It's always a good idea to be proactive about your game and player interest, but don't run yourself ragged trying to please everyone with diverse interests.
Make certain that what you are building is fun for you too. A lot of effort can be put out to please different people only to find out that there play styles are too differemt to mesh well.
Right. I advocate putting the effort out in a different way. One needn't "build" anything entirely on their own, in hopes that they know enough about their players interests to give them the kind of game they want. That's traditional, but it's hard to know exactly what the players want, and it's sometimes hard to give them that, even if you do know. So, work with them. Then you're all "building" it, and they can apply their preferences directly, without even having to put words to them.
As a dm you want ot accomodate your players as much as possible, but you don't want to be a door mat for ungrateful plaers either. Its obvious you want every player to have fun but make certain every player includes yourself.
Agreed.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
First off, Thank You to everyone who's responded. I appreciate it all.
Directed responses now...
Centauri
I would like to try that sort of communal world-building, but I'm not sure how to introduce/initially implement it. Do your players usually build their characters ahead of time, then do the world-building as a group, or vice versa? If you had a group (such as mine) where 90% of the books in use (and character sheets) are on the computer, would you order it differently? Do you think it would be worth it (for that initial session at the least) to restrict the players to what's only available off-line, to keep attention more focussed? I came up with five initial questions, but they're more character-background type questions (When and why did you begin adventuring, How do you know/did you meet your companions, that sort of thing mostly)... How do you usually tie in the world-building? I enjoy drawing maps and coming up with different cultures, why they exist, and how they got that way; how much (if any) of that sort of thing do you usually do ahead of time?
Warrl and YagamiFire
I've never used the inherent bonuses option 4e has - do you usually find that an "appropriate-level" combat still works as expected, or would I need to shave a monster or two off? I try to create with my use of monsters combats that are challenging but not outright deadly (the fun's in watching the party explore the world, not watching them bleed out).
1red13 and YagamiFire
My tastes (when playing) are similar to Player D's. I usually play standard heroes, with most of my Byronic Heroes coming out of standard heroes when I grew dissatisfied in some way with the game I was in. I don't care much how many magic items we have, so long as the enemies we encounter are appropriate to the party's strength (bleeding out in the 2nd round... not so much fun). I, however, like a heroic or epic-type world, where there is a sense of exploration and wonder - and as I usually play spellcasters, I would prefer not to be terrifying the locals every time I go into town to buy trail rations. That just slows things down. If you think of the scene in the Fellowship of the Ring when Gandalf illuminates the halls of Moria for the hobbits... Yeah, that. That sense of wonder, of age, of a world that's bigger, and worth the fighting.
When DMing... I recognize not everyone enjoys the same things I do. I try to include several combats a session for Player B (who seems to pay most attention then), but I'm still working on my improv skills, so there aren't as many NPCs/potential plot hooks as I'd like to use. Getting a handle on the anti-hero's motivations boggles me at times as well. The last world I built, I didn't create a plot beyond the first few events (PCs signed up on a "Return to El Dorado" type mercantile mission, got shipwrecked, and had to deal with the locals). Player D ended up changing characters shortly after that third scene, as his PC wanted to stay and help the locals (who were dealing with an undead infestation) and Player C's character wanted to go ("I claim the bricks of gold of the streets of El Dorado!") and wasn't interested in anything that didn't directly relate to that goal (even after someone sent assassins after the party). I want to run a world/game that interests the players, that they enjoy, and doesn't consistently leave me thinking, "They [Players C and D] want to go in opposite directions; I wonder who's going to be changing characters this time?"
YagamiFire
I like the idea of the conflicting law/chaos and good/evil dichotomies, and Player D is -definitely- the Jedi Knight type. I'm not as sure about Player C being the Han Solo type, but I'm taking notes, and I'll see how any suggestions I make along those lines go when I present them to him. Your dwarven shield-wall sounds very amusing - were the PCs allied or opposed to the dwarves? I'm not much for steampunk/clockwork mechanica myself, but I like the sound of the rest of your world. It would be weird playing a spellcaster in it, but it's a cool world. Player C would enjoy it, I think, although Player D isn't quite as enthused [I should probably note at this point that Player D and I are married, but he's been playing with the others about a decade longer than he's known me - although lately he says Player C has been rubbing him the wrong way].
I would like to try that sort of communal world-building, but I'm not sure how to introduce/initially implement it.
Start small, and do 90% of what you usually do, but normally when you would stop to consult your notes, or pause to think, consult your players. The simplest way is to turn the question back to them. When someone asks "What do I see?" turn it around and say "What do you see?" You'll find almost immediately that questions that open ended can be a bit daunting for them, especially if they're not expecting them, so it's usually better to lead the question a little bit. Something like "You see something that sends a chill down your spine. What is it?" or "You see a treasure of moderate value and usefulness. What is it?"
The reason I recommend you run this as a one-off, perhaps with no permanent connection to your regular game, is that, yes, narrative control can go to a player's head, where it might mingle with the very common failure-mitigation approach to D&D. "I see a frightening...ly gorgeous woman!" "I see a +6 vorpal weapon, that has 'I'm With Stupid' written on it." Et cetera. Since it's a one-off, you can just roll with that, and chalk it up as a learning experience, because even that will tell you something valuable.
But, if your players are even a little bit engaged they'll see what you're offering them: an opportunity for them to influence the game directly, along the lines that interest and engage them, without having to put words to what it is they want. "I see a bounty hunter holding a wanted poster from three towns over. The poster has my face on it." "I see a finely wrought blade, clearly ancient, that has seen numerous battles. It's not magical, but is clearly a famous weapon."
Do your players usually build their characters ahead of time, then do the world-building as a group, or vice versa?
I generally feel that players should have control over their characters, and veto power regarding suggestions made about them, so I would assume the players would have characters.
And I want to be clear: this kind of thing CAN get to the level of world building, but I'm suggesting that you start much, much smaller than that. Collaborate on a single delve or mission. Obviously it takes place in a world, but go generic for one session and focus in more tightly for a bit.
Frankly, building a "world" is not necessary, especially before there's some group concensus about the the kind of world people want to play in.
If you had a group (such as mine) where 90% of the books in use (and character sheets) are on the computer, would you order it differently? Do you think it would be worth it (for that initial session at the least) to restrict the players to what's only available off-line, to keep attention more focussed?
No. In fact, books probably shouldn't enter into it at all, unless people are looking for a little inspiration. Books are usually for getting things "right" and there's nothing to get wrong here.
I came up with five initial questions, but they're more character-background type questions (When and why did you begin adventuring, How do you know/did you meet your companions, that sort of thing mostly)... How do you usually tie in the world-building? I enjoy drawing maps and coming up with different cultures, why they exist, and how they got that way; how much (if any) of that sort of thing do you usually do ahead of time?
The thing to remember is that there's no guarantee that anything a DM creates is going to be interesting to anyone but them, or ever see the light of day in their games. Any creation that a DM does along those lines should be done entirely for its own sake, or at most in the hope that it will build a toolbox for their improvisation.
For what I'm suggesting, you don't need a world. In fact, you really don't need a "world" at all, but can build the parts of it that the characters encounter or know about as you go along. It's remarkably easy to fit different ideas and established facts together when four or five creative brains are collaborating.
I enjoy discussing this, and I'd be happy to go into more detail about what I'm suggesting. Some of us are running a play-by-post test game that operates on this principle and I could give you access to that if you're interested.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
Salt your treasure bundles liberally with the standard neck, weapon and armor slot items, or you'll be seeing blood and grit more than your players agreed to.
~I~ like a rough and tumble game, but inherent bonuses can sometimes make seeing a TPK a lot more probable than it was before. Move cautiously into that arena, because its definitely a handicap when the monsters can already brutalize someone who's using normal math.
Personal experience: Inherent bonuses and low-magic (even the published Dark Sun, where it's supposed to work) do not make up for Monster Math. I've slowly been learning that even "at-level" encounters can be rough for players on the proper plane of bonuses. Removing any of their to-hits or defenses makes it that much harder.
That was pre MM3/MV, too. It's gotten worse since they "fixed" the damage expressions.
As a DM, I find it easier to just punish the players no matter what they pick, as I assume they will pick stuff that is broken. I mean, fight after fight they kill all the monsters without getting killed themselves! What sort of a game is this, anyway?
Salt your treasure bundles liberally with the standard neck, weapon and armor slot items, or you'll be seeing blood and grit more than your players agreed to.
~I~ like a rough and tumble game, but inherent bonuses can sometimes make seeing a TPK a lot more probable than it was before. Move cautiously into that arena, because its definitely a handicap when the monsters can already brutalize someone who's using normal math.
Personal experience: Inherent bonuses and low-magic (even the published Dark Sun, where it's supposed to work) do not make up for Monster Math. I've slowly been learning that even "at-level" encounters can be rough for players on the proper plane of bonuses. Removing any of their to-hits or defenses makes it that much harder.
That was pre MM3/MV, too. It's gotten worse since they "fixed" the damage expressions.
Interesting. I rarely see anything other than positive reactions to the "fixed" math. But DMs still have control over the level of challenge they throw at characters, so even if they're under- or over-equipped it should still be as possible to balance encounters as it ever is.
DMs can easily avoid TPKs if they don't want to risk them. It's also relatively easy to simply prepare for them to occur, though this assumes that players who claim to be fine with them don't think differently when one is actually occurring.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
The fixed math IS fixed. For players not using inherent bonuses. Inherent bonuses is starting with a handicap, and going from there.
Sure, DMs have the power to scale the challenge to prevent bad things from happening. Without a doubt. If you're using inherent bonuses, that scale probably needs to start around EL-1, instead of just EL for the party.
Again, personal experience from seeing it happen on both sides of the screen, as well as long talks with some people who actualyl understand the math on a much better theoretical level than I do.
As a DM, I find it easier to just punish the players no matter what they pick, as I assume they will pick stuff that is broken. I mean, fight after fight they kill all the monsters without getting killed themselves! What sort of a game is this, anyway?
Seems to me that inherent bonuses can be a great way to make sure that everyone has the correct math even without possessing magic items. What they may be missing though is the magic item powers and properties. You can introduce the items (as suggested above) as non-magical items that give a power from a reason that does not stem from magic. This way you an have both the effect of magic items and the feel of a low magic compaign.
Not sure why Rood.Inverse is being so dramatic about inherent bonuses.
"The great epochs of our life come when we gain the courage to rechristen our evil as what is best in us." - Friedrich Nietzsche
It does help to know that there -could- be problems with the inherent bonus system if I'm not careful. The one 4e combat I had major problems crop up with, I didn't actually calculate out until after (at which point it turned out to be equivalent to at least three at-level encounters, so that was ENTIRELY my fault for throwing a party of four PCs up against it). So long as I don't go overboard again, everything should turn out fairly.
Centauri,
I appreciate the reminder that most of my world-building won't see the light of day, it should only inform what actually takes place. I will admit that sometimes (since I enjoy exploring the world(s) presented to me when I play) that I go a bit overboard creating backstory and history, when really I only need that if the players engage with the elements it connects to.
Do you have any other suggestions? I'm looking at potentially running this one-shot on this coming Friday (Nov. 9th), so any additional advice would be appreciated. Also, I would enjoy observing your play-by-post game, although I'm not sure I have sufficient time to actually play something like that regularly.
It does help to know that there -could- be problems with the inherent bonus system if I'm not careful. The one 4e combat I had major problems crop up with, I didn't actually calculate out until after (at which point it turned out to be equivalent to at least three at-level encounters, so that was ENTIRELY my fault for throwing a party of four PCs up against it). So long as I don't go overboard again, everything should turn out fairly.
I wouldn't bet on this. Combat math is not exact. Weird synergies and combos can crop up on both sides. Maybe over the long run the game is "fair," but you might not every be able to tell that if your sample set is small.
I appreciate the reminder that most of my world-building won't see the light of day, it should only inform what actually takes place. I will admit that sometimes (since I enjoy exploring the world(s) presented to me when I play) that I go a bit overboard creating backstory and history, when really I only need that if the players engage with the elements it connects to.
That's fine, but it's important to get enjoyment out of that for its own sake and not from an expectation of receiving the same appreciation you give your DMs.
Do you have any other suggestions? I'm looking at potentially running this one-shot on this coming Friday (Nov. 9th), so any additional advice would be appreciated. Also, I would enjoy observing your play-by-post game, although I'm not sure I have sufficient time to actually play something like that regularly.
I'll send you and invite and you can just observe.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
The fixed math IS fixed. For players not using inherent bonuses. Inherent bonuses is starting with a handicap, and going from there.
The fixed math is fixed for players who are using enhancement bonuses that increase by 1 every 5 levels.
Inherent bonuses are enhancement bonuses that increase by 1 every 5 levels.
So what's the difference?
There are actually three differences, none of which affect the basic math:
With inherent bonuses you don't have to replace three magic-item categories every five levels. This is a great aid to people in low-magic campaigns, to people who routinely use more than one weapon/implement, and to people who have more interesting things to do with their magic-item choices.
Most magic weapons and implements do extra damage, (enhancement bonus)d(something), on a critical hit. This scales with the item's enhancement bonus. Inherent bonuses offer no such benefit, and even if there is also a magic weapon/implement the extra damage doesn't scale with the inherent bonus.
With magic items, the DM can seed higher-level items a bit earlier, if he likes, without it being blatant that he's adjusting the game in the players' favor. With inherent bonuses, that kind of adjustment can't be done in a non-blatant manner (and the character builder just won't do it). Even dropping a +4 magic item when everyone's inherent bonuses are +3 is pretty obvious, if there have been no +2 or +3 or maybe even +1 magic items.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
