PDA

View Full Version : Plot realism and PC-centered DnD.



Ramos
2007-03-28, 07:42 PM
DnD is a game where the players roleplay a number of characters-usually in the same group-in a scenario created by the DM for fun. By definition, the game is PC-centered. As a result, the vast majority of plots are PC-centered, with situations where only the PCs can perform certain tasks of great importance. A prophesy the PCs are destined to fulfill. A great evil only the PCs can fight. A nation or two where every single citizen relies on the PCs performing errand X for them. In every such plot, the PCs appear to be stronger/more important than anyone else in the world around them, everything seems to "work out" for them and so on.

The importance of the PCs in the game must be great-they are, after all, the protagonists. But why does the game world itself have to revolve around the PCs? It is not realistic, even by a fantasy world's measure, for the PCs to play such central part in the world's story. Is it not possible to have the game revolve around the PCs without having the campaign world do the same? IMHO, it is a matter of placing too important events (campaign-wise) on the PCs for any given time. In those cases, a key plot element has to be devised to make said events easy to resolve for the PCs. For example, a very powerful demon lord noone can defeat except when using the Sword of Demonslaying +66 that the PCs happen to find when looking into a lightly defended, largely irrelevant dungeon. Or, a mad wizard that has this very powerful magic that kills anyone that hasn't drunk water from a special spring while balancing on the third toe of his right foot-you get the idea. While one or two such plots are original-such as Tolkien's LotR-every single plot following the same lines kills originality in the end. In addition, this leads to very unrealistic scenarios-why did the lvl 10 PCs saved the world anyway? It's Elminster's job.

As a DM, I tend to keep a realistic campaign with the PCs taking up a position in the game world that fits with their significance. The lvl 5 PCs will not affect the course of an entire war. The lvl 10 PCs will not embark on a quest to save the multiverse. The lvl 20 PCs might kill the dragon threatening the countryside but won't take out the entire Black Network by themselves and affect the world's history for centuries to come. As the PCs acheive more and more power, they can take up more and more difficult assignments not only game-wise but also plot-wise. And they've resolved these situations themselves-not through some spooky plot device. I've found that in this way the players have a greater sense of acheivement than when I use plot devices to aid them or keep them to the plot.

Speaking of keeping people to the plot, a great number of games feature a central story the players have to follow-and, as a result, half the tension and arguments over DnD in any discussion is over railroading-how the DM will make the players do thing X or how the DM will keep the players to the plot. Is there a reason why players-or rather, the PCs-have to be kept to the plot? In a realistic situation, anyone is always free to give up, change courses or simply seek other goals on his own. As a DM, I don't try to make players do anything they do not want to. The players are the center of the game, not the center of the plot. If I find it difficult to interest players and the characters they play in a story, then I change my story. I do not discard the story's significance to the characters ofcourse. Events in that plot will evolve in time and may affect the characters even while they are doing something very different. But when the PCs don't have to follow a fixed plot but may choose to do whatever they want and simply deal with the consequences, the game progresses more smoothly for the players themselves-they don't have to follow a plot they might not like. It is the DM's job to have his players like the plot. It is also realistic that characters can choose not to act on it.


A final issue with the PC-centered DnD is the realism of the challenges. 99% of the challenges are made to be overcome by the PCs-which is not very realistic. As a rule of thumb, the PCs have to survive in the game so as to keep playing. That, however, does not mean the PCs have to win all the time. I tend to design encounters without the PCs in mind. I instead think plot-wise what the adversaries would do to win themselves or why a specific threat to the PCs manifests, the reasons not including the PCs' ECL and wealth expectancy charts. The PCs won't be able to just charge ahead in every encounter, kill off monsters at their CR 5 times, rest then repeat. They might fall on encounters easier than their CR by far if the adversary is not aware of them. If they get careless, they might be ambushed-even defeated and captured. If they use divinations/gather information to approach their overall goal carefully, they might have an easy time. If they blunder, they can and will fail. Realism does not necessarily mean unhappy players-but it does require thinking players.

EvilElitest
2007-03-28, 07:59 PM
Ahem brother.
In my worlds i make it quite clear that my PCs aren't the center of the world and they will not be until they hit level 17 plus. Tops. They accuse me of giving them inferority complexs though.
FR does what you say, if your not Elimister or one of those super NPCs, they the world does not focus around you until you make it so. Even in Drizzt book, the story does not do this. Salvator makes it quite clear that all of Drizzt victories are nice but they are on a small scale. So yeah, you have the right idea realisticly.
from,
EE

Galathir
2007-03-28, 09:51 PM
I certainly agree with you there. In my campaigns, the PCs are certainly the center of the story as they know it. However, there are plenty of political, religious, military, and personal events going on in the world. I actually keep a log of what is happening every day in the campaign, throughout the world. Nations fight each other, kings are dethroned, cities corrupted, and religions die and grow. Once the PCs are high enough level, they can start influencing the actions of nations, but at their current level of four, they are just starting to investigate a corrupted and fallen city.

I like to stat out encounters and BBEG's for how they fit in the world. I don't tailor creatures specifically to be a struggle or a lark. The creatures are in the world, and how you deal with them is up to the PCs. The town mayor may be evil, but that doesn't mean they are ready to take him down. If you hear that there's a black dragon in the Wild Hills, there probably is, and he will be there whether you are an appropriate challenge or not.

EvilElitest
2007-03-28, 10:07 PM
My world is too big for me to keep track of 100%, so i made a group of 200plus NPCs who have preagranged travels around the world. I check in the PCs ruin their deeds, and if not, i keep them at it.
from,
EE

Rabiesbunny
2007-03-28, 11:35 PM
That's pretty hardcore, EE! I don't Dm, but right now we're in a Zhent-centric campaign that's running, at the moment, in Waterdeep. Utilizing the 2nd and 3.3 edition book, and the 2nd edition Skullport book, we can have adventures here foreeeever! Go on and link Zhentarim to the Xanthalar thieves guild, and you can totally go on for years without stepping on people's toes.

Sardia
2007-03-29, 12:24 AM
Part of the PCs winding up in unusually important situations over and over might have to do with the "Penalty for Success"-- the PCs go out, do some good and live. The next time the situation comes up, so do their names, because they've got a good and recent track record.

EvilElitest
2007-03-29, 02:21 PM
That's pretty hardcore, EE! I don't Dm, but right now we're in a Zhent-centric campaign that's running, at the moment, in Waterdeep. Utilizing the 2nd and 3.3 edition book, and the 2nd edition Skullport book, we can have adventures here foreeeever! Go on and link Zhentarim to the Xanthalar thieves guild, and you can totally go on for years without stepping on people's toes.

Thank you very much. I like the PCs feeling that htey are nothing special. Nice way to keep the party in one place without getting boring. One of my groups in stuck in the Underdark, so they are not going anywere anytime soon
from,
EE

Logos7
2007-03-29, 02:44 PM
Well it all depends on your conception of what is an important person now doesn't it

How many ranks does it take to make a mw sword while taking 10, I'm gonna go with the alexandians reference for this. http://www.thealexandrian.net/ D&D calibrating your Expectations, A few days down

5 levels, 5 levels of commoner can make you a MASTERSMITH, three levels if your a dwarf. I think it's preety obvious when you look at PC Class Levels and Kit vs 99% of your Fantasy Population it seems preetty obvious that the PC's are special,

But even that aside i gotta ask you , Why in the name of realism do you go looking for ways to make your PC's not win?

Your the DM you are realism, You set the DC's you narrate the NPC's the Weather the Merrchant and the enforcement of the gods, you really gotta think of a way to make your PC's lose or not be special. To each their own put it strikes me a giggling with glee for outhinking a slug when you got the salt on your side.

This is part of the reason why i like eberron, NPC's are just that NPC's not XPC's or Former PC's . Who cares that the King of the Land is a level 2 aristocrat and the wise man is a level 1 commoner. Even using the Dmg to make a town the percent of the people with PC Class levels to NPC class levels is something like 1:10 and that only get's better the higher levels up you go , factor in kit as well ( which if you go by Dmg should be about a third of that for a PC or if you go with common sense, like how the majority of the people in any non industrial society are involved with growing food, moving food, making food,etc. Your PC's SPecial to NPC factor suddenly shoots to 1:100 or better.

and this should all be more or less by the book ( I play in eberron, but I use the DMG demographics table without problem)

The Moral I think is that the specialness of the PC's have nothing to do with reason or realism, but rather DM perogative. That said unless i was playing in Ravenloft I'd be somewhat annoyed at some of the antics you guys discribe .

Loos

EvilElitest
2007-03-29, 02:47 PM
Well it all depends on your conception of what is an important person now doesn't it

How many ranks does it take to make a mw sword while taking 10, I'm gonna go with the alexandians reference for this. http://www.thealexandrian.net/ D&D calibrating your Expectations, A few days down

5 levels, 5 levels of commoner can make you a MASTERSMITH, three levels if your a dwarf. I think it's preety obvious when you look at PC Class Levels and Kit vs 99% of your Fantasy Population it seems preetty obvious that the PC's are special,

But even that aside i gotta ask you , Why in the name of realism do you go looking for ways to make your PC's not win?

Your the DM you are realism, You set the DC's you narrate the NPC's the Weather the Merrchant and the enforcement of the gods, you really gotta think of a way to make your PC's lose or not be special. To each their own put it strikes me a giggling with glee for outhinking a slug when you got the salt on your side.

This is part of the reason why i like eberron, NPC's are just that NPC's not XPC's or Former PC's . Who cares that the King of the Land is a level 2 aristocrat and the wise man is a level 1 commoner. Even using the Dmg to make a town the percent of the people with PC Class levels to NPC class levels is something like 1:10 and that only get's better the higher levels up you go , factor in kit as well ( which if you go by Dmg should be about a third of that for a PC or if you go with common sense, like how the majority of the people in any non industrial society are involved with growing food, moving food, making food,etc. Your PC's SPecial to NPC factor suddenly shoots to 1:100 or better.

and this should all be more or less by the book ( I play in eberron, but I use the DMG demographics table without problem)

The Moral I think is that the specialness of the PC's have nothing to do with reason or realism, but rather DM perogative. That said unless i was playing in Ravenloft I'd be somewhat annoyed at some of the antics you guys discribe .

Loos
Good for you, but i would like to point out. Why do the PCs get to be super? I hate it when my characters think "Oh we get to win because we are the PC". It is the same kind of thinking that leads to NPCs all looking exatly the same or only PCs matering. It is not logically fora world to have only 4-6 people who can make a difference.
from,
EE

marjan
2007-03-29, 03:32 PM
I hate it when my characters think "Oh we get to win because we are the PC".

That's what the RPing is for.


It is not logically fora world to have only 4-6 people who can make a difference.
from,
EE

While it's not logical it would be quite boring if your PCs get to do one great thing for their entire lives and then sit on their rear for the rest of it.

clarkvalentine
2007-03-29, 03:40 PM
"Realism" is the first thing out the window at my table - we play the sort of game we want to play. Sometimes we want to play the big damn heroes who change the world without having to claw their way up from Assistant Pig Keeper. Sometimes we don't. Two different styles of play - one isn't better than the other.

Deepblue706
2007-03-29, 10:20 PM
I prefer a balance of fantasy and realism in my games. As I often say, there's magic and dragons and lots of nonsense, but gravity (usually) still applies.I don't believe it's a good idea, as a DM, to allow your PCs get the idea they're automatically superior to just about everyone else around (unless that's the character concept for that given PC...).

I would say, at higher levels, there will be a lot fewer people who can stand at the same height as some PCs, but at relatively low levels I keep track of how many other things can totally kick their asses.I'm not a cruel DM, mind you - but I would say I probably run in a similar way as Galathir, as Black Dragons will still roam in their lands, whether or not the PCs are ready to fight them. And, there will be captains of the numerous soldiers they fight, other aspiring adventurers who have seen a great deal of what the PCs have, and other things as well.

storybookknight
2007-03-29, 10:46 PM
I think a huge part of your plaint is symptomatic of the Forgotten Realms universe in particular. Eberron is vastly more logically consistent regarding the power levels people should be at.

The flaw in your argument is that, should the players want to effect change over the entire world, they have to powerlevel 25 levels to get to the point where that is actually a possibility. Realistic? In Forgotten Realms, sure. Frustrating for the players? Maybe. It depends person to person, but my philosophy is that 9th level spells are in the players' handbook for a reason, that reason being that the players should have a reasonable expectation of being able to achieve that level of power.

Similarly, CR 20 monsters (and past!) are there for the PCs to fight, not to watch NPCs fight, and +10 swords are there for other reasons than having a bard be able to sing about them.

Basically, the game is about the players. More specifically, the story is about them. I think that it sets an unrealistic expectation of how real life works to go to all costs to preserve reality in a fantasy roleplaying world. Now,there are other ways to have the story be about the players that don't require world-bending; they don't have to save the world when it's equally (or more) meaningful to save a town, and that might be what the OP is referring to when he discusses "not stopping the war" at level 5.

That said, if you the DM decide to tell a story about a war which the players decide they would like to affect in some meaningful way, I think that it's his duty to find a way to allow that to happen, regardless of how realistic it is. The party could stop one scouting patrol which would have uncovered their leaders' base to enemy fire, and therefore alter the course of the war - is it not said that a pebble dropped in the right place (onto a boulder, often as not) can divert a river?

I think that it's misleading to suggest that the world does not revolve around the players. It does. It doesn't exist, except for them - and you, the DM. Never in my playing career have I showed up to hear the adventures of Joe the NPC who happens to have more levels and thus be more important to the world!

To me, Realism is always a far third place, after first the Players' Enjoyment and second, the Story. Realism makes a story seem solid, yes - but generally people can't throw fireballs in realistic settings. D&D is a fantasy, so I am willing to make large allowances when it comes to plot devices - things happen that are horrifically unlikely, and 9 out of every 10 times, a group of people trying to mimic the players' actions would be doomed to fail. The bards don't tell stories about the 36 dead guys, though - they sing about the 4 unlikely heroes who saved the world.

Rainspattered
2007-03-29, 10:51 PM
Most people believe deep down the world is centered around them. It might not actually be, but they seem to think so. In D&D, nobody bothers to contradict this notion in the heroes. If they think this level seven wizard can really destroy the world, who am I to stop them. He has been blighting our crops for ages claiming he'll destroy the multiverse. Lets let their delusions of grandeur kill his, shall we?

Diggorian
2007-03-29, 11:37 PM
Maybe I'm not grasping the fundamental problem here?

A DM can make the PCs central and write the story with them being uniquely legendary in tackling Tailored encounters; or, they can have the PCs being part of a much larger story amongst many movers-and-shakers trying to make their fame between Status Quo challenges. Thirdly, ofcourse, is any in between these.

Neither is more realistic than the other really.

LotharBot
2007-03-30, 12:14 AM
9th level spells are in the players' handbook [so] the players should have a reasonable expectation of being able to achieve that level of power.

Not necessarily every game, though. I don't expect the PCs to face an aboleth in each and every campaign, though they're in the MM. I don't expect them to travel to Mechanus in each and every campaign, though it's in the DMG. I don't expect to have a druid in every game, though the class is in the PHB. I don't expect my PC's to always go from level 1 to level 20+ every game. And I don't expect my PC's to save the whole world every game -- some games, they'll save a little village and make level 4, and that'll be enough.


I think that it's misleading to suggest that the world does not revolve around the players. It does.In some sense, since the world in its current state only exists at the players' gaming table, it revolves around the players.

But in another sense... the players are characters in it. They're not (usually) gods. They're forces for good or evil or law or chaos or whatever else they want to be forces for, but they're rarely the dominant force in the entire world, and they're never the ONLY force. And that was the OP's point -- the world can, and probably should, have things going on that aren't caused by the PCs; other forces are at work that make the world change. In video games, if you forget to take farmer bob's grain to the market at level 1 and you return at level 35, farmer bob is still standing there and will still give you your 5 gp and 2 xp award for the quest, but that's not how your tabletop game should be. There are other adventurers in other cities. There are armies and political scandals at work in other kingdoms. There are powerful mages and clerics and guilds, all with different goals, and some of them have a lot of pull. Ultimately, your PCs tip the balance in at least some small part of the world, so the adventure revolves around them, but the rest of the world doesn't. Or, as the OP asked, "Is it not possible to have the game revolve around the PCs without having the campaign world do the same?"

What we're talking about here isn't "realism" at the expense of players, but "realism" that benefits the players. It's a better game for them if they feel like they're a part of an actual world, rather than just a part of a bubble full of custom-made tasks for their PCs. It's a better game if your level 5 PCs achieve heroic level-5-appropriate goals by their own power than if your level 5 PCs somehow accomplish level-30-appropriate goals because the DM used his power to make them stumble upon the gem-of-saving-the-universe.

The players are the center of the game. They're not the center of the world, and they're not even the center of all the action that happens in their area. They're the ones whose actions we can control and whose eyes we see the world through, but the world should be real enough to move and change apart from what they specifically do.

Starsinger
2007-03-30, 12:38 AM
Yeah... the games I play in tend to have Dynasty Warriors syndrome too. A couple of low level characters should not be able to stop an entire army. Admittedly, when I DM I tend to make my PCs super hero-y save the world types, simply because I'm a big fan of videogame style "six people save teh univarse" plots

NemoUtopia
2007-03-30, 01:04 AM
I think a lot of people are forgetting that setting plays a very important part, and for more reasons than one.

Let's take Forgotten Realms (crazy high-magic setting): While the great majority of the population is "normal", it's pretty safe to say that MORE than 1%, quite possibly close to 5% of the population, are to the point of having PC classes, or being multi-level NPC classes. It's true that the population in general lives life from day to day, but the number of adventurers, magic users, and intrigue laden skill monkeys, or guards/soldier veterans is (relative to other settings) astounding. For the sake of the setting, "realism" means that even if the PCs reach EPIC levels, the world won't ever revolve around them. If they undertake something history changing at high level, it will not be "full frontal assault on the Red Wizards of Thay or the Zentarim"...because even at that level they will die and they know it. Being the only ones capable of sealing away a dark demonic force is actually quite feasible...even if the plot and lives of a nation hinge on them, they're just the next group of heroes doing the same thing. It's not that people aren't grateful, it's just that such adventure is commonplace.

Shift over to Eberron (steam-punkish high magic): Not as high-magic as FR, but with its own level of "you are the only ones who can save the world!" being relatively common. In such a setting, "realism" has more to do with making sure the PCs know they are unique in their own right, but are not the only ones of their abilities (they are likely in competition with others of like ability, in fact). While there are mage-wrights to make the economy work, things like the airships and elemental binding on city-scale are accomplished by unique, high-level figures. Once the PCs reach the point of being even 10th-15th level, they have achieved notable and not-necessarily enviable status in the world unless everything they've accomplished is somehow "off the radar." Their actions, while not nearly end-all-be-all, should be quite capable of influencing (note: not guiding, but being a player in) national politics, and they have likely made their own powerful enemies who actively seek their demise. While still not truly unique (and indeed, there are many, far more powerful figures that play with the world), their power level is far more scarce than on a world like Toril.

Shift to a low-moderate magic setting: Suddenly, even by 7th level, the PCs are the stuff of stories and even legend, with only high heroes, mighty wizards, and chosen clerics of deities being greater. They are not invincible, but rulers take not when such a group is within or even near their kingdom. Their actions can have far-reaching repercussions unless there is an active force that prevents this from being so or they have gone to great length to hide their deeds.

The "realism" of plot/PC centric D&D relies not just on the setting, but on the DM and the players themselves. Adventures can be as simple as covertly stopping a goblin from rallying the goblin tribes (and thus their deed never being known) to finding the save-the-world gem from the clutches of great darkness with the entire world watching...and depending on how well the setting is accounted for and the plot is written, be "realistic." Run the game you want to run, but be sure to be able to give your players reasons (and examples) to why their actions are famous or unknown, influential or beneath notice.

Tobrian
2007-03-30, 07:07 AM
Good for you, but i would like to point out. Why do the PCs get to be super? I hate it when my characters think "Oh we get to win because we are the PC". It is the same kind of thinking that leads to NPCs all looking exatly the same or only PCs matering. It is not logically fora world to have only 4-6 people who can make a difference.

Ok then. The world gets saved by Elminster or some Special Ops brigade of NPCs. The PCs are told to go home. The players do the same.

Really, what's the point of playing Heroic Fantasy if you're not the hero? That the heroes win eventually is part of the frikking GENRE! :smallannoyed: That's like playing heroic rebels against the Evil Empire in Star Wars, only the gamemaster tells you that your characters are not supposed to stand out of a crowd, they'll do score a great victory by freak chance, and all stormtroopers shoot straight.

Oh come on.
If your players think only PCs matter (like in Knights of the Dinner Table) your problem is rooted in either arrogant players, or you the gamemaster not giving the NPCs enough colour.


DnD is a game where the players roleplay a number of characters-usually in the same group-in a scenario created by the DM for fun. By definition, the game is PC-centered. As a result, the vast majority of plots are PC-centered, with situations where only the PCs can perform certain tasks of great importance. A prophesy the PCs are destined to fulfill. A great evil only the PCs can fight. A nation or two where every single citizen relies on the PCs performing errand X for them. In every such plot, the PCs appear to be stronger/more important than anyone else in the world around them, everything seems to "work out" for them and so on.

I beg to differ. Generic D&D is exactly the opposite of "PC-centered". A basic D&D scenario from a game module, let's say a dungeon-crawl, is centered around a plot objective that must be tackled by a team of specialists. A prophecy must be fulfilled, a great evil must be vanquished, someone has to find farmer Bob's lost cow. But that plot can be solved by anyone. It's solved by the PCs because... well, duh, they're there, ergo they're the protagonists. Otherwise it would be like a movie where the protagonists never actually turn up on screen. A player character becomes the protagonist solely by virtue of being in that scenario. The way most people play D&D and the way most scenarios are set up is, actual individual PCs are interchangable, replacable. Sure, you might need a rogue or a cleric, someone who can do X, but that's just skills. PCs are player-avatars, player stand-ins to solve the plot points, like in video games.

If the plot were really character-centered, then it would collapse if you removed the characters in question. But it doesn't. In D&D, if Marty the elf wizard or Sir Smites-a-lot the paladin bite the dust, 5 minutes later some other guy with a PC-aura pops up and joins the party. The plot is usually completely independent of actual individuals.

Making one PC the centre of a prophecy is usually discouraged, because it makes the other players feel like henchmen. In other games, like Ars MAgica or GURPS Celtic Myth, you can have the opposite. Plots develop from the characters.

Deepblue706
2007-03-30, 11:58 AM
Wow, I just realized that my post didn't actually say everything I thought I had it do. Seriously, I had like two more paragraphs - dunno where they went.

I like to add elements of realism in my games to help the PCs feel more emersed. Seriously, I lost a group because they thought they weren't being threatened by anything.

"Oh, 50 orcs? Well, there's 5 of us...we can take 'em"

This was around level 8 or so.

Their attitude was always "Oh, what a surprise. The heroes win." I've found that adding elements of horror into the game, showing the PCs they aren't the only powerful forces around, implementing challenges that involve evading, etc, make for better game balance and refreshes players. They'll probably not get bored if you throw everything in the book at them (if you pace it right, anyway).

PCs are the heroes in my games, but they are seldom without need of help from NPCs. They can do things better than most others, but that doesn't mean they never meet their match. Players in my games have been "defeated" many times - but they've almost never "lost". A defeat is simply another obstacle within the game, in my mind, and is integral for player growth and appreciation. And if you add more elements of realism to the game, they'll actually consider losing as a possibility - and may actually try to find a different way of accomplishing their goals. Now, I actually set up a great deal of my encounters in a way that the PCs can't really lose if they just go in and fight everything....but they never know that. I make it a point to present things in such a way that makes the PCs feel unique, but not unmatched. In my games, it is not their level of skill that makes them so superior, so much as it is their level of organization and familiarity with one-another. If the PCs beat a band of orc raiders, it's because they have a warrior in the front, supported by a healer, while arcane blasters nuke them from the sidelines, and the rogue dances around all sneaky-like. While my players are free to make whatever groups they want, I try to make all archetypes necessary, as I hate when my groups decide they're composed of 3 rogues and a wizard.

But anyway, back to the "unmatched" topic. See, I feel this makes the players appreciate the game more, because they have more connection with their characters this way. I mean, consider this: if your players aspire to become great people IRL, but get the idea that only the superhuman can ever accomplish their goals...I'm sure they'd kinda feel depressed. I like to support the idea of "Wow, that wasn't so ridiculous. I wonder if I ever could..."

I mean, why do we play D&D? I suppose this could greatly vary from person to person, but I don't think it's about making a creature that represents your boss so that you can tear him to pieces with an axe. Nor do I think it's entirely about being something so much greater than you are now so that you can put your inferiority disorder at ease. For me, it's about doing something I can't do, not because I'm a crap person, but because I simply don't live in a world with dragons and magic etc. It's a temporary removal from reality to refresh my mind and give me something new to think about. But removal from reality doesn't mean from reality in all forms. I still believe that a "hero" is what history makes it to be. For instance, I don't believe Albert Einstein had a 180 IQ and was a super-ultimate-genius of such magnitudes almost nobody will ever accomplish again. Very smart guy, but I believe he was a man with talent who did something called "hard work". He was motivated to do it because he liked it. And, his talents pulled him through it.

History teaches us you don't have to be that great to be remembered - just "good enough" does the trick if you're in the right place at the right time. And, that's also my take on how PCs should be in D&D.

Emperor Tippy
2007-03-30, 12:52 PM
Well I don't feel like reading all of this so I will post what my RL group does.

We have 2 worlds. The first is entirely homebrewed. We have over 800 cities fully mapped, whole economies worked out, etc. All of our non Eberron games are run in this world. And we run multiple groups of PCs in the world at the same time.

Our original group of PC's run one of the major empires (they are level 20). WE still go back and play them now but they are generally NPCed. One of our current games has us fermenting a rebellion against the original PC's and overthrowing the government.

At the same time yet another group of PC's are making their way up th criminal underworld of the world.

All 8 of us sat down and designed the world together. And all major changes are agreed to by all. The benefit of this is that the DM doesn't have to explain what the characters know that the players don't. Or have to come up with a world. As the PC's increase in level their affect on the world and world shaping plots increase until at level 20-30 they really are changing the fate of the world.

Now the other world we have is generic Eberron. With a few twists. The first is that we again keep a persistent world. PC's are run through it and they stay in game. Right now my RL players have level 20 characters and are trying to reunite the 5 kingdoms. A game I'm running on these boards is using that world. The PC's in that game are working for my RL PC's. They come up with the missions and the online players actions determine the effect on the RL game.

This stops me from having to NPC stuff or come up with quests or a world for the online game. Its all done.

Muz
2007-03-30, 01:35 PM
Ok then. The world gets saved by Elminster or some Special Ops brigade of NPCs. The PCs are told to go home. The players do the same.

Really, what's the point of playing Heroic Fantasy if you're not the hero? That the heroes win eventually is part of the frikking GENRE! :smallannoyed:

I think more what the OP meant was that if the world IS saved by Elminster, it wouldn't be any fun, so how do you get the PCs in the world-saving position without having them wonder "So why is it that our characters have to do this rather than that mage 20 levels higher than us across the street?"

...Or at least I think that's part of what he meant. ("I have a history of missing the point of these things." :smallsmile: )

Diggorian
2007-03-30, 01:48 PM
Join the club Muz (BTW, check out my ideas in your Prydian Politics thread).

Im going over Ramos post with a fine tooth-comb to aid our fellow gamer.


The importance of the PCs in the game must be great-they are, after all, the protagonists. But why does the game world itself have to revolve around the PCs? It is not realistic, even by a fantasy world's measure, for the PCs to play such central part in the world's story. Is it not possible to have the game revolve around the PCs without having the campaign world do the same?

Definately. In LotR a handful of heroes do save the world. However, just cause the story revolves around the star PCs doesnt mean the game world does. Middle Earth was only the size of Europe roughly. There had to be other things going on, but they were beyond the scope of Tolkein's story.


As the PCs acheive more and more power, they can take up more and more difficult assignments not only game-wise but also plot-wise. And they've resolved these situations themselves-not through some spooky plot device. I've found that in this way the players have a greater sense of acheivement than when I use plot devices to aid them or keep them to the plot.


I agree. Uber plot devices are a bit too fairy tale for my taste, but others may prefer them.


Speaking of keeping people to the plot, a great number of games feature a central story the players have to follow-and, as a result, half the tension and arguments over DnD in any discussion is over railroading-how the DM will make the players do thing X or how the DM will keep the players to the plot. Is there a reason why players-or rather, the PCs-have to be kept to the plot?

Yeah, cause it makes things easier for the DM. Some arent good at improv or are busy so rely on published adventures. With enough practice and PC complaints they can become better and learn to shape the plot from character interaction.


A final issue with the PC-centered DnD is the realism of the challenges. 99% of the challenges are made to be overcome by the PCs-which is not very realistic. As a rule of thumb, the PCs have to survive in the game so as to keep playing. That, however, does not mean the PCs have to win all the time.

That's seems like a higher percentage than actual. Take a look at the 500 post-long PC stupidity thread :smallbiggrin: , failure happens often regardless of design. I do agree with you though, games that nearly guarantee success arent very fun at all. No risk, no reward.

PinkysBrain
2007-03-30, 02:08 PM
It is not realistic
Statistically unlikely to be the PCs maybe, but if we suppose for a moment that fantasy literature defines how fantasy worlds usually work not unrealistic.

even by a fantasy world's measureThere is no dearth of individuals chosen by fate to save the world in fantasy literature.

As for Elminster syndrome, that's why we have Eberron. No gods, no Elminsters ... just a lot of mid level characters, you and the BBEGs. The PCs are special in Eberron (ie. chosen by fate).

EvilElitest
2007-03-30, 03:43 PM
Ah man i don't want to agrue with Tobrian. Oh well


Ok then. The world gets saved by Elminster or some Special Ops brigade of NPCs. The PCs are told to go home. The players do the same.

Why would Elimister even know about the plot the PCs are doing? HE is off doing somthing else. Do epic level characters go out and do level ten quests. Only a bad DM will allow the super NPCs to interfere with the PCs on everything. I hate "Save teh entire world" settings because i find it arrogent and corny. As well as unrealistic. So yes, i did something like that then super NPC would show up, but not if the PC are jsut doing their thing
When i play FR (I don't anymore but i use to) i (the DM) would come up with something for the super NPCs to be doing. So Drizzt who is currently fighting in mithril hall will not help the PCs unless they show up their.
levels 1-3, the PCs are super minor, super minor to the extreme. They are not even worth notice from Super NPCs unless they literly walk into eachother. Farun is a big world, the Super NPCs tend to have their own terrotory and stick to it
level 3-6, the PCs are minor heros in a local area
level 6-8 the character could be major heroes in a small local area. The SNPC (super NPCS) might send them on a minor mission but no real attention.
Levels 8-12 They are not compatent. They might get a character with some orginazation
levels 12-16 Quite powerful heros now, and some of the weaker SNPs might work with them from time to time. They might have a one time deal with a SNPC, such as a single minor adventure with Drizzt.
Levels 16-18- Very powerful and are worth the SNPCs indirect notice. the high priest of bane might send a lot of assassins after them, while Black Staff might send them on a major quest that while important is not as important as what ever he is doing
Levels 18-21 They are worth SNPCs direct notice now



Really, what's the point of playing Heroic Fantasy if you're not the hero? That the heroes win eventually is part of the frikking GENRE! :smallannoyed: That's like playing heroic rebels against the Evil Empire in Star Wars, only the gamemaster tells you that your characters are not supposed to stand out of a crowd, they'll do score a great victory by freak chance, and all stormtroopers shoot straight.
I like my worlds realistic, maybe because i have multiple groups in them at teh same time but i like my game constent. I don't like it when my characters win "Because they are the heros". Hell, if you look at it, that is pretty insulting to any NPC. If they want to be heros, they have to earn it

Oh come on.
If your players think only PCs matter (like in Knights of the Dinner Table) your problem is rooted in either arrogant players, or you the gamemaster not giving the NPCs enough colour.
I've never given my PCs a chance to think that they are the only ones that matter. When two of my PC groups met, that ruined their ego.


I beg to differ. Generic D&D is exactly the opposite of "PC-centered". A basic D&D scenario from a game module, let's say a dungeon-crawl, is centered around a plot objective that must be tackled by a team of specialists. A prophecy must be fulfilled, a great evil must be vanquished, someone has to find farmer Bob's lost cow. But that plot can be solved by anyone. It's solved by the PCs because... well, duh, they're there, ergo they're the protagonists. Otherwise it would be like a movie where the protagonists never actually turn up on screen. A player character becomes the protagonist solely by virtue of being in that scenario. The way most people play D&D and the way most scenarios are set up is, actual individual PCs are interchangable, replacable. Sure, you might need a rogue or a cleric, someone who can do X, but that's just skills. PCs are player-avatars, player stand-ins to solve the plot points, like in video games.
I'm not saying the PLOT should not be PC orented, just the world and the plot realism. If the players are the only ones in the area who can do X, then it works out. At low levels they are the only one that NPCs can afford and/or find convient.

from,
EE