Critiquing the "Guy At The Gym" Fallacy

[Max_Killjoy]

"Crapsack" was a bit harsh, but my point is that there's clearly something not totally working with the standard authorities if heroes are needed - whether that be corruption, being spread too thin to properly cover certain areas, being ill-equipped to deal with certain threats etc. Perhaps "deficient" is better?

For me, a setting that doesn't need heroes, at a minimum, needs to be able to handle internal and external threats without suffering or loss of innocent life. That includes bandits, warlords, organized crime, wandering monsters, exposing corruption, and even natural (or unnatural) disasters. More often though we see that the king's knights or the guard are barely keeping up, if they're even trying that hard to begin with. When exceptional individuals operating outside the system are needed to solve those problems, then the system itself is at fault.

Which brings us back to the gods - often they are the ones sponsoring the heroes in the first place, the Good ones anyway. I used "crapsack" initially because you imagine the setting sliding into iniquity/entropy the moment they lift their fingers from the scale. I imagine it differently - that it is sliding that way EVEN WITH them intervening in this way. That, if they stopped, things would spiral out of control shockingly quickly.

This seems to be a scale issue. There's plenty of room for things to go wrong that don't involve the world falling apart or "going Tippy".

[Florian]

That has implications of its own. How did they become the authorities - were they trained up through the system, or were they skilled operatives from outside it that got conscripted, Sokovia Accords-style? Do they have limits on their jurisdiction? Is their government/organization totally without flaws?

That are very "western" concepts, tho. Grab a 101 copy of Confucius or the Tao Te King and we talk again.

[Mechalich]

A world can be in a considerably more miserable state, statistically, than the modern one and still be stable, or even on an upward growth trajectory. Likewise, a world can be in a considerably more advanced and even nominally pleasant one than ours and be trapped in a hideous downward spiral. The form is common to quasi-medieval worlds, while the latter is a typical feature of hyper-modern dystopias.

For tabletop gaming purposes the ideal is a world that has relatively weak institutions, thereby providing an opportunity for adventures to make a difference and right wrongs, but not one that is currently engaged in massive upheaval due to some existential threat, thereby robbing them of a support base and conscripting them into a specific conflict. Weak and decadent empires that have lost the support of the populace but are still a few decades from collapse are ideal. The East Asian wuxia tradition loves this sort of framework, and Western stories set in Eastern Europe or a fragmented not-HRE scenario also fit the model excellently. Regardless the goal is a fairly stable status quo, perhaps one that is under threat of a massive extinction-level conflict being unleashed soon, but where it hasn't happened yet. LotR, for example, mostly takes place before Sauron's armies march, and many other series are quite similar.

What you do not want, in a tabletop setting, is a world is claimed to be stable in the fluff, but is unstable in the mechanics and particularly one that is drastically unstable because of the immense power of a small number of individuals (especially is this potentially includes PCs) to change it should they exert the full force of their abilities. The Forgotten Realms is such a setting, which is why the 3e FRCS includes a paragraph of special pleading from the mouth of Elminster attempting to justify why the various epic-level wizards don't reshape the world according to their desires. It's not very convincing, but I do give Ed Greenwood credit for at least recognizing the problem, and it's not his fault that all his spellcasters suddenly became about 10x as powerful because of the edition switch. More broadly, standard tabletop adventuring is about changing political conditions, not changing social conditions. The latter is a kingdom management game.

[Pex]

That has implications of its own. How did they become the authorities - were they trained up through the system, or were they skilled operatives from outside it that got conscripted, Sokovia Accords-style? Do they have limits on their jurisdiction? Is their government/organization totally without flaws?

Pathfinder does have Kingmaker. I'm playing that now.

[Max_Killjoy]

Saving The World (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLhc-nGGlsM&list=PLDb22nlVXGgcljcdyDk80bBDXGyeZjZ5e&index=19).

[Cluedrew]

Saving The World (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLhc-nGGlsM&list=PLDb22nlVXGgcljcdyDk80bBDXGyeZjZ5e&index=19).I honest to goodness finished that one earlier and have the next one paused at the one second mark. Honestly I think the Write What You Know (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ouv5CJ7Ig7c&list=PLDb22nlVXGgcljcdyDk80bBDXGyeZjZ5e&index=3) video is most relevant to the thread. Mostly because it talks about when you can stop worrying about the details and just say "because X" (for your choice of X). Of course that point will come a different times for different people. I just don't like it when it comes a drastically different times for different types of things. Which is still what I feel the fallacy is mostly about.

There is also one on magic but I don't think it is very useful because it mostly just covers "here are the classic forms of magic and what is commonly done with them" and in this thread we have reached the point of "what can you do with them?". If anyone wants to watch it it's in the same play list.

[Satinavian]

That has implications of its own. How did they become the authorities - were they trained up through the system, or were they skilled operatives from outside it that got conscripted, Sokovia Accords-style? Do they have limits on their jurisdiction? Is their government/organization totally without flaws?
Of course it has implications. But it is an extremely common setup.

And usually the PCs grew up in the system and are loyal to it. Conscripting outsiders would likely make them resent the whole institution. That works for a certain kind of story but it is not a good setup for an RPG because making PCs and players hate your questgivers rarely turns out well.

[Psyren]

This seems to be a scale issue. There's plenty of room for things to go wrong that don't involve the world falling apart or "going Tippy".

I didn't say it had to be about the world falling apart; heroes can be needed for something as small as dealing with bandits or wandering monsters that the authorities can't handle. I do prefer having an explanation why the good gods aren't simply waving their hands to neutralize those threats to innocents, however, which the "uphill battle" and "celestial bureaucracy" theories provide.


Pathfinder does have Kingmaker. I'm playing that now.

That story makes your heroes the "authorities" in a very limited geographical area; heroes are still very much needed elsewhere.


That are very "western" concepts, tho. Grab a 101 copy of Confucius or the Tao Te King and we talk again.

Most D&D settings are based on western concepts so that's fine by me. I'm more than happy to draw from Confucius if we're playing in Kara-Tur or Tian Xia.


Of course it has implications. But it is an extremely common setup.

What I commonly see is that the PCs are deputized by the authorities for their skills, rather than being the authorities themselves. This also allows room for greater variety of backgrounds and attitudes in the party; the LG ones go along with it because it's the right thing to do, the CG ones are fine to start with butu will subvert it the moment it starts getting in their way, the ones leaning evil look forward to the benefits their authority will let them exercise over others even if they do have to help people occasionally etc.

[MrSandman]

That are very "western" concepts, tho. Grab a 101 copy of Confucius or the Tao Te King and we talk again.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, as Psyren's questions apply to an East-Asia flavoured setting as well.

Throughout millennia, in China, people got to positions of power through birth, armed revolution, passing official exams, corruption, the Emperor's gift, etc... and they had a defined set of responsibilities and privileges, some people's authority was broader, some people's was narrower... very similar any other part of the world I know of.

So it might be interesting if you spelled out your point rather than just name a couple of sources to dismiss someone else's point as "western".

[Satinavian]

What I commonly see is that the PCs are deputized by the authorities for their skills, rather than being the authorities themselves. This also allows room for greater variety of backgrounds and attitudes in the party; the LG ones go along with it because it's the right thing to do, the CG ones are fine to start with butu will subvert it the moment it starts getting in their way, the ones leaning evil look forward to the benefits their authority will let them exercise over others even if they do have to help people occasionally etc.
That is true.

But here it is extremely helpful how common feudalism in Fantasy settings is. "The System" works via personal bonds of fealty. It is enough, if one character really fits the expectations of noble society and he can organize his retinue basically as he wishes, as long as he gets the job done and fullfills all duties he has. Sure, having retainers who don't behave properly is bad, but it is not that bad.

In more streamlined bureaucratic societies that is harder. But even here it is not exactly difficult to have a PC official, a budget and a problem and let the players do the rest. Many real world organizations have proven to be quite flexible when hiring people with the right skills, especcially when dealing with foreign experts in something.

In a sense this is still pretty much "the less fitting PCs are deputized". But it is the PCs deputizing each other in such a case, so we don't need the whole system being weak and ineffective without the PCs. We just nead a reason why one PC wants to have the help of another. Which is usually more easily justified (friends, family, recent events, novelty factor&boredom, rare skills, misconceptions etc. ) Also it only has to be done for those few ill-fitting examples, while the rest just can be naturally part of the system. Usually the skills PC have tend to be exactly the kind they would need in the campaign, so if the system workd properly they would be exactly the kind of people getting assigned to the task anyway.

[Pex]

That story makes your heroes the "authorities" in a very limited geographical area; heroes are still very much needed elsewhere.



You asked for how it could work. Kingmaker is one way. Elsewhere doesn't matter. The PCs aren't there.

[Talakeal]

@Quertus: Still thinking about your underwater portal problem, and have even asked some of my group mates what they would do.

The problem is, afaict, there are no rules (or even setting details) that I know of for closing a portal. I am sure you could do it with a custom spell, but the level, range, and casting time all really matter and would be up to the DM. There are probably other ways, religious rituals, altering the local environment or the beliefs of nearby people, or using construction projects that create wards or divert ley lines, but again, that is all really vague and setting dependent.

Most straightforward way, grab a magic needle, an oil of ghost touch, a potion of water breathing, a potion of free action, and a potion of detect invisibility, walk down to the rift, sew reality back together, and smack any guardians that give you trouble. But again, that is highly setting and system dependent.

Maybe Planescape had some more concrete stuff on this?


What does this mean; that you'd never play in a setting where basically every sentient creature has the ability to fly, that you'd never play 3.5/PF with improved mechanical balance between PCs, or that you'd never play 3.5/PF above 10th level?

The second one.


And out of curiosity, is your imperative exclusively concerned with everyone having the ability to fly, or are there other common "superhuman"/"fantastic" PC abilities which would be equally unacceptable to you?

Pretty much all of them, yes.


Aesthetically, yes. But from the PoV of PCs past say 7th level and their players, a rapidly increasing majority of the creatures of importance in their adventures can indeed fly.

Why? Or are you saying most creatures of importance in your world are below 8th level/CR 8 or so? If not, then chances are the vast majority of them can already fly, especially if they're antagonists (and if flight matters in the environments/locations where the PCs are likely to face those creatures).

By no later than 10th level, chances are you're practically forced to fly in order to be successful in combat in a game played according to guidelines anyways. And ironically, you're less likely to be dependent on flight if you play a class granting easy access to flight (meaning a caster).

FYI, more than half of all monsters of CR 10 published by Paizo have a continuous fly speed, and this proportion quickly increases with each CR past 10th. IIRC, pretty much the same is true in 3.5.

Yes, the vast majority of creatures are below CR 8, period. I am very skeptical of your half of all creatures above CR 10 have a continuous fly speed, unless you are counting every type of dragon as a separate monster, but am AFB at the moment so I will take your word for it. There is also a vast difference between a monster that has a flight speed and a monster that requires flight to deal with effectively.

But I am not just talking about PCs vs. monsters 1 on 1.

First off, many high level enemies have superior numbers, class levels, or templates that allow them to be used well past their race's listed CR.

Then, most trap don't work on anyone who can fly.

Most environmental challenges and terrain features cease to matter, you can't have meaningful sieges or climbing scenes or use chasms or water features or the like; indeed the whole concept of a fortress or a watch tower starts to look a little silly in such a world.

Then, the PCs will simply fly over most encounters. They can choose not to engage, or to simply fly high and drop rocks on their enemies. If they are flying at night, or in a storm, or over a forest, they won't even be aware of most things taking place below them.

And its hard enough to get PCs on board a ship to have a naval adventure of any sort, if the PCs can all fly that drops to zero.

Edit: Oh, and traps. I am not a big fan of traps, but so many of them won't work on flying PCs; pit traps, mines, pressure plates, trip wires, etc.

[Psyren]

You asked for how it could work. Kingmaker is one way. Elsewhere doesn't matter. The PCs aren't there.

The subdiscussion you inserted yourself into was about settings as a whole and the role of the gods in those settings. An example that relates to one specific portion of a setting is therefore irrelevant.

[Pex]

The subdiscussion you inserted yourself into was about settings as a whole and the role of the gods in those settings. An example that relates to one specific portion of a setting is therefore irrelevant.

The comment tangent was about the PCs being the authorities. You asked how that could be done. Kingmaker is one way.

[Psyren]

The comment tangent was about the PCs being the authorities. You asked how that could be done. Kingmaker is one way.

Not for a setting.

[Florian]

So it might be interesting if you spelled out your point rather than just name a couple of sources to dismiss someone else's point as "western".

Some schools of thought, philosophy and religions see a direct relationship between station in life / the feudal system / the caste system and personal power / skill / combat prowess.

For example, if you declare something like the "celestial bureaucracy" / "mandate of heaven" to be true for a setting, than anyone will rise to their station in life according to their personal power and any station will be represented by someone with power according to that station.

For example, a simple farmer who is a master at a skill or good with the spear is supposed to catch the eye of someone with authority and will be elevated in rank according to their skill or power. To use japanese terms here, a family of expert smiths or basket weavers will be granted the rank of Ji-Samurai (Ji means name, in this particularly case, a family name, which farmers don't have), while the guy with the spear skills would be elevated to the rank of Yoriki (roughly: armed assistant), with both being forced to learn and train the other skills necessary for their station.

As a side note, every setting / game system I've seen that uses this setup, as well as quite a lot of stories in div. media that use it, treats true personal power and skill as superior to magic, because the later more often than not is "borrowed power".

To sum it up: We end up with both, a caste system as well as a feudal hierarchy that are both by default true to themselves - the higher up the chain of command you are, the more personal power you have, while having personal power will push you up that chain.

Consider how Druids worked in earlier editions of D&D: At some point, they stopped leveling up until they could beat and replace the Druid higher up in the chain of command and take their post. Once that was done, they could start gaining XP for the next higher level, which in turn included defeating the one holding that station and so on - the Druid with the highest class level was also always the Druid at the top of the order.

[Keltest]

Not for a setting.

Why not? Ignoring the fact that any part of the setting that the PCs don't visit is entirely unimportant, there isn't any specific reason that the PCs couldn't go about conquering part of, or all of, the setting, especially in 3.5 where high level adventurers, and spellcasters in particular, get army-shattering powers as a matter of course.

[Florian]

Why not? Ignoring the fact that any part of the setting that the PCs don't visit is entirely unimportant, there isn't any specific reason that the PCs couldn't go about conquering part of, or all of, the setting, especially in 3.5 where high level adventurers, and spellcasters in particular, get army-shattering powers as a matter of course.

You are missing the point here. We are still talking about checks and balances to personal power and the influence on the setting.

All Kingmaker does, is using subsystems to simulate being rulers and commanders right from the start, which doesn't really hit on the subtopic we are talking about, namely replacing "the gods" as the C&B factor for something that "heroes" are part of the authority.

[Psyren]

You are missing the point here. We are still talking about checks and balances to personal power and the influence on the setting.

All Kingmaker does, is using subsystems to simulate being rulers and commanders right from the start, which doesn't really hit on the subtopic we are talking about, namely replacing "the gods" as the C&B factor for something that "heroes" are part of the authority.

Thank you. I'm all for folks chiming in if they're actually following the thread of the conversation first :smallsigh:


Why not? Ignoring the fact that any part of the setting that the PCs don't visit is entirely unimportant,

This is definitely not how settings work. At least, not any that I'd pay someone else to design.

[Mechalich]

One problem is that, when you get down to the 'who can destroy who first' bare-knuckles deathmatch power comparison, power is power, and personal power that beats system power pretty much just does that. The only way it doesn't is when you allow the power of weaker entities to combine in a non-additive way. The 'linking' method used by channelers in the Wheel of Time works this way (though it appears to hit diminishing returns fairly quickly, since no one bothers to propose a linked circle of all the Aes Sedai and Asha'man as a way of winning the Last Battle). Extraordinary technologies that can only be produced by collective action, classically, nuclear weapons, also to some extent serve this purpose. Systems with literal collective empowerment, such as Mage the Ascension's Paradox, also work this way.

This sort of thing is tricky to implement, especially without making the systemic power boost too strong so that systems are invincible and the operational freedom of PC parties is constrained down to nearly nothing. Certain far-future settings with their nearly all-encompassing panopticons have this. The Culture, for example, is a setting more or less wholly governed by god-like AIs, and the ability of humans to actually do interesting things in that context represented the genius of Iain M. Banks, which is not something one can expect of the average GM. You also have to make sure that the method you use doesn't allow individuals to form essentially permanent collective entities with phenomenal power because then you're just changing the value of 'personal' in a way that tends to really squick people out.

I actually think WoT style 'linking' might be a really viable option in some ways. Critical factors including setting the minimum and maximum numbers for the collective group correctly, insuring the links are of limited duration, and insuring diminishing returns to prevent an uber-link from landscaping the planet. This suggests that the math involved would be rather complex, as do various D&D style experiments with squad-type monster entries, but I think that if you took it as a integral element of the setting rather than some sort of weird add on there's a viable pathway.

[Satinavian]

Thank you. I'm all for folks chiming in if they're actually following the thread of the conversation first :smallsigh:
This part of the conversation was about your statement that settings kinda have to be crapsac worlds to make heroes needed. That is where the whole heroes&authorities discussion came from and that has nothing to do with gods. In this context authorities are very clearly those of the mortal local society. You even mentioned kings knights or guards yourself. This was never about gods.

Gods were just one of your arguments why the setting doesn't go tippyverse. No one else talked about gods, aside from Max answering your post once.

[Max_Killjoy]

Why not? Ignoring the fact that any part of the setting that the PCs don't visit is entirely unimportant,


This is a fundamental difference of approach. Personally, I loath worlds that function like an old western movie set, with the front of the buildings completed, and nothing behind them but bracing, the missing interior and walls hidden by the curtains in the front windows... and the feeling that all the NPCs will be going for coffee and donuts together the moment the PCs aren't on their part of the set.

The PCs should usually be the center of the campaign, that doesn't make them the center of the universe.

[Jakinbandw]

This is a fundamental difference of approach. Personally, I loath worlds that function like an old western movie set, with the front of the buildings completed, and nothing behind them but bracing, the missing interior and walls hidden by the curtains in the front windows... and the feeling that all the NPCs will be going for coffee and donuts together the moment the PCs aren't on their part of the set.

The PCs should usually be the center of the campaign, that doesn't make them the center of the universe.

This might just come down to phrasing. For me setting refers to where the game is set. For example, if I decided to run a western (to riff on your example), and set it in California, then California would be the setting. It doesn't mean that China doesn't exist, just that that what people are doing in China doesn't matter. In fact, in this setting the players can become Sheriffs or deputies or other authorities in this setting while not being in control of the entire setting, or even needing to deal with forces outside of it. They are the Law, but they aren't politicians.

[Max_Killjoy]

This might just come down to phrasing. For me setting refers to where the game is set. For example, if I decided to run a western (to riff on your example), and set it in California, then California would be the setting. It doesn't mean that China doesn't exist, just that that what people are doing in China doesn't matter. In fact, in this setting the players can become Sheriffs or deputies or other authorities in this setting while not being in control of the entire setting, or even needing to deal with forces outside of it. They are the Law, but they aren't politicians.


Given the issues with Chinese immigrants in that time and place, what's going on in China actually has some relevance.

And I don't just say that to be pedantic, it serves my point -- PC or NPC, the Chinese character had a reason for leaving China and coming to California.

[Keltest]

This might just come down to phrasing. For me setting refers to where the game is set. For example, if I decided to run a western (to riff on your example), and set it in California, then California would be the setting. It doesn't mean that China doesn't exist, just that that what people are doing in China doesn't matter. In fact, in this setting the players can become Sheriffs or deputies or other authorities in this setting while not being in control of the entire setting, or even needing to deal with forces outside of it. They are the Law, but they aren't politicians.

Pretty much. If the players are in California, what is happening in China is entirely unimportant. If the players then want to go to China, it becomes important, and the setting expands (or else the DM says "no, sorry, I don't actually have enough material prepared for you to play in China yet, do something else for a session.") But unless the PCs interact with a place at some point, it is functionally not a part of the setting.

[Psyren]

This is a fundamental difference of approach. Personally, I loath worlds that function like an old western movie set, with the front of the buildings completed, and nothing behind them but bracing, the missing interior and walls hidden by the curtains in the front windows... and the feeling that all the NPCs will be going for coffee and donuts together the moment the PCs aren't on their part of the set.

The PCs should usually be the center of the campaign, that doesn't make them the center of the universe.


Given the issues with Chinese immigrants in that time and place, what's going on in China actually has some relevance.

And I don't just say that to be pedantic, it serves my point -- PC or NPC, the Chinese character had a reason for leaving China and coming to California.

This. And if you want a "western-movie-set" setting, more power to you, but I still think you're missing the point of using premade settings in the first place.

Kingmaker is actually a perfect example. Yes, it's set in the Stolen Lands and is a pretty self-contained adventure, and you can have PCs whose ties outside of that region ultimately aren't relevant - but even in that limited context, the underlying reason for the region being the way it is and the {spoiler} manipulating the {spoiler} {spoiler} do extend well outside of that locality and region.

[Mechalich]

The ability to draw empty spaces or boundaries on a world map is actually heavily dependent upon the abilities present in a given setting, whether technological or magical, specially communication and travel technologies. The presence of survival technologies or non-sapient species with alternative environmental requirements also has a substantial impact.

For example, by the 15th century European shipbuilding and navigation technologies had increased to the point that events in the Spice Islands (part of modern Indonesia) had a highly significant impact on European politics. By the 19th century humans had visited almost every part of the world and even peoples in exceedingly remote areas in Africa, Asia, and South America were seriously influenced by political decisions in capitals oceans away.

Fantasy makes this sort of thing much more likely at much lower levels of technological attainment. Flight, magical communication, and especially teleportation have a tendency to drastically shrink the world, often beyond even 21st century capabilities, and this often means that the opposite side of the world is absolutely a part of the setting that needs to be accounted for. There's great example in the climax of the Wheel of Time the good guys are blindsided when Damodred teleports in a giant army from Shaara - a place on the other side of a massive desert that no viewpoint character ever visits during the entirety of the series (which is saying a lot given how big WoT actually is) - and completely rewrites the order of battle at a stroke. This action is totally plausible given the teleportation magic available in WoT, and it only doesn't shatter verisimilitude because that technology was only rediscovered recently and therefore it's believable that none of the major characters has entirely grasped its full implications.

Likewise fantasy often means that areas you could otherwise ignore as uninhabitable wastelands can no longer be. Antarctica, for example, has never had much geopolitical importance (the most significant issue might well be whaling) because it's too cold for anyone to reasonably live there. Much of the northern hemisphere has likewise been of extremely limited import in history because it's covered in taiga and only tiny human populations can inhabit it, but in a fantasy world this might not be the case at all. A cold tolerant species like Uldras could easily settle Antarctica and that would, in an Earth-like world, give them control of almost 10% of the planet's landmass, an area larger than Europe. Likewise the presence of aquatic sapient species means that control of the oceans is suddenly a contested matter and this does all kinds of things to naval technology.

So this is another reason why having more magic challenges world-building, because you have to include more world and more interaction between otherwise distant areas.

[Jakinbandw]

Given the issues with Chinese immigrants in that time and place, what's going on in China actually has some relevance.

And I don't just say that to be pedantic, it serves my point -- PC or NPC, the Chinese character had a reason for leaving China and coming to California.

I mean, I don't really know anything about westerns outside of Big Hand for the Little Lady so I can't refute you. I'm curious now about something though, and I might start a new thread about it.

Basically, how do you design and run your settings? If you want the actions of butterflies in china to cause hurricanes in California how do you practically simulate that in a way that isn't just GM fiat? How do you simulate that for an entire world without leaving out a single person or location? I built a program to automate interactions between political entities because even with just a single kingdom in one of my games because I found tracking a minimum of 5 major NPC movers and shakers per city over 10 cities each with ongoing changes to take hours of my time between sessions. Even more so when 95% of what happened never really mattered to the players. I'm really curious how you model each city in the world, and each country and the changes that happen in each every month to have a truly living world.

[Max_Killjoy]

I mean, I don't really know anything about westerns outside of Big Hand for the Little Lady so I can't refute you. I'm curious now about something though, and I might start a new thread about it.

Basically, how do you design and run your settings? If you want the actions of butterflies in china to cause hurricanes in California how do you practically simulate that in a way that isn't just GM fiat? How do you simulate that for an entire world without leaving out a single person or location? I built a program to automate interactions between political entities because even with just a single kingdom in one of my games because I found tracking a minimum of 5 major NPC movers and shakers per city over 10 cities each with ongoing changes to take hours of my time between sessions. Even more so when 95% of what happened never really mattered to the players. I'm really curious how you model each city in the world, and each country and the changes that happen in each every month to have a truly living world.

It's not butterflies on the far side of the world causing hurricanes, it's taking hurricanes on the far side of the world into account.

I don't need to know what every person in every village in China is doing, but I need to know what's going on in China on a wider scale because there are people from that place moving to the place the campaign is set in (1800s California).

[Psyren]

I mean, I don't really know anything about westerns outside of Big Hand for the Little Lady so I can't refute you. I'm curious now about something though, and I might start a new thread about it.

Basically, how do you design and run your settings? If you want the actions of butterflies in china to cause hurricanes in California how do you practically simulate that in a way that isn't just GM fiat? How do you simulate that for an entire world without leaving out a single person or location? I built a program to automate interactions between political entities because even with just a single kingdom in one of my games because I found tracking a minimum of 5 major NPC movers and shakers per city over 10 cities each with ongoing changes to take hours of my time between sessions. Even more so when 95% of what happened never really mattered to the players. I'm really curious how you model each city in the world, and each country and the changes that happen in each every month to have a truly living world.

You don't have to simulate any of that. The designers of the setting did it for you. That's why people pay them.

[Quizatzhaderac]

Basically, how do you design and run your settings? If you want the actions of butterflies in china to cause hurricanes in California how do you practically simulate that in a way that isn't just GM fiat? How do you simulate that for an entire world without leaving out a single person or location? I built a program to automate interactions between political entities because even with just a single kingdom in one of my games because I found tracking a minimum of 5 major NPC movers and shakers per city over 10 cities each with ongoing changes to take hours of my time between sessions. Even more so when 95% of what happened never really mattered to the players. I'm really curious how you model each city in the world, and each country and the changes that happen in each every month to have a truly living world.As I see it.

Because California matters, China matters, but not the same amount.
Or to go another direction: Because California matters, Mexico matters (less). Because Mexico matters (less) Spain matters ( a little). Because Spain matter, Morocco matters (very little).

The amount of attention given to Morocco can remain small or non-existent because the designer has examined the ways it could come up with more scrutiny than the players.

But now lets say we want to integrate another story into our western: specifically Aladdin (as per Arabian nights). We know that a powerful sorcerer went from Morocco to Beijing and left one of his magic rings there. A Mexican and a Chinese person meet and find they have matching heirloom magic rings; one went east one went west. We now have a plot element circling the world without modelling any butterflies.

[Jakinbandw]

You don't have to simulate any of that. The designers of the setting did it for you. That's why people pay them.

That's not really a living breathing setting then is it? It's just a static background that doesn't evolve and change outside of story beats that focus on the players. A war won't start between Kingdoms unless it's the focus of the game. There won't be a famine that causes a food shortage, and a new fort won't get built unless it's part of the plot and so on.

Am I just misunderstanding what people are talking about here?

[Knaight]

Basically, how do you design and run your settings? If you want the actions of butterflies in china to cause hurricanes in California how do you practically simulate that in a way that isn't just GM fiat? How do you simulate that for an entire world without leaving out a single person or location? I built a program to automate interactions between political entities because even with just a single kingdom in one of my games because I found tracking a minimum of 5 major NPC movers and shakers per city over 10 cities each with ongoing changes to take hours of my time between sessions. Even more so when 95% of what happened never really mattered to the players. I'm really curious how you model each city in the world, and each country and the changes that happen in each every month to have a truly living world.

You don't. Instead you allow the GM to make decisions for their setting, much the way players make decisions for their characters instead of simulating all PC decision making (and like the PC decision making this is constrained by the other players at the table). "GM fiat" is a dismissive term to refer to what is simply the best practice at the table a lot of the time; sometimes it works better to approach something as a person than as a deeply mediocre computer. See also: NPC dialog.

That's not to say there aren't useful prep models, or even that they can't be made player facing - just that tracking 50+ individual NPCs in a rigorous web is maybe not a great way to do things, let alone scaling that up.

[Psyren]

That's not really a living breathing setting then is it? It's just a static background that doesn't evolve and change outside of story beats that focus on the players. A war won't start between Kingdoms unless it's the focus of the game. There won't be a famine that causes a food shortage, and a new fort won't get built unless it's part of the plot and so on.

Am I just misunderstanding what people are talking about here?

I'd say you are, because I'm saying the exact opposite of that :smallconfused:

Wars and other major events are taking place in Golarion whether the PCs are there or not. The Worldwound is a prominent example, as are the colder wars between Andoran and Cheliax, or Lastwall and Geb, or Kyonin and the Darklands. This is valuable information because if you want a PC who is acquainted with war and violence and horror (or one who is totally innocent of such things) then that gives you an idea of possible places in the setting they could hail from (or avoid).

The idea behind an established setting is that, knowing what is happening elsewhere in the world gives you more texture for what is happening wherever the PCs are, even if they never leave their campaign's specific area. The example given was Kingmaker, which is set in the Stolen Lands - but even ignoring the PCs own origins, knowing what has happened and is currently happening in places like Brevoy, Taldor, and even the First World feywild dimension all provide context for that campaign's major events. And if that knowledge means the PCs can eventually strike outside of that small contained area and head for the horizon if they wish, and you still have a decent idea of what they'll find, so much the better.

[Mechalich]

That's not really a living breathing setting then is it? It's just a static background that doesn't evolve and change outside of story beats that focus on the players. A war won't start between Kingdoms unless it's the focus of the game. There won't be a famine that causes a food shortage, and a new fort won't get built unless it's part of the plot and so on.

Am I just misunderstanding what people are talking about here?

The goal isn't to create an actual living breathing world, but rather to create the illusion of one. That's why it's a matter of verisimilitude, not actual realism. The GM needs to be able to adjust to the actions of the PCs, and to have events that are happening in their absence, certainly, but this only needs to involve such aspects of the world as world actually impact them. Trade policy, to use one example, isn't really relevant in most campaigns. Wars, by contrast, are.

Most campaign settings are designed to provide a snapshot of the world. They detail how things are setup and the historical conditions that caused them to be the way they are and plot potential plots forward. Note that, especially for fantasy worlds set in a pre-industrial timeline, the general outcome on a campaign timescale for most events is simply 'status quo.'

One of the issues with high magic settings is that magic, much like technology, both compresses the world and speeds up the course of events. A military campaign in the 1400s might take an entire year and potentially not involve any battles at all, just a siege, and probably only a single battle if an engagement was made. A military campaign in the 20th century, by contrast, might involve multiple battles in the course of a month.

[Jakinbandw]

I'd say you are, because I'm saying the exact opposite of that :smallconfused:

Wars and other major events are taking place in Golarion whether the PCs are there or not. The Worldwound is a prominent example, as are the colder wars between Andoran and Cheliax, or Lastwall and Geb, or Kyonin and the Darklands. This is valuable information because if you want a PC who is acquainted with war and violence and horror (or one who is totally innocent of such things) then that gives you an idea of possible places in the setting they could hail from (or avoid).

The idea behind an established setting is that, knowing what is happening elsewhere in the world gives you more texture for what is happening wherever the PCs are, even if they never leave their campaign's specific area. The example given was Kingmaker, which is set in the Stolen Lands - but even ignoring the PCs own origins, knowing what has happened and is currently happening in places like Brevoy, Taldor, and even the First World feywild dimension all provide context for that campaign's major events. And if that knowledge means the PCs can eventually strike outside of that small contained area and head for the horizon if they wish, and you still have a decent idea of what they'll find, so much the better.

Yes, but that's all background information, it's not an evolving situation, instead it's (as Mechalich says) a snapshot. To use the China and California example: a town in china won't rebel unless some news of it gets back to the pc's and even then it is more likely to be used as a character background and not an evolving situation.

I guess I'm talking about settings as the part of the game where things change and matter. Stuff that is not interacted with by the PCs and stuff that doesn't organically evolve is just background detail. It's the difference between details that are actively evolving vs details that are static. If everything is static except for what the players touch, then it is very Computer Game like where you can run around an open world and no matter how long you mess around nothing ever changes. The question is how much do you track as changing despite the players lack of interaction, or how much of the world matters. Because background stuff that has no impact doesn't really matter. It's background fluff, but it's importance is it's effect on the characters that bring the news and have it as a back story.

And sure, stuff can move in an out of importance. If the Players go to china then china becomes the setting, but you can't keep track of the changing world for everywhere. If you focus on one section of it, other parts have to go on hiatus and become background or else as a GM you spend too much of your time tracking small details that don't matter.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's not really a living breathing setting then is it? It's just a static background that doesn't evolve and change outside of story beats that focus on the players. A war won't start between Kingdoms unless it's the focus of the game. There won't be a famine that causes a food shortage, and a new fort won't get built unless it's part of the plot and so on.

Am I just misunderstanding what people are talking about here?


At least when I'm GMing, there ARE events taking place outside the direct focus of the campaign.

A war might start between two city states up the coast, that doesn't tie directly into what the PCs are currently up to. Over the course of several sessions or longer, the players will hear rumors, then see mercenaries mustering to fight for one side or the other, refugees straggle in, trade routes are disrupted and prices change, etc... and yet all of that may or may not eventually become something that directly involves the PCs.

For some players, this style can take a bit of getting used to... they've been trained in the "everything the GM mentions is important to our PCs" school of gaming, assume that any detail that comes up is a plot hook or clue, and might never understand that sometimes I'm just breathing life into the world.

Now, if they decide to get involved in the war, then I have to be ready to deal with that change in course, since I've made that war a part of the world and I can't rightly just cut them off from it entirely.

[Psyren]

Yes, but that's all background information, it's not an evolving situation, instead it's (as Mechalich says) a snapshot. To use the China and California example: a town in china won't rebel unless some news of it gets back to the pc's and even then it is more likely to be used as a character background and not an evolving situation.

And? They can evolve if you want them to (or if the PCs choose to get involved, as Max mentioned) - but even if there is a rough status quo throughout the campaign, they're still events outside of the PCs' immediate area that are relevant to their current situation, which was the point that began this belabored tangent. In Kingmaker, understanding what factors contributed to the Stolen Lands' current state can approach how you approach the campaign and choose to resolve its problems, including understanding those factors that don't happen within the Stolen Lands themselves - and ignoring those factors can also have repercussions. Kingmaker being a sandbox campaign can be a particularly good example of this if played to its potential, but Golarion is written in such a way that it accommodates both styles.


I guess I'm talking about settings as the part of the game where things change and matter. Stuff that is not interacted with by the PCs and stuff that doesn't organically evolve is just background detail.

Your implication here seems to be that background details don't matter, or at least that there have to be big changes/evolutions in the status quo in order for them to matter. That is not the case in my games, and I would argue in most long-running fiction, which is ultimately what printed campaign settings are designed to be - accessible worlds that can tell a wide variety of stories, not just the ones you specifically want to tell. As I mentioned above, they can evolve, but the PCs working to stop an undesirable change can be just as engaging as working to try and effect a desirable one. The former is far more common anyway, because villains tend to be more proactive than reactive like the heroes are.

[Jakinbandw]

At least when I'm GMing, there ARE events taking place outside the direct focus of the campaign.

A war might start between two city states up the coast, that doesn't tie directly into what the PCs are currently up to. Over the course of several sessions or longer, the players will hear rumors, then see mercenaries mustering to fight for one side or the other, refugees straggle in, trade routes are disrupted and prices change, etc... and yet all of that may or may not eventually become something that directly involves the PCs.

For some players, this style can take a bit of getting used to... they've been trained in the "everything the GM mentions is important to our PCs" school of gaming, assume that any detail that comes up is a plot hook or clue, and might never understand that sometimes I'm just breathing life into the world.

Now, if they decide to get involved in the war, then I have to be ready to deal with that change in course, since I've made that war a part of the world and I can't rightly just cut them off from it entirely.

Right! I'm the same way. I'm curious how you manage it on a massive scale like the entire world. I did it for a continent, and I found it fairly taxing, and that was even with some simplified rules to make tracking easy. How do you track personal relations between city state rulers and such without it overtaking your entire prep time. As I said, I found about 10 city states with about 5 npcs each was my limit for tracking (There were 7 major towns and 3 major cities on the continent I was running). I can't imagine scaling up to handle the entire rest of the world.

[Max_Killjoy]

Right! I'm the same way. I'm curious how you manage it on a massive scale like the entire world. I did it for a continent, and I found it fairly taxing, and that was even with some simplified rules to make tracking easy. How do you track personal relations between city state rulers and such without it overtaking your entire prep time. As I said, I found about 10 city states with about 5 npcs each was my limit for tracking (There were 7 major towns and 3 major cities on the continent I was running). I can't imagine scaling up to handle the entire rest of the world.


First, you don't need the same level of detail for things far beyond the PCs immediate reach, that you do for things right next door. If you're running a campaign set in "old west" California, you need to know what's going on in China, not what's going on in every village and city in China. And you don't need to know what's going on every day in China, just what's going on in general. The farther away something is from the campaign, the less exacting and the more broad you can be... the granularity needed is different.


I ran a VampireTM campaign based in the Seattle area for years. I had a 3" ring notebook full of printed out NPCs with stats, notes, personality and RPing reminders, relationship tags, etc, and a page of notebook paper to add notes for each one... and every Vampire of note in Portland and Vancouver and in between. I had a few pages detailing the Werewolves in the region, with a few the PCs might actually meet detailed. I had a handful of other more esoteric supernaturals as well. All in all I had a few hundred NPCs ranging from super-detailed to a few lines under their name.

I didn't need to know what every one of them was up to every night in detail, I only needed to know what they were in general up to, and what they'd be up to if the PCs ran into them, and where the PCs might run into them. The Shadowlord loreseeker they had a secret business deal with was far more important than the Red Talon running around in the woods 50 miles from town.

[Cluedrew]

I've been busy and haven't checked in recently. And I have no idea why we are talking about how important active off screen events are to world building in a thread about the Guy at the Gym Fallacy. It feels like a tangent to a tangent at best. On the other hand if I missed an important link, could someone explain it?

[Psyren]

I've been busy and haven't checked in recently. And I have no idea why we are talking about how important active off screen events are to world building in a thread about the Guy at the Gym Fallacy. It feels like a tangent to a tangent at best. On the other hand if I missed an important link, could someone explain it?

No, you're correct, it wasn't important.

I think the original impetus was me explaining comparative advantage (i.e. the economics answer to the question "why would I have a fighter in a game where the wizard can do both their jobs?") and that somehow led to Tippyverse and printed settings.