|[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties

"Peter Knutsen" <peter.TakeThisOut@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
news:47c02c73$0$15893$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
> Tetsubo wrote:
>> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>> You would temporarily change how the game world *is*, for that
>>> particular campaign, so that the world demographics are different, with
>>> magic users being much rarer, relative to the previous campaigns and to
>>> later campaigns that you will run taking place in the same world?
>>>
>>> What a horrible thought...
>>
>> You don't have to change the *world*. You just change the focus of
>> the campaign. You alter the objectives, challenges and goals. the world
>> itself can remain the same. Much the same way you don't throw a 1st level
>> group against a Balrog... unless you are a dick of a DM.
>
> Sure, that would work just fine.
>
> It's just that many people are incapable of perceiving the intrinsic
> wrongness of a temporary world change, and therefore might actually commit
> it.

It's a fictional world. If you want to use a slightly different version of
that fictional world for one party than for another, and everyone involved
is aware of those differences, there's nothing wrong with that at all.

--
Mark.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

"Mark Blunden" <markATmarkdbDOTplusDOTcom.DeleteThis@addresss.invalid> wrote in message
news:13s0r1fnidmvacf@corp.supernews.com...
> "Peter Knutsen" <peter.DeleteThis@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message

>> It's called consistency, and it is very difficult. Not many people have
>> got what it takes to deliver this precious and intrinsically valuable
>> commodity.
>
> And then there are those who do have what it takes, and choose not to,
> simply because it's more fun for the whole group that way. A commodity's
> only as valuable as the market makes it.

Ding ding ding!

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Peter Knutsen wrote:

> Tetsubo wrote:
>
>> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>
>>> You would temporarily change how the game world *is*, for that
>>> particular campaign, so that the world demographics are different,
>>> with magic users being much rarer, relative to the previous campaigns
>>> and to later campaigns that you will run taking place in the same world?
>>>
>>> What a horrible thought...
>>
>>
>> You don't have to change the *world*. You just change the focus of
>> the campaign. You alter the objectives, challenges and goals. the
>> world itself can remain the same. Much the same way you don't throw a
>> 1st level group against a Balrog... unless you are a dick of a DM.
>
>
> Sure, that would work just fine.
>
> It's just that many people are incapable of perceiving the intrinsic
> wrongness of a temporary world change, and therefore might actually
> commit it.
>

Then they are fools and should be ignored.

--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Peter Knutsen <peter RemoveThis @sagatafl.invalid> wrote in news:47c06b19$0$15890
$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk:

> Yes there is. You can't tweak a campaign world for one campaign in a
> long series of campaigns taking place in it. That *is* the definition of
> a world: A place with known, static charecteristics, including the
> prevalance of magic users and magic items.

If I invented a world and in one campaign, infest the Bog Mountains with
Giants and six months later, play again in the same world but the players
want to fight dragons instead, who are you to tell me I can't tweak my
campaign world?

-phy
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

In article <47c06b19$0$15890$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
Peter Knutsen <peter.RemoveThis@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
>Yes there is. You can't tweak a campaign world for one campaign in a
>long series of campaigns taking place in it. That *is* the definition of
>a world: A place with known, static charecteristics, including the
>prevalance of magic users and magic items.
>
[...]
>It's called consistency, and it is very difficult. Not many people have
>got what it takes to deliver this precious and intrinsically valuable
>commodity.

I believe you're making a mis-assessment as to what the
valuable commodity is. The world, however well-fleshed out,
has no intrinsic value at all - it's the GM and the playing
group(s) who get something out of playing in that world who
assign it what value it has. And if they choose (for the purpose
of enjoying the campaign in a different light) to play in
version 1.1b of that game world, the one where wizardly magic
is extremely rare, and it works for them, then the world is
well serving of its true and *only* purpose.

--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

In article <fpqodk$l99$1@reader2.panix.com>, delrio DeleteThis @panix.com (Del Rio)
wrote:

> In article <47c06b19$0$15890$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
> Peter Knutsen <peter DeleteThis @sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >Yes there is. You can't tweak a campaign world for one campaign in a
> >long series of campaigns taking place in it. That *is* the definition of
> >a world: A place with known, static charecteristics, including the
> >prevalance of magic users and magic items.
> >
> [...]
> >It's called consistency, and it is very difficult. Not many people have
> >got what it takes to deliver this precious and intrinsically valuable
> >commodity.
>
> I believe you're making a mis-assessment as to what the
> valuable commodity is. The world, however well-fleshed out,
> has no intrinsic value at all - it's the GM and the playing
> group(s) who get something out of playing in that world who
> assign it what value it has. And if they choose (for the purpose
> of enjoying the campaign in a different light) to play in
> version 1.1b of that game world, the one where wizardly magic
> is extremely rare, and it works for them, then the world is
> well serving of its true and *only* purpose.

Eventually people get tired of accidentally moving offstage and finding
just how thin those facades are.

A strong world helps the GM provide consistency.

That may not be important for a gaming group that doesn't play long term
campaigns or likes to shift settings a lot.

I find that people rarely plan to play a long term campaign, but I find
they're often intrigued by a strong game world and what waves they can
make in the world with their character when the world doesn't coalesce
around the party.

I also find that some GMs get more personally involved in their "sets"
and get irritated if things don't go the way they planned. When there
is a world behind the set, I find the GM often takes things in stride
more easily.

The world can provide more functionality than just being a stage.
Whether a particular group requires it depends on what they expect from
the game.

- Allen
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Mark Blunden wrote:
> "Peter Knutsen" <peter.TakeThisOut@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
[...]
>> It's called consistency, and it is very difficult. Not many people
>> have got what it takes to deliver this precious and intrinsically
>> valuable commodity.
>
> And then there are those who do have what it takes, and choose not to,
> simply because it's more fun for the whole group that way. A commodity's
> only as valuable as the market makes it.

My general approach to life is that when I don't see a person doing a
difficult thing, it is because said person doesn't *have* the capability
to do that difficult thing.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

"Peter Knutsen" <peter DeleteThis @sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
news:47c13f20$0$15892$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
> Mark Blunden wrote:
>> "Peter Knutsen" <peter DeleteThis @sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
> [...]
>>> It's called consistency, and it is very difficult. Not many people have
>>> got what it takes to deliver this precious and intrinsically valuable
>>> commodity.
>>
>> And then there are those who do have what it takes, and choose not to,
>> simply because it's more fun for the whole group that way. A commodity's
>> only as valuable as the market makes it.
>
> My general approach to life is that when I don't see a person doing a
> difficult thing, it is because said person doesn't *have* the capability
> to do that difficult thing.

So how's the Everest-climbing going?

--
Mark.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

"Peter Knutsen" <peter DeleteThis @sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
news:47c13f20$0$15892$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
> Mark Blunden wrote:
>> "Peter Knutsen" <peter DeleteThis @sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
> [...]
>>> It's called consistency, and it is very difficult. Not many people have
>>> got what it takes to deliver this precious and intrinsically valuable
>>> commodity.
>>
>> And then there are those who do have what it takes, and choose not to,
>> simply because it's more fun for the whole group that way. A commodity's
>> only as valuable as the market makes it.
>
> My general approach to life is that when I don't see a person doing a
> difficult thing, it is because said person doesn't *have* the capability
> to do that difficult thing.

I never change the oil on my ultra stretch Hummer limousine. I know how. I
don't climb up the back of my house and rappel off my roof down to my car to
drive it, either, even though I could.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Peter Knutsen wrote:
> Mark Blunden wrote:
>
>> "Peter Knutsen" <peter.TakeThisOut@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
>
> [...]
>
>>> It's called consistency, and it is very difficult. Not many people
>>> have got what it takes to deliver this precious and intrinsically
>>> valuable commodity.
>>
>>
>> And then there are those who do have what it takes, and choose not to,
>> simply because it's more fun for the whole group that way. A
>> commodity's only as valuable as the market makes it.
>
>
> My general approach to life is that when I don't see a person doing a
> difficult thing, it is because said person doesn't *have* the capability
> to do that difficult thing.
>

It's been my experience that animals (humans included) follow the path
of least resistance. Doing the absolute minimum to achieve their desired
goals. One of my favorite quotes is, "If you have a difficult job, give
it to a lazy man. he will find the easiest way to do it." Other than
Shoalin monks and "extreme" sportsman I don't know anyone that takes the
most difficult path intentionally.

--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

In article <awessels-5B043D.19520923022008.DeleteThis@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
Allen Wessels <awessels.DeleteThis@EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote:
>
>Eventually people get tired of accidentally moving offstage and finding
>just how thin those facades are.
>
>A strong world helps the GM provide consistency.
>
>That may not be important for a gaming group that doesn't play long term
>campaigns or likes to shift settings a lot.
>
>I find that people rarely plan to play a long term campaign, but I find
>they're often intrigued by a strong game world and what waves they can
>make in the world with their character when the world doesn't coalesce
>around the party.
>
>I also find that some GMs get more personally involved in their "sets"
>and get irritated if things don't go the way they planned. When there
>is a world behind the set, I find the GM often takes things in stride
>more easily.
>
>The world can provide more functionality than just being a stage.
>Whether a particular group requires it depends on what they expect from
>the game.

You're conflating the issues here. Just because someone has
chosen to re-use their geography and general campaign trappings
from a previous game, while changing some of the societal
infrastructure ("in this game, there's much less wizardly
magic") doesn't mean that they've suddenly abandoned the
simulationist "clockwork world" game model.

--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

In article <fps0e7$eb6$1@reader2.panix.com>, delrio.RemoveThis@panix.com (Del Rio)
wrote:

> You're conflating the issues here. Just because someone has
> chosen to re-use their geography and general campaign trappings
> from a previous game, while changing some of the societal
> infrastructure ("in this game, there's much less wizardly
> magic") doesn't mean that they've suddenly abandoned the
> simulationist "clockwork world" game model.

It's a different set of world assumptions.

If your game doesn't involve politics at the mid/high end, it doesn't
matter so much.

We run lower a lower level group in the same time frame as the higher
level party. Every now and then we get hit with a ripple or wake from
what they do.

Certainly a GM can just handwave such events into existence, but in my
experience, the tone is different and the feel of "wheels within wheels"
is less.

- Allen
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Matt Frisch <matuse73.RemoveThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2008 20:33:14 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin <marcel.beaudoin.RemoveThis@gmail.com>
> scribed into the ether:
>
>>From ENWorld:
> [snip]
>>The one stumbling block is that the game expects fighters to wear heavy
>>armor, but you could get around that by building a simple house rule (a
>>fighter in light armor gets a flat bonus to AC to make up the gap).
>>*****
>
> I take it they are revamping the max dex mechanic...a dex monkey
> fighter in light (or no) armor was always viable before 4E...
>
> Giving an arbitrary bonus to a light armor fighter would seem a bit
> dumb. If you can get the same protection by fiat, why not go with the
> light armor no matter what? Even if the old max dex mechanic is gone,
> just having it be lighter will have advantages for encumberance, skill
> checks, etc.

One of the things I don't like about 3e, in fact. Dex-monkeys and tanks
tend to have about the same AC. Sure, the Dex-monkey has to have a
better Dex score (duh), but that's what the charactr is *about*. This
makes it effectively a 0-cost 'limitation'. The tank, OTOH, gets to pay
more money for his gear, move slower, and carry more weight.

But then, I think my thoughts on this matter are fairly well known, so
I'll shut up now.


Keith
--
Keith Davies below you, right now: radioactive magma
keith.davies.RemoveThis@kjdavies.org above you, right now: hard vacuum
keith.davies.RemoveThis@gmail.com probably somewhere near you: a product with
http://www.kjdavies.org/ label warning you it is unsafe if misused
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties