I will admit that early on (30+ years ago) I designed my campaign setting around the PCs specifically. Not only did I attempt to create 'goldilocks' encounters but also presented situations and setting detail with the PCs in mind, catering to their interests and personalities.
As the years went by I found myself deviating from this habit and spending more time and energy designing my world independent of the PCs. The world was there first, they were then born into and began adventuring within it.
This of course created regular situations wherein the players became involved in situations far above their ability. Their ability to determine when to attempt something and when to avoid it became a pretty important part of the game.
(Castle Bloodskull has remained a menace for generations. Dozens of brave adventurers and heroes of the realm have entered and few have ever returned. Youve heard the rumors, are you and your fellow 2nd level adventurers really planning on going there?)
Ive always felt this is the most, for lack of a better term, realistic way to run a campaign as in reality the world doesnt scale itself around certain individuals. There are threats all around us that we simply dont have the skill to manage. (Like crossing the tracks on Friday night in my home city)
This practice has been criticized by some however as they seem to feel that the whole intent of the game is to challenge and reward the players. Anything that doesnt fit them is pretty much a waste of time and energy.
Thoughts?
(Castle Bloodskull has remained a menace for generations. Dozens of brave adventurers and heroes of the realm have entered and few have ever returned. Youve heard the rumors, are you and your fellow 2nd level adventurers really planning on going there?)
Thoughts?
If this is the case, players/characters need better tools to evaluate threats with. If your world is full of 20th level wizards who are slumming around looking like homeless beggars, barkeeps who are former MMA champions, and killer rabbits expect your players to become paranoid quickly.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This practice has been criticized by some however as they seem to feel that the whole intent of the game is to challenge and reward the players. Anything that doesnt fit them is pretty much a waste of time and energy.
I think anyone that subscribes to that belief is narrow minded and short sighted.
A game world should be a living, breathing, vibrant thing that encompasses what the players do and beyond. The players should be heroes in the world, but not always THE heroes in the world. There should be a feel of a greater world out there as the characters explore and grow and experience, and it loses the foundation of realism that makes the fantasy fantastic if the world simply is a series of things designed to cater to the characters and their abilities.
The advantage to this sort of method, is that it creates a world with a strong sense of internal reality to it. The verisimilitude increases when the world seems to have a life of its own. It also gives players the opportunity to deal with the world on their own terms often allowing it to fit them better than a world designed for them to fit in. This may sound counter-intuitive but I think it's true. If you build an exotic weirdo who doesn't fit in, then being in a world where everything is built to fit you makes you feel like you're just Joe Generic and you don't get to be the individual you designed.
If this is the case, players/characters need better tools to evaluate threats with. If your world is full of 20th level wizards who are slumming around looking like homeless beggars, barkeeps who are former MMA champions, and killer rabbits expect your players to become paranoid quickly.
Thanks for listing all my pet hate 'gotchas' from annoying GM's who think the above is clever/funny :p
|
I love the concept and I love the idea that there is real danger in a world that could consume the PCs very easily.
If PCs are aware of these dangerous places like Castle Bloodskull they know to stay away from them. I like the idea of players needing to carefully enter a place instead of just kicking in the door.
SlimGauge has the nut of the problem though. Do the players/characters have the tools needed to evaluate threats. I could easily see a party kill the low level minions guarding the door and then quickly get over their head.
Another problem presents itself which is how do the players know if their characters are ready for something? It would get rather tiresome running out of various ominous locations because the threat is too high.
Good stuff guys, thanks for responding.
I know I tend to design my world based on what I consider logic rather than any notion of "fairness". I just finished fleshing out Ridonport in Taldor for example and the Constable's men there (the tax collector and cohorts) are mostly Level 3 or 4 warriors. Makes sense to me as they should heads and tails above the typical citizen in order to create the threat they present. The PCs in the game are brand new Level 1s though, so any encounter with these guys is going to be dicey at best.
Some of you do present a good point though that as this approach is a little unconventional, I should probably warn the players, otherwise their assumption might well be that any 'possible' encounter is planned and their 'jumping in' assumed as well.
I have tried to make sure I give a serious description when such dangers are encountered, then allow the players to proceed as they see fit.
"The Constable demands a steep visitor's tax and has 6 very capable and eager looking thugs standing by to take it if its not offered willingly. These guys look like they can handle themselves, they arent your typical town ruffians but men recruited and trained to deal with strangers like yourselves."
I agree with karkon. If you let the PCs know at the beginning that this campaign world is not neatly scaled to their abilities, and may contain dangers that a truly deadly, one would hope that they have the sense to apply to knowledge to their gameplay.
From the perspective of both a GM and an PC, I think I would prefer to play in a world that is more static. When every challenge is conveniently within the party's CR range, I think the game begins to feel like a slog through a list of Monsters X, Y, and Z more than a dynamic adventure within a fantastical world.
Not to mention that if you consider the effect your traveling characters have on a world regularly leveled to fit them, it becomes a bit rediculous.
In this town the guards are level 1, in this town they are level 4 and in this small village, where the 10th level characters ran into trouble, they are 6th!
A bit of variation is fine but it looks kind of odd overall.
|
|
Any world where PCs can go within a few months to level 10 or higher throws logic and reason in the fire IMO. Which is why I rate fun higher than either logic or even balance.
If you find fun in your world it is a good thing. Just don't forget to include fun for your players too ;-)
After all, this level 5 sergeant who looked so dangerous when I was level 2 (that was less than 4 months ago in RotRL game time), will be quite easy to humiliate when I visit Magnimar next time after reaching level 12 :-)))
I think it is more realistic for the world to not adapt to the PC's. But specific campaigns thT fit in your gameworld can still be level specific. As an example objective A cabbe made for a level 5 party but if they decide to go into the cave of _______ knowing the there is some CR 20 monster with CR 8 minions as a minimum that is on them.
What's a goldilocks encounter?
I believe copious amounts of porridge are involved.
|
|
My opinion is that the adventure you present to your players should be a challenge appropriate to their level. I have played a few games where the GM used to have big bad NPC's turn up just to lord it over the PC's. That's just bad GMing IMO. No one cares about your pet NPC's because the story should be about your PC's.
That said to create a world where everything exists at the level of the PC's is a bit weird. In Golarion terms if a first level character wants to stride into the Worldwound or Gallowspire then he should encounter enemies that turn him into goo.
I think the point is that it's a GM's job to find IC ways to encourage players towards the challenges appropriate to their level whilst discouraging them from blundering into the obvious dodgy places.
I hesitate to say this because I know it's not for everyone…but honestly, all of this is why I like E6-type game worlds. If the town sheriff is a level 5 warrior, your 1st level PCs would be wise to respect him, but he's not going the the "big bad NPC to lord over the PCs." When the PCs reach level 6 (or whatever you go to), those level 2 watchmen pose little threat, but it's not a laughable disparity. Sorry for the tangent. Just sayin'...
"Goldilocks Encounter" - not to easy, not to hard but JUSSSSSST right.
I remember reading once that a typical person in the middle ages wouldn't travel more than 30 miles from their home in their entire life. So when I create my world I start with a extremely narrow view of the world. As the players get higher I expand their importance and world view. By the time they get to level 8 (or so) They have a good idea of their capabilities and they start seeing and hearing things above their level. But I agree though if you create a dungeon where none may enter, The players will take it as a challenge. I've lost many characters because the gm would put a boss way above our levels and it really does suck the fun out of it when you stood no chance. (sorry if this is a ramble just got up)
I've always wondered about those published adventures that say "Something is killing the citizens of Timbuktu. The citizens think it coming out of the Caves of Horror Rock. No one has ever returned from exploring those caves. Can the PCs stop the horror, or will it expand and destry the world?" This is an adventure for 4 PCs of 1st to 3rd levels. And reading through the module you find out the BBEG is a 4 HD Zombie.
In a campaign I ran, the first thing "adventure" was to escort an elderly priest to his home town for him to retire to. They were attacked by bandits along the way, and got some loot, they sold. Later in the campaign when they were faced with a fight they didn't think they could win, they called upon some militia. With the militia's help (guarding the Wizard and shooting their bows) they were successful, and surprised me by splitting the loot equally (one share for each militiaman and PC, I was expecting one share for the militia and one for each PC).
Exactly Vod, one would think that the typical military, town guard, hunters and the like are of sufficient level to keep the world from crumbling into chaos without heroes day to day. Your typical 1st level characters are novices, or at least it seems to me, and they shouldnt be expected to take on challenges that the mainstay authorities gear up for. (bandit kings, undead infestations and the like)
One almost has to invent a reason why they are expected to deal with it when those far more capable, well equipped, supported etc. are not.
I know, its an issue of Logic, and as such has no place in a fantasy game but Ive always found my players appreciate a certain 'sense' in the game. I try to provide it, although granted sometimes it makes thigs a bit more complicated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This practice has been criticized by some however as they seem to feel that the whole intent of the game is to challenge and reward the players. Anything that doesnt fit them is pretty much a waste of time and energy.
I agree with this, in general, though I'd say the intent of the game is to have fun. It's simply unfair to pit the PCs against something they can't possibly handle. Yeah, that's 'logical', but it's neither fun nor particularly genre-appropriate. When Protagonists in fiction run into something blatantly out of their league, it doesn't just squish them, movie/book over.
When that happens in genre fiction, it's typically just a plot point or some sort; someone to give exposition, or make a deal with the PCs, and stuff like that. As such, it's a noncombat encounter ('skill challenge', if you wish), and I treat it as such. No initiative rolled, no attack rolls, nothing of the sort. If the PCs do decide to attack, it's dealt with narratively.
Exactly Vod, one would think that the typical military, town guard, hunters and the like are of sufficient level to keep the world from crumbling into chaos without heroes day to day. Your typical 1st level characters are novices, or at least it seems to me, and they shouldnt be expected to take on challenges that the mainstay authorities gear up for. (bandit kings, undead infestations and the like)
One almost has to invent a reason why they are expected to deal with it when those far more capable, well equipped, supported etc. are not.
I know, its an issue of Logic, and as such has no place in a fantasy game but Ive always found my players appreciate a certain 'sense' in the game. I try to provide it, although granted sometimes it makes thigs a bit more complicated.
The players don't get involved during day to day stuff, but when something out of the ordinary happen. There are also plenty of reasons for the authorities to use the PCS instead of dealing with it themselves.
The PROBLEM could have "negated" many of the powerful citizen, the npcs need to stay behind to, guard, rule, or etc. And the PC are expendable to the town-folk . Here are strangers who have chosen to do this kind of stuff for a living.The idea is that the GM provides the reason. If want to maintain the idea that the world exist out the character that is easily done. Have the PCs here about other peoples exploits. Also have the NPCS help the PC by dealing with a separate piece of the puzzle. ex. The PCs enter the ruins to kill the Zombie king, while and Captain of the Guard leads the defense of the town and the priest and wizard are busy doing a ritual to counteract the aura of death in the Ruins.
Exactly Vod, one would think that the typical military, town guard, hunters and the like are of sufficient level to keep the world from crumbling into chaos without heroes day to day. Your typical 1st level characters are novices, or at least it seems to me, and they shouldnt be expected to take on challenges that the mainstay authorities gear up for. (bandit kings, undead infestations and the like)
One almost has to invent a reason why they are expected to deal with it when those far more capable, well equipped, supported etc. are not.
I know, its an issue of Logic, and as such has no place in a fantasy game but Ive always found my players appreciate a certain 'sense' in the game. I try to provide it, although granted sometimes it makes thigs a bit more complicated.
The players don't get involved during day to day stuff, but when something out of the ordinary happen. There are also plenty of reasons for the authorities to use the PCS instead of dealing with it themselves.
The PROBLEM could have "negated" many of the powerful citizen, the npcs need to stay behind to, guard, rule, or etc. And the PC are expendable to the town-folk . Here are strangers who have chosen to do this kind of stuff for a living.
The idea is that the GM provides the reason. If want to maintain the idea that the world exist out the character that is easily done. Have the PCs here about other peoples exploits. Also have the NPCS help the PC by dealing with a separate piece of the puzzle. ex. The PCs enter the ruins to kill the Zombie king, while and Captain of the Guard leads the defense of the town and the priest and wizard are busy doing a ritual to counteract the aura of death in the Ruins.
I should be clear, I don't object to the adventure, just to the overly exaggerated and dramatic write up. A single zombie (or anything a party of 1st to 3rd level characters is up to facing) is not a threat to the world.
I also design worlds like the OP. OP, you're not doing anything wrong. Depending on who your players are, it may be worth it to explain to them that you've created a full campaign world. Some areas are incredibly challenging, some are not. Let they players know that you don't custom-fit each encounter to the party to make it "fair".
As far as someone who mentioned NPCs lording over the party, that's part of life in a fantasy world. As adventurers, you're going to run into evil characters, neutral characters, etc. Some of the neutral or evil characters don't want to kill the PCs, but they do want to put them in their place.
As an example, I remember one urban campaign I ran where it was described to the players that the town was over run with gangs. The only way to survive in the city was to keep your head down, or join with one of the gangs.
This created a very interesting world full of possibilities. However, some of the players did not get the hint. When they were faced with a situation where twelve gang members were kidnapping a civilian, they tried to stop them. The party was level 2 at the time, I believe. Needless to say, the party was TPKed.
Sometimes you can explain things, give warnings, etc., but the players ultimately get to make their decisions. Some decisions will lead to heroic and amazing outcomes. Others end with dead player characters. That's one of the great things about table top role playing.
If all encounters are tailored to the party, then it takes away some of the magic of the game.