MukkTB
2011-11-09, 01:34 PM
Realistic Idealized Landscape
I haven’t yet thought of a better name for it. I like the acronym RIL though. It sounds like ‘real.’
A world that feels real is a better world than one that feels manufactured. It promotes PC roleplaying. It rewards logical thinking about the world around them. It leaves the roleplayers feeling more immersed. The following is a set of guidelines for how to achieve a world with more weight to it. Here’s what’s going on:
#1 All characters have access to the same rules. PCs, and NPCs.
#2 RAI is in effect.
#3 The DM acts impartially at all times. He never hides his rolls and if he uses his own material he pregenerates it before the play session.
#4 The players only effect the world by their actions within it. The future encounter doesn’t change because the wizard selected fly like some quantumly entangled Schrodinger’s cat. Magic items are chosen using the random charts or based on what would make sense to find rather than what the PCs could use or need.
#5 NPCs act in their best interest based on their int, wis, perception, sense motive, and knowledge skills. NPCs only ‘know’ they could be expected to without special DM insight.
#6 NPCs choose their class and features like PCs do. However while a player can determine a PC’s background, an NPC‘s background is set in stone. So for example a high INT commoner could not class into a wizard if he did not have a background of magical training. Over the course of play he could seek that training though.
If we lay aside the question of whether a player can know they are really in a RIL world there are a couple major impacts that this has on gameplay. Metagaming becomes less important. No PC that believes they are in a RIL world will think ‘The DM doesn’t kill player characters. I’m safe to do whatever.’ #3 prohibits the DM from acting on a chain of thought that says, ‘I don’t want the PC to die, let’s have the monster miss next turn.’ The DM can’t act on that chain of thought and he can’t roll the dice where the players can’t see them to produce a miss. This leads to the character acting more reasonably in the world. Cautious PCs don’t make for a ton of fun, but PCs that believe they can do whatever bat**** crazy things they want to are probably worse. This also leads to characters being more forgiving of character deaths as long as they see a clear way that the death could have been avoided, even if that way was just rolling a better number on the dice. Of course those rolls should have a reasonable chance of success. In fact if the player believes #4 is in effect then the player will say, ‘The DM didn’t kill me. The world did.’ Rule #4 prevents the DM from altering the way the world is in response to the party’s existence.
The downside of this is that the PC’s also know that the DM won’t discipline them for misbehavior in game. PCs will only be accountable to other characters for their actions in game. A DM under #3 cannot think ‘This is unacceptable. How do I get the PC to toe the line?’ and then act on it, but they can and should think, ‘How do all the individual NPC’s that are aware of this action react to it?’ Generally an action that would piss off a DM will probably piss off some NPCs. Whether the NPCs can react with any potency against the PC is another question that just gets to lie there. When a character starts screwing with the other characters #3 forces the DM to sit back and let them work it out in game amongst themselves. Out of the game he can chide them that they should be working together, and that’s it. In a RIL world the PCs are responsible for behaving as a group. The only impartial action a DM can take against a character’s actions is to shift his alignment.
The next unfortunate implication of a RIL world has to do with player motivations. In a non RIL world players would expect the DM to tailor encounters to their power level and possibly single out an overpowered PC to screw with or leave an underpowered one alone. #3 prevents the DM from messing with individual characters. #4 prevents the DM from tailoring encounters to the party’s power level. When a player realizes this he is strongly motivated to build the strongest character that he can. He knows that by building a suboptimal character that he is increasing his chance of dying or failing. If the party does not realize this as a collective group, this can lead to some of the members building heavily optimized characters while others don’t. Those that didn’t will have difficulty contributing and possibly even die. In any case optimization at the expense of characterization is probably not good.
But #5 mitigates the problem. Sure NPCs won’t be able to deal with the wizard having fly if they don’t know about it. But if they do know about it they will either find a way within their power to deal with the flying, or they won’t fight if they think the flying will cause them to lose. If an evil organization knows that an area where the party is has a reputation for strong heroes they’ll send their A team to that area. If the area is known for wussy heroes the B team can go there and the A team can go where’s it’s more needed. It’s kind of a case of the villain ball. This time however its justified. Unless there really is nowhere else the A team is needed. Then the suboptimized PCs are just screwed.
Is this good DMing? No. Good DMs give players magic items they can use because finding them is more satisfying than buying them. Good DM’s tailor encounters so that the players can have fun. Good DMs are careful about PC deaths. They don’t save PCs every time but they’re careful. On the other hand I remember a number of times when I was DMing that I know I could have done better acting impartially. An impartial DM also isn’t going to be a railroading DM because ‘How can I get the PCs to do what I want?’ isn’t an impartial thought and therefore the DM can’t act on it. Overall a truly impartial DM is better than a Bad DM but not as good as a Good DM.
There’s another question. Is a RIL world superior to a non RIL world? The answer is yes. When players feel that the world has a solid quality to it its plainly better. When players think of the world as a real place instead of a bubble that wraps around their adventure and changes to reflect them it’s a good thing. When players feel that things that don’t directly relate to them are happening around them it’s a good thing. Let’s say a PC is interacting with a merchant. He knows a RIL merchant isn’t just there so he can have access to a storefront. The merchant is there because he fits into the world right there. The merchant is going to have a supplier. The merchant is going to have regular demand for his goods. The player can make a number of guesses about the merchant that he could act on.
We like the RIL world but not necessarily the RIL DM.
How do we know if a DM is RIL anyway? You can’t ever know. Not unless you declare a 2cd player to be a reality auditor that just stands behind the DM and makes sure he stays impartial and follows the pregenerated material. But you can get a feel for it. It’s not hard to spot when things seem to be happening just because the DM wants them that way. It’s like obscenity “I know it when I see it.” However a DM using and sticking to a pregenerated 3rd party campaign is one way to easily show your players the DM is playing RIL.
This leads me to my final point. I’m not a good DM so I don’t know. I just suspect. A good DM is going to follow RIL principles for the most part. Very rarely when it is important, he will act for the betterment of the game. That way the players perceive they are in a mostly RIL world while in fact they have a non RIL DM.
I haven’t yet thought of a better name for it. I like the acronym RIL though. It sounds like ‘real.’
A world that feels real is a better world than one that feels manufactured. It promotes PC roleplaying. It rewards logical thinking about the world around them. It leaves the roleplayers feeling more immersed. The following is a set of guidelines for how to achieve a world with more weight to it. Here’s what’s going on:
#1 All characters have access to the same rules. PCs, and NPCs.
#2 RAI is in effect.
#3 The DM acts impartially at all times. He never hides his rolls and if he uses his own material he pregenerates it before the play session.
#4 The players only effect the world by their actions within it. The future encounter doesn’t change because the wizard selected fly like some quantumly entangled Schrodinger’s cat. Magic items are chosen using the random charts or based on what would make sense to find rather than what the PCs could use or need.
#5 NPCs act in their best interest based on their int, wis, perception, sense motive, and knowledge skills. NPCs only ‘know’ they could be expected to without special DM insight.
#6 NPCs choose their class and features like PCs do. However while a player can determine a PC’s background, an NPC‘s background is set in stone. So for example a high INT commoner could not class into a wizard if he did not have a background of magical training. Over the course of play he could seek that training though.
If we lay aside the question of whether a player can know they are really in a RIL world there are a couple major impacts that this has on gameplay. Metagaming becomes less important. No PC that believes they are in a RIL world will think ‘The DM doesn’t kill player characters. I’m safe to do whatever.’ #3 prohibits the DM from acting on a chain of thought that says, ‘I don’t want the PC to die, let’s have the monster miss next turn.’ The DM can’t act on that chain of thought and he can’t roll the dice where the players can’t see them to produce a miss. This leads to the character acting more reasonably in the world. Cautious PCs don’t make for a ton of fun, but PCs that believe they can do whatever bat**** crazy things they want to are probably worse. This also leads to characters being more forgiving of character deaths as long as they see a clear way that the death could have been avoided, even if that way was just rolling a better number on the dice. Of course those rolls should have a reasonable chance of success. In fact if the player believes #4 is in effect then the player will say, ‘The DM didn’t kill me. The world did.’ Rule #4 prevents the DM from altering the way the world is in response to the party’s existence.
The downside of this is that the PC’s also know that the DM won’t discipline them for misbehavior in game. PCs will only be accountable to other characters for their actions in game. A DM under #3 cannot think ‘This is unacceptable. How do I get the PC to toe the line?’ and then act on it, but they can and should think, ‘How do all the individual NPC’s that are aware of this action react to it?’ Generally an action that would piss off a DM will probably piss off some NPCs. Whether the NPCs can react with any potency against the PC is another question that just gets to lie there. When a character starts screwing with the other characters #3 forces the DM to sit back and let them work it out in game amongst themselves. Out of the game he can chide them that they should be working together, and that’s it. In a RIL world the PCs are responsible for behaving as a group. The only impartial action a DM can take against a character’s actions is to shift his alignment.
The next unfortunate implication of a RIL world has to do with player motivations. In a non RIL world players would expect the DM to tailor encounters to their power level and possibly single out an overpowered PC to screw with or leave an underpowered one alone. #3 prevents the DM from messing with individual characters. #4 prevents the DM from tailoring encounters to the party’s power level. When a player realizes this he is strongly motivated to build the strongest character that he can. He knows that by building a suboptimal character that he is increasing his chance of dying or failing. If the party does not realize this as a collective group, this can lead to some of the members building heavily optimized characters while others don’t. Those that didn’t will have difficulty contributing and possibly even die. In any case optimization at the expense of characterization is probably not good.
But #5 mitigates the problem. Sure NPCs won’t be able to deal with the wizard having fly if they don’t know about it. But if they do know about it they will either find a way within their power to deal with the flying, or they won’t fight if they think the flying will cause them to lose. If an evil organization knows that an area where the party is has a reputation for strong heroes they’ll send their A team to that area. If the area is known for wussy heroes the B team can go there and the A team can go where’s it’s more needed. It’s kind of a case of the villain ball. This time however its justified. Unless there really is nowhere else the A team is needed. Then the suboptimized PCs are just screwed.
Is this good DMing? No. Good DMs give players magic items they can use because finding them is more satisfying than buying them. Good DM’s tailor encounters so that the players can have fun. Good DMs are careful about PC deaths. They don’t save PCs every time but they’re careful. On the other hand I remember a number of times when I was DMing that I know I could have done better acting impartially. An impartial DM also isn’t going to be a railroading DM because ‘How can I get the PCs to do what I want?’ isn’t an impartial thought and therefore the DM can’t act on it. Overall a truly impartial DM is better than a Bad DM but not as good as a Good DM.
There’s another question. Is a RIL world superior to a non RIL world? The answer is yes. When players feel that the world has a solid quality to it its plainly better. When players think of the world as a real place instead of a bubble that wraps around their adventure and changes to reflect them it’s a good thing. When players feel that things that don’t directly relate to them are happening around them it’s a good thing. Let’s say a PC is interacting with a merchant. He knows a RIL merchant isn’t just there so he can have access to a storefront. The merchant is there because he fits into the world right there. The merchant is going to have a supplier. The merchant is going to have regular demand for his goods. The player can make a number of guesses about the merchant that he could act on.
We like the RIL world but not necessarily the RIL DM.
How do we know if a DM is RIL anyway? You can’t ever know. Not unless you declare a 2cd player to be a reality auditor that just stands behind the DM and makes sure he stays impartial and follows the pregenerated material. But you can get a feel for it. It’s not hard to spot when things seem to be happening just because the DM wants them that way. It’s like obscenity “I know it when I see it.” However a DM using and sticking to a pregenerated 3rd party campaign is one way to easily show your players the DM is playing RIL.
This leads me to my final point. I’m not a good DM so I don’t know. I just suspect. A good DM is going to follow RIL principles for the most part. Very rarely when it is important, he will act for the betterment of the game. That way the players perceive they are in a mostly RIL world while in fact they have a non RIL DM.