It's [i]always[/i] been all about the PCs

[Mike_G]

I've played D&D since 1980. Red box, AD&D, all the way to 3.5. I know my geeks and nerds well enough to expect the semi rational hate for anything new that may taint their gaming experience. But one complaint is just silly and needs to be addressed by this old grognard.

One thing I've noted about the pro/con 4th ed discussion has been some people's visceral negative reaction to the concept that "the world revolves around the PCs."

Well, that's both a very extreme reading of intent, and not really a change at all.

The world doesn't necessarily revolve around the PCs, but the game does. It always has.

Streamlined rules for NPCs isn't something that we should call the ACLU about and form an NPC rights group. It's something that has been part of RPGs since the beginning. Prior to 3.0, mosters were stated differently form PCs. In AD&D, you had no Dex score for the Orc. You had his attack bonus, AC, HP and damage, one assumed that abilities were already figured it. In the original 1st ed, ogres and even dragons got no Str bonus to damage, they just rolled more or bigger dice, so it's not WoW, it's Olde Schoole D&D to make monsters easier to stat.

I like that 3e did give the ability scores for all monsters. Somethimes you want to know if the Orc is stronger that the fighter, when trying to force a door open/hold it closed or whatever. And it's nice that a Giant gets a damage bonus, like a player with a Girdle of Giant Strength (yes, In 1e, real men wore Girdles.) The point remains that using shorthand for NPCs is not "dumbing it down" or "playing an MMORPG." It's a return to an old idea.

The other point, about monsters being dead at 0 hp but not PCs, well that's pretty much gaming. I've never, ever kept track of negative HP for the hordes of foes the PCs vanquish. Maybe the important enemy leader, or NPC important to the story, but Goblin Archer #4 has his stat block crossed out and his figure knocked over when he takes damage more than his hp. Nobody rolls stabilization for him. He's a Stormtrooper, an extra in the movie. Extras who get solidly hit are dead. Sometimes, the named enemy with a grudge against the hero survives and comes back, thirty seconds before the credits roll, bloody but still a threat, to provide a last jolt of fear, but not Red Shirt minions. Important NPCs have consistently had class levels, anyway.

And the world beyond the party needs no mechanics at all. I don't need to roll for diplomacy or magic item creation by important kings and mages half a continent away. If I say it happens, it happens, Adhering to the rules creates metagame knowledge for the players who start getting all "CSI" on the DM, saying "This sword required a Craft DC of 32, and knowledge of 6th level spells, so we're dealing with at least an 11th level Wizard," which is more immersion breaking than any stripped down "mooks die when hit" rule could ever be.

The part of the rules that matters is the part that determines how the PCs interact with the NPCs, which is often violently. Stuff beyond eye and ear shot of the PCs can and should be resolved by DM fiat.

Let it go. We play to be heroes vanquishing monsters and saving kingdoms. We really don't care about some Loremaster's Decipher Script roll.

Unless we're paying him to help us with the clue to the next adventure.

[KillianHawkeye]

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Matthew]

As do I. As an aside, Mike, the 1e AD&D DMG (p. 15) says that Orcs have an average Strength 12.

[pasko77]

While your logic makes sense, the presence of solid rules helps the building of a consistent scenery.
You can't simply "DM fiat" everything, unless you are a very skilled and experienced DM. You maybe are forgetting the newbye point of view. It is true that i, or you, or a 90% of the readers of this forum, don't need to be told, for instance, the percentage of 5th level blacksmith in the town, but it helps.

[SamTheCleric]

But why dont we care about that poor old loremaster that has nothing to do with the plot at hand? Aren't his feelings vital to our well being?

No?

Oh, then let's go loot his house.

I agree with you, the players make the game, the DM just guides them.

[Mr. Friendly]

No, you are completely wrong.

Look, here is a completely false strawman arguement that PROVES you are wrong and a troll:

Orcs eat cabbage - cabbage has to come from somewhere - the universe CANNOT revolve around the PCs!!1111

Everyone knows that the entire universe revolves around a 5th level Kobold Sorcerer living on Toril.

(I kid, I kid.. I agree with you... but fanatics, trolls and loons will be here soon to explain why you are soooooooo wrong....)

[Storm Bringer]

No, you are completely wrong.

Everyone knows that the entire universe revolves around a 5th level Kobold Sorcerer living on Toril.

no, you are wrong.

the universe revolves arounf me

but yhea, it's all about the players.

[SamTheCleric]

no, you are wrong.

the universe revolves arounf me

You're a fifth level kobold from toril? o_O

[Fhaolan]

*sticks his head in the thread, looks around*

*comes back later*

*checks yet again*

You know, I expected more of a reaction to this. Interesting.

I once had a campaign world that revolved around the PCs. It didn't go over well. It had a very eccentric orbit, so every once in awhile the PCs would be all 'Ahhhh! Here it comes again! Duck!'

[JBento]

Ahhhhhhh, so THAT's why they're green - it also goes a long way to explain the smell.

Now for real: I think the problem most people have is that they think 4E is going to make the WORLD revolve around the PCs - which I don't think it's true, and it wouldn't be even if no-one bothered to stat an NPC ever again (at least, one that wasn't meant to bash heads with the PCs).

Does the CAMPAIGN revolve around the PCs? Yes, it does (unless you're running a very odd game, in which case I'd love to hear HOW you're doing it - I could certainly use a break from those bastards ). Do events outside the PCs scope affect them? I don't see why not. If there's a war a country over, arms and armour cost is going to rise, and there will be a tide of refugees coming over to THIS country - that'll certainly affect the PCs. Do you need mechanics to decide IF there's going to be a war? No, you don't (though I'd like some), and in fact, were already absent in previous editions (weren't tehy? if they weren't, where can I find them, please?).

However, the fact that there's a war and a bunch of bloody peasants are now making me pay more for stuff, doesn't require me to know the stats of the other country's king or those of the General of the invading army - UNLESS the PC's wanna go there and knock some heads together so, y'know, a longsword doesn't now cost 50gold instead of 15. That however, would make both the war and the general in the PCs scope - for which there WILL be rules

[Indon]

Yeah, the game's always about the PC's.

But the rules dictate how well it can be about the PC's outside of a railroaded plot.

Now, I run a 1'st edition Exalted game in which I've introduced more and more 'sandbox' elements and freed up the players to do what they want as they got comfortable with the system.

1'st edition Exalted does not have very strong simulationist rules. I had to houserule overland travel speeds and rates, pretty much right off the bat, 'cause there was a good bit of travel in the game and some of it was very much time-sensitive (such as shadowlands travel). I've had to implement a few other simulationist measures in the rules to get the Exalted system to support a group of PC's who have a strong degree of freedom.

When someone says, "the game is all about the PC's", what they're saying is, "The system takes fewer measures for contingencies in regards to actions the players may take in their environment", and what I hear is, "This system is wholly unprepared for your PC group, Indon."

Not that this is all bad. There are advantages to implementing more narrative and game-based system measures, and certainly having both strong narrative and simulation tools led to some wacky circumstances (I'm rich - I never need fear assassination because ressurections have a standard rate), but there are most certainly disadvantages to making the game more about the PC's, and less about the their interaction with the game's environment.

[JBento]

I've read nothing about reducing the mechanics of PC-environment interaction. Do you have a quote?

[AKA_Bait]

*sigh*

I guess I really am the only one who thinks more rules and information for your dollar is better, even if you aren't going to use most of it.

[JBento]

But that's assuming it'll be the same-sized dollar. I doubt it would. I don't think WotC would charge you the same for a 200 page book and a 500 hundred one...

[pasko77]

edit: scrubbed

[Indon]

I've read nothing about reducing the mechanics of PC-environment interaction. Do you have a quote?

I can't so much access D&D insider at work, but they've spoken at least once of removing the "simulation" aspect of the game.

Some reduction in simulationism was for rules-simplification purposes - reach-based AOO's when it's not your turn, diagonal movement being two very simple examples.

Other reduction in simulationism is for narrative purposes - only the PC's getting ready access to ressurection, for instance.

These are all examples of the game world being "more about the PC's". In each case, sacrifices are made so that the game world can be more about the PC's.

[AKA_Bait]

But that's assuming it'll be the same-sized dollar. I doubt it would. I don't think WotC would charge you the same for a 200 page book and a 500 hundred one...

Really? The suppliments seem pretty uniformly priced thus far.

Also, I look at it as more like WotC decides how long the book is, then decides what to put in it. I'd rather they skipped a lot of the 'points of light' fluff and gave me more mechanics.

[Mr. Friendly]

*sigh*

I guess I really am the only one who thinks more rules and information for your dollar is better, even if you aren't going to use most of it.

Right, but the question is, how many rules and why?

If the rule is, for example, to calculate how many demons and devils are killed per day during the Blood War, is that *REALLY* a needed paragraph or two that could be occupied with rules for hiring a henchman, or for that matter even a table indicating the Princess' bra size by level guidelines?

Is it honestly needed to have a detailed roll table or rule for everything that happens?

Personally, yeah, I do want more rules and info for my buck - I just want it to be useful rules and info.

Knowing that the King of Unterland sacrifices 1d6 x 1d10 kittens per week on his alter to Hextor is amusing for the DM to read, but really has no practical value and could be surmised with "The King also sacrifices animals" tacked on to the end of a nother sentence.

[JBento]

I'm sure many people "rather" the same as you, as I'm sure many would "rather" what WotC is doing. Me? I'm sitting on the fence watching it all go down

I do believe, however, that WotC has made its decision based on some sort of market research - even if said "research" was limited to reading mail people sent. Seem good business tactics to do so to me, and they're making quite the big bucks, so they can't be THAT dumb (though sometimes I wonder).

[AKA_Bait]

Right, but the question is, how many rules and why?

As many as they want to give me and so I'll have them if I want to use them.

Is it honestly needed to have a detailed roll table or rule for everything that happens?

No, of course it's not. I never said it was. I said I'd rather have them than not. I can always disregard them if I want and that is less work than making them up.

Personally, yeah, I do want more rules and info for my buck - I just want it to be useful rules and info.

Can't I have both?

Knowing that the King of Unterland sacrifices 1d6 x 1d10 kittens per week on his alter to Hextor is amusing for the DM to read, but really has no practical value and could be surmised with "The King also sacrifices animals" tacked on to the end of a nother sentence.

If the rule is, for example, to calculate how many demons and devils are killed per day during the Blood War, is that *REALLY* a needed paragraph or two that could be occupied with rules for hiring a henchman, or for that matter even a table indicating the Princess' bra size by level guidelines?

For the same price, I'll take all of them. I'll probably ignore the bit about the blood war and the king of Unterland, since I don't care and they are not part of my setting. But given the option of having that paragraph or not (or more accurate, a paragraph with some mechanics or a paragraph without them) I'll take the paragraph with the mechanics.

I do believe, however, that WotC has made its decision based on some sort of market research - even if said "research" was limited to reading mail people sent. Seem good business tactics to do so to me, and they're making quite the big bucks, so they can't be THAT dumb (though sometimes I wonder).

Cough Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress Cough

[Indon]

If the rule is, for example, to calculate how many demons and devils are killed per day during the Blood War, is that *REALLY* a needed paragraph or two that could be occupied with rules for hiring a henchman, or for that matter even a table indicating the Princess' bra size by level guidelines?

You're right. Better rules would be ennumeration of the number of demons and devils involved in the Blood War in general, and how many are availible in any given area to deal with PC's showing up doing PC-things (you know, causing chaos, killing everything in their path, etc). Though, those other two suggestions are pretty nice rules, too.

Ultimately, however, all three of those rules are simulationist (the henchman rules may be slightly less so, depending on what they are - for instance, do NPC's hire henchmen by the same rules?).

Knowing that the King of Unterland sacrifices 1d6 x 1d10 kittens per week on his alter to Hextor is amusing for the DM to read, but really has no practical value and could be surmised with "The King also sacrifices animals" tacked on to the end of a nother sentence.

A better rule would be to document that the "Unholy Gift" ritual requires the sacrifice of 20 kittens a week, or else the recipient of the gift begins taking ability score damage at a rate of 1 per hour until the kittens have been supplied. Now, all of a sudden it may end up in the PC's interest to start protecting that crazy cat lady down by the docks area!

[Sstoopidtallkid]

The world doesn't necessarily revolve around the PCs, but the game does.

QFT. The problem is WotC seems to think the game is the world, and I don't.

Now for real: I think the problem most people have is that they think 4E is going to make the WORLD revolve around the PCs - which I don't think it's true, and it wouldn't be even if no-one bothered to stat an NPC ever again (at least, one that wasn't meant to bash heads with the PCs).

You have far more confidence in the creators of Diplomacy than I do.

Does the CAMPAIGN revolve around the PCs? Yes, it does (unless you're running a very odd game, in which case I'd love to hear HOW you're doing it - I could certainly use a break from those bastards ).

For my current situation (which is unique and probably impossible for anyone to duplicate) the game world has existed with multiple campaigns going on simultaneously for the last 30 years. 2 weeks ago my group nearly destroyed the elemental plane of Chaos, making multiple characters from separate campaigns who have never met each other work together to fix it. There are currently dozens of things running around that don't matter to me or any group that the DMs still track in order to maintain a consistent world.

Edit:ignore this, I read it as "campaign world"

Do events outside the PCs scope affect them? I don't see why not. If there's a war a country over, arms and armour cost is going to rise, and there will be a tide of refugees coming over to THIS country - that'll certainly affect the PCs. Do you need mechanics to decide IF there's going to be a war? No, you don't (though I'd like some), and in fact, were already absent in previous editions (weren't tehy? if they weren't, where can I find them, please?).

The problem isn't lack of mechanics, it's lack of support. It's WotC saying "If something doesn't affect the PCs it doesn't exist." That doesn't work for me.

However, the fact that there's a war and a bunch of bloody peasants are now making me pay more for stuff, doesn't require me to know the stats of the other country's king or those of the General of the invading army - UNLESS the PC's wanna go there and knock some heads together so, y'know, a longsword doesn't now cost 50gold instead of 15. That however, would make both the war and the general in the PCs scope - for which there WILL be rules

I would have at least a general idea of the stats, but that's just a different style. I don't care if someone else has a different playstyle from me, I only care if WotC seems to be supporting their playstyle and ignoring mine.

[Mr. Friendly]

You're right. Better rules would be ennumeration of the number of demons and devils involved in the Blood War in general, and how many are availible in any given area to deal with PC's showing up doing PC-things (you know, causing chaos, killing everything in their path, etc). Though, those other two suggestions are pretty nice rules, too.

Isn't it simpler though to simply, y'know, DM it and say "well, there are basically infinite forces on both sides and the Blood War will go on as long as I want it to. If the PCs show up I will plan an appropriately challenging encounter and not worry about whether or not one of them happens to the secretary to the undergeneral of larva production for the 2nd layer of Hell, of if he is, I will write that in and make it my own"

Ultimately, however, all three of those rules are simulationist (the henchman rules may be slightly less so, depending on what they are - for instance, do NPC's hire henchmen by the same rules?).

Right but Rules one and three are basically useless rules. The DM has the ultimate authority on how many demons and devils die in the Blood War, so why bother with a table? If you do want a table and clamor for it enough, I am sure that Wotc would be happy to make a non-Core supplement that covers it, but is there any need to have that in say the DMG? The Henching rule is important and yes, it should talk about whether it aplies to NPCs as well.

A better rule would be to document that the "Unholy Gift" ritual requires the sacrifice of 20 kittens a week, or else the recipient of the gift begins taking ability score damage at a rate of 1 per hour until the kittens have been supplied. Now, all of a sudden it may end up in the PC's interest to start protecting that crazy cat lady down by the docks area!

Right, but if the King isn't a priest, or doesn't actually gain anything from it, he simply sacrifices the kittens because he is teh eeeeeeevul, there is no need for it. Maybe he does it because he (incorrectly) believes that sacrificing kittens gains him favor with Hextor and so he is fighting a genocidal war against native tribesman who (also incorrectly) know that Hextor wats catgirls sacrificed to him.

[JBento]

Edit:ignore this, I read it as "campaign world"

And I believe when WotC said something in the same lines as I did, many people intrepreted it as you did. Which has created an upheaval that I believe is unjustified, not because that what you're complaining about is right (which it isn't) but because it's not what's going to happen. Then again, I could be wrong. As you said, these are the folks who created Diplomacy...

The problem isn't lack of mechanics, it's lack of support. It's WotC saying "If something doesn't affect the PCs it doesn't exist." That doesn't work for me.

I think (though I don't have the source on hand) what they said was "If something doesn't affect the PCs, we're not going to spend 5 pages of text creating the rules for". What's going to happen is, in fact, lack of mechanics (though, again, no source on hand, and therefore I could be wrong).

[Uncle Festy]

Indeed.
I think the problem about creating rules for everything that happens in the world is that you have trouble deviating from it when necessary. If the rules state that at any given time, at any major demon city, there are X of demon A and Y of demon B, you have to create an elaborate in-game reason for any other demons to appear if the PCs show up in the Abyss, instead of just being able to say, "These are the demons that are here. Deal with it."

[strayth]

Absolutely, OP. It never hurts to sit down and have a talk about what the Ps want for the Cs. In some of my older campaigns (we started doing a trade-off GMing thing with SW), it was decided early on that our PCs were not to be significant people by reputation, while they might accomplish significant things.

In other campaigns, the Ps all wanted the Cs to be very significant, which worked out too. And the last group I was in was so terrific to their DM: always bringing the food, always bringing the character, not just the sheet.

And JBento seems to have the accurate memory on WotC: the world being the PCs and the world's important factors being highlighted for the PCs are two different things, and it doesn't make much sense for WotC to have already determined what your campaign will be. I do hope, however, that this doesn't result in a dumbing-down of some worlds just to jump a gun and say PCs don't like political intrigue. Spoiler alert: done right, the PCs like anything.

[Indon]

Isn't it simpler though to simply, y'know, DM it and say "well, there are basically infinite forces on both sides and the Blood War will go on as long as I want it to. If the PCs show up I will plan an appropriately challenging encounter and not worry about whether or not one of them happens to the secretary to the undergeneral of larva production for the 2nd layer of Hell, of if he is, I will write that in and make it my own"

It is if you set up a session specifically for being in the Blood War.

It is not if your players decide, "Hey, let's go screw with some outer planes!"

The more freedom your players exercise, the more rules like that are neccessary - the alternative is that, oh hey, your players have decided to show up on the Blood War and you have nothing ready for them.

Right but Rules one and three are basically useless rules.

I might grant you that the first two rules are useless, but the third rule is all _kinds_ of important.

The Henching rule is important and yes, it should talk about whether it aplies to NPCs as well.

Henchman hiring rules aren't important. If your PC's want to go hiring a henchman, they can go roleplay out finding one and negotiating a price. In fact, you could do that for any good or service, provided you have some basic knowledge of the region's economy.

Right, but if the King isn't a priest, or doesn't actually gain anything from it, he simply sacrifices the kittens because he is teh eeeeeeevul, there is no need for it. Maybe he does it because he (incorrectly) believes that sacrificing kittens gains him favor with Hextor and so he is fighting a genocidal war against native tribesman who (also incorrectly) know that Hextor wats catgirls sacrificed to him.

In which case, cornering the kitten market instead causes the King to divert forces away from the tribesmen towards you and your kitten supply, allowing for a surprise attack on the part of the tribesmen at the exact moment you throw open the doors to the inn you're holed up in only to reveal that every kitten in the place you had polymorphed into a jaguar!

[SpikeFightwicky]

Right but Rules one and three are basically useless rules.

Rule one may be useless, but rule three assumes that the princess has taken levels in the Harloteer class which increases bra size in relation to the amount of levels attained in the class. Look for this new base class and more in later 4th ed. suppliments!

On to the matter at hand: Speaking for myself and other DMs in my circle, I've never browsed through the DMG for rules on how my world should 'operate' behind the scenes. I always make up that information on my own. It sometimes adds more quirks to some towns. For example:
PCs: How many blacksmiths are in town?
Me: After asking around, you find out that there are about 3.
PCs: That's odd, there should be more...
Me: (On the fly -> ok, for the last few years, the town has had a bit of a metal shortage, and a lot of the smiths moved to different areas. If the PCs keep asking, this is my story. BTW, why are they so worried about the number of blacksmiths in town?)

But the rules dictate how well it can be about the PC's outside of a railroaded plot.

I ran a game that lasted about a year and a half, and the PCs never quite stayed on track, and I constantly had to change/update the world and the campaign on the fly (and a lot of that was stuff the PCs would never learn or find out about). I didn't consult the DMG or any rules supplements once (I guess it was all DM fiat, if I'm using the term correctly), yet the game still maintained consistency and the PCs were never the wiser that they had gone so far off the intended trail that a large portion of the campaign was being done with very little prep. I'm by no means the best DM out there, but I can't say that it was very difficult.

[Indon]

PCs: How many blacksmiths are in town?
Me: After asking around, you find out that there are about 3.
PCs: That's odd, there should be more...
Me: (On the fly -> ok, for the last few years, the town has had a bit of a metal shortage, and a lot of the smiths moved to different areas. If the PCs keep asking, this is my story. BTW, why are they so worried about the number of blacksmiths in town?)

Nice. My players are more like:

PCs: We search the ruins.
Me: You eventually come across a number of parties of competing adventurers, grouped together into a single compound for safety.
PC 1 (to other PCs): We should kill them, rebuild the ancient ruins, and make it into our base of operations.
PC 2 (to other PCs): But first, we should make them turn on each other so that they soften each other up!
PC 3 (to other PCs): Hey, can we first kill that snake-guy that we heard that rumor about? We can get to killing the mortals later.
PC 4 (to other PCs): Let's compromise. We can make them all turn on each other, then we go find the snake-guy, then we come back and finish off what's left.
Me: ...


Edit: Admittedly, it _is_ Exalted, that's just how things go sometimes.

[Morty]

Let it go. We play to be heroes vanquishing monsters and saving kingdoms. We really don't care about some Loremaster's Decipher Script roll.

Maybe you want. It's perfectly fine, however some of us prefer their characters to be a part of detailed world instead of the world being grey, dull background to the players who kick in doors and slay monsters. We want our enemies to be more than bags of XP and plot hooks conveniently placed for players. I want my NPCs to seem like living people who will be there when PCs are long gone or even dead. When I DM, I'd like to have some help when I have to answer players who ask the bartender about the news from the wide world. The game revolves around PCs. The world shouldn't.
Also, what is with the argument "the older editions were like that"? It's completely missed, since there's nothing inherently better about older editions.