How big is your core?

[brilliantlight]

In the end they saved only 14 people as opposed to 14,000 or even 14,000,000 which is more common in comic books IIRC. That , by definition, has far less influence on the world no matter what fame it gives you.

-Only- saved fourteen people? Hardly heroic and indeed far less influence on the world...unless you're one of those fourteen and/or a family member/loved one living in or connected to those fourteen worlds...

Argument could be made that such smallscale heroics is more likely to inspire benevolent change in others (reciprical heroism, altered outlook on life, etc) than largecale heroics due to its narrowed focus, point of view/spotlight, whatever you want to call it. Individual versus mass. You can interact emotionally, verbally, and physically with 13 other survivors (thus increasing/exaggerating/reliving a more symbiotic importance of the event) like you can't with fourteen million...I like to think anyway.

"Wow. We were saved."
"Wow. I was (one of a lucky few to be) saved."

Also, fourteen or fourteen million...an entire community is an entire community no matter how you slice it. A world within the world. Etc.

Two cents down.

True, but the same could be said of the 14,000 only a 1,000 times greater. Those 14,000 have loved ones as well or don't they count?

[Five]

True, but the same could be said of the 14,000 only a 1,000 times greater. Those 14,000 have loved ones as well or don't they count?

Of course they do. And I probably should've been a bit clearer; I don't think you're 'wrong', and I don't necessarily disagree with your statement(s). Not on the whole of it anyway.

All I mean to say is that small-scale heroics can have just as much impact as large-scale heroics, and, depending on the circumstances, sometimes even more.

To go off-road a bit, and using a perhaps poor analogy that I'm going to use anyway: Nazi Germany. Arguably they were on track for global domination. Assuming that to be true (I'm not looking to debate or spin this thread further off-topic, just show you a rough sketch of my current devil's advocate angle), the Allied forces stopped their rule/tyranny/ideology/whatever in their tracks (and obviously with great and horrible sacrifices, bless them all!). Villages, towns, cities, and countries under occupation probably (I imagine) felt something a little different towards their saviours than villages, towns, cities and countries not yet under occupation, even though all (the world as it was known) was equally saved. I'd boil it down to levels of threat due to exposure or isolation, or, inherent human selfishness (to be half empty)/survival instinct (to be half full). Though I admit I'm not an "educated" man and therefore no expert on anything before or after these words. Anyway. Now minimise that global threat back down each "level": country to city, city to town, town to village. The appreciation (for lack of a better term), again I'm guessing, is probably felt more as the folks under occupation increasingly became further stripped of their securities (military, federal, provincial, local, social, emotional, etc) and are more and more exposed to the wolves, so to speak. More and more helpless, defenseless, vulnerable, etc. than those that face their doom/loss of security etc from a distance. Yet, again, both groups were saved by the Allies...

So to cut that jive short, if I'm not completely off with what I believe to be human tendencies and/or speaking ASS (heh), the smaller the community, the most cut-off/helpless/threatened/exposed community, is more likely to be impacted in a more profound way by localised (witnessed) heroics than the largest (more secure and thus jaded) communities are affected by larger, more distant (yet ironically more profound) heroics.

Sort of sad commentary/way for me to think, maybe. But it's what I believe to be true. Right now.

More simply I'll pose a question that doesn't need to be answered: Facing danger in a group (of any size) is far different than facing danger alone. So if you were in a group whose lives were saved would you feel more or less emotion towards your saviour(s) than if it were just your life that was saved?

Besides, how many people would even be aware of the actions of a group of heroes that just saved the world from going demon-nova? Probably not as many as the thirty-four villagers (and six dogs) that Tom's son just saved from complete destruction. Less influence on the world right there, in a sense.

Cousin It likes epic heroism, John likes his localised, and Jane keeps upping the ante of her PCs as they grow more and more capable of being more and more heroic. In the end it's all good. All versions have the heroes lighting the candle for those lost and that's enough to spin a great yarn or twenty.

At the risk of another aside, and for those not familiar with 5E, 5E actually breaks character levels down according to such "heroic impact". Player's Handbook page 15, under "Tiers of Play":

"In the first tier (levels 1-4)...the threats they face are relatively minor, usually posing a threat to local farmsteads or villages.

In the second tier (levels 5-10)...These characters have become important, facing dangers that threaten cities and kingdoms.

In the third tier (levels 11-16)...These mighty adventurers often confront threats to whole regions and continents.

At the fourth tier (levels 17-20)...The fate of the world or even the fundamental order of the multiverse might hang in the balance during their adventures."

So there. Yes, we have no bananas. haha

[brilliantlight]

True, but the same could be said of the 14,000 only a 1,000 times greater. Those 14,000 have loved ones as well or don't they count?

Of course they do. And I probably should've been a bit clearer; I don't think you're 'wrong', and I don't necessarily disagree with your statement(s). Not on the whole of it anyway.

All I mean to say is that small-scale heroics can have just as much impact as large-scale heroics, and, depending on the circumstances, sometimes even more.

To go off-road a bit, and using a perhaps poor analogy that I'm going to use anyway: Nazi Germany. Arguably they were on track for global domination. Assuming that to be true (I'm not looking to debate or spin this thread further off-topic, just show you a rough sketch of my current devil's advocate angle), the Allied forces stopped their rule/tyranny/ideology/whatever in their tracks (and obviously with great and horrible sacrifices, bless them all!). Villages, towns, cities, and countries under occupation probably (I imagine) felt something a little different towards their saviours than villages, towns, cities and countries not yet under occupation, even though all (the world as it was known) was equally saved. I'd boil it down to levels of threat due to exposure or isolation, or, inherent human selfishness (to be half empty)/survival instinct (to be half full). Though I admit I'm not an "educated" man and therefore no expert on anything before or after these words. Anyway. Now minimise that global threat back down each "level": country to city, city to town, town to village. The appreciation (for lack of a better term), again I'm guessing, is probably felt more as the folks under occupation increasingly became further stripped of their securities (military, federal, provincial, local, social, emotional, etc) and are more and more exposed to the wolves, so to speak. More and more helpless, defenseless, vulnerable, etc. than those that face their doom/loss of security etc from a distance. Yet, again, both groups were saved by the Allies...

So to cut that jive short, if I'm not completely off with what I believe to be human tendencies and/or speaking ASS (heh), the smaller the community, the most cut-off/helpless/threatened/exposed community, is more likely to be impacted in a more profound way by localised (witnessed) heroics than the largest (more secure and thus jaded) communities are affected by larger, more distant (yet ironically more profound) heroics.

Sort of sad commentary/way for me to think, maybe. But it's what I believe to be true. Right now.

More simply I'll pose a question that doesn't need to be answered: Facing danger in a group (of any size) is far different than facing danger alone. So if you were in a group whose lives were saved would you feel more or less emotion towards your saviour(s) than if it were just your life that was saved?

Besides, how many people would even be aware of the actions of a group of heroes that just saved the world from going demon-nova? Probably not as many as the thirty-four villagers (and six dogs) that Tom's son just saved from complete destruction. Less influence on the world right there, in a sense.

Cousin It likes epic heroism, John likes his localised, and Jane keeps upping the ante of her PCs as they grow more and more capable of being more and more heroic. In the end it's all good. All versions have the heroes lighting the candle for those lost and that's enough to spin a great yarn or twenty.

At the risk of another aside, and for those not familiar with 5E, 5E actually breaks character levels down according to such "heroic impact". Player's Handbook page 15, under "Tiers of Play":

"In the first tier (levels 1-4)...the threats they face are relatively minor, usually posing a threat to local farmsteads or villages.

In the second tier (levels 5-10)...These characters have become important, facing dangers that threaten cities and kingdoms.

In the third tier (levels 11-16)...These mighty adventurers often confront threats to whole regions and continents.

At the fourth tier (levels 17-20)...The fate of the world or even the fundamental order of the multiverse might hang in the balance during their adventures."

So there. Yes, we have no bananas. haha

The tiers are a good rule of thumb and the PCs are now level 11 as its been a long game but when they were around level 3 IIRC they were part of the reason the Dukkar got his domain. Not the main reason , which was Gabriel Aidaire, but they certainly contributed to it. As far as she was considered she was still a villain but there is no reason IMO why a villain can't do the right thing for the wrong reason. In some cases they can even do the right thing for the right reason.

[Rathbone]

I never had claustrophobia or anything like it so that feeling is meaningless to me. Close, tight spaces never upset me in my life.

But claustrophobia might be an issue for your players. In which case, it might be worth investing some time into how that would affect your party, as opposed to dismissing it out of hand simply because it's something that's never affected you.

Even if it is it is something I don't like. Small spaces= small stories. If all you do is save a handful of shepards and their sheep it isn't as impressive as saving a city of 100,000.

Yes, even if it is something you don't like. See it as challenge And never forget, it's more about what your players enjoy than what you find personally more enjoyable. That's just my take on being a DM, anyway; I get a kick out of running games that my players enjoy.

[brilliantlight]

I never had claustrophobia or anything like it so that feeling is meaningless to me. Close, tight spaces never upset me in my life.

Even if it is it is something I don't like. Small spaces= small stories. If all you do is save a handful of shepards and their sheep it isn't as impressive as saving a city of 100,000.

Yes, even if it is something you don't like. See it as challenge And never forget, it's more about what your players enjoy than what you find personally more enjoyable. That's just my take on being a DM, anyway; I get a kick out of running games that my players enjoy.

Since I have been running this campaign for around 8 years or so and no one has complained yet and since I know my players by now and they mostly feel the same way I am not going to change it.

[Rathbone]

Fair enough. Not everyone likes change, I appreciate that.

[brilliantlight]

Fair enough. Not everyone likes change, I appreciate that.

I don't mind change but I don't change things just for the sake of change. There is no reason for be to do so. I prefer large domains, my players prefer large domains so why would I change it to something we don't like?

[Rogold Gildenman]

My own preference is for a smaller Ravenloft - there are plenty of DnD Settings where EPIC is the order of the day, so why should there not be a setting tailor-made for something more intimate? I also tend to believe that Gothic Horror is better served by a setting that's small enough for there to be nowhere to run, but sizeable enough to be rich with places to hide ... THINGS.

I also like the idea that this relatively modest scale allows you to KNOW places and the people in them much more thoroughly than one would in a World where you can keep wandering, roaming and adventuring without ever returning to the same place; I really like the idea that most adventures in Ravenloft more often revolve around saving your friends, your family and your neighbours (or even just saving a fellow human/demi-human soul) rather than Saving the World or Saving the Day - consider that in DRACULA (which owing to its ensemble of heroes and classic Evil Wizard villain is probably the most perfect model for the sort of Gothic Horror easiest to mate with Heroic Fantasy) Our Heroes MIGHT be trying to save the World - Van Helsing certainly mentions that the Count could spread Vampirism across the planet if he gets his creative juices flowing in the course of corrupting London - but they are CERTAINLY fighting to save Madam Mina's life and her soul, avenging Miss Lucy Westenra in the process.

Having said that I do understand why some members of this community may prefer Epic Ravenloft - and I'm glad the nature of the Demiplane makes it perfectly possible to open up brand-new vistas, as well as drag in brand-new faces (even reshape Geography as we know it) courtesy of the Mists, since this helps keep the setting from growing stale - whilst I continue to think that Heroism isn't necessarily a numbers game (sometimes one likes to feel you've done something BIG).

[Rathbone]

my players prefer large domains so why would I change it to something we don't like?

Maybe because the players aren't really supposed to like Ravenloft?

[alhoon]

I usually assume the core of x4 the area given by the "1 inch = 25 miles!" and x3-4 the population. IIRC it ends up about 150,000 sq. km.

[GreenWood]

I use a larger core. Ravenloft is the world I use, so I want to be a world, not a place where the largest landmass is the size of Kansas.

[Deewun]

I use a little bit of dream/nightmare logic. Sometimes the roads are longer than they "should be". No 100% measurement has been able to be made, though it is roughly 28 days from sea to sea on horseback.