|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 2:58PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2011
|
Good question! I guess it depends on their plan, but I would probably let the players have a chance at succeeding. If their ideas are better than mine, who am I to get in the way?? Of course, I'd never tell them this. It would all be a spur-of-the-moment decision. Alternatively, I might suggest a way they could alter their plan that would work regardless of the blood type. That way everyone wins.
Sure, it's always the DM's worst nightmare when your preciously designed plans get prematurely unraveled by the players' more clever thinking. What to do? I always prioritize creativity and fun over rules. If it makes the game more awesome, then it happens. But sometimes "awesome" doesn't mean a boon for the players. It could mean plot tension or a crucial roleplaying moment. I like it when a player does what his CHARACTER would do instead of what HE would do.
A good DM can think on his feet and deal with the unexpected. A better DM designs the world so one pull of the string doesn't unravel the whole game. I don't claim to be either of the two, but I try! =)
As for the edition, I initially started designing this world for a 4e Essentials campaign, but I've decided to migrate it to D&D Next. Briefly, the campaign is called "Classic Tales" and the adventures are all classic faerie tales with a D&D twist. Trolls under bridges, wicked witches of the forest, the big bad wolf, haunted houses, Snow Wight and the 7 Evil Dwarves, rescue the princess in the tower....that sort of thing. I'm straying from that formula for the sake of the playtest, though. I want to save the real campaign for when the world is ready and the Next edition is live.
I don't agree with your take on realism, but you have some really good ideas and I like your attitude. Please post more often!
I'd like to hear more about your classic tale adventures. I've never thought about doing that and it seems like something I could pull off. If you ever feel like starting a thread about it, count me in.
Ha, thanks! =) I've been a forum lurker for a while, but finally decided to start posting (which I might regret later on).
How does your view on realism differ? How would you have answered the question you posed to me?
Might be fun to start up a Classic Tales thread and get some ideas from the community. I'll let you know!
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 3:08PM
#42
|
|
|
Ha, thanks! =) I've been a forum lurker for a while, but finally decided to start posting (which I might regret later on).
How does your view on realism differ? How would you have answered the question you posed to me?
Might be fun to start up a Classic Tales thread and get some ideas from the community. I'll let you know!
I'd change them from warm to cold-blooded to blue-blooded and back again if that's what I needed to do to help the PCs have a shot at a cool plan working.
As for realism, it's likely any in-depth commentary on my part will ignite a firestorm that will consume the world. Suffice it to say, "a wizard did it" sums up my views pretty succinctly.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 9:46PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2011
|
I'd change them from warm to cold-blooded to blue-blooded and back again if that's what I needed to do to help the PCs have a shot at a cool plan working.
And your players would be okay with this? Really, really not trying to start a flame war here. I just don't understand what the point is in trying to come up with cool plans if you know the entire world is mutable and will be altered to make your plan work, no matter what it is.
The example of the fighter is a telling one. What seems to happen is that mundane stuff that everyday people feel they have a good handle on get the "realism" treatment, and other things get a pass. This typically happens to the detriment of fighters, because everyone thinks they have a sense for what a mundane fighter is capable of. Spellcasters then get more of a free pass because their abilities are realistic "as established within the framework of the setting." So, it becomes "realistic" for a wizard to take out a room of enemies, and for a fighter to be limited to one or two at a time. Wizards get to be Gandalf, but fighters don't get to be Hercules.
I think I'm missing something here. The example said it would feel unrealisic for a level 1 fighter to take out a powerful dragon. I'm pretty sure a level 1 wizard couldn't do that either.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 10:31PM
#44
|
|
|
And your players would be okay with this? Really, really not trying to start a flame war here. I just don't understand what the point is in trying to come up with cool plans if you know the entire world is mutable and will be altered to make your plan work, no matter what it is.
Your assumption implies dice aren't somehow involved in this transaction. As in a chance for their plan to work, should that plan rely upon a certain biology. For example, crimsyn's post above with regard to his petrified character.
I think I'm missing something here. The example said it would feel unrealisic for a level 1 fighter to take out a powerful dragon. I'm pretty sure a level 1 wizard couldn't do that either.
I think that's Centauri's comment so I'll leave it to him.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 9:16AM
#45
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2011
|
Except that thinking through this potential issue created a cool idea. If he'd just not worried about it since after all it's a fantasy world and anything can happen, he wouldn't have thought it through. Having limits usually fosters creativity; absolute open-ended freedom often stifles it.
It's just as often the other way around.
If it's just as often, then what does it matter the choice?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 11:02AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
I'd change them from warm to cold-blooded to blue-blooded and back again if that's what I needed to do to help the PCs have a shot at a cool plan working.
And your players would be okay with this? Really, really not trying to start a flame war here. I just don't understand what the point is in trying to come up with cool plans if you know the entire world is mutable and will be altered to make your plan work, no matter what it is.
That's taking it to an extreme that doesn't really tend to happen. I took iserith's example as humorously extreme, due to his use of the term "blue-blooded."
The "changes" under discussion here are to things that haven't been established yet, or that the DM has in mind (and maybe has even worked around) but either hasn't established in view of the players, or has but they missed it. So, if they suggest something that hinges on something that hasn't been established, or has been established but is minor enough to have been missed or forgotten, then if the DM "changes" it, the change is not apparent to the players, so there's no impression that the world has changed. And if the fact hasn't been established at all, then they are often grateful to be able to take part in creating the world they're playing in. And things they declare can be used against them later.
I think I'm missing something here. The example said it would feel unrealisic for a level 1 fighter to take out a powerful dragon. I'm pretty sure a level 1 wizard couldn't do that either.
No, first level is generally pretty safe. Traditionally, wizards only really got to be wizards until they'd cast a couple of spells, and at that point they were as mundane as the fighter. I'm just saying that "realism," even "in-game realism" is a trick road to walk, and still keep different classes balanced. But 4th Edition strayed from that road, and gave mundane classes options and restrictions that seemed "unrealistic," and the edition was punished for it.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 11:07AM
#47
|
|
|
And things they declare can be used against them later.
Oh yes, and this is one of my favorite aspects. "Remember when you said that..." Give players enough rope and they'll eventually hang themselves with it in interesting ways.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 11:27AM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2011
|
The "changes" under discussion here are to things that haven't been established yet, or that the DM has in mind (and maybe has even worked around) but either hasn't established in view of the players, or has but they missed it. So, if they suggest something that hinges on something that hasn't been established, or has been established but is minor enough to have been missed or forgotten, then if the DM "changes" it, the change is not apparent to the players, so there's no impression that the world has changed.
That makes sense to me. Changing them from warm blooded to cool blooded and back again does not sound like this sort of change; it sounds like altering anything, whether previously established or not, at the drop of a hat. But maybe like you said, he didn't mean it literally.
I'm just saying that "realism," even "in-game realism" is a trick road to walk, and still keep different classes balanced. But 4th Edition strayed from that road, and gave mundane classes options and restrictions that seemed "unrealistic," and the edition was punished for it.
Okay, you lost me. Probably because I've only ever played fourth edition. I think you're saying that people who liked third edition think that by making the classes balanced, fourth edition became "unrealistic." I'm clearly not one of those people. What I would mean by "in-game realism" would be internal consistency. Certain things are different from the real world. That's fine, and expected. But other things work a lot like the real world; there has to be some of that or we couldn't relate to our characters well enough to play. If I say that something is unrealistic in a game, I mean that it sounds implausible and doesn't have a good explanation within the established framework for that game. Yes, in a world with magic you can always make up a reason for something, but if you're doing that constantly for stuff that's out of the blue, so that nothing is consistent or dependable, you're creating a situation where the characters can't make informed decisions. I guess if the campaign were set in the Elemental Chaos, that might be realistic. But...yeah, I think I've made my basic point and don't need to write an essay.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 11:33AM
#49
|
|
|
Yes, in a world with magic you can always make up a reason for something, but if you're doing that constantly for stuff that's out of the blue, so that nothing is consistent or dependable, you're creating a situation where the characters can't make informed decisions. I guess if the campaign were set in the Elemental Chaos, that might be realistic. But...yeah, I think I've made my basic point and don't need to write an essay.
You've made the basic point that you're practiced at making up the most extreme examples of things to cast a certain approach in a weird light, sure. But of course nobody actually plays that way.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 11:38AM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
What I would mean by "in-game realism" would be internal consistency. Certain things are different from the real world. That's fine, and expected. But other things work a lot like the real world; there has to be some of that or we couldn't relate to our characters well enough to play. If I say that something is unrealistic in a game, I mean that it sounds implausible and doesn't have a good explanation within the established framework for that game.
Right, and so what's easy to have happen is that non-magical things or beings are simply not enabled to do amazing things, because being cool and balanced is not itself enough of an established framework. But magic, which by definition allows impossible-seeming things to happen, gets a pretty blank check. This has been a problem in past editions, and is very hard to rein in, but some people prefer it, over having to imagine ways in which rapidly firing a crossbow, or not getting able to repeatedly perform a powerful sword attack, fit an "established framework."
Yes, in a world with magic you can always make up a reason for something, but if you're doing that constantly for stuff that's out of the blue, so that nothing is consistent or dependable, you're creating a situation where the characters can't make informed decisions. I guess if the campaign were set in the Elemental Chaos, that might be realistic. But...yeah, I think I've made my basic point and don't need to write an essay.
I'll concede that there's potential for that in a game in which a DM can make up or allow anything. Most people find a level of "consistency" they're comfortable with, enabling a shorthand they can use to convey certain threats or certain ease to their players.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
