Quote from: Old One Eye;670532There is no doubt but that you are far more steeped in the online rpg community that I will ever be.  Is it true that the vast majority of DMs design their dungeons with such assumption as to the PCs, with such assumptions as to what encounters the PCs will have interacting with the dungeon's denizens?

On the occasions when I do scrawl a dungeon out beforehand, I do not take the PCs into account whatsoever.  I think of the Dripping Spear orc tribe.  I think of what resources they would have available, how they would go about defending their lair, how they interact with their surrounding environment, relations with surrounding communities, what activity patterns they have, personalities of the tribal leaders, etc.  

Maybe I am a special snowflake DM comparatively to the greater rpg community with which you interact.  Is it unusual for a DM to craft a dungeon thinking of its place in the world rather than thinking of its place as an adventure?

It's a good point, as I purposely went this route years ago, worrying as much about logical placement as I could in the setting before looking back and seeing If I can combine good design with this as much as possible.  
But again, I don't write any of this with my PCs in mind.

But I also believe game style/design style begets player behavior.  Adventures written for the PCs and designed with playability first In mind create players who expect this kind of adventure.   Adventures written with the setting consistency first create players who look for setting consistency and sometimes run out after 4-5 encounters.

Quote from: Sommerjon;670553I'm not going to split hairs between RandallS the person and RandallS the worldmaker/gamerunner.
" Nor do I guide PCs to level appropriate encounters in the world.

However, if the characters listen to rumors and gather information before heading off they can have some idea of what "fixed location" things are in the area. "

Let's rewrite this:
"When I guide PCs to level appropriate encounters in the world it is by them listening to rumors and gathering information before heading off so they can have some idea of what "fixed location" things are in the area."

OK, clearly you don't know what the word "guide" means.  In those two quotes you replied to, all the DM is doing is providing information that the players took it upon themselves to go find without any commentary of what is better for them and what isn't (what "guiding" is).  He's not pushing or prodding them into one direction or the other.  He's simply providing the information that they have uncovered, not giving any info that they haven't uncovered, and they make the decision themselves.

QuoteAs a kid I liked watching Godzilla movies.  Those types of movies have a warm fuzzy place in my heart.  I am hoping that Pacific Rim is going to be good, I'll be watching it on Sunday.  Did you hear they are making another remake of Godzilla?  The Broderick one kinda stunk up the joint.

And again, you have failed to explain how this proves that he guides one group of players over another.  In fact, it has nothing to do with anything.  Your argument is getting weaker and stranger by the second.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;670626OK, clearly you don't know what the word "guide" means.  In those two quotes you replied to, all the DM is doing is providing information that the players took it upon themselves to go find without any commentary of what is better for them and what isn't (what "guiding" is).  He's not pushing or prodding them into one direction or the other.  He's simply providing the information that they have uncovered, not giving any info that they haven't uncovered, and they make the decision themselves.

Guide:
1. to assist (a person) to travel through, or reach a destination in, an unfamiliar area, as by accompanying or giving directions to the person: He guided us through the forest.
2. to accompany (a sightseer) to show points of interest and to explain their meaning or significance.
3. to force (a person, object, or animal) to move in a certain path.
4. to supply (a person) with advice or counsel, as in practical or spiritual affairs.
5. to supervise (someone's actions or affairs) in an advisory capacity.

What does he do?  Could be number 1 or number 2 or number 3 or number 4 or number 5  Could be any one of them or multiples or all of them.  You have no idea.

"Nor do I guide PCs to level appropriate encounters in the world.

However, if the characters listen to rumors and gather information before heading off they can have some idea of what "fixed location" things are in the area."
So he doesn't 'guide' players to level appropriate areas?
If the Players jump through his hoops and he rolls well on his random rumor charts they may, just may, have some clues about what is going on in some fixed locations?
You have no idea if his rumor charts 'force (a person, object, or animal) to move in a certain path.'

Quote from: Sacrosanct;670626And again, you have failed to explain how this proves that he guides one group of players over another.  In fact, it has nothing to do with anything.  Your argument is getting weaker and stranger by the second.

Read this post of yours

Quote from: SacThat's still not guiding them though. The DM isn't doing anything different regardless of players. He's only providing information based on character action. That's it.

What you're saying is that the schedule coordinator is guiding a team when he tells them, "You can choose to play the New England Patriots, Seattle Seahawks, or Jacksonville Jaguars this upcoming week." People not familar with football might randomly choose any of the three, while people familiar with football would choose Jacksonville in a heartbeat. The schedule coordinator is not guiding at all, not by any definition of the word. He's simply providing options.

This has fuck all to do with RandallS.
I was responding this post about the theoretical DM you describe. Yet for some dumb reason you keep trying to tie it back into something else.  The only thing it ties back into is my original sentence in this thread. "Players are at the complete mercy of DM description. I would say Good DMs give adequate information to the players."
That means the needs of the players is for fuck sure more important then the need of the DM to keep his precious setting logic intact.
See those people 'not familiar' have no clue about setting logic or "trying to keep it real" or level appropriate areas or hand holding is for losers or "just trying to play the setting" or any of that bullshit.

Your intellect is truly dizzying.

And again, you haven't shown anything where he flip flopped.  Quit being such a Sommerjon just once.

Quote from: Old One Eye;670532There is no doubt but that you are far more steeped in the online rpg community that I will ever be.  Is it true that the vast majority of DMs design their dungeons with such assumption as to the PCs, with such assumptions as to what encounters the PCs will have interacting with the dungeon's denizens?

On the occasions when I do scrawl a dungeon out beforehand, I do not take the PCs into account whatsoever.  I think of the Dripping Spear orc tribe.  I think of what resources they would have available, how they would go about defending their lair, how they interact with their surrounding environment, relations with surrounding communities, what activity patterns they have, personalities of the tribal leaders, etc.  

Maybe I am a special snowflake DM comparatively to the greater rpg community with which you interact.  Is it unusual for a DM to craft a dungeon thinking of its place in the world rather than thinking of its place as an adventure?

First the bold part. I do exactly that. That is precisely my approach to the whole world but ... they are the Dripping Spear Orc tribe. They are orcs and that limits how much of a challenge they can be. For me the Dripping Spear Orc tribe is a challange for a 3-4th level party. Now when I decide to place them at point X I have no idea if the PCs will get there if they are 1st level or 10th level but everyone involved in the game knows the relative power of orcs so when they learn of the tribe that will tell them that its a challenge they can face or one they can't face. That is creating level appropraite challenges in the world because in the case of D&D at least the whole game is geared around that concept that is what levels do that is the way the DNA of the game is designed.

To your last point... in a sandbox game there will be challenges of various degrees. Sandbox games, very rarely take place in Brobinganian where all potential opponents are 25 HD Giants. The GM places creatures in their game world maybe at random more likely as part of a wider overarching template. That placement creates by its very existance challenges of different difficulties appropriate to parties of different levels.

Take your 'Realm of Fire' dragon assault example. Once you start to flesh it out you already thing about Draconian foot soldiers and sewers where the PCs can flee too. The World, the DnD model for stuff naturally organises into challenges of different levels. And the players understanding of the game and the genre means that they know immediately how that breaks down. "We are 1st level we can't fight the dragon lets hide in the sewers" as opposed to "We are 12th level lets waste those dragons".

Compare that to a game of CoC or a modern day spy setting. In CoC the ghoul wandering round the graveyard can easily kill the entire party, so the entire party are shit scared of any and all creatures and generally run from danger unless they can meet it on their terms.
In a modern day spy game though you don't say Smersh are atting London , but they are too toucgh for my first level PCs so we will flee to paris and see what we can do there. The game isset up so that the party are competant from the get go and expect to be able to meet with and dispatch Smerch Agents from the off. But even then the GM will hold off and won't getteh PCs to encouter 20 Smersh agents with automatic weapons in an Ambush. So even without the concept of level appropriate risk you still have it only sans levels

Does that make any sense?

All I know is that in close to30 years of GMing, I've never once used or thought the phrase 'level-appropriate'

Quote from: Sacrosanct;670692Your intellect is truly dizzying.

And again, you haven't shown anything where he flip flopped.  Quit being such a Sommerjon just once.

I am so sorry.
He in no way guides his players to level appropriate areas in his setting.  That whole thing about players getting information of "fixed locations" in absolutely no way is 'guiding'.  :rolleyes:

That is merely the players getting lucky rolls on the rumors charts. :rolleyes:

Quote from: TristramEvans;670696All I know is that in close to 30 years of GMing, I've never once used or thought the phrase 'level-appropriate'

So?

Yes of course I want a cookie. Who the hell doesn't want a cookie?

Quote from: Sommerjon;670691Guide:
1. to assist (a person) to travel through, or reach a destination in, an unfamiliar area, as by accompanying or giving directions to the person: He guided us through the forest.
2. to accompany (a sightseer) to show points of interest and to explain their meaning or significance.
3. to force (a person, object, or animal) to move in a certain path.
4. to supply (a person) with advice or counsel, as in practical or spiritual affairs.
5. to supervise (someone's actions or affairs) in an advisory capacity.

Telling the players random rumors (that may not even provide correct info) their characters hear when talk to various people in an inn, town, or city does none of the above. All it does is provide raw information. It does not guide anyone to any place or action.  I realize that you have some incomprehensible need for my campaigns to be based on level appropriate encounters so are trying hard to figure out some way that I really am ensuring that characters get to level appropriate encounters, but your desire for this does not change the fact that is not how my campaign works.

Quote"Nor do I guide PCs to level appropriate encounters in the world.
However, if the characters listen to rumors and gather information before heading off they can have some idea of what "fixed location" things are in the area."
So he doesn't 'guide' players to level appropriate areas?

No, providing rumors does not guide people to level appropriate areas. It provides information which is generally somewhat vague (or even completely incorrect at times) about the area and what is going on in it. It can give players an idea of what is in a particular place so they can decide if it is something they want to investigate in person but a rumor of goblin bandits in the woods a day's ride away does not mean this is automatically a level appropriate encounter.

The rumor may be accurate, or true but incomplete (say, the bandits are lead by a Ogre Magi with his pet umbar hulks who simply do not go on raids so no one has ever seen them), or misleading (the goblins are actually hobgoblins), or not true at all (the bandits have left the area, or the bandits are just an illusion used to scare people away by a high level mage who is looking for a powerful magic item in the woods, or ...).  It's just a rumor, not a guaranteed lead to an encounter that a low level party can defeat in combat (or defeat in any other way).

This doesn't even consider the fact that -- as I have stated in a prior post in this thread -- the idea of "level appropriate encounters" is meaningless in my campaigns as most of time PC adventuring parties are not composed of characters all about level X, but are composed of characters of a wide range of levels.

QuoteIf the Players jump through his hoops and he rolls well on his random rumor charts they may, just may, have some clues about what is going on in some fixed locations?

Yes, they will have some idea from rumors. Although it has nothing to do with jumping through hoops, but with roleplaying the characters. I realize that seeking rumors in a town is probably considered part of the boring stuff between action/combat that designers of games like D&D 4e think should be skipped, but my players enjoy such interaction.

QuoteYou have no idea if his rumor charts 'force (a person, object, or animal) to move in a certain path.'

Hearing a rumor does not force anyone to do anything. The idea that it might is so silly that is in impossible to take you seriously.

This is one of those discussions where you can tell who is playing the game, and who is just reading and theorising about it. Lots of things which seem stupid when you read the game - or the GM's description of how they run things - work out pretty well in play, and vice versa.

Players' decisions are not meaningful unless there is a chance they can seriously fuck up or have amazing victories, and not merely from ridiculously bad or good dice rolls. Their wits and the (non-dice) chance of things must be a big part of it.

Some GMs really do give players a choice about what to do next. Sometimes this choice will be based on incomplete or wrong information. Nor is there any obligation on the part of the GM to make their choices post facto good or interesting ones. That's part of the joy of the thing, the exploration of the game world. "This is what we think is so... but let's go find out!"

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;670734This is one of those discussions where you can tell who is playing the game, and who is just reading and theorising about it. Lots of things which seem stupid when you read the game - or the GM's description of how they run things - work out pretty well in play, and vice versa.

Players' decisions are not meaningful unless there is a chance they can seriously fuck up or have amazing victories, and not merely from ridiculously bad or good dice rolls. Their wits and the (non-dice) chance of things must be a big part of it.

Some GMs really do give players a choice about what to do next. Sometimes this choice will be based on incomplete or wrong information. Nor is there any obligation on the part of the GM to make their choices post facto good or interesting ones. That's part of the joy of the thing, the exploration of the game world. "This is what we think is so... but let's go find out!"

In my campaign, I generally cannot predict what will happen next. During the last campaign I DM'd, the players ignored the town where I intended them to go for the adventure, and went to a different town entirely. It worked out great. Sometimes the PCs do things that fuck them up, sometimes they do things that allow them to shine.....but they're always out there, exploring something new.

It seems like some folks are trying to argue there is no meaningful difference between a campaign based entirely on giving players level appropriate encounters and one where encounters can vary from easy to impossible or nearly impossible. If you are using random encounters, your encounter charts will determine where you reside on the spectrum (same thing for adventures and challenges if you are using rumor charts). I mean there is a big difference between a game where the encounter charts keep all the results within four levels of the party and one where the encounter charts include things way beyond and way below the party's level. I would never argue one approach is better, and like I said I think most GMs and groups are somewhere in the middle really, but it is entirely possible to run a campaign where the party may have to face challenges well above their current level. Some GMs may softball it when a bad result comes up, but others will not, and will play out the encounter using the reaction roll to determine how hostile the deadly foe is. There will also be tremendous variety, some gms may put a dragon on the 20 of a 2d10 roll, others, like lord vreeg, may make them part of a subchart where the liklihood is low, but still there depending on where the party happens to be.

I think a lot of folks are assuming all players have the same reaction to challenge levels. For me, I honestly have no problem if an encounter roll leads to a TPK because a dragon came up (I do think it ought to be played t as fairly as possible though, and a group that does something like split up in five different directions may have a shot at avoiding the tpk, even if some of the party still dies). To me that is the most exciting way to play the game. It is true, most groups wont go for this. Often as both a player and GM I do have to compromise on this preference. Still it keeps me much more entertained than a more predictable approach.

Obviously I expect the Gm to put some thought into encounter charts if he goes this direction.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;670737It seems like some folks are trying to argue there is no meaningful difference between a campaign based entirely on giving players level appropriate encounters and one where encounters can vary from easy to impossible or nearly impossible. If you are using random encounters, your encounter charts will determine where you reside on the spectrum (same thing for adventures and challenges if you are using rumor charts). I mean there is a big difference between a game where the encounter charts keep all the results within four levels of the party and one where the encounter charts include things way beyond and way below the party's level. I would never argue one approach is better, and like I said I think most GMs and groups are somewhere in the middle really, but it is entirely possible to run a campaign where the party may have to face challenges well above their current level. Some GMs may softball it when a bad result comes up, but others will not, and will play out the encounter using the reaction roll to determine how hostile the deadly foe is. There will also be tremendous variety, some gms may put a dragon on the 20 of a 2d10 roll, others, like lord vreeg, may make them part of a subchart where the liklihood is low, but still there depending on where the party happens to be.

I think a lot of folks are assuming all players have the same reaction to challenge levels. For me, I honestly have no problem if an encounter roll leads to a TPK because a dragon came up (I do think it ought to be played t as fairly as possible though, and a group that does something like split up in five different directions may have a shot at avoiding the tpk, even if some of the party still dies). To me that is the most exciting way to play the game. It is true, most groups wont go for this. Often as both a player and GM I do have to compromise on this preference. Still it keeps me much more entertained than a more predictable approach.

Obviously I expect the Gm to put some thought into encounter charts if he goes this direction.

Brendan I think what a couple of us are saying is more a case that in D&D all encounters are level appropriate for the correct level and the GM through rumours hints, placement and other stuff effectively overlays across their game world a level appropriate way of negotiating the game world.

This is is not the same as saying "ah they have gone north I will more the Dripping Spear orcs to the Northern hills", and its not the same as saying "ah they have entered the Dungeons of Gisk I will retool these to be CR appropriate for a group of 4 4-5th level PCs."

However, the fact remains that when we build an orc fortifaction, a goblin warren, a Fire giant castle those things are designed for a certain level of PC, that is how all offical D&D games have always been written and the Random monsters tables in 1e, the concept of increasing danger as you descend, are all geared round this form of play.  

A good GM will provide in game reasons for the PCs to be presented with the option of taking on foes they can beat or foes they can't and let the dice fall where they may. But a GM that give no such warnigns no foreshadowing of danger may well be playing a far more realistic game world but it will be much less sucessful as a game.

Quote from: jibbajibba;670750Brendan I think what a couple of us are saying is more a case that in D&D all encounters are level appropriate for the correct level and the GM through rumours hints, placement and other stuff effectively overlays across their game world a level appropriate way of negotiating the game world.

This is is not the same as saying "ah they have gone north I will more the Dripping Spear orcs to the Northern hills", and its not the same as saying "ah they have entered the Dungeons of Gisk I will retool these to be CR appropriate for a group of 4 4-5th level PCs."

However, the fact remains that when we build an orc fortifaction, a goblin warren, a Fire giant castle those things are designed for a certain level of PC, that is how all offical D&D games have always been written and the Random monsters tables in 1e, the concept of increasing danger as you descend, are all geared round this form of play.  

A good GM will provide in game reasons for the PCs to be presented with the option of taking on foes they can beat or foes they can't and let the dice fall where they may. But a GM that give no such warnigns no foreshadowing of danger may well be playing a far more realistic game world but it will be much less sucessful as a game.

I am not dispting that this is true for you, or posibly even 70-80 percent of players out there. But my point is not everyone embraces the conceit of dungeon levels correponding to party level. And it isnt an either or propositoin, there is a spectrum. Some do employ random encounter tables that include things way beyond the party's ability. This is a style of play that is out there. Some mitigate the lethality of such an approach but some do not. Some want the gm to clearly indicate howlethal a potential challenge is so the party can weigh that in their decision, some wont mind less clarity and making the choice to take their chances on the house in the woods (perhaps it is a level 2 encounter, perhaps it is a level 20 encounter, let's find our). I have been in plenty of games where you go into a dungeon and the bulk of the encounters could be moderately level appropriate, but a handful of surprises in the encounter table are not. This is probably where my comfort level is as aplayer. I dont want to be overwhelmed with uber encounters but i find it more exciting when they are possibilities sprinkled in. And personally, i do not feel the gm needs to give me fair warnings in these cases. My feeling is of our level two party goes into a dungeon or ventures into the wilderness, it's fair for there to be some things down there that we can't handle (particularly if encounters are being rolled randomly and the charts are well constructed). I like to feel like i am really taking a chance on an adventure.

At the same time i can definitely enjoy a game that is nothing but surprises.

Also, this is not neccesarily connected to desiring realism. For me it is about excitement. I just ind it far more exciting when challenge levels are not oarticularly predictable and the stakes are higher (a session that ends with a tpk involving a dragon can be a lot more fun for me than one where we make it through six encounters, all in fair range of our levels).

I am not saying level appropriateness is never a consideration. But different groups will give it different weight. Some expect all or most encounters to be level appropriate, some do not. For me the dullest ort of game is one that has the party involved in exactly the right encounters for their level over the course of the evening. I think it is helpful to factor in. I dont want an equal chance of a level one encounter or level 20 encounter at every point in the adventur. But i also do not like feeling as though the world is perfectly tailored to our party orclacks unexpected dangers.

In terms of GM guidance, i think what i actually expect there is a chance to discover the rough challenge level of a potential a challenge, with the understanding that we may get misinformation at times or that a foe could deliberately conceal his true power level on occassion. But it ought to be a chance that has a psibility of failure, where the party can end up seriously overestimating or underestimating a threat. I also want random encounters that cover a much broader range than within four levels of the party average. Even if the prbability of getting something like a Tarasque is low, i like knowing something such as that could crop up.

Again though, this is my set of preferences. I've met people who want more measured encounters and those who want more unpredictability and carnage.