Post by grodog on Dec 3, 2017 11:59:40 GMT -5
Over in an RPGSite thread @ www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38136-Deadly-and-Assumed-Avoided-Encounters Michael Mornard commented:
In the original Greyhawk castle, there was a nest of six trolls on the first level. If a bunch of first level characters ignored the bones, the gnawed skulls, and the overwhelming troll stench the dwarf kept complaining about (you went into the dungeon without a dwarf? Do yo WANT to die?) and found the nest of trolls, they would die.
I also put a nest of six trolls on MY first level, with the same warnings.
So, yeah, the world is not a series of neatly planned winnable encounters.
I don't doubt that none of us would have any problem with the OP's original encountner outcome or with including more-powerful monsters than the standard level's "wisdom" would suggest was normal (i.e., trolls or orges, etc. on level 1).
I raise the point here, because a) I've never heard about a nest of trolls on level 1, so this is net-new info to me, and b) I thought there must be lots of little anecdotes like this scattered around in commentary and discussion with original Castle players that still has never been captured and saved. What other tidbits like this exist that we don't know about because we weren't at the table at the time?
I've gone through my phone logs of conversations with Rob Kuntz, and have rediscovered several things that are no commonly known, and will eventually get around to blogging about them (I started in the summer, just before RL work got really really busy, which is only now starting to slow down) @ grodog.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-many-levels-of-castle-greyhawk-part-1.html and grodog.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-many-levels-of-castle-greyhawk-part-2.html and which we were discussing for a little while at doomsdaygames.proboards.com/thread/1424/greyhawk-level-courtesy-allan-grohe
So, what other recollections do we all have from bit and pieces of discussions that could still be added to our collective lore?
Allan.
Have you generated an encounter for a game with the belief that the players will obviously see the fallacy of engaging and wisely choose to avoid it? Is this wise as a GM given the unpredictable nature of most players? You risk the accusations of presenting a completely unbalanced encounter and how do you defend your decision?
In a game several years ago I placed a rather large giant in a narrow pass through the mountains. He had settled his lair nearby and essentially cut off all travel through the pass. The player elected to try for the sizable reward when just traveling through a town on the road leading up to the pass. I think I made it pretty clear he was a powerful adversary but he insisted and even after seeing the guy up close insisted on fighting. He and his party of NPCs were wiped out.
Afterward he seemed a little miffed that I would put something so powerful in the game against him. I explained that I didnt, that the Giant was simply there - it was his decision to confront it, not mine. He got over his disappointment pretty quickly but trailed off with a comment like "why would a GM build anything in his world not meant to engage with the players?"
I hold to the notion that Im in the hobby of world building first, inviting players to run characters there second. Id be willing to bet 80% or more of what I create in my setting has no direct correlation with the players. They may blunder into it but it was designed without any consideration as to player characters at all. Now when I am specifically working up an adventure, then the PCs are of course a primary consideration but even then what I create as part of the adventure tends to blend and run over into the unfair, unbalanced and uncaring world around them. Living in a fantasy world has risks!
How do you handle this?
In a game several years ago I placed a rather large giant in a narrow pass through the mountains. He had settled his lair nearby and essentially cut off all travel through the pass. The player elected to try for the sizable reward when just traveling through a town on the road leading up to the pass. I think I made it pretty clear he was a powerful adversary but he insisted and even after seeing the guy up close insisted on fighting. He and his party of NPCs were wiped out.
Afterward he seemed a little miffed that I would put something so powerful in the game against him. I explained that I didnt, that the Giant was simply there - it was his decision to confront it, not mine. He got over his disappointment pretty quickly but trailed off with a comment like "why would a GM build anything in his world not meant to engage with the players?"
I hold to the notion that Im in the hobby of world building first, inviting players to run characters there second. Id be willing to bet 80% or more of what I create in my setting has no direct correlation with the players. They may blunder into it but it was designed without any consideration as to player characters at all. Now when I am specifically working up an adventure, then the PCs are of course a primary consideration but even then what I create as part of the adventure tends to blend and run over into the unfair, unbalanced and uncaring world around them. Living in a fantasy world has risks!
How do you handle this?
In the original Greyhawk castle, there was a nest of six trolls on the first level. If a bunch of first level characters ignored the bones, the gnawed skulls, and the overwhelming troll stench the dwarf kept complaining about (you went into the dungeon without a dwarf? Do yo WANT to die?) and found the nest of trolls, they would die.
I also put a nest of six trolls on MY first level, with the same warnings.
So, yeah, the world is not a series of neatly planned winnable encounters.
I don't doubt that none of us would have any problem with the OP's original encountner outcome or with including more-powerful monsters than the standard level's "wisdom" would suggest was normal (i.e., trolls or orges, etc. on level 1).
I raise the point here, because a) I've never heard about a nest of trolls on level 1, so this is net-new info to me, and b) I thought there must be lots of little anecdotes like this scattered around in commentary and discussion with original Castle players that still has never been captured and saved. What other tidbits like this exist that we don't know about because we weren't at the table at the time?
I've gone through my phone logs of conversations with Rob Kuntz, and have rediscovered several things that are no commonly known, and will eventually get around to blogging about them (I started in the summer, just before RL work got really really busy, which is only now starting to slow down) @ grodog.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-many-levels-of-castle-greyhawk-part-1.html and grodog.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-many-levels-of-castle-greyhawk-part-2.html and which we were discussing for a little while at doomsdaygames.proboards.com/thread/1424/greyhawk-level-courtesy-allan-grohe
So, what other recollections do we all have from bit and pieces of discussions that could still be added to our collective lore?
Allan.
