|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on May 14, 2016 18:38:01 GMT -5
For a PC and NPC to gain levels, the ad hoc dungeon was conceived. In context of game design, this was a simple, correct, choice; IMO.
But there is a broader scope to this, than the ad hoc dungeon can handle. Of course, as Rob will likely respond, I'm (again) over analyzing everything, and need to just let it go and play, play, play...
And I agree, I should. But don't anyone hold their breath over it, for this old crumbcake is not likely to change his batter soon, or easily.
So, if we take this basic principle of gaining Experience and rising in levels as the go-to mechanic, it seems we're going to have to assume that there's a helluva lot of dungeons (and their kin) out there, able to accommodate all this adventuring/leveling. And more. Monsters, as experience-feeding components of the game, must--ergo--be infinite; should enough PC and/or NPC successfully eliminate all the threat from monster attacks, the component becomes extinct, and--not being needed--they become nothing more than memories of generations past. (The world becomes one big happy kingdom!) But that is problematic, for game characters, the idea of wiping out monster populations is, in fact, anti what they're all about, as much as the idea of finite dungeons. Monsters, in a way, are as domesticated to the game as chickens are to the farmer, for characters need them to constantly procreate in order to satisfy the experience gained from continually slaughtering them.
So how would, a world without dungeons, compensate adventurers (the PC), if monsters and dungeons didn't exist as simply Experience-feeding components?
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 15, 2016 6:24:32 GMT -5
Wrong. In order to play a game a conceptual environment was conceived by Arneson, which included a village, a dungeon and an outdoor; later he would add another Outdoor/City locale: City of the Gods. That's almost two years before Arneson showed Gary and myself the concept; and THEN, for the game as conceived AT THIS JUNCTURE (ground zero +1), we went about reduplicating under Gary's iteration of the rules as HE wanted them, a series of dungeons and city environments, and outdoor climes to PLAYTEST the game. The idea that this mode must be adhered to in each case is a fallacy, unless one plays strictly BTB in assessing a generalized game, which I do not. So I am not dealing with you over-analyzing at this point Mister Crumb Cake, but with your assumption which is where you start from in order to forward the former. The explicit types of philosophies that can be present from beginning, to throughput, to never-ending states are, in essence, infinite. This is a conceptual realm of Fantasy. So, besides that, your very last questions are irrelevant. How would you do it is more fitting? Why? Because we are all designers of our own conceptual realities here. Are you now seeking consensus building or are you forwarding a unique philosophy leagued with your own conceptions of HOW THINGS ARE FOR ME? You emphatically state that you will not change "your batter soon" but then you offer an empty plate for the cake... BTW: I found the hammer...
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on May 15, 2016 11:50:09 GMT -5
Well, geez, i dunno. I guess I was just wondering--and asking--what everyone else might do if the idea of looting dungeons &/or killing monsters (perhaps in the process) was not the basis of all earned Experience and the mode of gaining levels (of power/ability/etc.)Which, as I understand things from a purely BTB approach, was how it ended up after all the trials and tests. (I think we can agree that, near the end, the idea of DIY, DM contribution and such, was shoved aside for the eventual product.) I, evidently, spilted too much gravy on my plate, and--heck--the old cake crumbled.  |
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on May 15, 2016 12:22:32 GMT -5
For me it depends on what type pf game through group wants. I've had small dungeons here and there but until recently I've never done a mega dungeon. So I awarded xp based on treasure but also exploration, doing something exceptionally well in character, defeating or overcoming a goal or obstacle such as bandits or what ever they set out. To be honest I've not sat down and plotted out how I award it. My gaming style has changed somewhat. Some guidelines that I use now:
Exploration -- amount based on how far, danger etc...
treasure of course
role playing and other miscellaneous events 10-40 exp
Exp for monsters based on 3lbb 100xp per HD
and the following that I've adapted from DCC
100 encounter with damage and slight expenditure
200 typical encounter
300 difficult encounter, death a possibility
400 extreme difficulty
And I do have to adjust on the fly, if a game sessions turns out to be mostly role playing I'll award differently also. Really the biggest thing I try to emphasize in my games is that combat and killing all the time is the least efficient way of gaining experience points.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 15, 2016 14:11:03 GMT -5
Well, geez, i dunno. I guess I was just wondering--and asking--what everyone else might do if the idea of looting dungeons &/or killing monsters (perhaps in the process) was not the basis of all earned Experience and the mode of gaining levels (of power/ability/etc.)Which, as I understand things from a purely BTB approach, was how it ended up after all the trials and tests. (I think we can agree that, near the end, the idea of DIY, DM contribution and such, was shoved aside for the eventual product.) I, evidently, spilted too much gravy on my plate, and--heck--the old cake crumbled. How has DIY BY yourself end up as constant question and answer sessions? You see, BITD, and this is a HUGE difference which guided design thought, that we had no instant access to ask stray questions whenever they popped into our heads; and even given the opportunity, say by phone or through a visit, or if extended, by snail mail, we at least had lots of time to figure out if what it was that was so damnably important was actually so or just musings best left to our own wiles. I will indeed risk offending my peers with this, but, hey, no political correctness or nicety of phrasing can derail it. For I do believe that gaming and game design have indeed changed due to the advent of the internet. There is more and speedy access, there is more need for connection, there is more need to check with one's peers, there is less need to go it alone, to stand out like the designers of old, who, if lucky met once a month if even that, or chatted if on good terms by phone or assailed each other otherwise in magazines or fan 'zines. The internet has taken as much as it has given; consensus building was anathema to us then, and it is still for me. This Q&A stuff just never happened, this minutia which has been elevated to actual levels of so-called importance. Quite honestly there was no community of designers back in the day, only individuals with ideas of their own and mostly holding secret contempt for each other if not just jealousy. Designers had to prove back then that their views were worthy of taking to a game company, of sending off through the mail and having a chance of getting read. There was no email, pdfs and LULU BITD. Designers had to prove their stuff; and they did not do it sitting around on phone call, writing letters about odd musings, or otherwise deliberating too long about miles of minutia. This has changed, and quite honestly, and you said before that I would say just get on with it, play, play, play. Well CCC, that's right. When play gets substituted for talk we get a great contest which you participated in. When talk gets substituted for play we get miles upon miles of questions, like one I saw on the Internet one time. "Should I give +1 to my Orcs' hit points..." One would laugh at such a thing if the blog poster had not then been encouraged in this "grand change" by literally 1 and 1/2 pages of commentary discussing the merits of such a decision! As I said, and these are not isolated case, mind you, that gaming and game design has changed immensely; it is not a figment of my imagination. It's more about talk and less about doing; it's more about who's on who's side to make a decision and less about setting one's foot down and just making it. It's about testing the water with one's little toe rather than jumping in and sensing the depth and current and then making a go at it. I really appreciate the posts made here where there is substance; but I must risk offending everyone about this consensus/Q&A about "How do you do something that I myself have not done or that I might not ever do or that I might do if I were in the mood, etc." I am SORRY. OF Course, YMMV and no doubt tremendously in this case. But done is done.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on May 15, 2016 14:29:57 GMT -5
(very confused/smilie goes here)
I don't want to dispute or challenge any of your points, Rob, as I (think I) get them. Perhaps many of us are just incapable of understanding the frustration some of the Origons (I'm coining a new phrase here for that small group of folks who were dwelling close at the time to the original source of this whole hobby, like you, Mike, Steve, etc. etc.) experience by all this...aftermath.
I'm...just not sure what to say, anymore.
I always hoped--I think--that (at least) some of my meanderings brought out a smile, giggle, chuckle, or actual consideration for thinking, from those viewing them.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 15, 2016 14:51:18 GMT -5
(very confused/smilie goes here) I don't want to dispute or challenge any of your points, Rob, as I (think I) get them. Perhaps many of us are just incapable of understanding the frustration some of the Origons (I'm coining a new phrase here for that small group of folks who were dwelling close at the time to the original source of this whole hobby, like you, Mike, Steve, etc. etc.) experience by all this...aftermath. I'm...just not sure what to say, anymore. I always hoped--I think--that (at least) some of my meanderings brought out a smile, giggle, chuckle, or actual consideration for thinking, from those viewing them. It is what it is. Keep hammerin' away, Captain, and so will I... |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 15, 2016 15:02:09 GMT -5
robkuntz, some people like conversation. Some people are even pretty good at it. It takes many things but I can think of a few. A desire for relationship. Appreciating learning from other minds. (Which further takes the assumption that there actually are other minds and other people are not merely an opportunity to hear oneself sound off. And that ones own mind is limited and benefits from other minds.) The desire to learn something new from someone else's perspective. (This also depends upon a lot of assumptions. Like that learning is good and that no matter how much one knows one could still learn something new. That other people also have creative minds and ideas worth sharing and interacting with.) The desire to share experiences. (This entails the assumption that we actually "know" very little but that sharing experiences can contribute to increased and shared knowledge.) Surprisingly, many ordinary human beings find this a really good way to make friends and be happy. I can't speak for geniuses as I am not one. The Internet is full of problems. But it is really good at facilitating some of what I mention above. I know that is why I enjoy this and other fora. Blogs are really great for sounding off our "truths" without too much pesky interaction. I've found that most folks join fora because they actually want conversation (as strange as that may seem). Perhaps it is good for a hobby to have a technology that can connect few dispersed people together quite easily. I know I am glad for it. I've learned so much from these conversations. I could imagine a possible world where each person already knew everything and enjoyed creativity in a vacuum. But I do not want to live in it. captaincrumbcake, I like this thread. I still like treasure as the key to most XP. I guess, for me, it keeps it "game like" and not so serious. I guess right now I like to keep it playful. But you've got me thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 15, 2016 15:53:07 GMT -5
robkuntz , some people like conversation. Some people are even pretty good at it. It takes many things but I can think of a few. A desire for relationship. Appreciating learning from other minds. (Which further takes the assumption that there actually are other minds and other people are not merely an opportunity to hear oneself sound off. And that ones own mind is limited and benefits from other minds.) The desire to learn something new from someone else's perspective. (This also depends upon a lot of assumptions. Like that learning is good and that no matter how much one knows one could still learn something new. That other people also have creative minds and ideas worth sharing and interacting with.) The desire to share experiences. (This entails the assumption that we actually "know" very little but that sharing experiences can contribute to increased and shared knowledge.) Surprisingly, many ordinary human beings find this a really good way to make friends and be happy. I can't speak for geniuses as I am not one. The Internet is full of problems. But it is really good at facilitating some of what I mention above. I know that is why I enjoy this and other fora. Blogs are really great for sounding off our "truths" without too much pesky interaction. I've found that most folks join fora because they actually want conversation (as strange as that may seem). Perhaps it is good for a hobby to have a technology that can connect few dispersed people together quite easily. I know I am glad for it. I've learned so much from these conversations. I could imagine a possible world where each person already knew everything and enjoyed creativity in a vacuum. But I do not want to live in it. captaincrumbcake , I like this thread. I still like treasure as the key to most XP. I guess, for me, it keeps it "game like" and not so serious. I guess right now I like to keep it playful. But you've got me thinking. Great for you. I wasn't speaking with you, though. And I wasn't attacking the thread either. I was referenced in it, in fact, and for ongoing reasons which do not involve you, of course. Otherwise my points stand whether you like them, support them, agree with them, or not. If you are lecturing to those who you feel are in accord, then that must be, for you are certainly not lecturing to me when you say, "...as strange as that may seem." Your patronizing attitude is uncalled for. I stated my case in clear terms and in fact begged pardon in advance for risking to offend. Is it a critique? It sure is. Are you now crying where CC was not? You sure are. |
|
|
|
Post by Von on May 16, 2016 13:01:48 GMT -5
Rob is basically right.
He who games much, blogs not. He who blogs much, games not.
Here's the thing about blogs and forums. Contributing to these discussions is a fine thing. We talk shop with people who are into the things we're into. We may even get to talk shop as DMs, which is an attractive luxury to those of us who must bite our tongues around our players for fear of letting them in on the old trade secrets. We learn how other people do things and go "oh yeah, I never thought of that, that's a good idea" and perhaps our game is the richer for it.
And it all feels like we're doing something.
Talking about a thing, in detail, requires that we put in the intellectual labour to make our ideas comprehensible to others, and that labour is rewarded by their understanding. We have done the work and received a reward and we didn't even have to invite four of our mates round or prepare snacks. Result!
I have taken advantage of this for many years with my blog. I am a fly-by-night, a flibbertigibbet, a creature of ebbing and flowing enthusiasms. By talking about the projects I want to do I ensure that no surfeit of time, effort or money is sunk into them, only for me to tire of it before the return on those investments occurs. If a project survives the initial gush of enthusiasm expressed in a few thousand words on the tubes it is probably worth making a go of in real life. That's the thinking, anyway.
The problem is that after a while, I am merely a dumb and lonely nerd with a laptop, talking about all the things I'd like to do and never really doing anything. That's quite depressing. So, for the sake of my sanity, I pack the blog in for a bit and get Shoot done.
I don't mind talking about things. It's useful for me because I haven't embarked on this create-a-setting-from-scratch malarkey before and sometimes I have questions that veterans of the form can answer. I don't run every last house rule or part-baked idea past this forum. I do the things and then I dump them here to explain them and have them prodded at by you lot until the holes have become apparent.
And for what it's worth, I've designed one dungeon in twenty years and only run a couple more. The vast majority of my games take place in cities and XP is tied to investigating and resolving events within those environments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 16, 2016 14:50:11 GMT -5
For a PC and NPC to gain levels, the ad hoc dungeon was conceived. In context of game design, this was a simple, correct, choice; IMO. I don't think that is the reason the dungeon was created. I am under the impression that Arneson created the first dungeon on the basis of he thought it would be fun. just let it go and play, play, play... I will comment on this later on in this post.  change his batter soon, or easily. This is not part of your batter, this what you do when you are not creating a new batch of batter. So, if we take this basic principle of gaining Experience and rising in levels as the go-to mechanic, SNIP So how would, a world without dungeons, compensate adventurers (the PC), if monsters and dungeons didn't exist as simply Experience-feeding components? Bitd (1975) when we began our campaign only gold (or gold equivalent) counted towards experience. IME we did not give out experience for killing monsters. Once we got the hang of things we were explorers and did our best to stay alive which meant avoiding combat whenever possible. Our initial games (all of the other refs games and mine up until I put in the first dungeon in our group) where all outdoors - /town/city, the civilized area around town/city and the wilderness. We played for about a year before my first dungeon made its appearance in the game. One of our underlying game assumptions is that until we hit levels 8th and up, we were not really making any significant dents in the number of monsters in the world. So IME nothing (monsters and wilderness/dungen)existed as simply experience feeding components. YMMV ...by Arneson, which included a village, a dungeon and an outdoor; ....That's almost two years before Arneson showed Gary and myself the concept; and THEN, ... we went about reduplicating under Gary's iteration of the rules as HE wanted them, a series of dungeons and city environments, and outdoor climes to PLAYTEST the game. The idea that this mode must be adhered to in each case is a fallacy, ... The explicit types of philosophies that can be present from beginning, to throughput, to never-ending states are, in essence, infinite. This is a conceptual realm of Fantasy. Bitd (1975) my group followed a different path, because my friend never did do a dungeon and it took me a year of exploratory reading to come up with my first dungeon (after doing one, I found I loved them) so we did nothing but the outdoor wilderness for a full year when I started playing. So I agree that any number of different paths are possible. There is no one way to play and no one way to start. IMO we are all at our best when we are sharing the things we have created - our own unique batters as it were. IMO most of us need to have more confidence in the quality of our unique batters and turn them into unique and tasty pancakes fixed up with different butters, a wide variety of syrups and many other topping combinations. ... I guess I was just wondering--and asking--what everyone else might do if the idea of looting dungeons &/or killing monsters ... To simplify your question (I think this is what you meant), what were some of the different ways you started your game original D&D game when you started? Did you start similar to Arneson or the Gygax/Kuntz playtest or did you go so other direction. I have noted mine above and perhaps others will also share how they started out and any variations. For me it depends on what type pf game through group wants. IMO this is a good example of how someone tweaks things for their own way of doing it. Likely we all do experience differently and that is cool. There is no real reason for us all to follow the same path for each thing in the game. How has DIY BY yourself end up as constant question and answer sessions? You see, BITD, and this is a HUGE difference which guided design thought, that we had no instant access ... ....The internet has taken as much as it has given; consensus building was anathema to us then, and it is still for me.... ...When play gets substituted for talk we get a great contest which you participated in... ....When talk gets substituted for play we get miles upon miles of questions, like one I saw on the Internet one time. "Should I give +1 to my Orcs' hit points..." One would laugh at such a thing if the blog poster had not then been encouraged in this "grand change" by literally 1 and 1/2 pages of commentary discussing the merits of such a decision!.... .....I really appreciate the posts made here where there is substance; .... I think some/part/all of what robkuntz is getting at is that over the last 40 years he has been there and done that and heard that for a lot of the questions that people ask, they are not new questions, and when they take the form of things are just being discussed instead of tried they are like the screech of chalk on a blackboard to him. robkuntz himself states that he knows he runs the risk of offending some of us; however, he believes the point is important enough to risk offending us. As he said elsewhere, he gets excited when he sees any of us break out of the status quo and post ideas that point towards something new, something unique to you! .... I always hoped--I think--that (at least) some of my meanderings brought out a smile, giggle, chuckle, or actual consideration for thinking, from those viewing them. You have succeeded with me. It is what it is. Keep hammerin' away, Captain, and so will I... Cool! I agree with Von. If any of the time that I spend on the internet could be used for gaming instead, that is what I would be doing with the time. I am on the internet when I have time that I am not able to use for gaming. I would much rather play, play, play, and when I can not play, I like to encourage other people to DIY and go play, play, play. Also I want to point out that I can be very sincere and honest in admiring someones creativity, without having any desire to imitate what they are doing. I don't want my campaign to be like yours and we don't have to agree on how to run things. My way is good for me and your way is good for you.  |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 16, 2016 15:20:10 GMT -5
I'm not aware of folks on this forum who talk but don't play. Speaking only of myself, I play as much as I can and every rule I've discussed here has wound up in play test in some form or another. It seems odd to me to need to defend conversations about ideas for settings and house rules on a forum dedicated to the same. I will not defend it again as it is really just unnecessary. If you like to talk about all the different ideas and things that go into creating and recreating campaign settings, this forum is supposed to be a safe place for you to hash out those ideas with other folks we may presume to have similar interests and desires. Same goes for the house rules we devise to correspond with such settings. There is no rule that you must have play tested it before you present it here, however ideal that might be. If one finds a setting idea or a house ruling idea uninteresting, one need not respond at all. What I object to is shutting down conversation and a certain tone of condescension. Ironically, due to my own fallibility as a human being, I myself took on a tone I would object to in others and I regret that. robkuntz, I apologize for the sarcasm of tone in my previous post. I recommit not to use such a tone in future. I understand you to be in conversation with me because you posted on a forum of which I am a member and therefore always a potential conversant. Thanks for some solid content of contribution here, Rob. Peace |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on May 16, 2016 21:55:47 GMT -5
Re: gold for xp. My weak memory remembers one of our players who had been in Arneson's group.
|
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on May 16, 2016 22:00:03 GMT -5
Dang! Thumb brushed across the Send button!
The player told us that the gold became xp only after it, and time, was, were spent on training. It made more sense than "WOW! I just found 70,000 gp & now I can aim this bow better!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Crimhthan The Great on May 20, 2016 9:25:19 GMT -5
IMC players gain experience from treasure and good play. They do not get experience for killing things, but they can gain experience for outsmarting, fooling, tricking, bamboozling, sneaking past or around, and etc. any of the opponents that they encouner.
Dungeons are fun, they are a lot of fun. Wilderness adventures are fun, they are a lot of fun. Both have more in common than not IMO. If my world had no dungeons it is still a planet with over 7,200,633,000 square miles of land and about 60% of that is controlled by monsters. So I am not worried about ever running out of encounters. We are getting close to 4000 games and are close to 400 years of game time. If I were to be granted another 1000 years of life for me and my players my world would still never be fully explored. And I do have dungeons, lots of dungeons, and most are between 10,000 to 50,000 rooms/areas/caverns/caves and none of them have been fully explored either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 22:35:39 GMT -5
For a PC and NPC to gain levels, the ad hoc dungeon was conceived. In context of game design, this was a simple, correct, choice; IMO. But there is a broader scope to this, than the ad hoc dungeon can handle. Of course, as Rob will likely respond, I'm (again) over analyzing everything, and need to just let it go and play, play, play... And I agree, I should. But don't anyone hold their breath over it, for this old crumbcake is not likely to change his batter soon, or easily. So, if we take this basic principle of gaining Experience and rising in levels as the go-to mechanic, it seems we're going to have to assume that there's a helluva lot of dungeons (and their kin) out there, able to accommodate all this adventuring/leveling. And more. Monsters, as experience-feeding components of the game, must--ergo--be infinite; should enough PC and/or NPC successfully eliminate all the threat from monster attacks, the component becomes extinct, and--not being needed--they become nothing more than memories of generations past. (The world becomes one big happy kingdom!) But that is problematic, for game characters, the idea of wiping out monster populations is, in fact, anti what they're all about, as much as the idea of finite dungeons. Monsters, in a way, are as domesticated to the game as chickens are to the farmer, for characters need them to constantly procreate in order to satisfy the experience gained from continually slaughtering them. So how would, a world without dungeons, compensate adventurers (the PC), if monsters and dungeons didn't exist as simply Experience-feeding components? I'm trying to follow this. Are you asking simply how to set up a game without dungeons? One thing to remember is that Dave and Gary were both wargamers. In Volume 3 we have rules on how to clear land, build a stronghold, get an army, and rule your fief. Buckets of gold are needed for those things, so gold is where XP comes from. Now, of course, take a bunch of wargamers and give each of them land, a stronghold, an army, and a bunch of leftover gold, and wars WILL happen. So, logicially, that's the direction the original published Little Brown Book campaign would take. So to answer the question of what do you do in a dungeonless world... well, what direction do you want the campaign to take? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 22:38:09 GMT -5
Or are you asking more on the order of "How would you do a rather standard D&D world, but without dungeons?"
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Jun 2, 2016 23:19:30 GMT -5
If I'm reading (having just reread) my original query correctly, I would think that this---
is probably the best answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 23:37:49 GMT -5
Okay, but I'm confused about the question now. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Jun 3, 2016 0:44:29 GMT -5
Okay, but I'm confused about the question now. Sorry. Welcome to my world. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 2:39:06 GMT -5
Well, that wasn't really very helpful. Do you want responses or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 3, 2016 3:32:07 GMT -5
Well, that wasn't really very helpful. Do you want responses or not? "Welcome to my world of?" what? No. "Not very helpful, is it 'Precious'..."? |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 3, 2016 3:41:33 GMT -5
I really believe that it's been wayyyy past the point for us to return to boardgames and miniatures, Gronan. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jun 3, 2016 8:02:06 GMT -5
Okay, but I'm confused about the question now. Sorry. Welcome to my world. Well, that wasn't really very helpful. Do you want responses or not? "Welcome to my world of?" what? No. "Not very helpful, is it 'Precious'..."? Guys I think the captains comment was in reference the state of his aging brain as he referenced in the other thread and it was supposed to be funny (and was to me for the intended reason). One problem with the internet is that we cannot see faces and hear voices. I am certain if you were face to face there would have been no misunderstanding.  It also looks like from a quote above that the captain pointed out that @gronanofsimmerya has answered the question(at least in part): I think it might be of interest if more people would share about how they individually run things outside of dungeons. |
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Jun 3, 2016 8:16:56 GMT -5
I have ruins, caves villages it depends I try to seed an area the pc's are in with adventure sites. Things of interest for them to explore and do. I've used JG wilderlands to help populate area's with sites of interest. It really depends on the group I try to tailor interesting sites based on what type of things the players are interested in doing. If I have a group that doesn't like huge mega dungeons then I won't run any. But that doesn't mean they won't find small caves or ruins to explore.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Jun 3, 2016 10:53:42 GMT -5
Yes, this:
@ Mike-- oft times my attempts at levity are not well executed. Sorry about that.
Your response I quoted, however, represents as good an answer as can be ascertained within the parameters of the 3 LBBs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 12:23:14 GMT -5
hey, no need to apologize, it's not like I've never had a joke fall flat. (www.sadtrombone.com). I just didn't have my humor brain installed.
But I'm still confused as to what your original question was. Did you want to run a conventional D&D game with no dungeons, or run a game that did not aim towards the implicit end game of the original?
Because I might have some suggestions, but only if I have more specific guidelines.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Jun 3, 2016 12:31:43 GMT -5
If I'm reading this right, I think I meant, if you (one) wanted to craft a world (D&Dish/medieval) where all things remained in play except for gaining XP through acquisition of stolen/looted treasure and slaying monsters... what would it be like?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 12:39:14 GMT -5
Do you mean
a) not having monsters and treasure in dungeons, but monsters and treasure in the wilderness, et al, still exist?
or
b) experience is not gained for gold, therefore monsters sitting on piles of gold are not required?
I could do either, but they'd be very different. The second is easier to answer: "Decide what you want players to be doing (exploration, heroic quests, intrigue, bravado and derring-do, or whatever) and give XP for that."
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Jun 3, 2016 13:05:55 GMT -5
I'd say more like, "b"... Such might even border on being too story-ish, like Dragonlance, if one was not careful.
|
|
