"Planning out the number of levels of things the PCs will encounter in a given time frame is pure bullshit. Doing this tells them that their choices on where to go and what to do are meaningless because they will be facing N encounters of W-Z difficulty per day."

and

"the mine has goblins, the keep has ogres, the mountains have hill giants"

So if the players start with the goblins then go to the ogres and finish with the hill giants, how the frelling frell is that not planning out the number of levels of things the PCs will encounter in a given time frame ?

Quote from: Sommerjon;580049Like I said metagamey.

I fail to see the difference between
"Planning out the number of levels of things the PCs will encounter in a given time frame is pure bullshit. Doing this tells them that their choices on where to go and what to do are meaningless because they will be facing N encounters of W-Z difficulty per day."

and

"the mine has goblins, the keep has ogres, the mountains have hill giants"

So if the players start with the goblins then go to the ogres and finish with the hill giants, how the frelling frell is that not planning out the number of levels of things the PCs will encounter in a given time frame ?

Because you are populating a setting with inhabitants, not choosing what the PCs will do.

What if the players have brass balls and decide to check out the ogres first? They might pull off a clever plan and get away with the ogre's treasure.

Quote from: Sommerjon;580018The absurdity is your insistance that D&D sandbox isn't mechanical but organic.

D&D is a level based game.  Level is pure mechanical.

I'd have used the word "arbitrary" rather than "mechanical".

As jibba said, neither approach (sandbox vs. encounter) is more arbitrary than the other.  They're just arbitrary in different ways, and this whole dustup is just arguing how many elves can dance on the head of a pin.

Quote from: Dimitrios;579999I believe a part of the complaint is players who feel the the DM is somehow "cheating" if he/she doesn't slavishly adhere to those suggestions.

That, I agree is of concern. The more transparent you make the system, the more player expectations are likely to be set.

However, this is true of all RPGs to some extent. As jibba has pointed out, there is transparency even in the mechanics of AD&D to some extent in how adventures are designed and these were setting expectations with players back then.

As such, the issue IMO is better dealt with not by criticising the transparency of the mechanics but instead managing player expectations. If you are about to run 4e (or any form of D&D) just make it clear to your players that these kinds of mechanical suggestions are not determinative of what they encounter in play. The mechanics themselves don't require the suggestions to be adhered to, so players shouldn't either.

People have been doing this for decades, why change now.

Quote from: Dimitrios;579999I believe a part of the complaint is players who feel the the DM is somehow "cheating" if he/she doesn't slavishly adhere to those suggestions.

I would never use a 'number of encounters a day' system. It would negatively impact a campaign. Promotes metagaming, waters down challenge, waste of the dms time.  

What is the supposed benefit?

Quote from: Bill;580129I would never use a 'number of encounters a day' system. It would negatively impact a campaign. Promotes metagaming, waters down challenge, waste of the dms time.  

What is the supposed benefit?

If you have an RPG where PC resources are measured "by day", such as spells per day, healing HP at a daily rate etc, then encounters per day is benchmark derived logically from the system that may help a GM measure what the PC resources can be expected to handle.

Quote from: Skywalker;580128That, I agree is of concern. The more transparent you make the system, the more player expectations are likely to be set.

However, this is true of all RPGs to some extent. As jibba has pointed out, there is transparency even in the mechanics of AD&D to some extent in how adventures are designed and these were setting expectations with players back then.

As such, the issue IMO is better dealt with not by criticising the transparency of the mechanics but instead managing player expectations. If you are about to run 4e (or any form of D&D) just make it clear to your players that these kinds of mechanical suggestions are not determinative of what they encounter in play. The mechanics themselves don't require the suggestions to be adhered to, so players shouldn't either.

People have been doing this for decades, why change now.

I basically agree. I think I've said before (maybe not here at theRPGsite) that my current distaste towards 4e has less to do with the game itself than the player culture that seems to have grown up around it.

Maybe it was already getting going in the late 3.5 era, but the cult of RAW - including the things that are supposedly just "suggestions" - is something I really notice lately. Much more than with older editions.

Quote from: Dimitrios;580134I think I've said before (maybe not here at theRPGsite) that my current distaste towards 4e has less to do with the game itself than the player culture that seems to have grown up around it.

Maybe it was already getting going in the late 3.5 era, but the cult of RAW - including the things that are supposedly just "suggestions" - is something I really notice lately. Much more than with older editions.

That is similar to my experiences too. Strangely, whenever I have run 4e for new players with this mindset, they have loved going off the map when its done for good effect :) It took a little effort to manage their expectations as players.

FWIW I think the negative reactions of the cult of RAW we see are generally limited to a vocal minority on the internet.

Quote from: Sommerjon;580049D&D levels are completely different then most skill based games.

While the punditry is awe inspiring the utter lack of details makes the above statement as well supported as a wet noodle.

Pure and simple, D&D Levels wrap up a set of abilities and skills.  Character take big leaps in capabilities when they level. This is little different than when a GURPS Game or Hero System Game where the referee awards 50 points at one time. You may not prefer it this type of system, but class & level doesn't restrict the referee in the range of worlds he can create or run.

And if the setup of classes and what they gain at each level match the setting the referee is using, the campaign is much more approachable to novices and straightforward to learn than skill based games. Something I have direct experience with when running the Majestic Wilderlands using Swords & Wizardry and when I run it using GURPS.

What you been arguing boils down to "I don't prefer Class & Level". Fine you don't like it, so move on. Unless you don't understand how to use a class & level system for a setting. In which I would be happy to answer your questions as I have some small measure of experience in this area.

Quote from: estar;580160While the punditry is awe inspiring the utter lack of details makes the above statement as well supported as a wet noodle.

Pure and simple, D&D Levels wrap up a set of abilities and skills.  Character take big leaps in capabilities when they level. This is little different than when a GURPS Game or Hero System Game where the referee awards 50 points at one time. You may not prefer it this type of system, but class & level doesn't restrict the referee in the range of worlds he can create or run.

And if the setup of classes and what they gain at each level match the setting the referee is using, the campaign is much more approachable to novices and straightforward to learn than skill based games. Something I have direct experience with when running the Majestic Wilderlands using Swords & Wizardry and when I run it using GURPS.

What you been arguing boils down to "I don't prefer Class & Level". Fine you don't like it, so move on. Unless you don't understand how to use a class & level system for a setting. In which I would be happy to answer your questions as I have some small measure of experience in this area.

Dude, You know I love you and your stuff.

But all rules restrict the types of setting that fit them properly and work properly.    I dont think Majestic Wilderlands is a bad fit at all, but Class and level do, in my estimation, limit the amount of setting that really fit it that well more than a lot of other rules.  

ANd I do know how to use said systems.

Quote from: LordVreeg;580165Dude, You know I love you and your stuff.

But all rules restrict the types of setting that fit them properly and work properly.    I dont think Majestic Wilderlands is a bad fit at all, but Class and level do, in my estimation, limit the amount of setting that really fit it that well more than a lot of other rules.  

ANd I do know how to use said systems.

:D and I don't disagree.

That why you need the right class and level setup, which is why I developed a S&W supplement and did not use the raw rules. The classes in my supplement are reworked from the GURPS templates I used for twenty years.

Your observation about settings and rules is true and something i personally know from all the years solely running under GURPS but the assumption is that you use the unchanged rules. A system can be modified to conform to your campaign's assumptions.

Seriously what is the difference between a fighter class, a fighter template, fighter occupation, and a fighter profession? (D&D, GURPS, Harnmaster, Runequest)

Quote from: estar;580176Seriously what is the difference between a fighter class, a fighter template, fighter occupation, and a fighter profession? (D&D, GURPS, Harnmaster, Runequest)

I think that the latter three all only have an effect during character creation.  That is, you can hand me a character sheet with all the stats but no information about what template was used, and that doesn't influence game play at all.  In contrast, a D&D class influences how advancement is going to work.  

I talk about the contrast in an old article here:

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/systemdesign/classes.html

Quote from: jhkim;580182I think that the latter three all only have an effect during character creation.  That is, you can hand me a character sheet with all the stats but no information about what template was used, and that doesn't influence game play at all.  In contrast, a D&D class influences how advancement is going to work.  

I talk about the contrast in an old article here:

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/systemdesign/classes.html

I agree in D&D the player is limited to what subsequent levels grant.

But suppose I made a GURPS or Runequest Class & Level supplement? Character start out with some base background, and every level get x skills increases, x advantages, and x traits. And that was the only option for the campaign.

Does the nature of the setting magically change? The magic system, creatures, and combat are still as detailed as ever. I say no. The setting doesn't change.

That class and level is used not what important to the setting. What important is the details. It is the details of D&D 4e classes that makes them unsuitable for the Majestic Wilderlands. It is the details of the S&W classes that makes them suitable for the Majestic Wilderlands. Class and level has nothing to do with it.

Where it's important is in preference. A lot of players like coming over from my S&W campaigns to my GURPS campaigns because suddenly they have a wealth of choices to make the exact character they want. It still the same type of game regardless whereever its GURPS or Swords & Wizardry.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;580055Because you are populating a setting with inhabitants, not choosing what the PCs will do.

What if the players have brass balls and decide to check out the ogres first? They might pull off a clever plan and get away with the ogre's treasure.

I've seen that as a DM (and done it as a player) numerous times. That's one of the joys of the sandbox.

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.

Oh man, you're right. This is why all those CEOs have second jobs slinging burgers at McDonalds!

RPGPundit

Quote from: Sommerjon;580018The absurdity is your insistance that D&D sandbox isn't mechanical but organic.

D&D is a level based game.  Level is pure mechanical.

Oh I see, you decided to grotesquely misinterpret my statement!

Old School D&D treats its setting organically, that is, as a virtual world with internal consistency.  that doesn't mean that the D&D doesn't have mehanics; it means that those mechanics are bound to the world, and not that the world is just a pointless facade, a backdrop for a completely dissociated set of mechanics.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;579367Seriously, does someone want to try to defend this notion?

Sure, I'll play devil's advocate for a moment: If you subscribe to the theory that adventure design means preparing a plot that the players then experience, then it's absolutely a good idea to provide the GM with some guidance on how many (and what type) of encounters they can include in their plot without slaughtering the PCs.

IOW, if you assume that the GM is the one who controls what the PCs encounter, how they encounter it, and when they encounter it, then you've got to give the GM advice on how much the PCs can handle.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the GM should "ignore the game world" and include level 2 encounters in the Dragon Swamp: It just means that when the GM is running a guided tour, they shouldn't be taking level 2 characters through Dragon Swamp.

Obviously, speaking as the author of "Don't Prep Plots (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots)" I think that entire philosophy of GMing and adventure design is bollocks. (And, in large part, I think it's bollocks specifically because it puts all kinds of unnecessary responsibility on the GM's back.) But if you buy into the "railroads are awesome because I hate tot think for myself and/or players can't be trusted!" school of thought, then suggested encounters aren't just a good idea: They're required.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;580221Sure, I'll play devil's advocate for a moment: If you subscribe to the theory that adventure design means preparing a plot that the players then experience, then it's absolutely a good idea to provide the GM with some guidance on how many (and what type) of encounters they can include in their plot without slaughtering the PCs.

I had typed up a post about how the 'Encounters per Adventure' guidelines were pretty much tailor made for plot-driven adventures, but it had gotten too long-winded to come to a coherent point and scrapped it.

I don't think that all plot-driven adventures are necessarily railroads, and that 'sandboxes' are necessarily free of them though.  Any dangling plot hooks that don't get bites from the PCs aren't forever ruined, since they can still be used at a later date, or even in future campaigns with minimal modifications.  That is to say that just because you are playing plot-driven games that doesn't mean you have to force players hands into your 'story' or throw away all of your prep when it doesn't get used.

I suspect that the "Encounters per Adventure" has been used in-house by TSR and later WotC for their pre-made, heavily plot-driven, no downtime paperback adventures, and was drafted for the DMG since the publication of those adventures has promoted a style of game that is very similar to what is in those pre-mades, even in homebrew games.

Also a contributing factor is that the player v. monster balance is much less transparent and intuitive in 3e than it was in 2e and I'm sure 1e.  'Encounter' design in 2e was almost entirely contained within the monster's write up in the MM, and level v. HD comparisons of power were often 1:1 (until mid-level or so), which isn't the case in 3.x where HD and CR/EL are out of whack even at low levels.

Of course the CR system is kind of busted anyway, so it's a moot point since virtually no one uses these guidelines that don't really work out of the box and just eyeballs it all eventually.

Quote from: estar;580160While the punditry is awe inspiring the utter lack of details makes the above statement as well supported as a wet noodle.

Pure and simple, D&D Levels wrap up a set of abilities and skills.  Character take big leaps in capabilities when they level. This is little different than when a GURPS Game or Hero System Game where the referee awards 50 points at one time. You may not prefer it this type of system, but class & level doesn't restrict the referee in the range of worlds he can create or run.

And if the setup of classes and what they gain at each level match the setting the referee is using, the campaign is much more approachable to novices and straightforward to learn than skill based games. Something I have direct experience with when running the Majestic Wilderlands using Swords & Wizardry and when I run it using GURPS.

What you been arguing boils down to "I don't prefer Class & Level". Fine you don't like it, so move on. Unless you don't understand how to use a class & level system for a setting. In which I would be happy to answer your questions as I have some small measure of experience in this area.

No it isn't about "I don't prefer Class & Level"  it's the wankery that sandbox is organic in a level based game.

It isn't.

Quote from: RPGPundit;580214Oh I see, you decided to grotesquely misinterpret my statement!

Old School D&D treats its setting organically, that is, as a virtual world with internal consistency.  that doesn't mean that the D&D doesn't have mehanics; it means that those mechanics are bound to the world, and not that the world is just a pointless facade, a backdrop for a completely dissociated set of mechanics.

RPGPundit

Sandbox + level based game =  Contrived bullshit on an order of magnitude far greater than your insistent whining about encounters per day.

 "sandboxes and other old-school games aren't about 'making no reference to the PC power/level', but they don't do this in a mechanistic way, rather in an organic fashion in accordance with the setting; ie. starting the PCs out in a relatively safe area of the world, having less dangerous dungeons more closeby;"

How the hell is it 'organic' to start the PCs out in a relatively safe area of the world, having less dangerous dungeons more close by?

You 'populate' the sandbox with level based areas then give hints/hooks on which areas are which allowing the PCs to make meta game decisions based upon that knowledge.
- the old abandoned mine to the West. Word is that the goblins that have been stealing goats & sheep are hold up there.
- The ruined keep to the South. People say that those who get too close are never seen again. JoBob the grain merchant says that he saw a bunch of ogres near that place once. He ran for his life!
- The mountains to the North are said to be home to a tribe of hill giants. The folks up that way give them a lot of livestock to get left alone.

Isn't that how the real world works?
- the corner shop. Not much to see, and they've got a camera, but there is cash in the till and a few more valuables.
- the Apple store in the local mall. Lots of magic items, has better alarms and mall security.
- Main Street bank. These guys are armed, there are timed alarms, and the cops will be there in a bit. An obvious mid-level area.
- the Federal reserve bank. Acererak the Lich built this, and there are also beholders and mind flayers.
;)

Quote from: mcbobbo;580008Ask your local jaguars, grizzly bears, wolves, Aztecs, and Apaches if this is or is not the case ITRW.

So you're making my case that there'll be some areas in the world where the threats available are diminished. Just like how some areas will be so currently dominated by a civilization as to be safe for lower level PCs of the same.

... why you metagaming, non-realist GM, you.

;)

Either that, or you're suggesting America is the totality of the world (or the modern age is the totality of time). But that's just silly.

Quote from: Melan;580276Isn't that how the real world works?
- the corner shop. Not much to see, and they've got a camera, but there is cash in the till and a few more valuables.
- the Apple store in the local mall. Lots of magic items, has better alarms and mall security.
- Main Street bank. These guys are armed, there are timed alarms, and the cops will be there in a bit. An obvious mid-level area.
- the Federal reserve bank. Acererak the Lich built this, and there are also beholders and mind flayers.
;)

Shhh! Setting logic is contrived bullshit, remember? You're obviously metagaming!

Besides, everyone knows that every level-based game has to start out in a safe rustic village, with a nearby goblin lair, and the party meets in a tavern. It's in the DMG appendices! It can't happen any other way.

Quote from: Melan;580276Isn't that how the real world works?
- the corner shop. Not much to see, and they've got a camera, but there is cash in the till and a few more valuables.
- the Apple store in the local mall. Lots of magic items, has better alarms and mall security.
- Main Street bank. These guys are armed, there are timed alarms, and the cops will be there in a bit. An obvious mid-level area.
- the Federal reserve bank. Acererak the Lich built this, and there are also beholders and mind flayers.
;)

I could definitely believe a Lich had something to do with the Federal Reserve.

JG

Quote from: Melan;580276Isn't that how the real world works?
- the corner shop. Not much to see, and they've got a camera, but there is cash in the till and a few more valuables.
- the Apple store in the local mall. Lots of magic items, has better alarms and mall security.
- Main Street bank. These guys are armed, there are timed alarms, and the cops will be there in a bit. An obvious mid-level area.
- the Federal reserve bank. Acererak the Lich built this, and there are also beholders and mind flayers.
;)

Except that the examples you give are all talking about humans at levels 1-3.

The security guard at the Mall apple store is a 0level guy. The security guards at the federal reserve are maybe 2nd level at best.

If you introduce the level paradigm into a game you are almost exactly saying that the PCs can expect to find level equivalent challenges. That might be becuase you run them through Bone Hill (and adventure for characters of levels 1-3) or because you give them meta game hints in game - there are goblins in the old mine.
The game rules determine the type of game you get.

In a game of traveller where there are no levels and PCs can start with widely varied skill levels you don't get the goblin planet, the ogre planet and the Giant planet. Things are more generically mixed. There is a space port and there are criminal gangs there aren't 1HD criminal gangs and 4 HD criminal gangs.

This is a good way to ensure that the game is fun becuase you are fighting level appropriate foes, another way to do that would be to design an adventure based on a certain number of things the party could deal with. I don;t do the later for several reasons, mainly its too much prep and I am lazy and I can better ad lib a sandbox

Nevertheless, just because those Federeal Reserve guys are "only" 3rd level, there haven't seen so many attempts at cracking the place. It has a reputation among adventurers.

Of course, threat levels in a sandbox game are not necessarily clear-cut. There isn't always an optimal amount of information. A dragon, sure, but when you happen upon a set of ruins high in the mountains, there are fewer clues, except that the mountains themselves are a dangerous area. That's where taking chances, reconnaissance and being prepared to improvise/run come into the picture.

[edit]Technically, there is an average threat level in traditional D&D, which mainly comes from the wilderness encounter tables (which form the backbone of the implied setting). These typically mean encounters which are reasonably challenging for mid-level parties, with some outliers (dragons, high-level undead). There is also some differentiation by terrain type - plains are mostly safe, mountains, swamps and ruins can contain much nastier stuff. So there is a baseline, and there are deviations from that - safer areas (in civilised lands, a certain percentage of encounters occur with patrols, which makes travel safer) and concentrations of danger.

Quote from: Melan;580276Isn't that how the real world works?
- the corner shop. Not much to see, and they've got a camera, but there is cash in the till and a few more valuables.
- the Apple store in the local mall. Lots of magic items, has better alarms and mall security.
- Main Street bank. These guys are armed, there are timed alarms, and the cops will be there in a bit. An obvious mid-level area.
- the Federal reserve bank. Acererak the Lich built this, and there are also beholders and mind flayers.
;)

Excellent!

Quote from: Sommerjon;580263No it isn't about "I don't prefer Class & Level"  it's the wankery that sandbox is organic in a level based game.

So 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?

Quote from: Sommerjon;580263You 'populate' the sandbox with level based areas then give hints/hooks on which areas are which allowing the PCs to make meta game decisions based upon that knowledge.

You are assuming that areas are level based. That is not a valid assumption for all settings run with a class & level system.

Nor it a valid assumption that settings designed for skill based system are not level based. With level being whatever the system measure progression by.

Quote from: estar;580324You are assuming that areas are level based. That is not a valid assumption for all settings run with a class & level system.

Not always but mostly

QuoteNor it a valid assumption that settings designed for skill based system are not level based. With level being whatever the system measure progression by.

Look 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.

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.:D

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.:D

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.

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: Exploderwizard;580367Nothing 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.

But why is inofrmation available .... all they know is no on ever come out and the place is haunted.
They can find out that he owners died. That meybe they worshipped some hideous cult ...whatever  

They will make an assumption that it is a low level adventure because of its placement regardless of theinformation they receive, unless someone actually says there are 3 ghosts inside, which no one would know.

In another genre, say a CoC game the placement of the house woudl be fine. In a WoD game having 3 ghosts living in a regular house would be fine.

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.

Ah OK, thanks for clarifying that.

Quote from: jibbajibba;580341Currently 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.

Generally what happens in my campaign is that the scope of what the players attempt to do expands as they set there sights higher. They go after high value targets that they couldn't handle before. Or their new goals involve overcoming large numbers of lower HD/level opponents.

Where things get iffy is the mid-level (or the 175 to 200 pt level in GURPS) where the party is pretty capable, has  resources, but sometimes overreach in their goals.

One divide among D&D referee is whether leveled characters are "special" or part of the normal landscape. For example in the City-State of the Invincible Overlord, Bob Bledsaw has leveled characters all over the place in a pyramid distribution. That pretty much the style I adopted for the AD&D campaigns in the Majestic Wilderlands and I resumed using that same style for the Swords & Wizardry campaign.  Like the point range of GURPS character, I arrange the range of leveled in a pyramid distribution.

For example in my upcoming Scourge of the Demon Wolf, the supplement portion of the book has a detailed village. There are 43 able bodied men and of those 16 are leveled and of those only 2 are above 2nd level. There also the Golden House, home to a group of magic-users. There are 5 masters all 6th level or above, 8 adept between 2nd and 5th level, and 14 apprentices that either zero-level or 1st level.

Quote from: jibbajibba;580341Using 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.

Agreed. It is a tool and in the right circumstance it can be very useful.

I do use a metagame consideration when designing for "reality".  I don't design with the most likely outcome in mind. I design with the most interesting outcome that is probable in mind. A subtle but useful distinction for dealing with what is a form of entertainment.

People can survey my Majestic Wilderland and point at various elements and say "Rob that not very likely." To which I reply "Yes you are right, but it is the most interesting out of what could happen."

Quote from: estar;580370Ah OK, thanks for clarifying that.



Generally what happens in my campaign is that the scope of what the players attempt to do expands as they set there sights higher. They go after high value targets that they couldn't handle before. Or their new goals involve overcoming large numbers of lower HD/level opponents.

Where things get iffy is the mid-level (or the 175 to 200 pt level in GURPS) where the party is pretty capable, has  resources, but sometimes overreach in their goals.

One divide among D&D referee is whether leveled characters are "special" or part of the normal landscape. For example in the City-State of the Invincible Overlord, Bob Bledsaw has leveled characters all over the place in a pyramid distribution. That pretty much the style I adopted for the AD&D campaigns in the Majestic Wilderlands and I resumed using that same style for the Swords & Wizardry campaign.  Like the point range of GURPS character, I arrange the range of leveled in a pyramid distribution.

For example in my upcoming Scourge of the Demon Wolf, the supplement portion of the book has a detailed village. There are 43 able bodied men and of those 16 are leveled and of those only 2 are above 2nd level. There also the Golden House, home to a group of magic-users. There are 5 masters all 6th level or above, 8 adept between 2nd and 5th level, and 14 apprentices that either zero-level or 1st level.




Agreed. It is a tool and in the right circumstance it can be very useful.

I do use a metagame consideration when designing for "reality".  I don't design with the most likely outcome in mind. I design with the most interesting outcome that is probable in mind. A subtle but useful distinction for dealing with what is a form of entertainment.

People can survey my Majestic Wilderland and point at various elements and say "Rob that not very likely." To which I reply "Yes you are right, but it is the most interesting out of what could happen."

Totally agree with this post.

Quote from: jibbajibba;580369But why is inofrmation available .... all they know is no on ever come out and the place is haunted.
They can find out that he owners died. That meybe they worshipped some hideous cult ...whatever  

" 3 ghosts in a house" might not be available as a convenient tidbit but there are some things that could be learned:

-how long has the place been haunted?
-who were the people that went inside? Notable badassess maybe?

Quote from: jibbajibba;580369They will make an assumption that it is a low level adventure because of its placement regardless of theinformation they receive, unless someone actually says there are 3 ghosts inside, which no one would know.

So the party could end up dead due to their own metagame assumptions proving wrong. Still not seeing a problem. Perhaps when the reaper has claimed enough characters the players will start engaging with the setting instead of metagaming.

Quote from: jibbajibba;580362So 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.

It works very well and there an interesting story about how I finally grokked it.

At the boffer LARP I ran events for the average level of the player characters had started to reach into the 20s and a lot of event directors were resorting to just beefing up hit points and abilities for their creatures.

Well this left the low level newcomers at a tremendous disadvantage in the big town battles involving all the players. The people I run event with and I talked about this and what I came up with is to use a large number of low power creatures. Now since we only had a handful of people to play NPC monsters what we did is reset them out of sight. So the players were only fighting like 10 monsters at a time out of a horde of a 100 for example. So it wasn't ideal.

The part we didn't know is exactly where the set the lower level monsters at, and how many reset we will need before the event staff became too physically tired to continue. (A consideration unique to LARPS). It turned out that it worked with about what would be in D&D terms 3 HD to 5 HD creatures versus 20th characters*. And the players broke before the staff grew tried. So the technique worked. And had the virtue of allowing the low level newcomers to feel useful.

*NERO BOffer LARP doesn't have area effect spells like fireball. Only spells that targeted individuals.

With so many targets over the time of the battle players started running out of spells, consumable items, and hit points. A couple of years later I tried this in Swords & Wizardry and it worked pretty much the same way. Except that with area effect damage spells the player could kill a lot more monsters in the beginning of the battle. When they ran out of those spell it played out pretty much like the LARP events I managed.

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 would have no problems throwing a golem at 1st level characters PROVIDED they were not required to fight it. If they have the chance to turn around and leave it rather than fight it, I don't see any reason to worry about it.  Note that I run sandbox games so there's never a case of "they have to get by the golem or the game comes to a halt". The ability to decide when to risk combat and when to avoid it is an important player skill in my games.

Quote from: estar;580338What point-buy/classless system do you play?

In the past year?  Shadowrun, Alpha Omega, Dark Heresy, and Usagi Yojimbo

Quote from: jibbajibba;580364Well no the party might just go somewhere where there is 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.

Yep.  That 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

Quote from: Exploderwizard;580365Totally 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.

Unless they pop on the random encounter.  Putting them there is 'organic setting logic'

Quote from: Sommerjon;580386Unless they pop on the random encounter.  Putting them there is 'organic setting logic'

And? A random encounter is just that. Random encounter does not mean a fight will happen.

First, we have to consider encounter distance. Outdoors this can be quite a ways off so evasion at first sighting is a possible option.

Assuming evasion is unsuitable for whatever reason and a meeting takes place there are a variety of possibilities. Being random, whatever is encountered has business of its own. What kind of reaction does it have? Can it be communicated with, and would it accept an offer of food or treasure?

If it is big, dumb, and wants to eat you there are things to try that might let you outhink it and escape.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;580372" 3 ghosts in a house" might not be available as a convenient tidbit but there are some things that could be learned:

-how long has the place been haunted?
-who were the people that went inside? Notable badassess maybe?

And the questions posed by the Players have to go through the meta game filter by the DM so he can give adequate hints on what is actually there.  Regardless of what the PCs actually know, it's the Players that have to understand the hints.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;580372So the party could end up dead due to their own metagame assumptions proving wrong. Still not seeing a problem. Perhaps when the reaper has claimed enough characters the players will start engaging with the setting instead of metagaming.

Wha?  This makes no sense.  How are they supposed to engage the setting without meta gaming?
Have you ever sat down and read through the Monster Manuals and saw just how many creatures are similar in appearance/favored terrain yet are vastly different in power levels?

Quote from: Sommerjon;580390Wha?  This makes no sense.  How are they supposed to engage the setting without meta gaming?

Hey guys, everything we dug up about this house has been bad news. Lets give it a miss and go after those goblins the merchant told us about.

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.

I'm flagging miscommunication here: Your previous posts made it look like you were saying that Middle Earth is really metagamey because Mordor is nastier than the Shire and everybody knows what Smaug lives. (That's because this is the situation everybody else is talking about, so they just assume you're talking about the same thing.)

What you appear to be saying is that WoW-style areas in which all of the creatures in a given area fall into a specific CR bracket is a metagamey. I'm pretty sure everybody here would agree with that.

Quote from: jibbajibba;580369But why is inofrmation available .... all they know is no on ever come out and the place is haunted. (...) They will make an assumption that it is a low level adventure because of its placement regardless of the information they receive, unless someone actually says there are 3 ghosts inside, which no one would know.

They'll only be likely to make that assumption if it's a WoW-style metagame sandbox. If it's a more naturalistic sandbox, they'll stop making that kind of mistake pretty quick.

Re: Information. Unless the GM is specifically designing an informational black hole (which is more characteristic of a railroad than a sandbox), there's almost always methods by which additional information can be gained and/or cautious explorations can be attempted.

I'm reminded of a conversation I had awhile ago where someone claimed that the Caves of Chaos in Keep on the Borderlands didn't represent a meaningful choice because the PCs had no information about what lay beyond each cave entrance. But, of course, the decision to blindly choose a cave entrance (instead of observing them to see what goes in and out or examining them for clues) is itself a meaningful decision.

This whole line of thinking assumes, once again, that the GM is required to force feed content to the players. Once you abandon that assumption, the problem goes away.

Quote from: Sommerjon;580390How are they supposed to engage the setting without meta gaming?

I suppose that's the other option, though: Claim that it's impossible to stay in-character when playing a roleplaying game.

:huhsign:

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.

It is a logical adventure site. But it is also logical that PCs should run (or try to hide) when they see the ghosts, and definitely try to run if one of them gets killed by them. Remember, you only have to run as fast as the slowest party member. ;)

Or to cite my party's encounter with Saracek, a very powerful undead in the dungeons of Rappan Athuk (nasty, nasty place). Saracek managed to dish out so much damage so fast that the party decided to get out ASAP, but Brantar the Cleric got trapped in the room.
Brantar: "Help! Help! The party is in peril!"
Grey Fox, evil grey elf Fighter/Rogue: "What 'party'? The 'party' has already fled."
(Brantar eventually survived the situation by surrendering and converting to the cause of Evil. He died much later when he got flattened by a 10 ton stone block in the completely optional tomb of a demilich. Grey Fox died in a fumbled assassination attempt against Bifur the Axe, a dwarven commander in the Shrine of Odin, in the surprisingly common "just one more round" syndrome. In another completely optional adventure.)

Quote from: RandallS;580382I would have no problems throwing a golem at 1st level characters PROVIDED they were not required to fight it.

That's basically it. What matters is player agency, their ability to make informed choices in the way they end up tackling the challenges of the game, then dealing with the natural consequences of their actions. If you are exploring a complex at level 1 and discovered a Clay Golem that is dormant, linked to some kind of alchemical placenta that seems made of sandy matter, and you decide to disturb it by hacking through its crucible or poking at it to "see what it does", you are suicidal, and should be killed as a natural result of your stupidity.

Basically, it seems like there are two kinds of metagame here:

1) Make sure that all threats have suitable warning signs on them such that the players can know the danger and avoid it.  If the players don't read the signals right, then they screwed up and may be killed.  

2) Make sure that threats aren't such that they are challenging but won't automatically overwhelm the party.  If the players aren't smart about being prepared and dealing well with the threats, then they screwed up and may be killed.  


The point of both of these are "fair challenge" - i.e. avoiding the situation where the PCs are beaten without having a fair chance.  Both of #1 and #2 can sometimes be justified as logical outcomes of the world.  However, ultimately I think that world logic will sometimes lead to unfair situations where PCs die even though they did the right thing.  A true wild world won't always have warning signs, just like it won't always have balanced encounters.  

As I said in an early post, I tend to prefer tactical challenges to challenges of reading the GM's cues.  Thus, I usually prefer #2, but I don't mind some of #1.

Quote from: jhkim;580400Basically, it seems like there are two kinds of metagame here:

1) Make sure that all threats have suitable warning signs on them such that the players can know the danger and avoid it.  If the players don't read the signals right, then they screwed up and may be killed.  

2) Make sure that threats aren't such that they are challenging but won't automatically overwhelm the party.  If the players aren't smart about being prepared and dealing well with the threats, then they screwed up and may be killed.  


The point of both of these are "fair challenge" - i.e. avoiding the situation where the PCs are beaten without having a fair chance.  Both of #1 and #2 can sometimes be justified as logical outcomes of the world.  However, ultimately I think that world logic will sometimes lead to unfair situations where PCs die even though they did the right thing.  A true wild world won't always have warning signs, just like it won't always have balanced encounters.  

As I said in an early post, I tend to prefer tactical challenges to challenges of reading the GM's cues.  Thus, I usually prefer #2, but I don't mind some of #1.

I think this is exactly right.  Tomorrow, on my way to work, even if I'm doing everything right and driving safely, there's no guarantee that a long-haul rig won't cross the median and slam into my car before I have a chance to react, killing me instantly.  

That's not fair, but it happens because this is the 'real world'.  

Given enough PCs and enough time, this kinds of tragedies would be unavoidable in a 'real' world.  Metagame concerns help make the world fun and remove the spectre of meaningless and 'unfair' death.  That doesn't mean that death can't happen - or that it might end up being somewhat unfair - but the DM is deliberately making the world just a little less 'randomly' dangerous than our world, even though they're putting in 'random monsters' and 'demon lords'.

Quote from: Benoist;580398If you are exploring a complex at level 1 and discovered a Clay Golem that is dormant, linked to some kind of alchemical placenta that seems made of sandy matter, and you decide to disturb it by hacking through its crucible or poking at it to "see what it does", you are suicidal, and should be killed as a natural result of your stupidity.

How are player characters, especially low level ones, meant to distinguish between a dormant Clay Golem and just another statue? And why should they assume it is hostile? Maybe it's a helpful butler golem and activating is one of the keys to get through the level safely?

Of course I may be reading too much into this example. There may have been other context related clues that will warn player character about wary away from the golem in question, but there will be other occasion in which poking something to see what it does is exactly what the module expects you to do and if really if you're going to be such a 'fraidy cat, scared to touch anything you see what the hell are you doing in a dungeon in the first place?

Just to note, I am fine with characters dying due to bad luck. I have had characters die to bad luck, a lot. Killed by an ogre. Fell into a pit. Shot in the back by a party member and later killed by the death touch of an evil priestess because of those three hit points. So it goes.

They make for interesting war stories. After a few levels, these accidents happen less often.

Quote from: Melan;580406Just to note, I am fine with characters dying due to bad luck. I have had characters die to bad luck, a lot. Killed by an ogre. Fell into a pit. Shot in the back by a party member and later killed by the death touch of an evil priestess because of those three hit points. So it goes.

They make for interesting war stories. After a few levels, these accidents happen less often.

Oh, yeah.  I play a lot of Call of Cthulhu, where bad luck deaths  - and even no-chance unfair deaths - can happen pretty regularly.  I'm OK with this depending on how its handled.  

However, if given the choice of the two kinds of imposed fairness (i.e. "Fair Warning" and "Fair Encounter"), I generally prefer the latter.  

A lot of people seem to like a setup where there is always fair warning for any dangerous encounter - but I generally feel like that means I have to read cues from the GM, and I prefer a tactical challenge to a read-the-GM challenge.

Quote from: Soylent Green;580403How are player characters, especially low level ones, meant to distinguish between a dormant Clay Golem and just another statue? And why should they assume it is hostile? Maybe it's a helpful butler golem and activating is one of the keys to get through the level safely?

Of course I may be reading too much into this example. There may have been other context related clues that will warn player character about wary away from the golem in question, but there will be other occasion in which poking something to see what it does is exactly what the module expects you to do and if really if you're going to be such a 'fraidy cat, scared to touch anything you see what the hell are you doing in a dungeon in the first place?

Yes, you are reading too much in the example: it was predicated on our knowledge here of what a clay golem is, how it compares to PCs, and the way it'd show up in an actual game might include a lot of other components that could show the PCs that the creature is potentially a great threat.

Besides, there are ways you could devise to poke at stuff from a safe distance, behind an opened door you could slam, or with the group at a safe distance, convincing some other creature to do your bidding for you, etc etc. Playing the game involves coming up with ingenious ways to do what it is you want to do without risking total annihilation for a mistake in judgment.

To answer your question now, why are mercenaries going to warzones when they can blow up when landing on a mine, or more ubiquitously, get somewhere where they could meet someone who'd fire at them with a gun? You get to dangerous places for a variety of reasons, the most enduring D&D one being the prospects of striking it rich. But staying alive requires some amount of daring, as well as caution. Making sense of the environment and situations you find yourself in, and making decisions from there as to the course of action you wish to take (i.e. which elements to investigate, others to avoid, others to confront, and how, etc.) is part of the draw of the game. If you aren't ready to make decisions and you assume all situations will play the same "because that's what is to be expected, otherwise it wouldn't be 'fair'," you are in for a big surprise.

Jhkim has the right of it.

Consider how you mix stuff up in a no level based game where PCs emerge from the character build process with a far more ranged ability set. Traveller is a classic example but V&V does it and so do a few others.
In this case you do not feel the need to set up level appropriate opponents. You just have opponents, the mooks that the Colonel Evil uses are pretty much soldiers but his 2 Lieutenants Grabit and Scarpa are tough hombres. When the party encounter them if American Maid and Arthur can deal with the mooks so The Tick can deal with eh tough guys we are good but if they can't see that coming then the moth and the cleaning girl are in trouble.

The idea of setting an advenutre because of the level of the party is a meta concept. It might well be a good meta concept but its still a meta concept.

Quote from: jibbajibba;580420Jhkim has the right of it.

Consider how you mix stuff up in a no level based game where PCs emerge from the character build process with a far more ranged ability set. Traveller is a classic example but V&V does it and so do a few others.
In this case you do not feel the need to set up level appropriate opponents. You just have opponents, the mooks that the Colonel Evil uses are pretty much soldiers but his 2 Lieutenants Grabit and Scarpa are tough hombres. When the party encounter them if American Maid and Arthur can deal with the mooks so The Tick can deal with eh tough guys we are good but if they can't see that coming then the moth and the cleaning girl are in trouble.

The idea of setting an advenutre because of the level of the party is a meta concept. It might well be a good meta concept but its still a meta concept.

Hey! Don't sell American Maid short. She will clean your clock mister. :D

Quote from: Sommerjon;580263How the hell is it 'organic' to start the PCs out in a relatively safe area of the world, having less dangerous dungeons more close by?

You 'populate' the sandbox with level based areas then give hints/hooks on which areas are which allowing the PCs to make meta game decisions based upon that knowledge.
- the old abandoned mine to the West. Word is that the goblins that have been stealing goats & sheep are hold up there.
- The ruined keep to the South. People say that those who get too close are never seen again. JoBob the grain merchant says that he saw a bunch of ogres near that place once. He ran for his life!
- The mountains to the North are said to be home to a tribe of hill giants. The folks up that way give them a lot of livestock to get left alone.

How the hell is this NOT organic?  You're born in Ohio; you find out over the course of your life that to the north there's a nation of excessively polite people, then further up an icy wasteland; to the south there's some backwater areas that don't always take kindly to northerners, then further south a foreign nation that has some ancient ruins but is also currently overwhelmed by drug wars.  Far off across treacherous oceans there's currently a wartorn region where soldiers from your nation are fighting a difficult battle against insurgents that like to hide in caves.  You can choose to pay to go on a very safe and comfortable huge boat with all-you-can-eat shrimp buffets, or you can try to sail around the world in a small sailboat passing through areas wracked with massive storms and other regions where pirates have frequently attacked and murdered or kidnapped people in small boats. You can choose where you go and to what level of danger you live your life.

RPGPundit

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.

In the real world, Sherwood forest was notoriously cleared of lions long before it was cleared of Merry Men.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jibbajibba;580420Jhkim has the right of it.

Consider how you mix stuff up in a no level based game where PCs emerge from the character build process with a far more ranged ability set. Traveller is a classic example but V&V does it and so do a few others.
In this case you do not feel the need to set up level appropriate opponents. You just have opponents, the mooks that the Colonel Evil uses are pretty much soldiers but his 2 Lieutenants Grabit and Scarpa are tough hombres. When the party encounter them if American Maid and Arthur can deal with the mooks so The Tick can deal with eh tough guys we are good but if they can't see that coming then the moth and the cleaning girl are in trouble.

The idea of setting an advenutre because of the level of the party is a meta concept. It might well be a good meta concept but its still a meta concept.

Agreed. Which is why I don't do it.   What I don't get is why people seem to be thinking here that in a level-based game you're doing this one way or the other; that's just not the case.

In my D&D games, my players are free to go face things far beneath them if they really want, or to seek out things far beyond their capacities if they're crazy or foolish enough to.  And sometimes, they might go into the Forest of Doom and have the incredible luck (good or bad, depending on how you see it) of not finding anything more dangerous than a wart-hog in days and days of travel, or of wandering into the Forest of Mild Inconvenience in search of kobolds and ending up having a very unlikely but still possible random encounter with Hill Giant.  The answer there (assuming they're not really at the Hill Giant's level) is probably "run like hell", or more ideally "try to steal the Hill Giant's sack of gold and THEN run like hell"!

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;580491You can choose to pay to go on a very safe and comfortable huge boat with all-you-can-eat shrimp buffets, or you can try to sail around the world in a small sailboat passing through areas wracked with massive storms and other regions where pirates have frequently attacked and murdered or kidnapped people in small boats. You can choose where you go and to what level of danger you live your life.

You 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.  

What 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.  Once you go behind enemy lines in a war zone, you're never going to have any guarantees of this sort.  The enemy is moving, and is deliberately hiding their movements from you.  You can try to reduce your risks, but you might get trapped in a fight with a much superior force.  

Quote from: Benoist;580418You get to dangerous places for a variety of reasons, the most enduring D&D one being the prospects of striking it rich. But staying alive requires some amount of daring, as well as caution. Making sense of the environment and situations you find yourself in, and making decisions from there as to the course of action you wish to take (i.e. which elements to investigate, others to avoid, others to confront, and how, etc.) is part of the draw of the game. If you aren't ready to make decisions and you assume all situations will play the same "because that's what is to be expected, otherwise it wouldn't be 'fair'," you are in for a big surprise.

The 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 think there is avast middle ground here. You dont need something that is purely realistic. But you also dont have to just surrender to "it is a game so it should feel like a game". The realities of play sort of require that players have some ability to gauge threats they take on and gauge the relative danger of an area (and it helps to have some areas safer than others and some more dangerous). Exactly how this breaks down will vary from group to group. But simply having a forest that is more dangerous and filled with higher level threats, while having a valley that is relatively peaceful and containing more low level threats, doesn't torpedo my sense of the setting. However if everything is rigged so I am facing x number of encounters per day (all rationed out with a set number equal to party level, a set number two levels above, below and so on) that does torpedo my sense of the setting.

Stuff like dungeon levels having progressivley more dangerous creatures hasnt worked well for me in some time, but I can see why some would use it and I think there are fair rationalizations out there that would allow many players to brush off any concerns.

So many of these debates seem to focus on showing one or two exceptions of one extreme to prove you must embrace the opposite extreme.

I dont feel others have to accept my style of play. If they want the game to play with challenges tailored specifically to the party and not worry about any explanations for why that is, that is fine and a perfeclty acceptable way to play the game. But to me, setting matters a lot. It has always been a major concern for me and a big part of my enjoyment of the game. I can brush aside some stuff, but not others. Wishlists for magic items, perfectly tailored el charts, advenutres structured around a series of encounters, etc these things disrupt my sense of the setting and they always have from when I first encountered each one. Stuff like making this part of the world more dangerous, this part of the world less dangerous, and presenting the players with a believable mix of encounters (even if there is some attempt to be fair in the process) doesn't create this problem for me and adds to my experience of the game.

Quote from: RPGPundit;580493In the real world, Sherwood forest was notoriously cleared of lions long before it was cleared of Merry Men.

RPGPundit

But Robin Hood is a 10th level Ranger he can fuck you up much more easily than a lion..... :)

And the lions died out 13,000 years ago because at the end of the last ice age their main prey Mamomths and Giant deer could no longer complete for resources with migrating smaller lighter mamels moving up from the south (British Lions were huge 30% bigger than african ones). So they weren't hunted down by the lord of the manor

Quote from: jhkim;580523What 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.  Once you go behind enemy lines in a war zone, you're never going to have any guarantees of this sort.  The enemy is moving, and is deliberately hiding their movements from you..

You are missing the point of what the Pundit and myself are saying. Just because a RPG is level based doesn't mean that the settings made for it automatically have areas that only have Nth level threats. Areas MAY exist that happen to have a similar grouping of N levels but they would be a coincidence because of how the inhabitants stat out in the game. For example the encampment of Varangians* would have a high average  level. In GURPS they would have a high average number of points. In ShadowRun they would have earned and applied a lot of Karma.

*Varangians - elite Viking warriors in service as bodyguards to the Byzantine Emperor

Quote from: Sommerjon;580386In the past year?  Shadowrun, Alpha Omega, Dark Heresy, and Usagi Yojimbo'

So what the difference between a 10th level fighter and Street samurai who earned and applied a lot of Karma?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;580357The 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.

The concept of "throwing" anything at the PCs is retarded anyway.

Quote from: estar;580555So what the difference between a 10th level fighter and Street samurai who earned and applied a lot of Karma?

Quite a bit.

The Street Sam hasn't increased his damage capacity by a factor of 8 or 10, decreased his ability to be hit be a factor of 6 or so, or increased his ability to save by another large factor.  Those security level 1 or 2 mooks are still able to take him out, yes it's harder for that to happen but it is no where near the amount of goblins or orcs it takes to take down a 10th level fighter.

Quote from: RPGPundit;580491How the hell is this NOT organic?

Because you put them there.

Quote from: estar;580553You are missing the point of what the Pundit and myself are saying. Just because a RPG is level based doesn't mean that the settings made for it automatically have areas that only have Nth level threats. Areas MAY exist that happen to have a similar grouping of N levels but they would be a coincidence because of how the inhabitants stat out in the game.

I'm not saying that it has to be anything based on levels.  I'm just saying that the setup can be broken into three broad categories, "Fair Fight", "Fair Warning", and "Life's Not Fair".   Though as Brendan says, there is middle ground between these.  Also, there can be different setups that can make either "Fair Fight" or "Fair Warning" less intrusive - so the meta-gamey-ness is less obvious.  

Some people have been arguing against fairness, but always bringing up examples about how the players are to blame for their own doom.  If 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.)

Quote from: Sommerjon;580592Because you put them there.

To 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.

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.

He's not wrong on either count. I can see people staying in-character as long as no metagame situation comes up (like rolling a die) but since you're playing a game and at some point you have to treat it like that you have to step out of character.

Secondly 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.

I find no part of what you stated his opinion to be as "insane". He may not jive with what you are wanting to mean but if taken literally he would not be wrong.

Quote from: jibbajibba;580299In a game of traveller where there are no levels and PCs can start with widely varied skill levels you don't get the goblin planet, the ogre planet and the Giant planet. Things are more generically mixed. There is a space port and there are criminal gangs there aren't 1HD criminal gangs and 4 HD criminal gangs.

Not entirely true.

A world's Law Level can be used as a thumbrule to figure out what weapons are available for use and sale, and used against the PCs. A world with a low Law Level wil have more lethal weapons available and in use than a world with a high Law Level. Tech Level may affect what sorts of weapons can be manufactured, but Law Level tells you what is easily available.

So your goblin planet may be low tech and high law level while your ogre planet may have high tech and low law level. Hit Dice can be used to represent the hazard level of the world if need be.

Also, a world is big and much more complex than what I am representing here is a drastic simplification used to explain my point.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;580423Hey! Don't sell American Maid short. She will clean your clock mister. :D

Then of course, there's Sewer Urchin, who should count as a higher encounter level if fought in his native environment.

JG

Meanwhile, on RPGNet (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?646694-Character-Death-Verisimilitude):

Quote from: Plotline PeteThe main thing is while yes there should be risks is the only way to create tension/risk in D&D (and other games in general) only limited to death? One fellow player believe that the risk of death increases verisimilitude (their own words)... my issue is that my players and myself want to create stories and collaborate on where we want to go/ what will happen to these characters in advance.. far advance into the game.

Example: running a game where eventually going into time travel as a theme of the game using different systems as different "ages" one of which involves one of the characters rescuing himself thus setting him on the path of the wizard.

Personally him dieing to some random trash mob wouldn't be justice (again D&D can get around death in various ways) perhaps a major villain or solo monster...

Quote from: Deprotagonised DanDying is one of the most boring consequences that can happen to a character, IMO. It ends that character's story and participation, and you lose all the effort you've put into developing and advancing them, in terms of game mechanics, plot and personality. Threat of death is a very potent motivator in real life, but it's much less effective, and more importantly less interesting, in a game.

Quote from: Strawman SamYes, it's true that my sense of verisimilitude would probably be hurt by my inability to be killed in what should be a lethal fight*. On the other hand, getting killed by housecats, dying fairly consistently from falling ten feet, or, as in one example from another thread, dying when picking a lock because the pick breaks and sends jagged shards into your jugular all are both fairly lethal, and damaging to my sense of verisimilitude.

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

Quote from: Sommerjon;580586Quite a bit.

The Street Sam hasn't increased his damage capacity by a factor of 8 or 10, decreased his ability to be hit be a factor of 6 or so, or increased his ability to save by another large factor.  Those security level 1 or 2 mooks are still able to take him out, yes it's harder for that to happen but it is no where near the amount of goblins or orcs it takes to take down a 10th level fighter.

None of those are a result of D&D being Class & Level. They are result of what Gygax choose the rate of progression to be. 2nd level is twice as powerful as first level, 3rd level is three times as powerful, and so on. And what you don't mention that there are several mechanics involving Save vs Death where failure (although unlikely) results in instant Death for the character.

You may prefer a game that more realistic in depiction of character capabilities. Commonly expressed as being able to be taken out in one shot. Or the reverse to take out a target in one shot. In my experience this is a common reason for people moving away from D&D. Indeed Runequest was designed by SCA folks who found D&D unrealistic and too abstract.

But none of this has anything to do with what metagame consideration the referee uses in designing a setting.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;580365Totally 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.

True, that's what the rare and very rare parts of random encounter tables are for. Or at least one of the ways I use those slots. And that's because in my settings an apex solitary predator tends to not share space (overlap) so readily, and thus has to cover a large area. A party can come across a very rare green dragon whelp as it traipses on through the ho-hum forest. The whelp is looking after its home but can't be everywhere at once.

And the really cool thing with the reaction table and morale is that encounters with intelligent, big-scary monsters might end up differently. :) Travelers passing through usually don't warrant full-scale assaults with no quarter -- I mean, how else is my poor whelp going to collect his hoard? Risking his life every time and slaughter all survivors? Pshaw! That's too much work! ;) That's what tricks, traps, functionaries, tribute, and favors are for!

Possibility does not equal likely probability. And encounter does not equal mortal conflict. The game isn't played solely at extremes of the spectrum.

I feel player choice is strengthened because they can choose "dicier" terrain, and their response to encounters. Without a foretold metagame playbook, which way to go and encounter responses becomes meaningful. It helps individualize a party's game. It also walks away from standardization, which might be a problem for RPGA/Living Campaign organized events, but meh, that's a different style of play anyway.

Quote from: jibbajibba;580369They will make an assumption that it is a low level adventure because of its placement regardless of theinformation they receive, unless someone actually says there are 3 ghosts inside, which no one would know.

It's easier than that. Just tell them before the game starts that they should never make those sorts of assumptions. Problem solved.

Don't you explain how you run the game to your players? It takes a minute and avoids all sorts of problematic assumptions.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;580691It's easier than that. Just tell them before the game starts that they should never make those sorts of assumptions. Problem solved.

Don't you explain how you run the game to your players? It takes a minute and avoids all sorts of problematic assumptions.

I would at a con but with my mates no they get what they deserve.
At a Con I would never run a haunted house like this in fact at a con I would never try to run a sandbox way to much can go wrong. I woudl probably look to run a game much more like a set number of encounters - using a standard D&D setting. (I have only ever run Amber at cons although I have played a lot of games. Amber just runs differently so not a great parallel.)  

All I am really saying is that 80%+ of sandbox settings really look like WoW level dependent environments when you dig a little. And running a plot driven game and using roughly X encounters per day as a measure is just as metagamey.

Quote from: estar;580663None of those are a result of D&D being Class & Level. They are result of what Gygax choose the rate of progression to be. 2nd level is twice as powerful as first level, 3rd level is three times as powerful, and so on. And what you don't mention that there are several mechanics involving Save vs Death where failure (although unlikely) results in instant Death for the character.

You may prefer a game that more realistic in depiction of character capabilities. Commonly expressed as being able to be taken out in one shot. Or the reverse to take out a target in one shot. In my experience this is a common reason for people moving away from D&D. Indeed Runequest was designed by SCA folks who found D&D unrealistic and too abstract.

But none of this has anything to do with what metagame consideration the referee uses in designing a setting.

Yes those are a result of D&D being level based.

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.  

Not really. I have been in very dangerous environments for extended amounts of time (Not so much in recent years, ...earlier on though). Environments containing Islamic radicals, Lebanese and Druse Christians, Palestinians and Hezbollah members, Egyptian fundamentalists, African separatists, Secular Shia Clerics, As well as third world countries with a plentitude of Drug Dealers, Ex-Cons, and Grifters, and have also lived in crime-ridden, poverty stricken areas for years. Here in the States I was working every day right in the middle of the LA Riots when they broke out in 1992.  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. Nonetheless, there's probably more stray bullets zinging around from hunters. More driving collisions, More disagreements that can get out of control with much less immediate help available.

The problem here is the sporadic nature of these risky events. Tends to lull the survival senses some making for larger variances in risk assessment accuracy.

Case in point, the guy that got decapitated here in 2008 by driving high-speed into a Combine. Now the farmers and the combines, they are normally on the fields, plowing furrows or clearing rows of crops. On that particular day, the guy driving by, never guessed the farmer/combine driver would be crossing the road right in front of him. Instead of turning to do another row, the combine just kept on going and popped out onto the road at an odd angle. The guy that was formerly just driving by unexpectedly found himself plowing into the combine with his car at right around 60 miles per hour and hit the front forks at just that right angle.

Another real killer in the "safe" midwest. The sleepy tractor-trailer driver that has 22 tons of goods barreling along with him on the Interstate at 70 MPH. In this particular case, the driver ended up injuring no one but himself, however it was fatal as well when he fell asleep at the wheel and his rig ended up tumbling down a hillside where there was a small curve in the road. The crash ignited the diesel (he had just filled up about an hour prior to the crash) and everything that survived the crash burned.

Kids, drag racing on the backroads. I have five known fatalities in the last decade here. In one case two kids drove into a lake late at night doing 70 MPH. Only one made it out of the car. In another incident, the dragsters collided then tumbled killing both drivers. One of those cars slammed into some indigent drifter that was just walking on the side of the road killing him instantly as well. By the skidmarks they were clocked doing at 125 MpH.

Takes a few actual incidents like this before your danger senses adjust to properly accomodate the new potential threat(s).

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!  :p

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

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. :p)

"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. :p)

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 (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?646694-Character-Death-Verisimilitude):



(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.

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?

Possibly, but not necessarily.  Virtually all dungeons are unmaintained underground tunnels, and parties often don't have anyone who is skilled in mining work.  If  a cave-in kills the entire party in a standard dungeon, I don't think it would mollify the players a lot if I told them "I secretly rolled Knowledge: Stonework defaults for all of you and no one got the DC 25 needed".  

Quote from: Exploderwizard;581366So 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.

I note that it was Opaopajr who first complained that a cave-in killing all the PCs would be a dick move.  I'm saying that it might be OK - but for some groups, both DM and players might be happier if the DM avoided events like that.  

From the DM side, I've seen a number of DMs thoroughly frustrated if my PC says something like "Heck, no, I'm not going in that dungeon.  It looks too dangerous, and we've got better odds in wilderness encounters." - thus spoiling the many hours of work they put in to write up the dungeon.  DMs often want the players to take on challenges presented.  To assure that, there may be an tacit agreement that the challenges presented will give the PCs a fair chance.

Wait, please let's not get lost in examples. I just wanted clarity upon "Life's Not Fair" and I gave my interpretation of that phrase being "impossible to prepare for and night-guaranteed instant death." Apparently that is not the definition, correct?

(Just for clarity I mean wholly Deus Ex Machina cave-in. As in analogous to the freak thunderbolt from a bright sun shiny day. A dangerous old unmaintained cave or dungeon I'd have descriptors of old wood joists looking rotten and unstable, or a path here or there caved-in with rubble. Something immediately obvious not requiring "dungeon-engineer science." Which would put it in the Fair Warning column, personally.)

So that's clearly not the meaning of "Life's Not Fair."

However, with your Air Elemental example, I'm still confused how is that not "Fair Warning"? Do you have your guardian elementals immediately behind a door waiting to go aggro full tilt, chasing people down even if they run out of range of the object being guarded? What happened to Encounter Distance and Reaction? What happen to guardianship locus? When the ogres set it off does the air elemental kill everything around it in the keep, like rats and mildew? It sounds like a really weird example to me.

Quote from: jibbajibba;581282Re 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.

Clipping because it's getting way too large... And now, wall of text!

A thought process where there's high level of civilization affecting surroundings isn't metagaming; it's being true to spheres of influence. Look at old TSR books where terrain encounter tables are altered by the distance from civilization. I'm currently perusing grey box FR books -- no maps, but a nice score from Half Priced books. Inside there were civilized, borderlands, wilderness columns to adjust encounter tables, giving a general distance for civilization's influence. It's really a great idea to maintain verisimilitude -- with mixed encounter probabilities within a given realm -- without creating that artificial WoW region design.

About ancient red dragons -- we'll just never know now will we. That's all up to setting. However, I easily give an ancient red dragon the "gravity well" to influence his surrounds just as much as a humanoid civilization. Whether that means towns or goblin warrens end up giving livestock tribute is dependent upon your setting. But that make more sense to me than an ancient wyrm regularly foraging in a wilderness -- regardless of how successful its hunts may be.

I still have trouble wrapping my head around the offering of the space alien Predator and criminal mastermind Baba Yaga being examples of guaranteed "Life's Not Fair" TPK.

About Predator, something that lethal there all the time, every time, and nothing gets out to tell the tale? Wouldn't the place around for miles upon miles then be total terra incognita, as in assumed to be super-duper lethal? Even the Predator movie had mythology about it from communities of "really low level npcs" that survived its hunting times. The movie also had two survivors at the end, one being assumed defenseless, and the creature did have a vision weakness. It wasn't a TPK. However something that lethal, native, and with a large sphere of influence wouldn't be 'oh here's the GM setting us a plot hook,' it'd have real NPC warnings of wild-eyed fear and any nearby people trying to decamp and move away. It'd leave a notable impact on the setting. Life with its farming and gathering firewood wouldn't just go on. There'd be, y'know, "Fair Warning" and stuff.

And criminal mastermind witch, conveniently attacked by goblins out of the blue (who say nothing of import during the raid), and host to a larder of some of the best ingestible poisons (colorless, odorless, tasteless), all ingested around the same time, all triggering within the same round (the best I can find from 2e is onset time 1-4 minutes, and is very rare 1520 gp a dose!), all working without a successful save, and rendering the party 100% helpless/dead? Well, shit I've had my time working with AD&D poisons and wished I could pull that coordination off. Firstly, my die rolls as a GM were never that awesome. Secondly, I find myself lucky to get the entire party to go to bed at the same time in an inn, let alone eat together at a table simultaneously and not start something. So let me say, kudos!?

Hey, maybe it's trivial in your experience to pull off these sorts of TPKs without Deus Ex Machina. However given how much description I give my players, and how they often start investigating further (or just getting into trouble) it's an impressive level of coordination to pull these off with no one the wiser. With that and random dice rolls getting in the way, this does sound pretty impressive to me.
:hatsoff:

If that's what "Life's Not Fair" means, where the players wander blind into the GM rolling up a Yahtzee, then yeah... I guess that's a form of GM metagaming I haven't had the fortune to partake of. Still doesn't sell me on why it's a relevant excuse to the topic's metagame issue, but is a curious bit of GM serendipity to ponder.

Quote from: Opaopajr;581457Clipping because it's getting way too large... And now, wall of text!

A thought process where there's high level of civilization affecting surroundings isn't metagaming; it's being true to spheres of influence. Look at old TSR books where terrain encounter tables are altered by the distance from civilization. I'm currently perusing grey box FR books -- no maps, but a nice score from Half Priced books. Inside there were civilized, borderlands, wilderness columns to adjust encounter tables, giving a general distance for civilization's influence. It's really a great idea to maintain verisimilitude -- with mixed encounter probabilities within a given realm -- without creating that artificial WoW region design.

About ancient red dragons -- we'll just never know now will we. That's all up to setting. However, I easily give an ancient red dragon the "gravity well" to influence his surrounds just as much as a humanoid civilization. Whether that means towns or goblin warrens end up giving livestock tribute is dependent upon your setting. But that make more sense to me than an ancient wyrm regularly foraging in a wilderness -- regardless of how successful its hunts may be.

I still have trouble wrapping my head around the offering of the space alien Predator and criminal mastermind Baba Yaga being examples of guaranteed "Life's Not Fair" TPK.

About Predator, something that lethal there all the time, every time, and nothing gets out to tell the tale? Wouldn't the place around for miles upon miles then be total terra incognita, as in assumed to be super-duper lethal? Even the Predator movie had mythology about it from communities of "really low level npcs" that survived its hunting times. The movie also had two survivors at the end, one being assumed defenseless, and the creature did have a vision weakness. It wasn't a TPK. However something that lethal, native, and with a large sphere of influence wouldn't be 'oh here's the GM setting us a plot hook,' it'd have real NPC warnings of wild-eyed fear and any nearby people trying to decamp and move away. It'd leave a notable impact on the setting. Life with its farming and gathering firewood wouldn't just go on. There'd be, y'know, "Fair Warning" and stuff.

And criminal mastermind witch, conveniently attacked by goblins out of the blue (who say nothing of import during the raid), and host to a larder of some of the best ingestible poisons (colorless, odorless, tasteless), all ingested around the same time, all triggering within the same round (the best I can find from 2e is onset time 1-4 minutes, and is very rare 1520 gp a dose!), all working without a successful save, and rendering the party 100% helpless/dead? Well, shit I've had my time working with AD&D poisons and wished I could pull that coordination off. Firstly, my die rolls as a GM were never that awesome. Secondly, I find myself lucky to get the entire party to go to bed at the same time in an inn, let alone eat together at a table simultaneously and not start something. So let me say, kudos!?

Hey, maybe it's trivial in your experience to pull off these sorts of TPKs without Deus Ex Machina. However given how much description I give my players, and how they often start investigating further (or just getting into trouble) it's an impressive level of coordination to pull these off with no one the wiser. With that and random dice rolls getting in the way, this does sound pretty impressive to me.
:hatsoff:

If that's what "Life's Not Fair" means, where the players wander blind into the GM rolling up a Yahtzee, then yeah... I guess that's a form of GM metagaming I haven't had the fortune to partake of. Still doesn't sell me on why it's a relevant excuse to the topic's metagame issue, but is a curious bit of GM serendipity to ponder.

In which case we have nothing to discuss I suspect.

I will say one thing. If we really are talking about top apex predators in a fantasy world and we are talking about a predator that eats people then putting it far away from the human population is a bit like saying lions ought to live a long way from wildebeasts.

The "Life's Not Fair" thing reminded me of this...so I thought I'd put it up for comment...
 
 (full thing is here...    http://www.allenvarney.com/rev_04a.html   )
 

QuoteROLEPLAYING REVIEWS (Sidebar):
 
AMBER DICELESS ROLEPLAYING: Thoughts at Non-Random
 
by Allen Varney
[Published as a sidebar to Lester Smith's review of Amber Diceless Roleplaying (Phage Press, 1992) in Dragon #182, June 1992]
My friend John Brunkhart tells about a 1989 game session at Iron Crown Enterprises. John, who had recently joined Customer Service at ICE, had played the Hero System for years but had never tried ICE's SPACE MASTER science-fiction RPG. An ICE hanger-on who ran a campaign invited John to sit in. He spent two hours generating a character and joined the veteran players (mostly fellow ICE employees) as a new adventure got underway.
For starters, the characters embarked on a space journey to the world where they would receive their mission. En route, their ship entered a dangerous asteroid belt. John rolled his character's Piloting skill and achieved a critical success. Like Han Solo, he sent the ship barreling flawlessly through the field. Except....
As I understand it, in SPACE MASTER there is an unmodified percentage chance that a ship in an asteroid field will hit something. The gamemaster rolled this chance, right out where everyone could see the dice: collision! Then he rolled the size of the surprise asteroid: about as big as the Moon, the way John tells it. Then he rolled for location: the drives. Then he rolled damage: maximum. Before the scenario had properly begun, the ship exploded, killing all aboard.
The gamemaster apologized but didn't retract the results. He wanted to keep the players' respect by respecting the dice. It worked, mostly. These guys played ICE games, after all, and they obeyed dice slavishly. "Yeah," they told each other, "that's probably what would really happen -- asteroid fields are dangerous --" But John, who had expected to take part in an adventure story, was baffled and apoplectic by turns.

Quote from: jibbajibba;581467I will say one thing. If we really are talking about top apex predators in a fantasy world and we are talking about a predator that eats people then putting it far away from the human population is a bit like saying lions ought to live a long way from wildebeasts.

So humans would just casually go about their business while there was something eating them on a regular basis?  Humans aren't wildebeasts.

Humans will gather in numbers, organize hunting parties, and kill whatever threatens them. If they are unable to kill it, then they will move. If the creature moves with them and remains unkillable then the humans will die out.

An intelligent predator, such as a dragon could terrorize a population by demanding regular sacrafices in exchange for leaving the general population alone but people in general don't ignore creatures just casually snacking on them.

I am very much interested in developing a great deal of attachment to my characters. That's essential for me to enjoy playing, since I play for Immersion, and having a deep intuitive connection to my PC is essential for me to do that.

So naturally, neither I nor my character want the character to die. We're both going to try to avoid being killed. However, my character also wants to be an adventurer (and his personal reasons for doing so are going to vary depending on who he is) and thus my character is more interested in engaging in risky behavior than I am, and when it's time to make that decision on risk, if Immersion has been achieved, his desires are going to win out over mine.

So naturally since I have this deep connection to my character and don't want them to die, I must not want a game where death is a risk, right? Wrong. Because that Immersion I need to achieve to enjoy the game depends on my being able to suspend disbelief and buy in to my character being a Real Person living in a Real Place. I need to see it as an alternate reality, not as a storybook.

So if it seems that I constantly miraculously escape death despite all logic and odds, then it stresses that disbelief, it shows the cracks, the strings pulling the puppets, the man behind the curtain. It makes the character and the game less real to me, and thus I am less engaged, and thus the game loses it's fun factor. The point of play has been ruined.

There also seems to be an assumption that if death is always a possibility that it must therefore always necessarily always happen. This is a false dichotomy. While my character is engaging in risky behavior, because he doesn't want to die, he's going to try to mitigate that risk as much as possible. In my experience, death in these kinds of games tends to be occasional, not constant.

I think the assumption is that because early Dungeon Modules were unbelievably lethal (i.e. Tomb of Horrors), that this is how the game was always played, and it wasn't. The thing about those dungeon modules is that they were, according to Old Geezer, designed for Tournament Play where a series of groups would run the same dungeon and the group that made it furthest from the entrance before being TPK'd would win. That's not typically how we played (however, I have seen an Actual Play of a group of total newbs running the Tomb of Horrors and managed to survive it successfully, so even something as nightmarishly lethal as that isn't a death sentence).

But yes, death does loom like a specter over engaging in combat or exploring ancient ruins. AS IT SHOULD. Combat should be potentially deadly: engaging in violence is a serious thing. Violence is dangerous, messy, and not something that should be done lightly. Which means that one should be motivated to find non-violent solutions unless you're really sure of victory... much like in real life (which is why I am baffled whenever someone claims Old School play results in "murderhobos": such people wouldn't survive long).

Life or death situations need to be life or death situations to seem real.

Now, obviously we'll never get a perfect simulation, no, and some metagame concerns are unavoidable. That's true. But to then say that since it can never be perfect, we should just accept all metagaming as being just as valid is a Perfect Solution Fallacy. It doesn't need to be perfect, but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and just resort to storygaming. It's ludicrous.

Quote from: jibbajibba;581467In which case we have nothing to discuss I suspect.

I will say one thing. If we really are talking about top apex predators in a fantasy world and we are talking about a predator that eats people then putting it far away from the human population is a bit like saying lions ought to live a long way from wildebeasts.

This assumes that the predator only eats humans, and has no other, more readily available food source where it's currently located.

Quote from: jhkim;581373From the DM side, I've seen a number of DMs thoroughly frustrated if my PC says something like "Heck, no, I'm not going in that dungeon.  It looks too dangerous, and we've got better odds in wilderness encounters." - thus spoiling the many hours of work they put in to write up the dungeon.  DMs often want the players to take on challenges presented.  To assure that, there may be an tacit agreement that the challenges presented will give the PCs a fair chance.

This goes contrary to sandbox play, however. The whole idea of a sandbox is the players have freedom to go wherever they like and do whatever they wish within the game world, exploring freely. So, as a GM, I never assume the players will go into the dungeon, or to the city, or to the wilderness. Those places may exist for them to explore, but if they decide instead to get on a ship and go across the sea leaving those things behind, then that's their choice.

Yes, GMs have to be more flexible in Sandbox play. But that's fine with me as a GM, I wouldn't have it any other way, since sandbox style play is all I am really interested in. I'm not about to start railroading people into adventures just because I think "hey dungeons are cool! I want them to go to this dungeon!"

That means that, as a GM for a sandbox, you either need to enjoy worldbuilding as an activity unto itself so your time isn't "wasted" or you need to use an established and well-fleshed out published world and be good at filling in the gaps more or less on the fly.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;581480This assumes that the predator only eats humans, and has no other, more readily available food source where it's currently located.

It depends on lots of things.  DMs can justify a lot when/if the need arises.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;581481This goes contrary to sandbox play, however. The whole idea of a sandbox is the players have freedom to go wherever they like and do whatever they wish within the game world, exploring freely. So, as a GM, I never assume the players will go into the dungeon, or to the city, or to the wilderness. Those places may exist for them to explore, but if they decide instead to get on a ship and go across the sea leaving those things behind, then that's their choice.

Yes, GMs have to be more flexible in Sandbox play. But that's fine with me as a GM, I wouldn't have it any other way, since sandbox style play is all I am really interested in. I'm not about to start railroading people into adventures just because I think "hey dungeons are cool! I want them to go to this dungeon!"

That means that, as a GM for a sandbox, you either need to enjoy worldbuilding as an activity unto itself so your time isn't "wasted" or you need to use an established and well-fleshed out published world and be good at filling in the gaps more or less on the fly.

One of the big gorillas in the room that no one seems to mention is that 1e's mechanics are more conducive in sandbox than later edition mechanics.

BSJ that story is pretty awesome. And illuminating to how two groups of people can come up with two very different interpretations of the results. However I believe the familiarity of ICE systems had a hand with how the veterans took in stride what left the new player agog.

Which does get back to Lord Vreeg's comment that setting will adjust to system at some point. If the system is gritty, GM rolling a Yahtzee! was within probability just by the crew choosing to go through the asteroid belt, and thus "Fair Warning." If the system is heroic, GM rolling the same would be considered in bad form, and thus a "Life's Not Fair." Poe-tay-toe, poe-tah-toe.

Quote from: Opaopajr;581493BSJ that story is pretty awesome. And illuminating to how two groups of people can come up with two very different interpretations of the results. However I believe the familiarity of ICE systems had a hand with how the veterans took in stride what left the new player agog.

Hell yeah. For folks used to tripping over invisible turtles when making move maneuvers, getting blown up in an asteroid field is pretty tame.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;581479Life or death situations need to be life or death situations to seem real.

Now, obviously we'll never get a perfect simulation, no, and some metagame concerns are unavoidable. That's true. But to then say that since it can never be perfect, we should just accept all metagaming as being just as valid is a Perfect Solution Fallacy. It doesn't need to be perfect, but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and just resort to storygaming. It's ludicrous.

OK, I'd agree with that.  Do you think anyone is arguing that we should accept all metagaming?  I haven't seen that claim so far, but maybe I missed something.  

Personally, I've been talking in the context of fairly standard D&D (or D&D-like) play.  All of the options I outlined ("Fair Fight", "Fair Warning", and "Life's Not Fair") are compatible with an actual-death, old-school game.  Fair Fight doesn't mean the PCs always win, and even if the PCs win they could take losses.  Fair fights might regularly kill PCs, especially if you're using a highly lethal system.  Now, Fair Fight and Fair Warning play do inherently have some metagame influence.  However, I don't think that my playing through a typical AD&D1 module designed for 4th - 6th level characters (which falls under Fair Fight) qualifies as storygaming.  

My biggest beef is that many people were claiming "the GM shouldn't make things fair for the players" - while simultaneously always citing examples of how when the PCs died it was their own fault.  If the GM doesn't metagame to make things fair, then things won't be fair.  The PCs will die sometimes not because they were stupid, but because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.  

Re: the PCs walking away from challenges

Quote from: Doctor Jest;581481This goes contrary to sandbox play, however. The whole idea of a sandbox is the players have freedom to go wherever they like and do whatever they wish within the game world, exploring freely. So, as a GM, I never assume the players will go into the dungeon, or to the city, or to the wilderness. Those places may exist for them to explore, but if they decide instead to get on a ship and go across the sea leaving those things behind, then that's their choice.

This might be true in abstract principle, but in practice many real GMs would still be annoyed if - after preparing a bunch of local material - the PCs decided to get on a ship and go across the sea.  That doesn't mean they'd switch from sandbox to railroading, but they would have some negative feelings.  So for many people, that is a drawback of the style - which should be weighed against the drawbacks of other styles like a not-quite-pure sandbox where the PCs make real choices, but there is some balancing and limits to the choices.

Quote from: MGuy;580925To 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.

But we can tap into the forces that do. Or at least, I can. But really, so could anyone else.

RPGPundit

Realistically, humanity would have never progressed from the small bands of hunter gatherers hiding in caves to full blown civilization if Earth's megafauna were gargantuan, flying, immortal, magic wielding geniuses as is the case in D&D.    

I don't think numbers even count for much given the historical distribution and total population of the Earth sans flying, immortal, genius behemoth's.  Fact of the matter is, it's not until way, way after humans tamed their environment and displaced (possibly by no act of their own) the considerably more mortal, vastly stupider fauna, that human population exploded, and it only did so due to advents of civilization, like farming, in the first place.

You'll never get to a point where you have lots of humans until you have a situation where you can feed them, and you'll never get to even late antiquity or medieval levels of population until you have a situation where society desires even marginally productive members live to adulthood and breed, because they are producing surplus.

Stupid, small predators were a serious problem for early pastoral peoples; insects, rodents, weather for agricultural.  Maybe if humans were an underdark species.  At least the Beholders might see some use in hands.  I don't know if these eyeless molemen could qualify as 'human' or having a 'civilization' as Beholder slaves though.

Quote from: jhkim;581508OK, I'd agree with that.  Do you think anyone is arguing that we should accept all metagaming?  I haven't seen that claim so far, but maybe I missed something.  

There seems to be some slippery sloping going on.

QuoteAll of the options I outlined ("Fair Fight", "Fair Warning", and "Life's Not Fair") are compatible with an actual-death, old-school game.

I don't really think any of them were really reflective of actual play, though. It sounds just like Armchair Theorizing to me.

 

QuoteHowever, I don't think that my playing through a typical AD&D1 module designed for 4th - 6th level characters (which falls under Fair Fight) qualifies as storygaming.  

Dungeon Modules were designed for Tournament play. They have no bearing whatsoever on old school sandboxing.

QuoteIf the GM doesn't metagame to make things fair, then things won't be fair.  The PCs will die sometimes not because they were stupid, but because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.  

Sometimes, yes. Much like real life.

QuoteThis might be true in abstract principle, but in practice many real GMs would still be annoyed if - after preparing a bunch of local material - the PCs decided to get on a ship and go across the sea.

Then that GM is either a newb or a moron, because any GM worthy of the title knows that trying to predict what players will do is like herding cats. It's simply bad GMing to do prep work that depends on a particular course of action by the players.

QuoteThat doesn't mean they'd switch from sandbox to railroading, but they would have some negative feelings.

Again, either newb or moron; experienced GMs don't expect PCs to dance to their tune.

QuoteSo for many people, that is a drawback of the style - which should be weighed against the drawbacks of other styles like a not-quite-pure sandbox where the PCs make real choices, but there is some balancing and limits to the choices.

A gilded cage is still a cage. Choices that are restricted to being between a sets of rails are no choices at all.

But Wolf, Richard, you forget: because elves! :p

Seriously though, trying to logically recreate a fantastic past (with magic!) that corresponds to our non-magical understanding of evolutionary development is a... monumental task of noble proportions.
;)

It also fixes what was by design the flexible foundation of the game: the GM's development of setting. An interesting personal exercise, but overall not something I find worth pursuing as a universal.

Or we could just say any ol' setting excuse to justify things. For example, the good metal dragons got bored and decided to tinker with servitor races, like humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, etc., just because they could. They wanted to see if they could create independent races. And evil chromatic dragons did likewise with their servitor races, like goblins, gnolls, kobolds, orcs, orges, etc., just because they hate letting the metal dragons have all the fun. But they still want servants. And thus Mythos invades D&D...
:)

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;581623Stupid, small predators were a serious problem for early pastoral peoples; insects, rodents, weather for agricultural.

But they didn't live in a world of magic and imminent gods who took an active interest in their lives.

The key thing to remember about a fantasy world is all the myths are true. There really ARE gods. They really DO mettle in the affairs of mortals. There IS magic. Magic ISN'T just science with the numbers filed off.

All the logic of an evolutionary past goes out the window when we recognize that science and evolution have fuckall do with gods and magic.

Quote from: RPGPundit;581615But we can tap into the forces that do. Or at least, I can. But really, so could anyone else.

RPGPundit

"I can call up spirits from the vasty deep."
"Well, so could I, or any other man, but will they come when you call for them?"

Quote from: Doctor Jest;581634The key thing to remember about a fantasy world is all the myths are true. There really ARE gods. They really DO mettle in the affairs of mortals. There IS magic. Magic ISN'T just science with the numbers filed off.

The elephant in the room is that if you're going to resort to A Wizard Did It for everything, then any claim to "emulation" or "verisimilitude" is just going to go out the window.  You can say anything at all, including that humans have red skin and lay eggs.  But at that point, you've unmoored yourself and your players from any ability to immerse in the setting, because anything could be true for any or no reason, and there's no way to make sensible in-world decisions about anything.

Having studied late antiquity and medieval economics and technology a fair bit, one thing that always makes me laugh is when old-school modules are held up to me as shining examples of immersive sandbox play, and the first thing I note upon reading them is "what do these people eat?"

I'm going to toss this abstract in here as food for thought; the bolded line is my one of my favorite quotes in a research paper ever.

QuoteAsiatic lions (Panthera leo persica) now occur in the wild only as a small population (about 250 animals) within a single reserve, the Gir forest in Gujarat state in western India. Persistent attacks by lions on humans hinder support among local peoples for lion conservation. We analyzed 193 attacks by lions on humans and conducted interviews with 73 villagers to identify the spatial, temporal, and social factors associated with lion-human conflict in the region. An average of 14.8 attacks by lions and 2.2 lion-caused deaths occurred annually between 1978 and 1991, and most attacks (82%) occurred on private lands outside the forest reserve. A drought in 1987-1988 precipititated an increase in rates of conflicts (from 7.3 to 40.0 attacks/year) and in the proportion of attacks that occurred outside the reserve (from 75% to 87%). The spatial pattern of lion attacks could not be distinguished from random before the drought, whereas attacks were clustered after the drought in village subdistricts with a higher ratio of revenue land to forest edge and those closer to sites where lions where lions were formerly baited for tourist shows. Subadult lions were involved in conflicts in disproportion to their relative abundance. A majority of villagers interviewed expressed hostile attitudes toward lions owing to the threat of personal injury and economic hardship (mainly livestock damage) posed by lions. The escalation in lion-human conflict following the drought probably resulted from a combination of increased aggressiveness in lions and a tendency for villagers to bring their surviving livestock into their dwellings. Dissatisfaction with the government's compensation system for lion-depredated livestock was reported widely. The current strategy for coping with problem lions--that is, returning them to areas in the Gir forest already saturated with lions--is inadequate, as indicated by the sharp increase in lion-human conflict since 1988. Prohibiting lion baiting for tourist shows, consolidation of reserve boundaries, and implementation of a more equitable and simpler system for compensating villagers for livestock destroyed by lions could provide short-term alleviation of lion-human conflict in the region. Long-term alleviation may entail reducing the lion population by relocating or culling lions.

Quote from: Opaopajr;581633But Wolf, Richard, you forget: because elves! :p

Yeah, I was actually thinking of Forgotten Realms while writing that, where the world was apparently ruled by dragons in the ancient past, but fully civilized, belligerent and numerous elves came to Faerun from another world and hunted them to near extinction facilitating a more naturalistic development of human(oids) in this world made safe for roughly elf-sized inhabitants.

Of course the "Elves are in Decline" trope in FR is complete handwaving, because elves are always in decline, which also is a prerequisite for humans as the dominant species.  It's also coincidentally lucky that elves tend to be good-aligned and xenophobic to allow other humanoid races to develop relatively free of interference.  

They could just as easily be evil and imperialistic, which gives you human "civilization" being Eloi to the elves Morloks instead of molemen beholder-slaves.  The development of elves on their secret homeworld is also completely ambiguous which is a kick the can explanation.

All in all though, very clever setting element.  It at least takes my Suspension -o-disbelief-o-meter into acceptable ranges, since I don't really need think so hard about how humans eat and breed and other science facts.

You also have divine homeostasis in FR (which is by contrast very lame) which explains why technology never develops, and various other handwaving of why things on Toril are a lot like they are on Earth despite the presence of so many alien elements to the tune of 'because the Gods will it so for no apparent raisin'.

I think once go that route there isn't any real reason to not just have anything.  Any game mechanic can be explained in character as God's will.  4HD monsters are divinely forbidden from inhabiting the 3rd level of any dungeon.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;581719Any game mechanic can be explained in character as God's will.  4HD monsters are divinely forbidden from inhabiting the 3rd level of any dungeon.

Amen

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;581719You also have divine homeostasis in FR (which is by contrast very lame) which explains why technology never develops, and various other handwaving of why things on Toril are a lot like they are on Earth despite the presence of so many alien elements to the tune of 'because the Gods will it so for no apparent raisin'.

I think once go that route there isn't any real reason to not just have anything.  Any game mechanic can be explained in character as God's will.  4HD monsters are divinely forbidden from inhabiting the 3rd level of any dungeon.

Meh, technology is gained and lost over time and often amazing ruins are left in its wake, just like Earth (in fact, it's probably the reason we incorporated that idea into our fantasy as a trope in the first place). That and most 2e settings I've read don't freeze technologically, they just deal with a very specific time range. Comparing our modern age of technological development , which for a 200 year time frame has been positively explosive, to other ages is rather unfair. Fits and starts, it all pans out in fits and starts.

And no, I don't divinely forbid 4HD monsters from inhabiting the 3rd level of any dungeon. ;) Perhaps there are GMs who do that, and perhaps 'divine will' is their reason. Wouldn't know about it. But that's their prerogative.

But it's also completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Not all GM considerations, be they setting or metagame structure, are made equal. And as has been pointed out already it's disingenuous to make "any = all" (or guilt by association) as the counter argument. Basically I keep seeing red herring -- Red herring (fallacy), the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. -- and I am running out of soda crackers.

I wasn't really making an argument, except that D&D/generic fantasy RPGs in general are far more about rule of cool than any 'organic' or 'realistic' concerns.

D&D has megalithic stone castles, and full plate, alongside magic that makes those castles basically indefensible, and Age of Sail tech right alongside 9c vikings in longships, and so forth and so on.

Ultimately I'm willing to suspend my disbelief enough for my love of big stone castles, vikings, 17th century pirates, wizards and dragons to all exist in the same setting, so long as I'm given something remotely plausible.

I'm not going to go about claiming that it's more than remotely plausible though, which is what I was stabbing at.

QuoteThat and most 2e settings I've read don't freeze technologically, they just deal with a very specific time range.

Like which ones?  Most of them cover either an impossibly long 'specific time range' like Forgotten Realms where there have been human civilizations for hundreds of thousands of years (and where gunpowder doesn't work by divine intervention but was backdoored in via the Prometheus-esque diety Gond as unreliable and insanely expensive 'smokepowder' which means the age of the gun will never come to Faerun until all it's God's are dead).

There is Ravenloft where the various demesne's are morphic and controlled by the Domain Lord (often unwittingly), and some places have technology (including electricity and electroshock therapy) while their 'neighbor' is smack dab in the middle of the dark ages.  (Although I don't really have a problem with the Horror Themepark that is Ravenloft for similar reasons that I don't have a problem with Pirates of the Caribbean existing side by side with Lion in Winter as it does in much of generic fantasy, but ultimately both are about 'rule of cool' rather than verisimilitude, simulationism, et cetera.)

How long has Athas been "Dark Sun"?  Dark Sun is probably one of the more plausible settings because the world is probably incapable of fostering high civilization due to desertification, and few places supporting large populations.   I'll give you Dark Sun.

IIRC Greyhawk is in a similar, but less egregious vein as FR.

Most fantasy settings have human history, much less demihuman history that spans the entirety of the existence of humanity as a species on the planet Earth and really none of them have had tech past the Italian Renaissance.

The only setting that I'm currently familiar with (and I'm far from familiar with even all the most popular ones, so you probably do have a specific example but I think it would be an outlier) that has a more 'realistic' timeframe is Golarion which IIRC might cover an absurd 20k years of "Human" history (counting the proto-human, Atlantean/Numenorian ripoffs).  Golarion also has much higher non-magical technology compared to most fantasy settings as well though.  

Even still, it's still got a lot of boilerplate fantasy (which I'm sure is intentional) like theme park civilizations with Knights in Shining Armor, Vikings, and Age of Sail (and arguably Golarion's guns and cannons fall into it's own theme park as well), as well as the impossible longevity of empires in unbroken lines which are  ubiquitous feature of generic fantasy.  Dynasties that lost 50 generations, or 500 instead of 3 or 5.

Also saying 'Anything is possible' is literally synonymous with saying 'All things are possible' so I don't see how any=/=all when it clearly does in this context.  I don't think that people are actually going to design their setting willy nilly and declare "A Wizard Did It" but they clearly are willing to do so as a justification for some things.  Although again I don't have much of a problem with it (if it's actually plausible like the Forgotten Realm's extra-terrestrial elves) but I'm not going to pass off my preference as being outside the 'rule of cool' arena and say it's more than a remotely plausible excuse to include things I like, make the game playable, humanocentric and thus immersive, et cetera.

That's mostly what I'm objecting to.  That these settings are "realistic" in any way.  Realistically, you can't transplant things from Earth relatively unaltered with the assumptions present in the D&D world.  The presence of elves, magic, and literal, in the flesh Gods only exacerbates the problem really, because you wind up with ersatz medieval Europe, with tacked on fantasy elements that really don't impact society in meaningful ways.

Quote from: Opaopajr;581763Meh, technology is gained and lost over time and often amazing ruins are left in its wake, just like Earth (in fact, it's probably the reason we incorporated that idea into our fantasy as a trope in the first place).

I remember the one time we killed a Red Dragon and got a +4 Defender sword and the blueprints for Hero of Alexandria's steam engine.

JG

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;581839I wasn't really making an argument, except that D&D/generic fantasy RPGs in general are far more about rule of cool than any 'organic' or 'realistic' concerns.

D&D has megalithic stone castles, and full plate, alongside magic that makes those castles basically indefensible, and Age of Sail tech right alongside 9c vikings in longships, and so forth and so on.

Ultimately I'm willing to suspend my disbelief enough for my love of big stone castles, vikings, 17th century pirates, wizards and dragons to all exist in the same setting, so long as I'm given something remotely plausible.

I'm not going to go about claiming that it's more than remotely plausible though, which is what I was stabbing at.

Yes, they really are about the rule of cool, aren't they. :cool:

But then with magic and direct divine intervention I wouldn't go further than remotely plausible myself either. Just logical enough from the framework that I understand about humanity. Which reflects the whole usage of spheres of influence, organized societies, etc.

And dude, arquebus is in the PHB. It's up to you to craft your setting with gunpowder. Someone who has FR Kara Tur will have to report whether black powder is available there. Birthright talks about black powder cannons and how it may arise in the setting, but also how its a GM consideration because of fundamental changes it will bring. I personally think the argument "OMG guns, everything must now change!" has been overblown about past ages. Crossbows and cannons likely had greater middle ages impact. I believe it'd take the advent of rifling and repeating rounds to leave unquestionable superiority, but whatever.

About which settings, I agree that several have an elasticity that you just have to let go your assumptions, embrace theirs, and enjoy the ride, like Planescape, Ravenloft, Spelljammer. They, like a delightful post-modern argument, make sense within their own framework -- because our assumed framework need not apply. And that's important, our framework can only be partially embraced in any setting not directly analogous to our world. So some settings just have a lot more fun discarding most of our framework and replacing it with another one.

By the way, Blacklore Elves from Hollow World have like automatons that mow their lawn, skyscrapers, hover cars, phasers, and fashionistas. It's a delightful tidbit of madness. But that's a world where regions are even more isolated, so you can have 'Egyptian empire' next to 'Aztecs with Dinosaurs!' except there's like this big impassable wall keeping them apart (cuz it's inside the known world of Mystara). They're a hoot; I totally need to do a D&D + Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure mashup with them.

True, many dynasties seem shorter than fantastical counterparts on first inspection. We also don't have resurrection as a spell, which conjures up frightful evil dynasties lasting centuries... But anyway I thought I'd give you a website about long dynasties on earth. Shortest among them is 790 years. Though several are placed BCE and questionably long, over half are CE and verifiable (in my non-Amer-Euro history emphasis, many here are verifiable for at least 1000+ years):

Socyberty: 10 Dynasties that Reigned the Longest in History (http://socyberty.com/history/10-dynasties-that-reigned-the-longest-in-history/)

And about 'any not equaling all', as noted above in the more elastic settings, you are giving up a portion of your understanding's framework and embracing an alternate world's premise. That's foundational. It has nothing to do with artificially funneling PCs through hoops and denying real meaning to their exploration choices. They are as mutually opposed concepts as a games' rules and playing field from its tournaments' rule structure and competitor field; one is the game, the other is the metagame.

One is you embrace the play premise or you don't. The other is you undermine the initial play premise offered and supplant it with a different game. (Edit: It sounds harsh, but it is a foundational question in my eye. RPG play premise assumes you believe RPGs are about player character choices in situ, playing a role, and not about story track completion, playing a storied battle track. Worries about having enough XP fed to you to level in order to complete the storied quest in sequence obviates what I feel is a crucial player decision element of RPGs. A railroad may be a fun game, but it's a radically different game from what RPGs initially offer as their premise (bad modules withstanding).)

Basically this topic asks obliquely: which game are you really playing?

As this is already a wall of text, I'll stop. I'll answer anything you feel I didn't get to yet. But thanks for this conversation. By the way, we share many pragmatic critiques on setting verisimilitude. And I find that such pragmatism is a useful skill to edit settings into something more palatable for my suspension of belief.

Mr. Wolf, doncha know that because elves are perfect, that of course they have to be dying, xenophopic, stupid lawful good?  Or even better be midnight black and even more stupid chaotic evil because of women and even more stupid stuff? 3/4e tried to fix it but the Drizzt FR fanboi's wouldn't have any of that logic crap. Hence we get politically correct Draconians ala Dragonborn.:)

Hell at least GURPS let's you choose your personal stupidity.

Serious question, should I be more offended that the ONLY elves that make sense are black?  So black to be an obvious racism thing or that women control things?  It isn't like several societies both modern and ancient weren't matricartical.....simple question.

Quote from: daniel_ream;581676The elephant in the room is that if you're going to resort to A Wizard Did It for everything, then any claim to "emulation" or "verisimilitude" is just going to go out the window.  

Bullshit. Humans lived for tens of thousands of years believing the way things worked was defined by the actions of supernatural beings and forces all around them and somehow didn't fail to find the world to be real.

Your being culturally myopic with a mechanistic post-renaissance world view.

Neither emulation or versilimitude require realism, Unless your trying to emulate reality.

The right answer to "how did something like this evolve???", if we're being immersive, is to respond "how the hell do you know what evolution is?"

QuoteYou can say anything at all, including that humans have red skin and lay eggs

Kinda like Barsoom?

QuoteBut at that point, you've unmoored yourself and your players from any ability to immerse in the setting, because anything could be true for any or no reason, and there's no way to make sensible in-world decisions about anything.

There's that slippery slope I mentioned a few posts up.

A world can be Magical and Mythical and still be internally consistent. Absolute realism isn't the only way to achieve versilimitude.

And not knowing how everything works is not the same as not knowing how anything works.

QuoteHaving studied late antiquity and medieval economics and technology a fair bit, one thing that always makes me laugh is when old-school modules are held up to me as shining examples of immersive sandbox play, and the first thing I note upon reading them is "what do these people eat?"

Sorry, who, exactly was holding up old school modules as being immersive sandbox play? I mean other than that guy over there made of straw?

Quote from: Opaopajr;581493Which does get back to Lord Vreeg's comment that setting will adjust to system at some point.

For me, it's just the opposite, the system adjusts to the setting -- but then I am a real believer in Rule 0 and in my Rule 0a (Setting needs trump the RAW every time.)

Quote from: RandallS;581926For me, it's just the opposite, the system adjusts to the setting -- but then I am a real believer in Rule 0 and in my Rule 0a (Setting needs trump the RAW every time.)

I agree entirely.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;581915The right answer to "how did something like this evolve???", if we're being immersive, is to respond "how the hell do you know what evolution is?"

You're making my point for me, although you don't realize it.

The game is not being played by paleolithic hominids; it's being played by mechanistic post-renaissance modern humans, a.k.a my friends on the other side of the table.

GMs and sourcebooks are a lousy interface to a fictional culture, and the players' ability to extrapolate from what little information they get from those is determined by how well they can apply what knowledge they already have abut human culture, history, and psychology.

The more bizarre, arbitrary and nonsensical elements are added to a setting, the more you're going to get assumption clash and the game bogging down as the players question the GM constantly on what is or is not true about the setting because they have no basis for judgment.

Quote from: daniel_ream;581944You're making my point for me, although you don't realize it.

The game is not being played by paleolithic hominids; it's being played by mechanistic post-renaissance modern humans, a.k.a my friends on the other side of the table.

But if you are playing paleolithic humans, then you need to understand how the world works in the eyes of a paleolithic human, not in the eyes of a 21st century human. Having a 21st century scientific explanation of how totem spirits work is rather pointless, since in the real world, they obviously don't. Being able to see e world through the eyes of the paleolithic human, in this case, is the challenge and goal of immersion here, so the only understanding you need is that the Paleolithic human has, so you can internalize and emulate it.

Demanding that you understand how evolutionary forces played out in Middle Earth is rather missing the point.

Don't forget most humans today still believe in supernatural beings or forces are at work in the world! Nealy half of Americans believe the story of Adam and Eve is literally true, that the first human was crafted by a supernatural being out of dust, and his mate fashioned out of his rib.

QuoteGMs and sourcebooks are a lousy interface to a fictional culture

Sourcebooks, true. GMs? No. Not if the GM is doing their job. BAD GMs are a poor interface to a fictional culture.

Quoteand the players' ability to extrapolate from what little information they get from those is determined by how well they can apply what knowledge they already have abut human culture, history, and psychology.

And yet those limitations don't lessen my ability to imagine what it would be like to live on Barsoom. Because we can also apply knowledge we already have about fictional worlds.

If someone announces they're running a game on Barsoom, I have a frame of reference for that which is fantastic and not at all based on the real world or real science, but would allow me to achieve emulation and versilimitude nonetheless.

So reality isn't what's needed, it's just a common frame of reference which can come from fictional sources just as it can from non-fictional ones.

QuoteThe more bizarre, arbitrary and nonsensical elements are added to a setting, the more you're going to get assumption clash and the game bogging down as the players question the GM constantly on what is or is not true about the setting because they have no basis for judgment.

The players do not need to know everything about the setting, only what their characters would know. It's not hard to establish those basic assumptions, particularly if source material is available that is similar. Historical accuracy and real world science can, potentially be source material in a certain kind of game, but do not need to be.

The premise that if a player doesn't have a perfect working knowledge of every aspect of biology, ecology, sociology, and particle physics of the game world, then it won't seem real leaves me to wonder how those people function in the real world where a large portion of the time a great number of things that happen will appear to a casual, normal, ordinary real world observer as bizarre, arbitrary, and nonsensical. So much so, as mentioned, a majority of humans STILL believe in supernatural forces at work in the world even today.

As for expectations, it's not difficult to level-set expectations with a simple discussion before play begins, along with a review of source material being emulated. It's only common sense that you'd do that. Avoiding expectation clash doesn't require that everything in a game world make real world sense, only that it be internally consistent and everyone shares the same frame of reference, which need not be reality-based.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;581956Sourcebooks, true. GMs? No. Not if the GM is doing their job. BAD GMs are a poor interface to a fictional culture.

Bullshit.  Even the most contrived Star-Trek style aliens with forehead ridges monolithic culture requires more to understand it than a good DM.  A DM may be able to communicate a few basic tenants easily in play, but not a richly detailed culture including language, art, fashion, cuisine, taboos, customs, beliefs, familial relations, etc.

For an outline of some aspects of 'culture', you can look at this lecture outline:
http://frank.mtsu.edu/~jbwallae/1010/lectur04.htm

Most DMs try to simplify the process.  They might say something like 'the Rohirim are like Vikings, but they ride horses instead of sail around in Long Boats'.  Even that simplistic explanation doesn't really do justice to the culture...  No, a good DM is not going to communicate the complexities of a foreign culture in anything like a comprehensive or 'effective' fashion in a normal game.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;581973Bullshit.  Even the most contrived Star-Trek style aliens with forehead ridges monolithic culture requires more to understand it than a good DM.  A DM may be able to communicate a few basic tenants easily in play, but not a richly detailed culture including language, art, fashion, cuisine, taboos, customs, beliefs, familial relations, etc.

Why can't they? Are they illiterate and mute?

QuoteMost DMs try to simplify the process.  They might say something like 'the Rohirim are like Vikings, but they ride horses instead of sail around in Long Boats'.  

That doesn't sound like a very good GM to me, if that's the totality offered for a sandbox game. For a one off that may be sufficient.

A good GM would definitely provide more depth and/or reference source material (no need to reinvent the wheel). A good player will pay attention to it.

Emulation requires that everyone involved do their homework.

QuoteEven that simplistic explanation doesn't really do justice to the culture...  No, a good DM is not going to communicate the complexities of a foreign culture in anything like a comprehensive or 'effective' fashion in a normal game.

Can you explain what precisely you mean by "do justice to a culture" in the context of having enough of a shared frame of reference for emulation and versilimitude for any given group? Because I think you're starting to have a different conversation than I am

The point  being discussed here wasnt the quality of a fictional culture created by a GM, but was that the game world doesn't have to function according to real world scientific principles. It can function according to magical or mythic principles, provided everyone has a shared frame of reference by which to understand the internal consistency of the setting and thus have level-set expectations.

Agree?

Because a culture is such a complex thing, that nothing short of direct experience can prepare you for all the nuances.  Do you know the Japanese are embarrassed if you ask them to be quiet?  If you were setting a game in Feudal Japan, where would that be on the list of 'setting details'?  That's the kind of thing that someone born in the culture would automatically know, but unless someone is 'told', they won't.  

When you say a player only needs to know what a 'paleolithic human' would know in order to play him, you're talking about a vast amount of knowledge that the player can't access without confirmation from the GM.  Does your player know the best place to find flint for making stone tools?  Do you know some good hunting spots?  What plants do you know are edible?  How abundant are they - what extra steps do you need to take to secure adequate nutrition each day?  

There's a huge amount of information that goes into operating in any society.  Now, a good DM can hit the highlights when they come up, but hitting all the details well in advance unless they have a comprehensive real-world example to use is such a monumental task as to be virtually impossible and not worth devoting too much game-time to - since most of the details of a culture aren't THAT important to enjoying the game in even the most detailed sandbox.

I think for the purposes of play, you just need to know some basic stuff to get into the culture. If you travel or spend any amount of time with people from different cultures that helps you think of the finer details. Big difference between realism and believability. I dont expect anyone at the table to have advanced degrees at anthropology. Nor do i expect to encounter that level of detail (though i think it is great if the gm does get into the deep cultural details of a setting provided he has the time and isnt a task master about it at the table).

Quote from: daniel_ream;581944GMs and sourcebooks are a lousy interface to a fictional culture, and the players' ability to extrapolate from what little information they get from those is determined by how well they can apply what knowledge they already have abut human culture, history, and psychology.

The more bizarre, arbitrary and nonsensical elements are added to a setting, the more you're going to get assumption clash and the game bogging down as the players question the GM constantly on what is or is not true about the setting because they have no basis for judgment.

+1

And I think game designs need to address this issue head on to be worth anything. As metagamey as some rules may be, they take the place of the missing information and intuitions a 'real' citizen of that fictional world would have.

It's like reading two different topics... There's a title and its stated argument, and then there's this other discussion on setting. At least someone could've made a separate topic for their separate discussion by now.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;582015+1

And I think game designs need to address this issue head on to be worth anything. As metagamey as some rules may be, they take the place of the missing information and intuitions a 'real' citizen of that fictional world would have.

Vreeg's First rule, People.
Match the sytem with the setting and game you want to play...becasue eventually, the gameand setting WILL match the system.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;582000Because a culture is such a complex thing, that nothing short of direct experience can prepare you for all the nuances.  Do you know the Japanese are embarrassed if you ask them to be quiet?  If you were setting a game in Feudal Japan, where would that be on the list of 'setting details'?  That's the kind of thing that someone born in the culture would automatically know, but unless someone is 'told', they won't.  

When you say a player only needs to know what a 'paleolithic human' would know in order to play him, you're talking about a vast amount of knowledge that the player can't access without confirmation from the GM.  Does your player know the best place to find flint for making stone tools?  Do you know some good hunting spots?  What plants do you know are edible?  How abundant are they - what extra steps do you need to take to secure adequate nutrition each day?  

There's a huge amount of information that goes into operating in any society.  Now, a good DM can hit the highlights when they come up, but hitting all the details well in advance unless they have a comprehensive real-world example to use is such a monumental task as to be virtually impossible and not worth devoting too much game-time to - since most of the details of a culture aren't THAT important to enjoying the game in even the most detailed sandbox.

This all day long. With Wolf and Dead banging on I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said. How things operate within a different society is really hard but you don't even have to go that far. It is extremely hard to even understand another person. Every degree of difference between you and another person pushes you farther and farther away from being able to understand them. Differences in race, gender, age, era, religions, culture, health, experiences, every single difference between us makes it harder for any one of us to be able to fathom what someone else does/think. This gets worse if we don't even know about them to begin with.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;581481That means that, as a GM for a sandbox, you either need to enjoy worldbuilding as an activity unto itself so your time isn't "wasted" or you need to use an established and well-fleshed out published world and be good at filling in the gaps more or less on the fly.

Managing a sandbox campaign that much different then other types of roleplaying campaigns because player just don't go in random directions, they pursue specific goals which allows you to stay a step ahead.

Also there is a larger world that has its own life both at the large and small end of things. Those events will impact what the players are trying to achieve. As well as being altered by the players do.

Finally running a sandbox on the fly isn't that tough of a chore. No harder than sitting down and keying up two levels of the Tomb of Al'kecor. It does require a different sort of preparation. The referee needs to develop a good "Bag of Stuff". Tables, notes, and memorized materials that can be used in a variety of combinations to create what the players are seeing and interacting at that moment.  It only seems harder because there isn't nearly forty years of published examples behind it.

Quote from: Sommerjon;581490One of the big gorillas in the room that no one seems to mention is that 1e's mechanics are more conducive in sandbox than later edition mechanics.

ANY RPG can be used for sandbox play by virtue of the fact they all focus on individual characters in a setting whose actions are adjudicated by a referee.

Where complexity and design comes into play is for the novice referee. The more detailed games require more to learn it would be hard to juggle learning both the sandbox style, create locales and detailed character and combat rules.

Older edition D&D has a virtue in that the dungeon is a very easy format to master for novices. Make a maze with room, number key each room, and write down what in each of them. The character starts at the entrance.

Quote from: jhkim;581508OK, I'd agree with that.  Do you think anyone is arguing that we should accept all metagaming?  I haven't seen that claim so far, but maybe I missed something.  

It seem to me there is a lot of confusion over what metagaming is in this thread. For me metagaming is a problem that occurs during actual play. Using out-of-game considerations in the playing of a character or adjudicating actions.

Metagaming doesn't applies once the session ends as nobody is playing the campaign. I don't know why Charles decided to play a fighter, maybe it was because he really wanted to hack stuff. Or maybe it because it played a dozen different types of spellcaster and he is tired of it. Or because a novice want to play a magic-user and Charles figure he will make a fighter to be his "bodyguard". Who knows. But if the player have their characters react to the what happening in the campaign as if they are really there, then it is all good. And the same is true of the referee.

Quote from: daniel_ream;581676You can say anything at all, including that humans have red skin and lay eggs.  

They do on Barsoom, I heard that John Carter fellow had himself a real hotties, a princess even.

Quote from: daniel_ream;581676The elephant in the room is that if you're going to resort to A Wizard Did It for everything, then any claim to "emulation" or "verisimilitude" is just going to go out the window.  You can say anything at all, including that humans have red skin and lay eggs.  But at that point, you've unmoored yourself and your players from any ability to immerse in the setting, because anything could be true for any or no reason, and there's no way to make sensible in-world decisions about anything.

You are not the first person to argue this nor the last. What you are missing is that there is realism and then there is "realism" like that found in comic-book superheroes, or in horror film i.e. genre realism.

"emulation" or verisimilitude" works just find with genre realism as long as that what everybody expects. In fact bring the rules of the genre realism can lead to a campaign that sucks as bad as the hard core realistic campaign that allow for impossible results to occur.

And it is a bit of an art because you can't always just extrapolate from the premises there are conventions that need to be followed to successfully emulate a genre. And just to make it merrier the referee is also translating something from one medium to another so that gets fun. For example many action films revolve around the exploit of a single individual while RPG nearly always involve a group of people.

Quote from: daniel_ream;581676Having studied late antiquity and medieval economics and technology a fair bit, one thing that always makes me laugh is when old-school modules are held up to me as shining examples of immersive sandbox play, and the first thing I note upon reading them is "what do these people eat?"

Again immersive sandbox play has nothing to do with realism. I could run a immersive sandbox with Champions as easily I could to with Harnmaster. Regardless of what the campaign focuses on, a key element of success is learning how to translate realism or genre convention into something that is playable and fun for RPGs.

And why people are talking about sandbox campaign and why they are interested in them is the fact so much that has been written and published is fairly linear. That players and referees like choice. It why alternatives to D&D exist and it is why now people are talking about alternatives to how adventures have been presented for the last thirty eight years.

Quote from: estar;582059ANY RPG can be used for sandbox play by virtue of the fact they all focus on individual characters in a setting whose actions are adjudicated by a referee.

Where complexity and design comes into play is for the novice referee. The more detailed games require more to learn it would be hard to juggle learning both the sandbox style, create locales and detailed character and combat rules.

Older edition D&D has a virtue in that the dungeon is a very easy format to master for novices. Make a maze with room, number key each room, and write down what in each of them. The character starts at the entrance.

I was talking about encounter distance and xoot

Quote from: daniel_ream;581944GMs and sourcebooks are a lousy interface to a fictional culture, and the players' ability to extrapolate from what little information they get from those is determined by how well they can apply what knowledge they already have abut human culture, history, and psychology.

The more bizarre, arbitrary and nonsensical elements are added to a setting, the more you're going to get assumption clash and the game bogging down as the players question the GM constantly on what is or is not true about the setting because they have no basis for judgment.

this has never been a major problem for me as a player. I seem to get what I need from sourcebooks and a good GM can convey what I need to know through a variety  of methods. Maybe we just have different expectations here. But to me a source book is a handy, straightforward way to get the basics of a setting. Where sourcebooks tend to be weak is the micro, street level scale scale (though I think that varies from book to book). If you use macro and micro history as a rough analogy, the core book offers a bit of a macro view in most cases and supplemental material (like the old TSR "so and so's guide to X" can offer more of a micro, street level view). Some books are able to mix the two. It is never going to be perfect enough to be 100% reaistic (but pretty much any source material out there will fall short in that respect). The advantage rpg sourcebooks have is they are written with the needs of gamers in mind so I find them quite useful. For me, what I am looking for is a setting that is believable. It doesn't have to be fully realistic. I find between a well designed source book, a competent GM and eager players, things tend to work out quite well.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;582107this has never been a major problem for me as a player. I seem to get what I need from sourcebooks and a good GM can convey what I need to know through a variety  of methods. Maybe we just have different expectations here. But to me a source book is a handy, straightforward way to get the basics of a setting. Where sourcebooks tend to be weak is the micro, street level scale scale (though I think that varies from book to book). If you use macro and micro history as a rough analogy, the core book offers a bit of a macro view in most cases and supplemental material (like the old TSR "so and so's guide to X" can offer more of a micro, street level view). Some books are able to mix the two. It is never going to be perfect enough to be 100% reaistic (but pretty much any source material out there will fall short in that respect). The advantage rpg sourcebooks have is they are written with the needs of gamers in mind so I find them quite useful. For me, what I am looking for is a setting that is believable. It doesn't have to be fully realistic. I find between a well designed source book, a competent GM and eager players, things tend to work out quite well.

+1

I fail to see the requirement that cultures being depicted in any form of entertainment (including RPGs) be 100% accurate.  In fact, I said the same thing back in that racism thread.

Unless the detail is necessary to meet the goals of the game, said detail is just dead weight.

Unless the goal of your RPG is a 100%-accurate cultural simulator, then I'm not at all sure what's being advocated.

For example, take the example of 'shh = embarrassed'.  What if I simply don't like that detail of real Japan and elect to omit it in my campaign?  How do you measure the impact of this choice?

Quote from: mcbobbo;582109+1

I fail to see the requirement that cultures being depicted in any form of entertainment (including RPGs) be 100% accurate.  In fact, I said the same thing back in that racism thread.

Unless the detail is necessary to meet the goals of the game, said detail is just dead weight.

Unless the goal of your RPG is a 100%-accurate cultural simulator, then I'm not at all sure what's being advocated.

For example, take the example of 'shh = embarrassed'.  What if I simply don't like that detail of real Japan and elect to omit it in my campaign?  How do you measure the impact of this choice?

What's being advocated is the idea that you can't ever have a 100% accurate anything. It's the notion that all the things you encounter at anybody's table is patently "inorganic" because we, as people, cannot match what happens in real life so the best we can do is arbitrate and attempt to go with what sounds plausible. No one is saying that not being able to do so is a particular problem but that we can't do it at all.

Quote from: MGuy;582115What's being advocated is the idea that you can't ever have a 100% accurate anything. It's the notion that all the things you encounter at anybody's table is patently "inorganic" because we, as people, cannot match what happens in real life so the best we can do is arbitrate and attempt to go with what sounds plausible. No one is saying that not being able to do so is a particular problem but that we can't do it at all.

Of course. But then the point is similar to impressionism. You create a tapestry made of blobs of color, and the imagination of the participants (people experiencing the painting, looking at it) does the rest, filling in the blanks, connecting the dots to imagine lines where there are none, and so on. It is not about "reality". It is about "verisimilitude", which is a word that literally means "the appearance of reality" (i.e. "verus" truth, and "similis" likeness, the likeness of truth).

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Claude_Monet%2C_Impression%2C_soleil_levant%2C_1872.jpg/780px-Claude_Monet%2C_Impression%2C_soleil_levant%2C_1872.jpg)

People who are unable or unwilling to let their imagination create an appearance of reality, are unable or unwilling to let their mind fill in the blanks and connect the dots so that there is a shared game world coming into being amongst the participants of the role playing game, are unable or unwilling to suspend their disbelief, are basically not playing a TRPG. They might be playing a type of board game, an elaborate miniatures skirmish wargame, some sort of verbal game of collaborative story telling, but they fail at one of the fundamentals of role playing games: playing within the worlds of their own imaginations.

Excellent illustration!

Quote from: MGuy;582115What's being advocated is the idea that you can't ever have a 100% accurate anything. It's the notion that all the things you encounter at anybody's table is patently "inorganic" because we, as people, cannot match what happens in real life so the best we can do is arbitrate and attempt to go with what sounds plausible. No one is saying that not being able to do so is a particular problem but that we can't do it at all.

No one is arguing for a simulation of real life. All people are calling for is believability and plausibility. The distinction between something that feels real and something that is real has been made multiple times. Just because 100% genuine realism is impossible that doesn't mean you drop all efforts at maintaining immersion or say anything goes. When peope say organic, i think all they mean is a setting that makes sense, has internal consistency, has some visible cause and effect and is believable. It is a question of what you prioritize when making decisions as a GM.

Quote from: estar;582128Excellent illustration!

It is Impression, Soleil Levant, by Claude Monet. I love that painting. :)

Quote from: Benoist;582135It is Impression, Soleil Levant, by Claude Monet. I love that painting. :)

+1, Ben.

I can't tell at this point what people are disagreeing about.  

It seems to me that a good example of Benoist's impressionism principle is deadDMwalking's example of saying "Rohirim are like Vikings, but they ride horses instead of sail around in Long Boats'."

Quote from: jhkim;582139I can't tell at this point what people are disagreeing about.  

It seems to me that a good example of Benoist's impressionism principle is deadDMwalking's example of saying "Rohirim are like Vikings, but they ride horses instead of sail around in Long Boats'."

It seems to me the disagreement basically goes like this:

Side A: "Suggested Encounters Per Day" work fine.
Side B: "We think Suggested Encounters Per Day feel fake, and do not mesh well with the notion of verisimilitude and world in motion. We're taking this lived-in, organic universe approach instead."
Side A: "Well your approach is not real at all, and can't recreate a world's reality 100%, so it's organic at 0% in any case (<-- notice the logical jump here from "the world reality isn't totally consistent" to "it doesn't happen at all ever"), so Suggested Encounters Per Day are just as good as anything."
Side B: "It's not about recreating a reality 100% for us. It's about creating an impression of realism, cf. impressionism, verisimilitude, suspension of disbelief. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=582118&postcount=349)"

That's what the disagreement comes down to, from my vantage point. My opinion is that just throwing one's arms in the air and claiming "well everything's fake in a role playing game so we might as well give up on that immersion thing and just use any mechanics" is like completely missing the point of role playing games. It's basically saying "the game is fake, so we might as well play it as the fake thing it is and not care about playing RPGs at all." It's a really wrong-headed argument to make, IMO.

Quote from: Benoist;582144That's what the disagreement comes down to, from my vantage point. .

That's what the disagreement always comes down to in these types of situations.

"What do you mean you don't like fighters being able to leap 100' across the battlefield, stunning all opponents in line of sight with a single attack.  You don't have a problem with magic users casting spells, and that's not real, so your verisimilitude is already gone."

Hell, if we go by that logic, then those players shouldn't have problems with machine gun toting giant rabbits in their D&D games.  We all make cut offs as to what we want in realism vs fantasy, so that above statement is fundamentally flawed.  Not that it will stop people from saying it.

Quote from: jhkim;582139I can't tell at this point what people are disagreeing about.  

It seems to me that a good example of Benoist's impressionism principle is deadDMwalking's example of saying "Rohirim are like Vikings, but they ride horses instead of sail around in Long Boats'."

The Rohirim are fantasy Anglo-Saxons who ride horse. But Anglo-Saxons are a step away from Vikings culture wise. So your analogy would get the players into the ballpark and probably better for the average player.

Quote from: Benoist;582144It's basically saying "the game is fake, so we might as well play it as the fake thing it is and not care about playing RPGs at all." It's a really wrong-headed argument to make, IMO.

I agree and will add that the Side A argument does not reflect how the majority of roleplayers think about their game.

I am not saying that most roleplayers are deep immersionists. My experience the average roleplayer is playing a reflection of themselves in a fantasy world. Their response to various situations is what they would do considering the past history of the campaign and the abilities they posses via their character.

Which is OK and works well for many including myself.

Quote from: Benoist;582118Of course. But then the point is similar to impressionism. You create a tapestry made of blobs of color, and the imagination of the participants (people experiencing the painting, looking at it) does the rest, filling in the blanks, connecting the dots to imagine lines where there are none, and so on. It is not about "reality". It is about "verisimilitude", which is a word that literally means "the appearance of reality" (i.e. "verus" truth, and "similis" likeness, the likeness of truth).

Right.  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.  The closer things are to 'real life' the more likely people are to be on the same page.  

So if you decide to start changing things from 'default expectations', you have to do more work to make those differences clear to the player - since they can't experience the world as vibrantly as their character would.  

What this tends to mean is that there's a lot of setting stuff that isn't necessarily logical, or even appropriate to the game world - it's informed by metagame concerns (and that's fine) but balancing real world expectations with game world physics (you know, where magic is real) tends to mean the world players explore is actually one that SHOULDN'T exist - but it is most convenient to provide an interesting game and players don't delve too far into the absurdity.  

For example, it's a trope to assume that underdark races survive on fungus.  It is also possible that the fungus converts a certain amount of 'invisible' radiation into 'food' through some kind of photsynthesis like process.  But even considering that, the biomass of the Underdarks' known inhabitants is too great for the known food.  As players we accept that 'they eat mushrooms' and don't dig much deeper - but if we did, we'd expose the world for what it is - a fantasy.  It's a peek behind the curtain that can damage the game.  So everyone tries to pretend that there's no curtain, and certainly there's nothing behind it - but if we're being honest, we all know that it's there and there's a reason you don't dig too deep.

Edit for Clarity -
Encounters per Day is a suggestion for how a DM builds a dungeon and an adventure location.  That's it.  Yes, it is a 'metagame concern', but so is most of what makes the world 'interesting' for players to explore.  Use it, don't use it, it doesn't matter.  But if you use it, use it for what it was meant to be.  It's not really different than having 'suggested random encounter tables by terrain'.  If you roll a 'blue dragon' where you hadn't specifically known that one lairs there (but you know that it is a suitable place for them to live) you have let metagame elements influence the game world.  That's fine.  And if you plan on having an average of four fights before the PCs will have a chance to rest safely, that's also fine - it makes the world feel more exciting (and if you do it right, it feels realistic.  If you do it wrong (ie, you've had four encounters, you can rest now) then it is immersion-breaking gamist bullshit.  You can use it without going that far.

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.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hkSDDnVxC14/TbYi1-YMUmI/AAAAAAAADKg/2TlDJl0f_Jo/s1600/badassbunnies.jpg)

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.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hkSDDnVxC14/TbYi1-YMUmI/AAAAAAAADKg/2TlDJl0f_Jo/s1600/badassbunnies.jpg)

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.

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?

Definately.
I would even suggest, that if both are not possible in that campaign, the gm is not doing it right.

Fun need not be linked to 'balance' or 'challenge' in battle.

However, I feel that when combat does occur, it can be quite satisfying to barely survive and steal victory from the jaws of death.

Quote from: MGuy;582194I'm going to assume you're trolling with this comment because it in no way makes any sense.

Which part?  I've read your reply a few times and I'm not clear.

Quote from: MGuy;582194The 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.

I'm sorry, but who ever said the bolded part at all?

I'm confident you can understand the difference between (ways) and (ways+1).  You could argue that it is moot, but that's not what you did in your post.  All I read here is your demonstrating that metagaming exists (which I readily concede), and then your strawman about "immunity".

It is horrible that you do not know why I thought your comment about 10ft polls not existing in 3e was trolling however I'm going to skip over the edition debate to respond to other part.

You suggest that the 4 encounters per day thing somehow effects spells, feats, items etc (without giving any examples as to how it does that). I'm saying that you cannot separate meta things from the game at all. Even something as fundamental as having a GM at all is something that can be "meta" and then I gave examples on how you could do it (because I like to back up assertions with supporting statements). The "point" was that you suggested it was a 3rd+ problem when that isn't true.

Quote from: MGuy;582226It is horrible that you do not know why I thought your comment about 10ft polls not existing in 3e was trolling however I'm going to skip over the edition debate to respond to other part.

It isn't 'edition debate' at all.  Somewhere in the evolution of the game, the necessity for a 10ft pole fell by the wayside.  No longer were DM's expected to make traps deadly enough that tripping them via pole was preferable to other methods of resolving them.  Or if not traps, pools of acid.  You get my meaning.  If you know of any 3e or newer adventure materials featuring such 'one mistake and you die' features, please do share, because I do not.

Quote from: MGuy;582226The "point" was that you suggested it was a 3rd+ problem when that isn't true.

That's close to true, but you're being overly sensitive to the edition comment.  Remember, 3rd is my favorite incarnation thus far.  But it can't be denied that the end of wandering monsters at night meant you blow all your spells on the last encounter of the day, or the fifteen minute adventuring day, or whatnot.  You didn't used to know that the fourth fight was going to be your last, but then the nature of the game changed.  You can decide that it changed during the late nineties and early 2000's if you'd like, but I'm going to shorthand that as '3e+'.

I am not claiming that all metagame intrusion is equivalent.  However, I do think we need to compare apples to apples.  

Players are always going to have some metagame expectations about what is going to be in a game.  For example, suppose you join in a D&D campaign that I and some friends are playing - and the game turns out to have zero combat and be completely focused around establishing a new temple in the face of mild social resistance.  This would be very surprising to you as a player, but it's just normal life for your character.  

Most players expect a certain kind of adventure - even though their character should not be surprised by just living an ordinary life.  It seems like some posters are saying that they have zero metagame expectations about the game, but I think they actually do have expectations - and these have to be out on the table to be able to compare.

Quote from: jhkim;582232It seems like some posters are saying that they have zero metagame expectations about the game, but I think they actually do have expectations - and these have to be out on the table to be able to compare.

Put it this way, in my opinion if anyone is going to be using the metagame, it should be the GM.  Any expectation that sets the player up for a perception of 'unfair' isn't one that should be encouraged.  So even in a '4/day' social contract, I'd expect a good GM to toss in more on some days and less on others, and I'd hope this was done in the best possible way for fun-having purposes.

But there are a lot of players who wouldn't like that.

E.g. if you put the 'big bad' in the second fight of the day, certain players will cry 'unfair' that they didn't know they should unload on him.

Quote from: jhkim;582232It seems like some posters are saying that they have zero metagame expectations about the game

Nobody on this thread ever said there's an expectation of having zero metagame whatsoever, or that the reality modelled by the game world should be 100% consistent at all times, which is in fact another spin on the same basic argument nobody here made.  

Stop excluding the middle. Stop arguing against something nobody said.

What HAS been said is summarized in that post. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=582144&postcount=355) What has been said is that some people here feel that an organic approach with a world in motion, random encounters and the like is more verisimilar, or more believable to them as they immerse in the game world, than the expectation that there'd be around 4 encounters per day.

THIS is what's been said.

Quote from: jhkim;582232Most players expect a certain kind of adventure - even though their character should not be surprised by just living an ordinary life.  It seems like some posters are saying that they have zero metagame expectations about the game, but I think they actually do have expectations - and these have to be out on the table to be able to compare.

I am certainly not suggesting this. It is more a matter of not wanting metagame elements to intrude in an obvious way into actual play. Some things are more of an issue than others. It is a matter of degree, appropriateness and quantity. Just because a certain amount of metagaming is inevitable it doesn't mean we have to accept it at every point in the adventure or keep heaping more of it onto the game. For me, x encounters per dag really stands out.

Quote from: mcbobbo;582229But it can't be denied that the end of wandering monsters at night meant you blow all your spells on the last encounter of the day, or the fifteen minute adventuring day, or whatnot.  You didn't used to know that the fourth fight was going to be your last, but then the nature of the game changed.  You can decide that it changed during the late nineties and early 2000's if you'd like, but I'm going to shorthand that as '3e+'.

The 'suggested encounters per day' is not a hard limit.  If the players do stupid things to provoke additional encounters (you know, like sleeping in the middle of the hallway without taking defensive measures) they will be attacked and they could be killed.  And the DM is playing the game the way it is suggested.  3.x players particularly like to believe that their actions matter.

If the DM is 'pulling punches' or not using monsters 'believably', that tends to bother these players.  

The fact that the DM designed the dungeon with guidelines around what the party should be expected to be able to do without getting completely annihilated in the first room or stomping over everything is good for the game.  A good GM does this anyway, regardless of the edition.  They choose 'sensible' monsters from a 'versimilitude' point of view, but they also consider the capabilities of the party.  If you have a choice between goblins and bugbears (ie, either one is equally sensible) you choose the one that poses a more interesting challenge to the party.  That could be 'too powerful' enemies or 'too weak' enemies some of the time (and the guidelines actually cover that), or it could be ones that are challenging but not impossible to overcome.  But if you have potentially an entire kingdom of enemies, you don't have them come at the PCs at once.  You include reasonable and believable reasons why they come in waves or groups - instantly overwhelming the PCs and getting a TPK is trivial for the DM - but not desireable.  

If you're using these guidelines as 'hard limits', you're not using them correctly.  To insist that they're bad when used incorrectly is silly.  If you use them, use them the way they're intended and then see if they work.  

They're a yardstick to help measure challenges before the PCs encounter them or running 'test simulations' in the DMs free time - they're 'back of the envelope' calculations to help the DM (particularly inexperienced DMs) pick good challenges.  Otherwise, you get the DM putting 1st level characters against the Tarrasque because 'that's cool'.  

Quote from: mcbobbo;582234So even in a '4/day' social contract, I'd expect a good GM to toss in more on some days and less on others, and I'd hope this was done in the best possible way for fun-having purposes.

But there are a lot of players who wouldn't like that.

If the players understand the rules, they'll understand that there will be more some days and fewer other days.  The PCs also can seek out 'extra' encounters (ie, push deeper into the dungeon than perhaps is wise) or try to avoid some encounters (withdrawing before clearing the 'first stage').  They will also understand that the DM has suggestions for throwing 'unwinnable' encounters and 'unloseable' fights - but that most of the time, the Players will have the most fun with 'reasonable challenges'.  A reasonable challenge can vary on a number of circumstances (discussed in the guidelines), but having guidelines is not, in itself, bad.  Nor does it 'automagically' require DMs to slavishly follow them (but note - if they did, they would have more encounters on some days and fewer on others), nor does it give PCs an expectation that they'll 'automagically' ditch additional encounters so they should 'blow their wad' on the 4th and 'final' fight - because the guidelines don't 'turn the monsters off' or put the PCs into 'invincible mode'.  The point of the guidelines is to make the DM aware 'in advance' when they might be putting more obstacles in the path of the PCs than they should 'generally' be expected to handle.  

Some DMs will make things tougher as a matter of course; some will make it easier.  But overall, most DMs will want to make things challenging for their group, and that's what the guidelines are there for.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;582238I am certainly not suggesting this. It is more a matter of not wanting metagame elements to intrude in an obvious way into actual play. Some things are more of an issue than others. It is a matter of degree, appropriateness and quantity. Just because a certain amount of metagaming is inevitable it doesn't mean we have to accept it at every point in the adventure or keep heaping more of it onto the game. For me, x encounters per day really stands out.

Can you say some about what your picture of "suggested encounters per day" is, and what makes it stand out?  


Personally, I see "suggested encounters per day" as working in the same way as Challenge Rating (CR) - which is really "suggested encounter strength".  CR is a metagame concept that implies what is a balanced match with the party, but the idea of balance with the party was already a common metagame concern - and CR is just an implementation of that.  

In the same way, I feel like encounters per day is already a metagame concept that is considered by many GMs.  For example, in several discussions regarding the "15 minute workday", old-school proponents said that if the GM was letting the PCs only encounter 1 monster a day, then that GM sucked and was stupid.

Quote from: jhkim;582232I am not claiming that all metagame intrusion is equivalent.  However, I do think we need to compare apples to apples.  

Players are always going to have some metagame expectations about what is going to be in a game.  For example, suppose you join in a D&D campaign that I and some friends are playing - and the game turns out to have zero combat and be completely focused around establishing a new temple in the face of mild social resistance.  This would be very surprising to you as a player, but it's just normal life for your character.

I agree! We should compare apples to apples. :)

And what you just described is the setting's 'premise'. It should be made manifest before the game is engaged. That's the GM's job; to inform the 'audience' of what to envision.

We could roleplay your character's time as an infant breast feeding. Or that one time he or she almost died from suffering explosive diarrhea. But a premise's point is to give you the viewer an idea of what to expect cognitively, and thus create verisimilitude of context all in your imagination.

(Edit: To explain further with the above example. The player is assuming the AD&D premise is X. The GM's setting's premise is Y (and may not even share the assumption that AD&D's premise is X!), but poorly communicated that his or her game is Y. Thus the player is left assuming their own AD&D premise being X and instead receiving Y. However, AD&D never stated their premise is only X; they said to listen to your GM to learn about your GM's setting's premise. *today I feel like 'apostrophes' :)*)

At this point I'd refer to Benoist's very timely and helpful explanation with Monet's "Impression, Soleil Levant." The title serves to provide premise to the viewer. The viewer then uses assumed premise's contexts (i.e. form, tropes, etc.) to suspend their disbelief and see an image out of 'mere blots of pigment'.

Encounters Per Day doesn't have a premise context embedded into setting. It can have a premise context embedded into game. But then that has the disconnect of game context interfering, and superseding, setting context... also known as metagaming. Thus leading to some players who play the game alone -- and not play in the setting through the game -- to go "LOL, Lore..." as setting doesn't take precedence, it merely is a disposable background like on a green screen.

Quote from: jhkim;582303Personally, I see "suggested encounters per day" as working in the same way as Challenge Rating (CR) - which is really "suggested encounter strength".  CR is a metagame concept that implies what is a balanced match with the party, but the idea of balance with the party was already a common metagame concern - and CR is just an implementation of that.  

To me encounters per day is more problematic (though CR has its own issues) because it sets the expectation of having roughly four encounters per day. To me this should be entirely dependant on where the players are and what they are doing. Not some rule of thumb that they should expect four encounters per day. It is very similar in my mind to how they started encouraging Gms to structure adventures around encounters with a certainnnumber equalling the party, some below them and some above. When it becomes apparent to me as a player that the Gm is doing this sort of stuff (and the later is very obvious) it pulls me out. As a Gm I just always hated this sort of advice.

Quote from: jhkim;582303In the same way, I feel like encounters per day is already a metagame concept that is considered by many GMs.  For example, in several discussions regarding the "15 minute workday", old-school proponents said that if the GM was letting the PCs only encounter 1 monster a day, then that GM sucked and was stupid.

it is true this has come up in that discussion, but peope in those instances are normally talking about the difficulty of avoiding multipleencunters mid adventure. For example storming the evil wizard's tower, then fleeing to a cave to rest after you run out of big spells. People are really just saying that in a believable setting with believable npcs that isharder to do because the wizard sendshis minions after you, he regroups and builds up his defenses, etc. Things dont come to a halt just because the pcs decided to rest. So i see this really more as trying to connect enciunters to what pcs are doing.

Bear in mind, i am not knocking your style if it includes stuff like cr and encounters per day, i simpy find it doesn't work for me. I just fund I was on a very different page from the folksat wotc and paizo when i started noticing thissort of stuff. As i mentioned the notion of building an adventure around encounters was the real thing that brought this problem into focus for me (and that really seemed to be the working assumption of so much 3E and d20 stuff). Even the third party Ravenloft for d20 advised structuring adventures around encounters (and demonstrated how to do so using different levels of cr and pacing for "maximum horror". To me that isnt how i want to run ravenloft or any game of D&D.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;582146That's what the disagreement always comes down to in these types of situations.

"What do you mean you don't like fighters being able to leap 100' across the battlefield, stunning all opponents in line of sight with a single attack.  You don't have a problem with magic users casting spells, and that's not real, so your verisimilitude is already gone."

Hell, if we go by that logic, then those players shouldn't have problems with machine gun toting giant rabbits in their D&D games.  We all make cut offs as to what we want in realism vs fantasy, so that above statement is fundamentally flawed.  Not that it will stop people from saying it.

It really depends upon setting expectations.  In Exalted the fighters are expected to jump across the battlefield and stun everyone in range with a single attack, whereas spells are wider-scale but not "combat cast".  That's a deliberate attempt to simulate the wild-ass combat heroics of Eastern and Celtic myth, whereas D&D is "just like the medieval period, but with magic"- so Fighters aren't expected to defy reality, but Magic-Users and Clerics are.

Which says nothing about the giant rabbits with machine guns, but if those are plausible in a game, what isn't?

JG

I have not ever used challenge ratings or encounters per day.

So I am biased against them, and do not see the need.





When I first started dming basic dnd 30+ years ago, I did place level 2 monsters on the 2nd level of a dungeon. That's kinda like using CR.

But I stopped doing that early on.


Once you have experience running games I don't think CR/encounters per day have any use.

This is probably the only time I'll ever agree with you, so enjoy it while it lasts.

Encounters per day is a funny thing. If the party is some mix of Fighters and Rogues they can only take 1 or 2, if that. If they are some mix of Clerics/Druids/Sorcerers/Wizards they can handle at least 5-10 times that number.

In neither case is "4", or any specific set number the right answer.

However many encounters the party hits depends on what they are doing. On any given day this could be 0, 1, 2, 4, 10, 15...

If you assault an enemy base and take too long to kill everything and get out you end up fighting the whole goddamned base at the same time.

If there's a Great Wyrm over here and you go over there, boom Great Wyrm.

Ultimately it all comes down to your ability to pick fights, take ones you can handle then leave and recharge so you can survive and repeat this process.

The problem with this is that not all parties can manage this. Sometimes you've had enough, you go to leave and another encounter takes objection to that. And either you have some ability to say "nope, really leaving now bye" or you just fucking die because you are out of resources.

The enemies track you back to your camp and either you have some ability to say "nope, we don't all get ganked in our sleep, bye" or you all get ganked in your sleep (and before anyone says anything about watches, it's beyond trivial for any intelligent foe to neutralize those first).

The thing about intelligent foes (in any encounter numbers) is that only a few types of parties can actually deal with them. Start adding in lots of them and the bodies will start piling up.

Quick, hide behind the dead Rogues!

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;582316Bear in mind, i am not knocking your style if it includes stuff like cr and encounters per day, i simpy find it doesn't work for me. I just fund I was on a very different page from the folks at wotc and paizo when i started noticing this sort of stuff.

No problem. It's hard for me to tell how much actual difference we're talking about here. i.e. If you were to play in a game of mine, I don't put in any illogical crazy monster-throwing. I disliked the trend in both AD&D1 and later editions to have dungeons with vast gaping logic holes like "what do they eat" or "why are they there". However, I have not moved to the extreme of only working from what would logically be living there for the world. At least for D&D, I still plan an adventure, and I take into account things like how tough, interesting, and fun it will be for the players.

(Re: arguments that GMs who allow PCs to have only 1-2 encounters per day are bad)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;582316it is true this has come up in that discussion, but peope in those instances are normally talking about the difficulty of avoiding multipleencunters mid adventure. For example storming the evil wizard's tower, then fleeing to a cave to rest after you run out of big spells. People are really just saying that in a believable setting with believable npcs that isharder to do because the wizard sendshis minions after you, he regroups and builds up his defenses, etc. Things dont come to a halt just because the pcs decided to rest. So i see this really more as trying to connect enciunters to what pcs are doing.

This is an example of the trend I was talking about. Here you're rejecting the idea that there is any metagame agenda or considerations - suggesting that the reaction was purely about world logic.

I keep hearing a series of these that makes it seem like you're working from purely world logic with no influence from what you think would make for a good adventure. However, I feel like this might not actually represent our true difference in styles.

Quote from: Bill;582386When I first started dming basic dnd 30+ years ago, I did place level 2 monsters on the 2nd level of a dungeon. That's kinda like using CR.

But I stopped doing that early on.

That reminds me of a basic D&D dungeon I was designing when it dawned on me that this didn't make much sense.  I think it was a werewolf that made me go, 'hey, wait a minute, what would HE be doing down here?'

Good memories...

Quote from: Mr. GC;582428This is probably the only time I'll ever agree with you, so enjoy it while it lasts.

I'm so deeply baffled by this as a first post, as well as the lack of who the "you" is that should be "enjoying it", that I honestly can't come up with a decent Gary Coleman joke...

Whatchutalkinbout, Willis?

Quote from: mcbobbo;582461I'm so deeply baffled by this as a first post, as well as the lack of who the "you" is that should be "enjoying it", that I honestly can't come up with a decent Gary Coleman joke...

Whatchutalkinbout, Willis?

It's very simple. I don't agree with most of what is said here. I do agree with this.

Quote from: mcbobbo;582458That reminds me of a basic D&D dungeon I was designing when it dawned on me that this didn't make much sense.  I think it was a werewolf that made me go, 'hey, wait a minute, what would HE be doing down here?'

Good memories...

You mean monsters are  not in suspended animation until a PC opens a door? :)

Quote from: jhkim;582456What the heck?!?  Below is not what I wrote.  This was marked as "Last edited by BedrockBrendan; Today at 10:58 AM."  Brendan - it looks like you edited my post instead of replying.  

Sorry about that Jhkim. My account was updated to make me a mod earlier today and I wasn't aware of the edit feature. I thought I was replying and was actually editing your post. My appologies.

Quote from: jhkim;582456No problem. It's hard for me to tell how much actual difference we're talking about here. i.e. If you were to play in a game of mine, I don't put in any illogical crazy monster-throwing. I disliked the trend in both AD&D1 and later editions to have dungeons with vast gaping logic holes like "what do they eat" or "why are they there". However, I have not moved to the extreme of only working from what would logically be living there for the world. At least for D&D, I still plan an adventure, and I take into account things like how tough, interesting, and fun it will be for the players.

(Re: arguments that GMs who allow PCs to have only 1-2 encounters per day are bad)



This is an example of the trend I was talking about. Here you're rejecting the idea that there is any metagame agenda or considerations - suggesting that the reaction was purely about world logic.

I keep hearing a series of these that makes it seem like you're working from purely world logic with no influence from what you think would make for a good adventure. However, I feel like this might not actually represent our true difference in styles.

I find what is logical outgrowth of setting and events tends to be fun(at least for me). I really like giving the players freedom to explore a reactive and believable scenario. Metagame considerations will be a factor, they just are not a priority for me. I would say my adventures tend not to feel contrived and I dont do thinks like plan out set pieces or make decisions based on what would be most exciting at the moment. If an encounter occurs it is chance, situational or a product of recent events. That works for me but it does produce pacing that doesn't appeal to everyone. Also this is a generalization of even my own style, setting and system can impact that as can the group of players at my table

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.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hkSDDnVxC14/TbYi1-YMUmI/AAAAAAAADKg/2TlDJl0f_Jo/s1600/badassbunnies.jpg)

Good call.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;582477Sorry about that Jhkim. My account was updated to make me a mod earlier today and I wasn't aware of the edit feature. I thought I was replying and was actually editing your post. My appologies.

LOL, 5 minutes on the job and he's already going to be accused of running rampant with abuse of power!

RPGPundit