Levels, Monsters, and how they individually affect a campaign setting

[Thoughtbot360]

Okay, I'm getting back on my old habit of starting threads that present questions so big, that they will inevitably veer wildly off topic. :smallsigh:

Most level-based RPGs are set in a fantasy world (hey d20 has rules for modern games, but few people use them.) Said fantasy worlds almost (hah. almost, I say.) always have not just the existence of monsters, but thousands of different monster species, most of which exist to provide content for characters that have levelled up and make mincemeat of the kobolds. Don't get me wrong, mythology and ...well, mythology have provided us with a huge heaping lot of cool monsters that we'd just love to run a simulation to hunt down and pretend-kill them with diabolical weapons like character sheets and dice. Its just not even possible to complete a psuedo-historical campaign that revolves around political intrigue if you don't squeeze in killing a Dragon, a Medusa, and some Zombie Werewolf Ninjas somewhere along the way.

Of course, this bring us to my point. We've all had this mixture before. Medieval setting with heroes that fight with swords and shields (and hey, maybe a little magic or like, psicionics for gits and shiggles.) as opposed to booze and guns. Giant Monsters that breath fire and turn people to stone with a glance. People who gain godlike fighting power and nigh invincibility just from fighting (or "experiencing" random crap in life.) What happens when we take a look at each of these objects separately and mix them, not all at once, but trying different combinations thereof, and how much "content" can you pack into these incomplete worlds?

Exhibit A-NOTHING EVER HAPPENS HERE: First of all, lets take a look at a medieval world without monsters or levels. Sentience is limited to Humans, and there might not even be PC classes (and therefore no magic). This is the world closest to real life. To Summarize: Wealth and Authority beat the heck out of any individual trying to move and shake the world his own power, but only insofar as they get a whole army of mere mortals to move and shake the world for the privileged person. As always, Magic (depending on the game system) is a wild card that can break this paradigm, even if its just 1st-level magic.

Spicing up Exhibit A: Gritty, short intrigue-heavy mini-campaign, that's all you can do. Well, magic items can replace levels...almost. You can't wear them all the time and whoever steals them now has the only power you ever had. Still, it can take the whole "Artifact of Doom (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArtifactOfDoom)" troupe to new heights. The artifact doesn't even need to be evil, it just needs to be overwhelmingly powerful and three-or-less-of-a-kind for centuries of the worlds history to be defined by whoever has ownership over it, while making it apparently indestructible. If it can be copied....

Would I play with this setting?: Ah.......well, this is technically just fodder for the "There's too much fighting/you're all munchkins, I need a game with more role playing" crowd. Only you know, taken to the extreme. You can have a game, but you better make an interesting character to play, cause you sure as heck don't have interesting powers or supernatural foes to look forward too.

Exhibit B-FIRE EMBLEM: No lets talk about a "normal" world with character levels. Humans aren't threatened by the possibility of Godzilla mowing down their cities or the likes of Trolls or Bugbears out muscling their armies. However, people do level up. Its possible for fighters with earth-shattering ability to arrive. These people are normally easy to control because without monsters they can only come from three places: War, Murder Sprees, and possibly Training from Hell (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrainingFromHell). Or maybe some men are just born with genius talent and gain levels faster than others.

The world is mostly like Exhibit A, only with some power granted to the individual or small group of PCs. The world is still full of intrigue, but one hero, with enough levels under his belt and a really good build, can take down the evil organization on their lonesome. Society might be taken over by some high-levels every other generation, but it will probably never collapse (the high levels rely on it too much) and humanity isn't necessarily in danger of extinction thanks to the existence of these super people. In summary, this world is Self-Balancing because if the Dark Lord easily got the levels he needed to conquer the world, then [I]you can also easily get the levels to defeat him by picking off his minions.

The wilderness of Exhibit B: When you travel in this world, you won't be held up by random encounters, because very few animals (the only thing you have left) are really willing to fight. Big, aggressive things are rare and generally require some provoking to get into a fight with them, but you'll quickly outlevel them, and you'll never encounter anything resembling a "dungeon crawl". You might come across some giant version of an otherwise natural animal, a "Dire" animal for instance, but this is really just the animal gaining hit dice for whatever reason (like your PC leveling up.) Fighting a Bear thats the size of a whale can capture the same spirit as confronting a Great Red Wyrm in its lair, while explaining why there isn't an entire SPECIES of Whale-Bear breaking village buildings every winter. Which brings me to problems of our next exhibit (the kind which provide me lots of questions but no answers and most people just shrug off anyway.)

Would I play: Absolutely. The campaign just needs a good central conflict, but its a totally workable world. You just have to remember that without heavy some way of telling whose a bad ass, the players won't think to run away from "Sir Redthorn the practically-a-DMPC" as they will from anything Gargantuan size that towers over their level 4 soon-to-corpses.

Exhibit C-CHARLES DARWIN SAYS "YOU'RE TOTALLY DOOMED": Dragons, Hydras, and things that can't even be damaged without the right kind of magic weapons or obscure alchemical metal. All in a world where you *can't* level up to fight them. I particularly am interested in this world because, if you say that your D&D world only once every other generation produces a handful of people who level up and/or magic items are super rare, then THIS is essentially a mirror image of what your setting looks like during those generations when high-level characters don't hardly show up. Okay, as mentioned Exhibit B, some low-levelled societies can deal with a few big animals. But only a few. In this world, there are Trolls and Owlbears living behind every corner (well, divided by how many corners are occupied by all the prey animals those monsters need to support an individual from each monster species in the local area), and everything that can't do most of the things a human warrior or crude barricade/trap builder can do (only with three times the size and strength), makes a very nice animal for those industrious monsters to capture and then release upon the enemy to soften them up (memo to GMs out there, next time monsters invade the village your PCs are protecting, have them bring some caged Owl bears or Girallons to sic on the party. Releasing them on innocent bystanders is also a good distraction to cover your escape :smallwink:)

(Dragons are flying, huge animals with neccessarily high calorie requirements that are apparently NOT toppling all attempts at civilization via robbing the farmers that are the foundation of society blind. And whats worse, they are competing with hundreds of other big monsters that neither the peasants nor the overworked army can fight back against. High-levels are probably overextended, but would aim to make too-strong monsters extinct. Yet Iron Age-level humanoid civilization and all these Top predators with the ability to smash or circumvent stone walls are both thriving. Even with a super-diverse ecosystem, why is it that only kobolds who merely steal a bakery worth of bread raiding villages, rather than Gargantuan-sized things with magical powers that would clean them out? Explain how this is to me, somebody.)

Making sense of Exhibit C: In the world discussed in Exhibit B, the high-level characters where kind of self-balancing. Of course, none of this explains what is protecting the CR 5-8 monsters from the CR 17 monsters out there in the wild. Of course, for a species to be successful in the wild, doesn't have to fight other species to the death (in fact, doing so is a waste of some kind of resource like time or health or even food sources), they just need a niche.

In which case you are even more screwed as a Pc because just because the forest you're in is apparently dominated by Owlbears doesn't mean that there's not a CR 22 Ha-Naga (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/haNaga.htm) isn't just around the corner...

Would I play: Nope. This whole thing was just a thought experiment for why worlds that are "mostly level 1" most be at the very least, absurdly poverty-stricken where even the nobles show off how rich they are by living in a house that has three walls. I suppose that if you keep the nerfed the cooler monsters so that the PCs would stand a chance, then it would be playable. Maybe give them all glaring weaknesses that can be used to insta-kill them or otherwise nullify their overwhelming weakness. In terms of that, it would be interesting to playtest. Maybe.

[Morty]

Would I play with this setting?: Ah.......well, this is technically just fodder for the "There's too much fighting/you're all munchkins, I need a game with more role playing" crowd. Only you know, taken to the extreme. You can have a game, but you better make an interesting character to play, cause you sure as heck don't have interesting powers or supernatural foes to look forward too.


And what, exactly, prevents mundane characters from participating in fights or action scenes? Do you really need your character to be either magic-user or kick-ass warrior to have fun in action and combat?
Also, I think you're forgetting the variant where there are powerful monsters and PCs aren't the only ones to level up.

[Fiery Diamond]

And what, exactly, prevents mundane characters from participating in fights or action scenes? Do you really need your character to be either magic-user or kick-ass warrior to have fun in action and combat?
Also, I think you're forgetting the variant where there are powerful monsters and PCs aren't the only ones to level up.

Seconded.

Also, I like how for Exhibit B you titled it Fire Emblem. So accurate, and I love FE. (kinda inspired my name)

-Fiery Diamond

[sparky22]

Zombie Werewolf Ninjas

I realise there's more important things in this thread but, I need stats for those!!

[bosssmiley]

Frank & K make a pretty interesting case that D&DWorld as presented in the rules ultimately either breaks down into "Dark Sun" Tippywizard land, or into

"...a universe that is essentially a giant lava lamp of crazy...because the character advancement posited in the DMG is so fast that it is literally impossible for anyone to keep tabs on what the society even is...".

See here (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=35813), the section entitled "XP: Beer Me".

I'd say that's B/C by your schema: definite "class levels, or GT£O" territory.

[hewhosaysfish]

Frank & K make a pretty interesting case that D&DWorld as presented in the rules ultimately either breaks down into "Dark Sun" Tippywizard land, or into


See here (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=35813), the section entitled "XP: Beer Me".

I'd say that's B/C by your schema: definite "class levels, or GT£O" territory.

The problem with Frank and K's "lava lamp" example is that it assumes that adventuring party is some kind of universal necessity and as soon as one TPKs or retires then another will instantly pop up (kinda like Vampire Slayers in Buffy...). They don't allow room for the possibility that one world destroying threat might pop up, one band of heroes might overcome it and declare themselves rulers of the land, the entire world order is overturned and then for the next couple of centuries nothing happens except a few skirmishes with orcs. Nobody reaches much higher than level 5 or 6 (on account of the whole, not-much-happening thing) and the world knows peace until the next world-shattering event.

Imagine if Tolkien had taken the same approach:

January: Elves apear in the world. The First Age begins. Prompted by the Valar, the Elves head Westward to Valinor. The Silmarils are crafted. War breaks out amongst the Elves.
February: War breaks out between Elves and Dwarves. Everyone acts like fools. Morgoth is cast down and exiled. The Silmarils are scattered. The Second Age beings.
March: Numenor is founded. Sauron crafts the Rings. The kings of Numenor are led into hubris and cruelty.
April: Numenor is destroyed and the world reshaped. Arnor and Gondor are founded and make war on Mordor. Isildur claims the Ring and promptly snuffs it. The Third Age begins.
May: Arnor and Gondor rise. Arnor falls. Gondor sort of slumps. Sauron bides his time.
June: Bilbo Baggins finds a mysterious ring. After it is realised to be the One Ring, his nephew takes it to Mordor and destroys it. Gondor gets it's king back. The slumping stops. The Fourth Age begins.
If you leave out the actual you-know epochs between the epoch-making events then it is gonna seem kinda crazy.

[Thoughtbot360]

And what, exactly, prevents mundane characters from participating in fights or action scenes? Do you really need your character to be either magic-user or kick-ass warrior to have fun in action and combat?
Also, I think you're forgetting the variant where there are powerful monsters and PCs aren't the only ones to level up.

Eh. It was getting late and I wanted to get to the other settings, so I wasn't. One thing I forgot to mention is that optimization dictates everything in this world. Both the players and the enemies (if the players are all playing NPC classes, then the only time they should be fighting P. Its just that the loss of character advancement was big on my mind at that moment. Truth be told, I don't remember saying that mundane characters cannot in combat and fight scenes, it just that I was looking at exhibit A from the perspective of how far it fell, compared to the original product with monsters and levels. Keep in mind, too, that I mean all the monsters were gone. Without kobold raids, you pretty much only have bandits, enemy soldiers, and underpowered Archvillians.

However, looking back, I might have done exhibit A an injustice. There plenty you can do with level 1. An interesting idea is that you could allow players to change classes a la FF3/5/X-2. Heck, if you develop a level 1-appropriate (possibly as strong as an Owlbear) version of Ex-death, you could play through the level 1 D&D version of the entire FF5 plot. Heck, character advancement could totally be measured in terms of the number of classes you can change into....


Still.... this is from bosssmiley's link to FrankTrollman's article:


# Stagnant Characters are frustrating. That is, in a game which offers so much potential for advancement, it is frustrating to be in the position where you don't actually get to do any of it. Sure, in a game like Shadowrun there's no disappointment to be had from not being able to achieve godhood and in a game like Champions you don't need to advance your character at all to have a good time. But D&D is a leveled system and not getting those levels makes us sad.

[Magnor Criol]

# Stagnant Characters are frustrating. That is, in a game which offers so much potential for advancement, it is frustrating to be in the position where you don't actually get to do any of it. Sure, in a game like Shadowrun there's no disappointment to be had from not being able to achieve godhood and in a game like Champions you don't need to advance your character at all to have a good time. But D&D is a leveled system and not getting those levels makes us sad.

This is a very true point. As much as many of us profess to choosing roleplaying & fluff over mechanics, as much as I myself profess to it - and it's not untrue, I really do love to create a character and a story and worry about the mechanics afterwards - the thrill of gaining a level, and new powers with it, is undeniable, as is the frustration when you don't get them. This is especially true of newer players just getting into DnD. When you level up, you get new abilities, new powers, new toys to play with that you don't get any other way, and so we all love that reward.

That being said. I'd be interested in playing either of your first two scenarios. Though, I think I'd like to play the first one wit ha class system still in place, but no magic allowed; only martial classes of some nature. Very medieval feel to it, sounds like it'd be a fun experiment.

[Yahzi]

In D&D the fundamental question is, why are there 1st level adventures? Why doesn't the King, who is 10th level, just kill all the monsters?

My answer is because the King uses 1st levels like 1st levels use summoned monsters - as trap detectors. You send your low-ranks out into the field, to try and find the enemy high ranks. Then your high-ranks pounce on them, and in D&D, whoever gets the first shot often wins.

It's just like Stratego. If you go marching around with your No. 1, you're gonna get capped by a Spy, and then you won't have anything to stand up to his No. 1.

Any King who goes adventuring is going to be caught and eaten by one of those monsters hungry for tasty high-level XP. Once you realize that the monsters level up the same way the PCs do, then it's just a big world of constant warfare where you spend all your time killing the other because they're, well, the other. You know, like most D&D games.

[bosssmiley]

In D&D the fundamental question is, why are there 1st level adventures? Why doesn't the King, who is 10th level, just kill all the monsters?

My answer is because the King uses 1st levels like 1st levels use summoned monsters - as trap detectors. You send your low-ranks out into the field, to try and find the enemy high ranks. Then your high-ranks pounce on them, and in D&D, whoever gets the first shot often wins.

It's just like Stratego. If you go marching around with your No. 1, you're gonna get capped by a Spy, and then you won't have anything to stand up to his No. 1.

Any King who goes adventuring is going to be caught and eaten by one of those monsters hungry for tasty high-level XP. Once you realize that the monsters level up the same way the PCs do, then it's just a big world of constant warfare where you spend all your time killing the other because they're, well, the other. You know, like most D&D games.

I *love* this. It's so delightfully cynical. High levels using low levels as their deniable cats paws and lightning rods for trouble. It's what Forgotten Realms should have been; a bunch of chessmasters manipulating the lowly into configurations of their choosing. Unlike the Realms you're eventually expected to figure this out, turn coat, gank Elminster and take his stuff for having the temerity to use you as a puppet. :smallbiggrin:

"I ain't got time to deal with the Mistspire Goblins. Send in a canary team of Harpers instead. If they don't come back I'll make time to look into it myself."

[Morty]

It's what Forgotten Realms should have been; a bunch of chessmasters manipulating the lowly into configurations of their choosing.

Weird, I've been under the impression it's precisely what FR is.

[Matthew]

Would I play: Nope. This whole thing was just a thought experiment for why worlds that are "mostly level 1" most be at the very least, absurdly poverty-stricken where even the nobles show off how rich they are by living in a house that has three walls. I suppose that if you keep the nerfed the cooler monsters so that the PCs would stand a chance, then it would be playable. Maybe give them all glaring weaknesses that can be used to insta-kill them or otherwise nullify their overwhelming weakness. In terms of that, it would be interesting to playtest. Maybe.

This seems to be something of a universal theme for you. As in previous such threads, I think you need to look at level based games that are not D20/3e and approach the subject from a "how can I explain X" standpoint, rather than "this doesn't make sense under my assumptions" point of view. i.e.

X + Y = Z

X = Known Factors (game rules and such)
Y = Unknown Factors (explanations you decide on)
Z = Desired Outcome (high magic medieval style setting or whatever)

rather than...

X + Y = Z

X = Known Factors
Y = Assumptions
Z = Outcome

Bosssmiley has linked one, extensively developed, explanation for how some assumptions about D20/3e would work in a consistant MMOCRPG style world. It all comes down to your base assumptions, such as the modus operandi of the inhabitants, however.

[Thoughtbot360]

This seems to be something of a universal theme for you. As in previous such threads, I think you need to look at level based games that are not D20/3e and approach the subject from a "how can I explain X" standpoint, rather than "this doesn't make sense under my assumptions" point of view. i.e.

X + Y = Z

X = Known Factors (game rules and such)
Y = Unknown Factors (explanations you decide on)
Z = Desired Outcome (high magic medieval style setting or whatever)

rather than...

X + Y = Z

X = Known Factors
Y = Assumptions
Z = Outcome

Bosssmiley has linked one, extensively developed, explanation for how some assumptions about D20/3e would work in a consistant MMOCRPG style world. It all comes down to your base assumptions, such as the modus operandi of the inhabitants, however.

Fine. Here's my desired outcome: While I could just say "we're going to start at this level and only fight these kind of foes, while restricting the magic items and not fighting these monsters, so that it only focuses on this general level of power because that best captures the feel I want for this setting" lets assume that I dare to be insane actually want to start the game at level 1 fighting goblins to epic level fighting devastation vermin which could crush the army, and trample the cities that the level 1 PCs started in. The question is what "explanation" can I "decide on" for why those same devastation vermin didn't attack at the beginning of the campaign when the players were level 1 other than "A Wizard did it"?

One thing I want mention is how you always bring up MMOs when I bring up this subject. I actually think MMOs have many more problems-all the level 14-17 monsters stay in one spot. All the toughest monsters are over in Mordor (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Mordor), and never ever leave. This set-up is actually great as a game mechanic (called "Self-Balancing Gameplay (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=221)" by Shamus Young) theres just the problem of why the super monsters never ever migrate into the newbie area or in any area other than their own for that manner, if only to snack on the lower-level monsters that seem edible (although I imagine that if lower-level monsters *did* show up high-level regions, the players wouldn't really care because of Zero XP (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1710)). In summary, MMO's place monsters by the "needs of the plot" as well, they just make the "hard" areas further and further away from the starting area to suit the needs of the player, and monsters never show up in the cities. Its a world were there is a 0% chance of Godzilla attacks, despite many types of Godzilli existing in the wild as species with a stable population.....

Also, Bosssmiley's link has a little article which slightly highlights the problems of levels.


What's that Noise?! Playing at Low Level

There is a reason that the XP charts in the DMG completely fudge character levels 1-3. That is because those levels genuinely don't have a good consistent rubric for how powerful things are. There are damn few first level PCs that wouldn't go down if they took a lucky crit from a kobold's small light crossbow, and a first level Wizard has a pretty reasonable chance of taking down an orcish warrior by hitting him with a club. At first through third level, combat really is anyone's game and it is strongly advisable that the PCs outnumber their foes in the majority of confrontations at this level of conflict.

The TPK (Total Party Kill) is a very real concern for 2nd level characters, because the success or failure of actions is so very random. (TB360: This is bad because without some kind of way to drastically improve farming, there are only a tiny number of the population who can become nonfarmers, and very, very few of those nonfarmers will become 1st adventurers. Big filters that crush low-level adventurers will shrink the pool.) A run of bad luck can quite plausibly wipe out even a well-played low level team of adventurers quite easily and it is recommended that DMs use discrete encounters at these low levels in order to minimize the effects of having characters getting dropped by allowing the remaining characters to consistently revive fallen comrades.

The Rigors of Command: Playing at High Levels

A high level party isn't really "adventuring" in the traditional sense any more, or at least they probably shouldn't be. Instead, they are playing a whole different game – a strategic game. Characters who make it into the Epic landscape can in fact become gods according to long standing D&D tradition. Along the way it behooves you to conquer and administer stuff in order to propel yourself to victory.

More detail will be gone into in the Tome of Virtue, as the high level world is a really strange place. Almost all the source material from Arthur and Beowulf to Theseus and Ulysses involves characters who are somewhere between 1st and 6th level in D&D terminology. Stories which involve a 10th level adventure are extremely rare. Perseus killed Medusa (CR 7), and Bellerophon killed Chimera (also CR 7), but they both pulled some fancy equipment and cheesy tactics to pull it off (Bellerophon seriously had a flying mount that was faster than Chimera and shot arrows at the beast until it died).

If one insists upon continuing with powerful characters in an adventuring role, there is a primary conceit which must be embraced: all adventures must be timed adventures. A 14th level Wizard can, with sufficient preparation, kill any challenge in D&D without exception. And while sitting around planning the perfect murder of a red dragon or the perfect heist of a major artifact is interesting as an intellectual exercise, there is no way that represents an "adventure" in the way we use that word to describe 4th level characters breaking into pantries and stabbing people in the face for money.

Speaking of assumptions, you in the end have to make one of two contradictory ones when you have a world with regular monster attacks and levels.

1. Leveling up is hard. This makes high-level characters special but, and this is the money quote, it makes it a world-changing cataclysm when they die (Of course, the rise and fall of Sauron was pretty world changing and the "Ages" or LotR history are defined by specific people dying or being corrupted). This wouldn't be so bad, if it wasn't that it was actually easier to die at higher levels than mid-levels (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/advanced-rules/optional-death.html):


HIGH-LEVEL LETHALITY

Speaking of that -10 barrier, we come to a widely-recognized shortcoming in mid- and high-level play: The tougher you become, the more likely you are to die than you are to fall unconscious.

Why? Because, as the average damage inflicted by any given blow increases, the chance that any given blow will catapult you directly from positive hit points to negative hit points and death increases. For example, if you suffer a blow for 5 hp there is no chance that you'll be immediately killed by it. If you're suffering blows doing an average of 25 hp, on the other hand, the odds drastically increase for such an opportunity.

The solution for this is to increase the number of negative hit points a higher level character can suffer before actually dying. And the simplest solution for this is to give everyone the same number of hit points below 0 as they do above 0.

Also, high levels grow old and die. This isn't really a problem in a world with lower-levellel or very few (or zero) monsters, but anything else means that D&D civilization is exactly as Yahzi says it is (the high-levels rule everything with an iron fist and treat people like slaves and sacrificial lambs because society necessitates that they have that power.)

2. Leveling up is easy. This explains why magic items are in abundance (and monsters are easily controlled, if not wiped out offhand), but it also means that hewhosaysfish's main complaint about the "lava lamp" world is now defunct, because there is always someone whos leveling up with intent to change the world.


If you leave out the actual you-know epochs between the epoch-making events then it is gonna seem kinda crazy.

That's only true because Sauron was high-level (Actually, no he wasn't. He was a demigod. That is, he was essentially born strong-or at least born to become strong- it could very easily be said that nobody "levels up" in LotR novels...

[Matthew]

Fine. Here's my desired outcome: While I could just say "we're going to start at this level and only fight these kind of foes, while restricting the magic items and not fighting these monsters, so that it only focuses on this general level of power because that best captures the feel I want for this setting" lets assume that I dare to be insane actually want to start the game at level 1 fighting goblins to epic level fighting devastation vermin which could crush the army, and trample the cities that the level 1 PCs started in. The question is what "explanation" can I "decide on" for why those same devastation vermin didn't attack at the beginning of the campaign when the players were level 1 other than "A Wizard did it"?

Again, you need to look at games that are not D20/3e. RoleMaster might be something worth looking at.



One thing I want mention is how you always bring up MMOs when I bring up this subject. I actually think MMOs have many more problems-all the level 14-17 monsters stay in one spot. All the toughest monsters are over in Mordor (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Mordor), and never ever leave. This set-up is actually great as a game mechanic (called "Self-Balancing Gameplay (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=221)" by Shamus Young) theres just the problem of why the super monsters never ever migrate into the newbie area or in any area other than their own for that manner, if only to snack on the lower-level monsters that seem edible (although I imagine that if lower-level monsters *did* show up high-level regions, the players wouldn't really care because of Zero XP (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1710)). In summary, MMO's place monsters by the "needs of the plot" as well, they just make the "hard" areas further and further away from the starting area to suit the needs of the player, and monsters never show up in the cities. Its a world were there is a 0% chance of Godzilla attacks, despite many types of Godzilli existing in the wild as species with a stable population.....

Yes, generally speaking I liken your ideas to MMOCRPGs because you follow the same logic, treating the rules of the game as though they are literally the reality of the setting, rather than rules to play a game.



Also, Bosssmiley's link has a little article which slightly highlights the problems of levels.

Yes, I am familiar with that. The link follows the same logic that you do.



Speaking of assumptions, you in the end have to make one of two contradictory ones when you have a world with regular monster attacks and levels.

1. Leveling up is hard. This makes high-level characters special but, and this is the money quote, it makes it a world-changing cataclysm when they die (Of course, the rise and fall of Sauron was pretty world changing and the "Ages" or LotR history are defined by specific people dying or being corrupted). This wouldn't be so bad, if it wasn't that it was actually easier to die at higher levels than mid-levels (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/advanced-rules/optional-death.html):


Also, high levels grow old and die. This isn't really a problem in a world with lower-levellel or very few (or zero) monsters, but anything else means that D&D civilization is exactly as Yahzi says it is (the high-levels rule everything with an iron fist and treat people like slaves and sacrificial lambs because society necessitates that they have that power.)

1. Leveling up is easy. This explains why magic items are in abundance (and monsters are easily controlled, if not wiped out offhand), but it also means that hewhosaysfish's main complaint about the "lava lamp" world is now defunct, because there is always someone whos leveling up with intent to change the world.

No, again you are thinking in a rather binary way that excludes actual explanations. You have to draw a distinction between the game that you are playing and the world in which you are playing it.

It all depends on you wanting actual alternative answers to your questions instead of attempting to demonstrate how you reached your answers. To put it another way, you need to try and think outside the box that you have thought yourself into, if you want to engage a larger audience than people who are already inclined to agree with you.

[Dr Bwaa]

I'm not going to get into whatever huge wall-of-text debate I see beginning to spawn here at the end, but once thing I'd mention is that Exhibit A is, in my opinion, very fun. I refer you to Another_Poet's game (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95218) that he's running right now, based on where he works. Now, granted, there is some kind of zombie apocalypse or SOMETHING going on, but as I don't know what it is, I have no other information to give you on the matter :) The p[oint is that it's been, so far, an exceptionally fun campaign set in modern times with effectively no ruleset, certainly no leveling-up, and so on: just you, yourself, and your creativity against a zombie holocaust (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6ILRYmJv4k) :smallsmile:

[Matthew]

I'm not going to get into whatever huge wall-of-text debate I see beginning to spawn here at the end

Coward! :smallbiggrin:

[Piedmon_Sama]

This is why I have trouble contributing to a lot of D&D threads: I pretty much always play option B. Monsters exist, but they're left to the far fringes of the world and very few in number, if not outright unique. Like in the myths, there's only one Medusa, or Minotaur, or the Giants number only a few thousand. Borrowing (or just totally ripping off) from Lovecraft, I typically assess these things to ages that are long past, usually far predating humanity, so you have only a few Shoggoths skulking in far-flung ruins instead of running about in the woods willy-nilly. And Undead and Aberrations always force Sanity Checks, because I am a jerk.

Also I lean towards A somewhat because magic spells and items are always incredibly rare, and by incredibly rare I mean I tell my players they're incredibly rare and then I never use them. I've pretty much done this in the last three campaigns I ran. Magic-using PCs usually find the hardest part of their careers is just getting resources together, that's a quest in of itself.

I approach PC Classes as a rarity. If I'm designing an NPC, I ask myself, "can I do this with just an NPC class?" Usually, the answer is yes. There's no reason why the Marshal of the Armies can't be just a Warrior 8/Aristocrat 4. Or the King an Aristocrat 6/Warrior 6. They're usually not mean to be major actors in a story, so I don't want to spend a lot of time drawing them up, and NPC classes can actually hold their own pretty well from campaign levels 1-8 IME. Next time it becomes relevant, I intend to let these NPCs level up in skills and saving throws, but if they're not gaining XP through fighting then they don't get improved BaB or HD. Thus a PC's political rival can be a scheming aristocrat who has +18 Diplomacy, Bluff and Sense Motive who has never set foot on a battlefield in his life.

It's all pretty funny considering I've shelled out the hundreds of dollars on almost all the 3.5 splatbooks (I'll never get the Draconomicon, though... hate Dragons.... hate them...) I may never use the Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic or a few thousand monsters, but I really enjoy having the options. I like not having to settle for a Minotaur or Hydra if I don't want to, when I can use something weird and alien like a.... like one of those big floating brain-jellyfish things. (Also, I almost never call a monster by its given name. They're supposed to be obscure beyond knowledge and they're not about to introduce themselves, after all).

What I play may not be D&D, but it's fun and I feel I spent my money well.

[Demented]

Exhibit C sounds fun. Maybe it's because it's pretty much a replica of most FPS computer games, which are my gaming bread and butter. The only reason the main characters in said games accomplish anything is because of the Save/Load game feature (they die as often as one would expect when you're fighting something that many times nastier than you). In any other situation, defeating a big bad monster requires an army or some ingenious trickery, if it's even possible.

In a tabletop RPG format, having a lot of reserve character sheets could be useful. Alternatively, one might prefer having a decent appreciation of failure: A journey through the badlands is going to make the oregon trail seem like a cakewalk.

Ironically, exhibit C and A are closely related:
In order to survive, humans in exhibit C would be driven to areas that are as devoid of hostile life as possible. Result? Exhibit A, except that the myths of horrible creatures in far off lands are true. On the one hand, you'd think that leaves humans to live in resource-poor areas. On the other hand, an area would need to be extremely rich in order to support creatures as exotic as dragons. Cities could exist comfortably (within reason) in comparatively poor zones, still replete with hostile creatures, but nothing so horrible that humans couldn't deal with it.

[Douglas]

In summary, MMO's place monsters by the "needs of the plot" as well, they just make the "hard" areas further and further away from the starting area to suit the needs of the player, and monsters never show up in the cities. Its a world were there is a 0% chance of Godzilla attacks, despite many types of Godzilli existing in the wild as species with a stable population.....
It's not always 0%... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stYUrIk8Iu0) Blizzard has since changed it so none of the big bosses can be lured to cities any more, but I think it was done quite a number of times before that and each time the slaughter continued until a GM despawned the boss.

[Thoughtbot360]

Again, you need to look at games that are not D20/3e. RoleMaster might be something worth looking at.

You know, every time I get into an argument with you over this stuff, Matthew, it always gets to the point where I find I just can't bring myself care anymore and abandon the thread. Which explains the time I wasted writing this response.

However, I feel the need to take the time to point out a little something. I have tried different systems. I've read the rules to Shadowrun 2nd edition, Street Fighter the Storytelling game, Ryu-Ki, Zodiac Final Fantasy RPG, tried to understand Returners FF RPG but failed, Violence (http://www.costik.com/Violence%20RPG1.pdf) (although its really more of a biting parody of game systems), and some others. Most of those came with there own setting, with some even including monsters and circumventing the problems I've mentioned. For instance, Shadowrun is full of paranormals ranging from Barghests to intelligent Dragons, yet the lethal nature of this (non) level system means nothing is invincible or really even that close to it (although the one constant is that the super-corporations maintain control of everything). Street Fighter is also a point-based system, and whose (implied) setting it is almost entirely an example of Exhibit B and why it balances. Anyway, its not like I'm only ever seen D&D and nothing else. I just use it as a base because, as you might have noticed, these *are* the d20 message boards. :smallwink:

I've never seen the rules for RoleMaster, but I fail to see what rules it could have that would change my paradigms. Of course, a GM can do something like say "we are only using certain types of monsters because I prefer these" (humanoid types are really weak, with the scariest thing being a CR 2 Bugbear, and one could argue that their bonuses, while considerable, do not make them the dominant species alone. With character levels, any world with just them and mundane animals can almost perfectly mirror Exhibit B.) But its important to note that I actually can make up a few explanations for how fantasy world humanity (or other civilization built by underdog races) in general can stave off extinction-by-brokenly-powerful-monster to get to the point in which they are.

1) The monsters just aren't that powerful. Remember when I talked about how humanoids are really low-level? Well, why is it that Mind Flayers, which are basically humanoids with some spell-like abilities, are loaded down with hit dice? One solution is to simply assume that, in terms of how monsters would fare against a huge mob of Npcs, the monster manual exaggerates. When or if it ever becomes neccessary to rule (the players, for whatever reason, lure a giant monster they were supposed to kill towards a city, have it break a lot of stuff, but eventually succumb to blood loss from the many arrow/ballista bolt wounds in its flesh, or even have it KO from a lucky catapult shot that cracked its skull like David and Goliath.) Life is fragile. Monsters are live. Therefore, a Monster's life is also fragile.
2) The monsters themselves are held back by special needs or weaknesses in someway. Maybe in humanoid-world, the reason Bugbears don't conquer everyone is because they are all carnivores and have to hunt and migrate everyday never having the leisure time to invent things. Maybe Dragons eat out an ecosystem, fall into a Rip Van Winkle sleep, and frequently wake up with a spear in their brain (http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=080301). Maybe all the high-level monsters just *can't* attack civilization due to living on another continent or magical barrier or because human settlements are hidden and undetectable or even lack of motivation.
3) Limit intelligence to humans (still not effective versus things that tower over buildings and might trample downtown to get to the towers of the royal castle so as to use them like scratching posts/fire hydrants.)
4) This (http://www.mu.ranter.net/theory/food.html#monsters)

The problem is, with the exception of #4, none of these explanations are really thorough. I could expound on why I think so, or why I see the need for a thorough explanation, or what exactly is my definition of "thorough," but I don't really think we'll see eye to eye.

And again, I don't really care anymore. Also, Its 4 in the flackin' morning! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-cxB_vwVyo) (well actually 2:57)

[Matthew]

You know, every time I get into an argument with you over this stuff, Matthew, it always gets to the point where I find I just can't bring myself care anymore and abandon the thread. Which explains the time I wasted writing this response.

Well, I am sorry to hear that; disagreement has the potential to be productive. If you are not interested in discussing the assumptions behind your questions or hearing alternative answers to the ones you expect, considering them a waste of time to respond to, then I advise that you narrow the parameters of your questions instead of presenting them as universals.



However, I feel the need to take the time to point out a little something. I have tried different systems. I've read the rules to Shadowrun 2nd edition, Street Fighter the Storytelling game, Ryu-Ki, Zodiac Final Fantasy RPG, tried to understand Returners FF RPG but failed, Violence (http://www.costik.com/Violence%20RPG1.pdf) (although its really more of a biting parody of game systems), and some others. Most of those came with there own setting, with some even including monsters and circumventing the problems I've mentioned. For instance, Shadowrun is full of paranormals ranging from Barghests to intelligent Dragons, yet the lethal nature of this (non) level system means nothing is invincible or really even that close to it (although the one constant is that the super-corporations maintain control of everything). Street Fighter is also a point-based system, and whose (implied) setting it is almost entirely an example of Exhibit B and why it balances. Anyway, its not like I'm only ever seen D&D and nothing else. I just use it as a base because, as you might have noticed, these *are* the d20 message boards. :smallwink:

These are D20 and General RPG message boards. People sometimes get a bit confused as to that, only reading the first part of the forum name, but this is not not a D20 specific forum. I am glad that you have tried other sorts of RPGs, though the idea was to take a look at something similar to D&D that was not built around D20/3e.



I've never seen the rules for RoleMaster, but I fail to see what rules it could have that would change my paradigms. Of course, a GM can do something like say "we are only using certain types of monsters because I prefer these" (humanoid types are really weak, with the scariest thing being a CR 2 Bugbear, and one could argue that their bonuses, while considerable, do not make them the dominant species alone. With character levels, any world with just them and mundane animals can almost perfectly mirror Exhibit B.) But its important to note that I actually can make up a few explanations for how fantasy world humanity (or other civilization built by underdog races) in general can stave off extinction-by-brokenly-powerful-monster to get to the point in which they are.

In RoleMaster character levels don't give quite the same dramatic increase in abilities that you find in D20/3e, and as characters advance higher the benefits of advancement decrease. The combat system remains lethal enough regardless of level that combat is almost always a dangerous prospect. RuneQuest follows a similar paradigm; what these games have in common is that they were essentially written as D&D variants by people dissatisfied with how D&D worked. That is to say "level based games do not have to work the way you seem to think they do."



1) The monsters just aren't that powerful. Remember when I talked about how humanoids are really low-level? Well, why is it that Mind Flayers, which are basically humanoids with some spell-like abilities, are loaded down with hit dice? One solution is to simply assume that, in terms of how monsters would fare against a huge mob of Npcs, the monster manual exaggerates. When or if it ever becomes neccessary to rule (the players, for whatever reason, lure a giant monster they were supposed to kill towards a city, have it break a lot of stuff, but eventually succumb to blood loss from the many arrow/ballista bolt wounds in its flesh, or even have it KO from a lucky catapult shot that cracked its skull like David and Goliath.) Life is fragile. Monsters are live. Therefore, a Monster's life is also fragile.

If I understand you correctly, and you are saying one possible explanation is that "D20/3e rules don't apply in NPC versus NPC fights and expectations of victory are subverted", yes that is a possibility.



2) The monsters themselves are held back by special needs or weaknesses in someway. Maybe in humanoid-world, the reason Bugbears don't conquer everyone is because they are all carnivores and have to hunt and migrate everyday never having the leisure time to invent things. Maybe Dragons eat out an ecosystem, fall into a Rip Van Winkle sleep, and frequently wake up with a spear in their brain (http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=080301). Maybe all the high-level monsters just *can't* attack civilization due to living on another continent or magical barrier or because human settlements are hidden and undetectable or even lack of motivation.

Yes, any of these things are possible.



3) Limit intelligence to humans (still not effective versus things that tower over buildings and might trample downtown to get to the towers of the royal castle so as to use them like scratching posts/fire hydrants.)

I imagine you would have to adjust the intelligence scores of many monsters.



4) This (http://www.mu.ranter.net/theory/food.html#monsters)

Maybe.



The problem is, with the exception of #4, none of these explanations are really thorough. I could expound on why I think so, or why I see the need for a thorough explanation, or what exactly is my definition of "thorough," but I don't really think we'll see eye to eye.

Just because we may not see eye to eye is no reason not to debate a subject; in fact it is a rather good reason. Yes your ideas as presented above are underdeveloped and need to be thought out more extensively to satisfy an internally consisant criteria.



And again, I don't really care anymore. Also, Its 4 in the flackin' morning! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-cxB_vwVyo) (well actually 2:57)

I would imagine that "I don't care anymore, here is a 700 word response I wrote" would only make logical sense at three in the morning. :smallwink:

[Charity]

I am worrying that you counted them now Matt.

As it goes lets not discount the power of organisation, a single ogre or small band of goblins is indeed a match for a handful of farmers, but a well organised military would be able to see off all but the nastiest of beasties, and lets face it, the hydras and dragons are what the heros are for, heck even in D&D if you get enough archers together you can take on nigh on anything (as long as you don't care how many archers you lose)

The thing is if you let the rules of any game define the logic and physics of the world they are used to represent then yes you will have trouble reconciling that with a internally consistant and robustly logical model.
The rules are only there for where the players interact with the envoirnment, the rest of the universe needn't and in many cases shouldn't abide by them.

[Matthew]

I am worrying that you counted them now Matt.

Heh. Nah, Good old Microsoft Word helped me out there.



The thing is if you let the rules of any game define the logic and physics of the world they are used to represent then yes you will have trouble reconciling that with a internally consistant and robustly logical model.
The rules are only there for where the players interact with the envoirnment, the rest of the universe needn't and in many cases shouldn't abide by them.
No doubt.