Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 21:27:12 GMT -6
There are dungeon levels in the multiverse. Forests, swamps, seas, even the ethereal realm all have level ratings. This isn't new school any more than Dungeon! is new school. The ratings are derived, just like a 75 pt ogre or a 15 pt gnome in any other wargame. Their current design and state are what those ratings are derived from. Put enough 10th level monsters in a string of caves and that place is high rated no matter its elevation relative to outside. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. And I was one of Gary's original players, so it's not a lack of experience on my part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 21:28:55 GMT -6
9. "Unfair, unbalanced, unpredictable" - Totally disagree. Every rule in the game is (also) about rigorously keeping game balance. That PCs can leave a level 1 challenge area, just like in the boardgame Dungeon!, doesn't make the game unbalanced or worse totally denying game balance. I am not sure what you are talking about here. IMC there are no "level 1 challenge areas", IMO that is a "new" school concept, the "old" school OD&D way IMO is that as was stated the 1st level of a dungeon does not have only one HD monsters in numbers that the PCs are guaranteed to be able to defeat. The 1st level of an old school dungeon will have one HD monsters that the party might need to run from or negotiate with or __________ or __________. The first level of the dungeon will also have some 2 HD and 3 HD monsters and may have 4, 5 and/or 6 HD monsters or greater. The 1st level of a dungeon is not a cake walk, but a deadly game of survival. The more experience the players get the greater the chance of survival. What's IMC?
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jul 24, 2015 21:45:34 GMT -6
I am not sure what you are talking about here. IMC there are no "level 1 challenge areas", IMO that is a "new" school concept, the "old" school OD&D way IMO is that as was stated the 1st level of a dungeon does not have only one HD monsters in numbers that the PCs are guaranteed to be able to defeat. The 1st level of an old school dungeon will have one HD monsters that the party might need to run from or negotiate with or __________ or __________. The first level of the dungeon will also have some 2 HD and 3 HD monsters and may have 4, 5 and/or 6 HD monsters or greater. The 1st level of a dungeon is not a cake walk, but a deadly game of survival. The more experience the players get the greater the chance of survival. What's IMC? I believe that @theperilousdreamer abbreviates the phrase "in my campaign" as IMC. This is merely guesswork on my part and he must answer your inquiry for himself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 21:51:24 GMT -6
IFEUOUARIALOC.
("I find excessive use of undefined abbreviations results in a lack of clarity.")
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jul 24, 2015 22:29:58 GMT -6
Agreed. BAIANTOP,ICAFTS
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 22:45:54 GMT -6
Bananas are interestingly a natural topical oxidant Percy, inducing catastrophic autonomous fart trauma subconsciously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 15:43:42 GMT -6
I believe that @theperilousdreamer abbreviates the phrase "in my campaign" as IMC. This is merely guesswork on my part and he must answer your inquiry for himself. Yeah, IMC is "in my campaign", the first time I saw it 7 or 8 years ago, I asked what it was too.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Jul 26, 2015 10:27:55 GMT -6
If you are trying to say or imply that I have a campaign world and the wilderness is similar to the dungeon and there are Levels 1, 2, 3 etc scattered around the map, that is not the case and never has been, it is all deadly. Well I disagree on every point. Let's agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Jul 26, 2015 10:43:25 GMT -6
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. And I was one of Gary's original players, so it's not a lack of experience on my part. Respectfully, I'm saying a 10th level dungeon isn't 10th level due to 9 other levels being above it, but due to its composition, the monsters and treasures and so on within. This is a design element game throughout: Class levels, monster XP ratings, and treasure too. And that all this level or rating design follows suit with other areas of the world too. I recall going into the forest alone was considered a bad idea until at least 4th level (which is a little high for me). Swamps were even more dangerous. The monster lists in the DMG for those areas can help derive a range of difficulty.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jul 26, 2015 12:01:14 GMT -6
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. And I was one of Gary's original players, so it's not a lack of experience on my part. Respectfully, I'm saying a 10th level dungeon isn't 10th level due to 9 other levels being above it, but due to its composition, the monsters and treasures and so on within. This is a design element game throughout: Class levels, monster XP ratings, and treasure too. And that all this level or rating design follows suit with other areas of the world too. I recall going into the forest alone was considered a bad idea until at least 4th level (which is a little high for me). Swamps were even more dangerous. The monster lists in the DMG for those areas can help derive a range of difficulty. Overland travel is a risky business even for name level characters with an army. Overland travel ALONE is a terrible horrible very bad idea at any level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 14:12:31 GMT -6
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. And I was one of Gary's original players, so it's not a lack of experience on my part. Respectfully, I'm saying a 10th level dungeon isn't 10th level due to 9 other levels being above it, but due to its composition, the monsters and treasures and so on within. This is a design element game throughout: Class levels, monster XP ratings, and treasure too. And that all this level or rating design follows suit with other areas of the world too. I recall going into the forest alone was considered a bad idea until at least 4th level (which is a little high for me). Swamps were even more dangerous. The monster lists in the DMG for those areas can help derive a range of difficulty. Why don't you start with telling us all where you got your terminology from? I do not know of any old school game that has the term "level X challenge ratings" in it. I think that terminology comes from 3E, which means it has nothing to do with OD&D or Classic D&D. If you like to play 3E that is great, but it is not an old school term and does not apply IMO (in my opinion) to an old school game. Now if for the sake of argument we pretended that it did apply then my all areas of my wilderness varies from a level 12-15 challenge ratings and up which I consider appropriate for any level party that ventures into the wilderness. It means that there are a lot of things they will likely never be able to fight and come away without some loss of life. Since characters usually retire at about 10th to 12th level they will never exercise complete dominance over the wilderness.In your terms that also means that in my dungeons Level One would have a level 2 to 2.5 challenge ratings and Level Two would have a level 2.5 to 3.5 challenge ratings and so on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 18:29:55 GMT -6
Overland travel is a risky business even for name level characters with an army. Overland travel ALONE is a terrible horrible very bad idea at any level. I'm trying to imagine how a game world even operates if a farmer needs an army to escort his cartload of cabbages to the local market. I guess there are magical teleport pads all over the place for that purpose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 18:36:50 GMT -6
Wilderness is outdoors, but, and this is important, not all outdoors is wilderness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 18:37:52 GMT -6
Why don't you start with telling us all where you got your terminology from? Extractibus ex rectum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 19:12:37 GMT -6
The problem with this discussion is the use of the term "wilderness". In OD&D, this wilderness is described as unexplored, unknown land. That's well and good but really only works for a very limited set of game worlds. Break open the Greyhawk map. Which of those hexes can really be described as "unexplored wilderness"? Not that many and only really around the edges. There are monsters inside the civilized realms but OD&D provides no guidance as to what types of monsters would live within this not-wilderness area.
In BECMI, this idea was sensibly expanded into civilized->borderlands->wilderness. But applying a numeric value to an area, be it a woods or a swamp, lets you fine tune just how dangerous that particular area is. Such as how the woods to the east of the Shire are less dangerous than Mirkwoods and how the southern part of Mirkwood is more dangerous than the northern part. To me this is just a natural part of worldbuilding. These area levels are then used to create a thematic and appropriate encounter charts.
This system matches the general model of dungeon exploration, where it get's gradually more dangerous the lower you go, to where it get's gradually more dangerous the further you get from civilization.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 7:44:39 GMT -6
Overland travel is a risky business even for name level characters with an army. Overland travel ALONE is a terrible horrible very bad idea at any level. I'm trying to imagine how a game world even operates if a farmer needs an army to escort his cartload of cabbages to the local market. I guess there are magical teleport pads all over the place for that purpose. Farmers transporting their produce to the local market are not traveling through the wilderness to do so. Wilderness is outdoors, but, and this is important, not all outdoors is wilderness. Exactly! The problem with this discussion is the use of the term "wilderness". In OD&D, this wilderness is described as unexplored, unknown land. That's well and good but really only works for a very limited set of game worlds. Break open the Greyhawk map. Which of those hexes can really be described as "unexplored wilderness"? Not that many and only really around the edges. There are monsters inside the civilized realms but OD&D provides no guidance as to what types of monsters would live within this not-wilderness area. In BECMI, this idea was sensibly expanded into civilized->borderlands->wilderness. But applying a numeric value to an area, be it a woods or a swamp, lets you fine tune just how dangerous that particular area is. Such as how the woods to the east of the Shire are less dangerous than Mirkwoods and how the southern part of Mirkwood is more dangerous than the northern part. To me this is just a natural part of worldbuilding. These area levels are then used to create a thematic and appropriate encounter charts. This system matches the general model of dungeon exploration, where it get's gradually more dangerous the lower you go, to where it get's gradually more dangerous the further you get from civilization. While I am sure 3E works just fine for 3E players, I can assure you that I do not need 3E mechanics and terms to play OD&D and I most certainly do not need those 3E mechanics and terms to know what areas of the wilderness (whether borderlands or true wilderness) are more dangerous or less dangerous than another. I can also assure you that those 3E mechanics and terms play no part and find no utility in the design and arrangement of my homebrew OD&D world s and campaign s. While purchased items may not have true wilderness areas that does have anything to do with the Essential Elements of Old School D&D. Introducing new school 3E mechanics and terms into the discussions also does not have anything to do with the Essential Elements of Old School D&D. Now if you want to discuss how to introduce "new school" things of, in my opinion, questionable benefit, then why don't you start another thread down in the 3E/Pathfinder board where those who want to read about 3E can discuss it. Here, in my opinion, this is just thread derailing away from the topic by the OP. Finarvyn please correct me if I am wrong. Using and introducing mechanics and terms from 3E is not a natural/essential part of old school world building. In old school world building in my opinion you create you encounter charts based on what you as the ref place in each area and that has in my opinion has nothing to do with "area levels" and "thematic and appropriate". That language smacks of the "new school" every encounter should be winnable by the PCs type of thing that is anathema in my opinion to old school D&D. I completely disagree, it has worked for every game world of the dozen or so that I have created and I am certain that many others have had the same experience that I have had in that regard. Also just to be clear, over on my forum there is also an appropriate place to talk about 3E or any other game you want to.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Jul 27, 2015 8:04:52 GMT -6
Why don't you start with telling us all where you got your terminology from? I do not know of any old school game that has the term "level X challenge ratings" in it. I think that terminology comes from 3E, which means it has nothing to do with OD&D or Classic D&D. If you like to play 3E that is great, but it is not an old school term and does not apply IMO (in my opinion) to an old school game. Now if for the sake of argument we pretended that it did apply then my all areas of my wilderness varies from a level 12-15 challenge ratings and up which I consider appropriate for any level party that ventures into the wilderness. It means that there are a lot of things they will likely never be able to fight and come away without some loss of life. Since characters usually retire at about 10th to 12th level they will never exercise complete dominance over the wilderness.In your terms that also means that in my dungeons Level One would have a level 2 to 2.5 challenge ratings and Level Two would have a level 2.5 to 3.5 challenge ratings and so on. Dungeon level is probably the appropriate term. Forget any words or phrases you may associate with newer games. Are you really arguing that D&D, coming from the wargame tradition, has no game balance? It's hard to see, but stuff is rated in D&D on purpose. Not as "spotlight time" between players, but as game difficulty for players not the DM. It's D&D. The game gets harder as one goes up in level. This is due to design. It was never random "DM hates my character" whim. So yes, wilderness balancing came later, more obviously in AD&D, but it -EDIT: wasn't - purposefully left out of OD&D as if an unbalanced game was "true D&D". Outdoor Survival could help in many ways to overcome such balancing problems.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jul 27, 2015 8:09:58 GMT -6
If you're within the 20mi radius of a keep that has been cleared, you are not in the wilderness, and thus determine encounters as prescribed in TU&WA. IF you are outside this area, you are in the wilderness and determine encounters as prescribed in TU&WA.
See pages 17-19, 24
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 8:14:57 GMT -6
While I am sure 3E works just fine for 3E players, I can assure you that I do not need 3E mechanics and terms to play OD&D and I most certainly do not need those 3E mechanics and terms to know what areas of the wilderness (whether borderlands or true wilderness) are more dangerous or less dangerous than another. The idea has nothing to do with 3e but, rather, is applying the general principles of OD&D's dungeon format to the outdoors. In dungeons, there's an element of risk and reward. The deeper you go, the more dangerous the monsters are and the more numerous the treasures. So the players can decide, simply by going up or down stairs, the approximate level of danger they wish to face. We can apply the same structure to the outdoors. Giving an area a level lets us create encounter tables and treasure hoards that are in sync to create that same element of risk/reward that player have in the dungeon. Now, if the players choose to enter the Slightly Spooky Woods they will face weak monsters and get feeble treasure (exactly like the first level of the dungeon). However, if the players choose to enter the Deep Woods of Ultimate DOOOM (a level 6 woods), they will face more fearsome monsters and, hopefully, return with more impressive loot. Sure the DM could just eyeball it. But that's true of dungeons as well. We have a system from Vol 3 pgs 7-11 and we might as well use it. I'll stress again that the levels of these terrain are fixed and not balanced to the party level (which, ironically, is what OD&D recommends). So it has nothing at all to do with ensuring that the PCs win every encounter. In fact it's just the opposite. Since the players chose to enter the more dangerous areas, there's no reason for the DM to pull any punches as any outcome is a result of player choice, not DM decision or random roll. This is why I consider this a superior method and actually more old-school than the wilderness system presented in OD&D.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Jul 27, 2015 8:16:37 GMT -6
Wilderness is outdoors, but, and this is important, not all outdoors is wilderness. Agreed, but someone is keeping out the wilderness there. Also in D&D, everyone is a Monster (including every player at the table and you too), everything is treasure, and everywhere is dungeon.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jul 27, 2015 8:47:15 GMT -6
Wilderness is outdoors, but, and this is important, not all outdoors is wilderness. Agreed, but someone is keeping out the wilderness there. Also in D&D, everyone is a Monster (including every player at the table and you too), everything is treasure, and everywhere is dungeon. Are you implying that doors in town are 10' wide and only open on a 1-2? Everywhere is surely not dungeon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 9:40:09 GMT -6
Why don't you start with telling us all where you got your terminology from? I do not know of any old school game that has the term "level X challenge ratings" in it. I think that terminology comes from 3E, which means it has nothing to do with OD&D or Classic D&D. If you like to play 3E that is great, but it is not an old school term and does not apply IMO (in my opinion) to an old school game. Now if for the sake of argument we pretended that it did apply then my all areas of my wilderness varies from a level 12-15 challenge ratings and up which I consider appropriate for any level party that ventures into the wilderness. It means that there are a lot of things they will likely never be able to fight and come away without some loss of life. Since characters usually retire at about 10th to 12th level they will never exercise complete dominance over the wilderness.In your terms that also means that in my dungeons Level One would have a level 2 to 2.5 challenge ratings and Level Two would have a level 2.5 to 3.5 challenge ratings and so on. Dungeon level is probably the appropriate term. Forget any words or phrases you may associate with newer games. Are you really arguing that D&D, coming from the wargame tradition, has no game balance? It's hard to see, but stuff is rated in D&D on purpose. Not as "spotlight time" between players, but as game difficulty for players not the DM. It's D&D. The game gets harder as one goes up in level. This is due to design. It was never random "DM hates my character" whim. So yes, wilderness balancing came later, more obviously in AD&D, but it -EDIT: wasn't - purposefully left out of OD&D as if an unbalanced game was "true D&D". Outdoor Survival could help in many ways to overcome such balancing problems. I am not arguing that is is unbalanced as an old school world, but I am arguing that the balance is as intentionally designed for toughness and to foster smart play on the part of the players. I am also saying it is not balanced at all if you are using the modern definition of balance which is to me a pejorative term. Or let me put it this way, in an old school game, balance means that there are encounters that a "balanced" party of 20 - 10th level PCs should avoid. While at the same time the monster or monsters would choose to leave the area if 3 of those PCs were leading a small army to clear the hexes around a new stronghold being built. In dungeons, there's an element of risk and reward. The deeper you go, the more dangerous the monsters are and the more numerous the treasures. So the players can decide, simply by going up or down stairs, the approximate level of danger they wish to face. We can apply the same structure to the outdoors. Giving an area a level lets us create encounter tables and treasure hoards that are in sync to create that same element of risk/reward that player have in the dungeon. Now, if the players choose to enter the Slightly Spooky Woods they will face weak monsters and get feeble treasure (exactly like the first level of the dungeon). However, if the players choose to enter the Deep Woods of Ultimate DOOOM (a level 6 woods), they will face more fearsome monsters and, hopefully, return with more impressive loot. Sure the DM could just eyeball it. But that's true of dungeons as well. We have a system from Vol 3 pgs 7-11 and we might as well use it. I'll stress again that the levels of these terrain are fixed and not balanced to the party level (which, ironically, is what OD&D recommends). So it has nothing at all to do with ensuring that the PCs win every encounter. In fact it's just the opposite. Since the players chose to enter the more dangerous areas, there's no reason for the DM to pull any punches as any outcome is a result of player choice, not DM decision or random roll. This is why I consider this a superior method and actually more old-school than the wilderness system presented in OD&D. One I see no reason or advantage to assigning level numbers to areas of the map and I also do not see that as information to be shared with the players beyond a "do you really want to do that" comment now and then. As far as these levels fixed for the wilderness areas, that is the other thing - you see all of my campaigns take place in living worlds and nothing is "fixed" as you suggest. Again in my opinion having things fixed is not an old school concept or approach. The old school approach is that the world is living not static. Even dungeons are not static, they are living and continually changing. Areas of a dungeons do not stay cleared for long periods of time but only for short brief periods. If you're within the 20mi radius of a keep that has been cleared, you are not in the wilderness, and thus determine encounters as prescribed in TU&WA. IF you are outside this area, you are in the wilderness and determine encounters as prescribed in TU&WA. See pages 17-19, 24 I agree with this; however, in my campaigns I make a distinction on whether the keep and surrounding are entirely in the borderlands or in the wilderness. In the wilderness, this newly cleared area will but subject to intrusions for a period of time during which it is being established as a fully cleared area. In this case the road to the next closest cleared area may pass thorough wilderness and travel along such a roadway does require more protection. However, all travel along roads that are not heavily patrolled will be subject to bandits, depending on how civilized the area is. Where the farmer has no reason to free, he travels at need with his produce, where it is not quite a safe he will travel in a group usually with a few armed men helping with the trip and supplied by the local baron.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 9:51:21 GMT -6
I have never, ever, EVER heard of somebody assigning a level to wilderness zones. Sounds like needless pedantry combined with a total lack of common sense combined with toilet training issues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 11:25:26 GMT -6
One I see no reason or advantage to assigning level numbers to areas of the map and I also do not see that as information to be shared with the players beyond a "do you really want to do that" comment now and then. The difficulty of a particular area is based primarily on it's distance from cities, forts, or other civilizations. Any area that's particularly more dangerous than that will be known, and avoided, by the locals. That's what the rumor table is for. By fixed, I mean that the level of monsters encountered in an area are not based on the level of the party entering the area. I have never, ever, EVER heard of somebody assigning a level to wilderness zones. Well, you have now. I was introduced to the idea in my very first game. B2 is a first level river valley, X1 is a third level island (and probably the closest to what I'm talking about), L1 is a second level group of hills, I1 is a fourth level ruins, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 11:59:41 GMT -6
One I see no reason or advantage to assigning level numbers to areas of the map and I also do not see that as information to be shared with the players beyond a "do you really want to do that" comment now and then. The difficulty of a particular area is based primarily on it's distance from cities, forts, or other civilizations. Any area that's particularly more dangerous than that will be known, and avoided, by the locals. That's what the rumor table is for. Except when it is not based on that. By fixed, I mean that the level of monsters encountered in an area are not based on the level of the party entering the area. You and I must be using a different dictionary for the meaning of the word "fixed".
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Jul 27, 2015 13:23:59 GMT -6
I think the result is there are many understandings of what Old School games are. Even on this board. But I think we hold a great deal of common interests too. So let's focus on those because, you know, this is the internet right? Different ideas can to lead to misunderstanding. I am not arguing that is is unbalanced as an old school world, but I am arguing that the balance is as intentionally designed for toughness and to foster smart play on the part of the players. I am also saying it is not balanced at all if you are using the modern definition of balance which is to me a pejorative term. Or let me put it this way, in an old school game, balance means that there are encounters that a "balanced" party of 20 - 10th level PCs should avoid. While at the same time the monster or monsters would choose to leave the area if 3 of those PCs were leading a small army to clear the hexes around a new stronghold being built. I also believe D&D was designed to be a balanced game. And that its balance is for increasing difficulty to foster smart play just as you say. The modern definition of balance isn't just one thing, so I'm not clear to what you refer. I do believe every Player in D&D gets to use every bit of game time (not play time) as every other. But then some character racess come with longer potential life spans and losing (usually death) is always a possibility. --This may be mistaken as "Spotlight Time" game balancing in many new games, but actions never need to be taken in front of an audience only messaged to the DM. Really, it's better an equitable allotment to players of real time to express themselves isn't part of the rules. Also, I believe the game is not designed to handle all levels of difficulty. Below 1 XP monsters (cats?) aren't monsters, but at worst pests. Neither do the players fight the sun (or play a planet). The game is balanced with transitions to harder areas coming in a progression just like a dungeon. If you want to fight a demon lord, you need to reach the demon lord. Or cause a high enough level of "world shaking" to convince him to come to you. Or an even more powerful act to force him to. --This may be confused with "Scripted encounters" rather than a big DM map with different levels on it, which the players are challenged by. But don't confuse this with new school D&D games. "Encounters" are what the players tempt as a result of traversing levels due to what is in them giving those levels a rating in the first place. I don't change anything because only 2 players showed up. It's likely they should best run to an easier location, if that's the case, but maybe they have something up their sleeve? They're smart players. However, totally unrated areas with level 10 demonlords skinning bodies in a garden valley down stream from some level 0 human farmer milking his level 0 cow? That's a story, not a game. "Demonlord" must mean farmers wife making rabbit stew then. At best this radically new situation means the level of the region has suddenly shifted and we're going to see some significant changes the local fauna and flora.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 14:11:10 GMT -6
I think the result is there are many understandings of what Old School games are. Even on this board. But I think we hold a great deal of common interests too. So let's focus on those because, you know, this is the internet right? Different ideas can to lead to misunderstanding. I agree up to the point when you are using unfamiliar terminology that does not exist in any old school D&D game it makes it very difficult to discuss things. "Challenge ratings" and others terms do not exist in OD&D or Classic D&D. It is confusing since "challenge rating" is a term that comes with no meaning attached to it for me. The modern definition of balance isn't just one thing, so I'm not clear to what you refer. The modern definition is that every encounter has to be specially tailored to each player so that each player can be successful and not run a chance of their PC dying. That is the definition of "new school gaming" the PCs must alway win or something is wrong. You can go to many formerly old school sites where the majority will now argue that PC death has to be avoided at all costs and that players mourning and crying over a dead PC is something normal. In my opinion, I don't want any part of that in any way, shape or form. If you are an adult and you are shedding tears over a dead PC, please quit playing RPGs and seek professional help. I do believe every Player in D&D gets to use every bit of game time (not play time) as every other. But then some character racess come with longer potential life spans and losing (usually death) is always a possibility. --This may be mistaken as "Spotlight Time" game balancing in many new games, but actions never need to be taken in front of an audience only messaged to the DM. Really, it's better an equitable allotment to players of real time to express themselves isn't part of the rules. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or what point you are trying to make here. Also, I believe the game is not designed to handle all levels of difficulty. Below 1 XP monsters (cats?) aren't monsters, but at worst pests. Neither do the players fight the sun (or play a planet). The game is balanced with transitions to harder areas coming in a progression just like a dungeon. If you want to fight a demon lord, you need to reach the demon lord. Or cause a high enough level of "world shaking" to convince him to come to you. Or an even more powerful act to force him to. --This may be confused with "Scripted encounters" rather than a big DM map with different levels on it, which the players are challenged by. But don't confuse this with new school D&D games. "Encounters" are what the players tempt as a result of traversing levels due to what is in them giving those levels a rating in the first place. I don't change anything because only 2 players showed up. It's likely they should best run to an easier location, if that's the case, but maybe they have something up their sleeve? They're smart players. I can not follow any of this paragraph either - the only part that I can salvage out of that paragraph is the not changing things based on the number of players that show up. I don't know what left field the talk about demon lords is coming from or what it has to do with essential elements of OD&D. Also the sentence I placed in bold print is strange " "Encounters" are what the players tempt" ? What does that mean? Can you try again with that whole paragraph. However, totally unrated areas with level 10 demonlords skinning bodies in a garden valley down stream from some level 0 human farmer milking his level 0 cow? That's a story, not a game. "Demonlord" must mean farmers wife making rabbit stew then. At best this radically new situation means the level of the region has suddenly shifted and we're going to see some significant changes the local fauna and flora. Again where is this coming from?
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Jul 27, 2015 17:05:47 GMT -6
I agree up to the point when you are using unfamiliar terminology that does not exist in any old school D&D game it makes it very difficult to discuss things. "Challenge ratings" and others terms do not exist in OD&D or Classic D&D. It is confusing since "challenge rating" is a term that comes with no meaning attached to it for me. It's stuff like this that make me think it's the phrasing that is your only point of disagreement. I'm not talking about any kind of D&D after TSR. Read OD&D again: Monsters are rated for how difficult they are to face by experience points. You'll see here Gary mentions dungeon level rating too. Challenge rating is an acceptable term for this, but I readily agree not to use it to not bring connotations of 3e to the board. That applies to 3rd edition and later Dungeons & Dragons and some other games. I don't have an issue with people getting emotional over the loss of a game. That's okay in my book. But neither do I run games as collaborative stories. Spotlight balancing is the most common conception of modern RPG game balance. It's not the form you're referencing. This is the version of "modern game balance" you're referring to. It's about how old school D&D is balanced. Demon Lords are in dungeon level 10. Level 0 farmers don't even rate XP. They don't set next to each other on the game board. Bog standard dungeon exploration. Monsters have lairs in the dungeon. Players can run into these monsters when home or not if gone. Monsters also have territories like 20 miles around their castles that they claim. And they wander when not in their lair allowing for a chance (die roll) for other monsters (the PCs) to Encounter them. This doesn't mean they see each other. Or a confrontation occurs. Or a combat or conversation. It is only moving near each other. What it means simply is players can play a game of seeking out or avoiding monsters in a populated area. These are wandering monster rolls. Tempting them is a risk taken by players in most any location. It's understanding game difficulty rating as I showed in this post above along with the tables on page 10 of the U&WA booklet for dungeon levels.
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Jul 27, 2015 18:03:58 GMT -6
I grew up a few streets away from rhe transition from city to wilderness. My friends and I would go to this transition zone, and never meet anything more than other people, some good or some bad, but on the whole just city dwellers like us. If we had walked for a whole day, we would have probably seem some coyotes. Those might have given us some trouble, but not much. A few days away we would have been in mountains, complete with cougars and bears that could have overpowered our group even if we had some guns.
That's how Wilderness is in D&D. The further away from civilization you get, the more dangerous it becomes.
Postscript: these days, the city goes all the way to the mountains, and the wildlife has all moved on. It really is true that you can't go home again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 18:59:26 GMT -6
It is confusing since "challenge rating" is a term that comes with no meaning attached to it for me. Challenge Rating is just another term for AD&D's Monster Level. It serves the same purpose. The only difference is that you can rate traps and other non-combat challenges with a CR so it isn't just for monsters. 3e had another term called Encounter Level which was similar to a roll on that level's encounter table as it took into account the number of monsters. So a single Level 4 encounter could be one gargoyle, two ogres, ten orcs, or a ghast + two ghouls. You would actually determine the Encounter Level first and then choose monsters to reach that EL. In effect, it worked similar to Dave's old protection points. That applies to 3rd edition and later Dungeons & Dragons and some other games. I don't have an issue with people getting emotional over the loss of a game. Third edition get's a bad rap for this but I don't think it's deserved. The stocking rules from 3.5 (pg 49 of the 3.5 DMG) recommend that 20% of encounter be above level and that 5% of encounters be essentially unwinnable. So, by the book, a first 3e level dungeon could include a room with an Ettin or two Manticores. Compare this to AD&D's dungeon stocking chart which generally only has above level encounters 10% of the time (on a roll of 19 or 20). Whether people actually played that way is another issue.
|
|