Why do almost all editions of D&D fall apart around 10th level

[Yora]

Having had some interesting conversations about various older editions of D&D over the last weeks and several people have said that even in the very early editions the fun levels were in the 3 to 10 range. 3rd edition is infamous for getting completely out of balance around 10th level to the point that there was a hugely popular variant that ended level advancement at 6th (or alternatively 8th or 10th) level. But even when B/X was expanded in 1983 to BECMI which raised the maximum level from 14 to 36 it doesn't seem to have been very popular in the long run. Almost all the Basic retroclones around to day stick to the original 14 levels or just 12 or 10. I've even seen the complaint made against OD&D. And now 5th edition was designed explicitly to avoid that flaw. I don't know how much success they had with that.

Why is this the case? The rules have a lot of big differences, but the problem seems to be always the same.
Is it really just the spells of 5th level and higher that wrack the dynamics of lower level gameplay? Or is there some flaw in the level system itself that causes that?

[Pugwampy]

Gaming in general gets more complicated and time consuming at higher levels . Wizards pull off serious funny and unwanted admin . Fighters make multiple attack and damage rolls . All the noobs are now experienced veterans . starting from level 1 - 13 can easily take a year . Lots of bored players fall apart or start raping and pillaging your village people .

I think all editions are fun at lower levels because of their simplicity . Dm is having a holiday so he is less stressed , and in a very positive mood which means he is a generous and charitable DM. Squishy players are far more dependent on village hubs for healing and shelter so they are well behaved .

There is much different thrill and mindset when your PC is level 1 with less then 10 HP , 11 AC and a rusty sword . Make one chop on the ogre,s testical and then run for the hills ! Yay !

I have never taken players beyond level 12 before all heck breaks loose and we have to restart . I am quite amazed to hear of stories about campaigns lasting 3 years and players making it to level 20 .
I assume average game clubs either start their campaigns at level 1 or level 10 . I am a level 1 DM and proud .

[Anonymouswizard]

One idea I've seen batted aroundisthat D&D characters were never really meant to advance beyond 10th level. This does sort of make sense if you look at the BECMI demihuman level limits (if memory serves me it's 12th level for dwarves, 10th level for elves*, and 8th level for halflings). I believe that AD&D1e had level limits for demihumans capping out at about there as well, but in 2e the level limits were raised so that all races could reach level 15 in at least one class.

However, I agree that the increasing complexity is also a factor. Compare the D&D wizard to wizards in most other games. The D&D wizard has to go and spend more time looking at this spell list working out which ones he wants, and a list that is probably larger (a 2e wizard with 14 intelligence can have 63 spells in his spellbook before he's out of room, in most other games you probably won't hit 30 spells**).

4e keep everything relatively balanced, so no class should be unfun at any level. However, characters do get more complicated as you increase in levels, and most of the 'iconic' bad guys are either heroic tier or low-mid paragon, so I can see why people might prefer to stick to 1-10 (or even 1-15).

5e is weird. My experienceof it is currently all low level, with my only character having just reached Fighter (Battlemaster) 3/Cleric (Knowledge) 2, but from what I can see it solves a decent part of the caster admin problem with the 'prepare list of spells known' system. I'd say the problem here is the high level spells and spell slots, as long as nobody exceeds 5th level spells I can see it remaining fine as long as nobody has a caster class over 10th level. but that's just conjecture at this stage.

* not 100% sure on warrior elves, but I think it's 10th level as well.
** Well, GURPS is an exception, but most of the spells are minor ones that you probably won't pay attention, and even then 60 spells is a good chunk of CP.

[Zombimode]

I don't think I agree with the premise that all D&D editions fall apart around level 10.

What is true, at least for 2e and 3.5, is that there is a paradigm shift at higher levels. Higher level parties need different kinds of adventures than lower level parties.
This only becomes a problem if the DM (or the players) don't realize that shift, or are not interested or able to provide the type of adventure suitable for higher level play.

Sadly this seems to be true way to often for the writers of published adventures. You're seeing the same simple dungeon layouts just with tougher enemies passed as an adventure for high level characters.
Thats not how it should be. The discrete encounter model just won't cut it. A good high level adventure should operate on a grander scope. Politics, information gathering and combat-as-war become increasingly important themes as you get into higher levels.

A good high level campaign can be very rewarding for both the players and the DM, because of the increased complexity.

[Anonymouswizard]

Sadly this seems to be true way to often for the writers of published adventures. You're seeing the same simple dungeon layouts just with tougher enemies passed as an adventure for high level characters.

Eh, it works if the party is entirely mundanes. Not that I'm praising the design in any way, I hate the structure of published D&D adventures (possibly due to them being 'adventures').


Thats not how it should be. The discrete encounter model just won't cut it. A good high level adventure should operate on a grander scope. Politics, information gathering and combat-as-war become increasingly important themes as you get into higher levels.

You see, to me these are mostly things that should be present in a low level adventure. Sure, for beginning adventurers it's 'get information on the goblin camps raiding the city', while for high level adventurers it's more 'okay, we need you to infiltrate the enemy city and kill off every official in the order of their spouse's birthday, and if you need to blow off steam here's a bunch of goblin camps that you can destroy', but to me any adventure that relies on the discrete encounter model is a bad one.

To me a published adventure, at any level, should provide a setting, a goal for the PCs, and a number of 'likely' encounters that can be slotted in at any point. Sure, it would be a lot more work, but it's not like the current D&D design team is actually doing any designing.

[Yora]

The idea of different level tiers is one I am really unhappy with. A lot of the really cool creatures that everyone wants to fight are such high level that a lot of people never get to encounter them, and if so then mostly as a single boss and not as a faction of antagonists with their full resources. There are rules for going to other worlds, but these are so dangerous that they only become safe to explore at higher levels. (Planescape got around that by making everyone get along peacefully in Sigil and putting more emphasis on social situations that combat.)
But that's more of a preference thing. Not the fault of the rules when I don't want to wait until high level to get access to new encounters and environments. Perhaps a flaw, but I don't think it influences how well it works when you do it as intended.

[Morty]

D&D has a power curve that no other system really has. There are high-powered ones, there are low-powered ones and there are those who support different characters, but none where you start out a schlub (less competent than a WoD mortal or low-point GURPS character in many cases) and work your way up to a demigod by killing progressively more powerful conveniently evil monsters.

On top of that, the franchise never really had a good idea of what higher levels (as in, past 10) are even meant to look like. Below level 10 or so, it mostly knows what the place of the PCs in the world is meant to be, even if it can't quite handle its power level. But when you go beyond that, the PCs' abilities make the world around them increasingly irrelevant, and the rules and setting don't really know how to portray that. It also gets in the way of wishing to increase your characters' competence without making them world-strangling powerhouses.

And then there's the fact that they come apart on a mechanical level. Rules originally meant to handle low-level play won't be able to start simulating high-powered play just by inflating the numbers. It's something that Storyteller systems learned harshly, but the designers of D&D hasn't really taken to heart yet.

[BigBadHarve]

I don't think I agree with the premise that all D&D editions fall apart around level 10.

What is true, at least for 2e and 3.5, is that there is a paradigm shift at higher levels. Higher level parties need different kinds of adventures than lower level parties.
This only becomes a problem if the DM (or the players) don't realize that shift, or are not interested or able to provide the type of adventure suitable for higher level play.

Sadly this seems to be true way to often for the writers of published adventures. You're seeing the same simple dungeon layouts just with tougher enemies passed as an adventure for high level characters.
Thats not how it should be. The discrete encounter model just won't cut it. A good high level adventure should operate on a grander scope. Politics, information gathering and combat-as-war become increasingly important themes as you get into higher levels.

A good high level campaign can be very rewarding for both the players and the DM, because of the increased complexity.

I'm also of this mind. It's a change in dynamic, that's all. Arguing politics and planning wargame type sessions might not be everyone's cup of tea of course... but if your group doesn't like that there's always the option of semi-retiring the characters and playing their lower level henchmen to further the ends of the bigwigs. That keeps you in the style of game you're used to while still advancing the goals of your principle characters.

[Jay R]

The essence of D&D has usually been a group of wanderers risking there lives in a dangerous world. At about tenth level or so, they become among the most dangerous things in the world, and the tension dies out. If the PCs feel like the biggest badasses on the planet, then that's a very different game.

My vague idea is that when the party sees a dragon and does not feel threatened, and does not consider fleeing, and does not come up with a careful plan, but just yawns and attacks from the front, the campaign is over.

[I get that epic adventures exist. They are a very different kind of game.]


On top of that, the franchise never really had a good idea of what higher levels (as in, past 10) are even meant to look like. Below level 10 or so, it mostly knows what the place of the PCs in the world is meant to be, even if it can't quite handle its power level. But when you go beyond that, the PCs' abilities make the world around them increasingly irrelevant, and the rules and setting don't really know how to portray that.

There's a lot of understanding here, but it's not true that the franchise never knew what high levels should be. It's closer to say that what high levels should be didn't really appeal to people who'd played their way up to it.

In original D&D, at about 10th level, PCs were supposed to stop being wanderers, clear out a fiefdom in the unconquered wilderness, build a keep and an army, and now the adventures come to you, in the form of invaders.

This worked well for the original players, who were miniatures wargamers first. But as soon as D&D was published, there were lots of new players who were in it for the adventures. They didn't want to settle down, and they didn't want to play an army. They wanted to play Gore-tex the Dragon-Slayer.

Meanwhile, their PCs had outgrown most of the monsters and encounters, which were designed to get them to tenth level.

The game was not designed for higher level wanderers, but higher level PCs kept wandering.

[Flickerdart]

[I get that epic adventures exist. They are a very different kind of game.]
This is basically the crux of the issue. The way 3.x presented it, 1-20 and Epic were two different things, implying that 1-20 should not be Epic.

But at the same time, the game defines anything 11th level or higher as legendary. The Perform DC to develop an international/extraplanar reputation is only 30. By 7th level, the party's wizard is a dragon. By 9th level, the party cleric has defeated death itself. Distances become meaningless with spells like teleport and plane shift.

4e tried to address this with the "paragon" tier of play - but "paragon" is a pretty meaningless word, so it didn't work. Really, level 11 is already Epic.

[Yora]

The problem with that is that wargaming and politics is not really a natural development from dungeon crawling and monster slaying. The mechanical abilities your character developed at the early levels become largely useless and there's no real need to wait for high level to start with these things.
There is some rough consent in my experience that strongholds were added so that players wouldn't throw away the yellow junk they got from a dungeon once they got their XP for it. When you have all the equipment money can buy, getting more money becomes pointless. Which is a real problem in a game that is primarily about finding treasure.

I think it's a bit like the problem often described by Sanderson as an example of flawed novel writing: When you change the concept in the middle, who is wanting to read it? Those who like the first concept will be disappointed when you replace it with something very different. Those who like the second concept probably won't be interested to start reading in the first place.
If you make a game about dungeon crawling, make it dungeon crawling from start to end. If you want to make a game about commanding armies, make it about commanding armies from the start, don't put it behind an entry barrier.
Now there is some space where the two actually work quite well together. Once the characters got famous and known as sworn enemy of a main villain, then it can be pretty cool to let the players take charge of the army of allies they have gathered to confront the villain's forces. But I think that probably works best as an occasional special event, not as something that replaces the regular style of play. And another problem with wargaming is that there can be only one commander. What are the other 3 to 7 party members to do for the rest of the campaign. When Conan was a king, all his stories were about times where he wasn't active in politics or leading but was by himself on an adventure.

[Grod_The_Giant]

D&D has a power curve that no other system really has. There are high-powered ones, there are low-powered ones and there are those who support different characters, but none where you start out a schlub (less competent than a WoD mortal or low-point GURPS character in many cases) and work your way up to a demigod by killing progressively more powerful conveniently evil monsters.

On top of that, the franchise never really had a good idea of what higher levels (as in, past 10) are even meant to look like. Below level 10 or so, it mostly knows what the place of the PCs in the world is meant to be, even if it can't quite handle its power level. But when you go beyond that, the PCs' abilities make the world around them increasingly irrelevant, and the rules and setting don't really know how to portray that. It also gets in the way of wishing to increase your characters' competence without making them world-strangling powerhouses.

And then there's the fact that they come apart on a mechanical level. Rules originally meant to handle low-level play won't be able to start simulating high-powered play just by inflating the numbers. It's something that Storyteller systems learned harshly, but the designers of D&D hasn't really taken to heart yet.
This definitely gets to the heart of things. D&D, at least in editions I've played, has serious paradigm shifts. Spells in particular obviate many lower level challenges entirely, but the game never quite seems to realize that. It doesn't really do anything to suggest what to do with characters who can do the sorts of things D&D characters learn to do.

[Flickerdart]

The problem with a lot of "king goes on adventure" plots is that they start by hoodwinking the king out of being a king. The kingdom is conquered, the king is kidnapped, the throne is usurped, and so on. For players that actually cared about the king part, being de-kinged renders the achievement meaningless.

[VoxRationis]

Ultimately, because the powers and abilities of both the PCs and their foes at high level outstrip the conventions of the primary genres D&D takes inspiration from: sword & sorcery and its prettier cousin, high fantasy. Low-level play is practically a chapter out of a Fritz Lieber book, while high-level play gives the party far more powers, and more variety of powers (including setting-destabilizing ones), than are found in most high fantasy books (even ones where magic is commonplace, like Tamora Pierce novels).
I think part of this comes from an early design standpoint to avoid placing thematic or cultural restrictions on the base classes (mage, fighter, and to a lesser extent cleric). Even the original name of the mage class, "magic-user," speaks to this design intent. Consequently, things from every fantasy book, every myth, end up being lumped into the abilities of few enough classes that the party can fill all the roles simultaneously.

[Yora]

So you're argument is that wizard (and to some extend cleric) spells are not too strong but primarily too diverse?

Interesting thought. Sounds quite convincing to me, actually.

[Flickerdart]

So you're argument is that wizard (and to some extend cleric) spells are not too strong but primarily too diverse?

Interesting thought. Sounds quite convincing to me, actually.

This is basically why (again, in 3.5) beguilers and warmages and death masters and necromancers and ardents were a thing - to combat the generalness of the myth mish-mash spell list. And it worked very well.

[Mutazoia]

I've been calling this the "Dragon Ball" effect, for ages. If you're familiar with the Dragon Ball franchise you'll see the same pattern. Every time Goku meets an enemy, he has to spend time getting slapped around and then powering up. The he beats up the bad guy. Then the next bigger, badder bad guy shows up. Goku has to spend time getting slapped around, and then powering up.... After a while, he's fighting guys that can obliterate half the galaxy with the twitch of one mighty eye-lash....

In D&D (and other games) once you get to a certain level, it's really hard to explain why a character that could easily take over his entire planet, is instead still running around looking for adventure. And then you have to come up with something to challenge the wizard that can cause stars to go supernova with a snap of his fingers. It all gets too ridiculous after a point

To be honest, the level cap on the game (read 2nd ed) was extended, basically, just to sell more splat books (rake in more dough), and wasn't really balanced all that well. By this time, other game companies had sprouted up and were taking a big chunk out of what had been, up until then, TSRs playground. They needed to increase profits, and raising the level cap on D&D was easier (and more successful, sales wise) than designing new games. How many of TSRs other RPG's can you even recall, with out resorting to Google?

[kyoryu]

What Jay R said, plus:

If you look at 1e, advancement really stopped at around 9th level. After that, you only got nominal increases in hp and attack scores. Sure, spellcasters *might* get spells if they had sufficiently high scores (and with random stat generation, most didn't). But really, advancement capped out around 9th level.

Combine that with the fact that you started running out of stuff to fight, and it started making sense to retire those characters at that point.

Keep in mind, too, that in the original campaigns, you'd have multiple characters. So retiring one just meant you played others, not that you had to stop playing the "adventuring" game.

Once you got rid of that soft level cap, and made the assumption that people would keep playing the same characters, and that you had to support the higher levels, a lot of the assumptions that worked in the default 1st-9th level range stopped really working.

The biggest problem with D&D is that it's built around a playstyle that not many people use today.

If 4e did anything right, it's to try and build a game specifically around how "most" people play, and make a game that gets rid of inaccurate assumptions. I'm not saying they *did* that effectively, to be clear. But I think the attempt was the right idea.

[BRC]

I think a big part of it might be a breakdown of pacing.


The classic Heroic Adventure Fantasy calls for a world of danger and peril, with challenges around every corner. A tomb full of traps and monsters, a forest crawling with Bandits and Goblins, and our Heroes, Triumphing over it all.

But, once you get to a certain power level, the "World of Peril" kind of ceases to apply. CR 10 encounters are powerful enough that they can't really exist casually, which in turn kind of breaks down standard pacing.

At low levels, fighting the Evil Sorceror could mean fighting his Orcish Mercenaries at the door, then a handful of conjured minions and animated constructs in the tower, before facing off against the Sorceror himself.

At higher levels, you can't just use a handful of Orcish Mercenaries, A CR 10 group of Orcs would be The Legendary Blood Fist Raiders. Inside the tower, "Conjured Minions" turn into "THE DUKES OF HELL SUMMONED TO DO THE SORCERORS BIDDING", animated constructs become UNSTOPPABLE WEAPONS CAPABLE OF WIPING OUT ENTIRE CITIES.

You either get to the point where every battle is against some unique, legendary foe, or where it strains credability that 1st level commoners could survive in this world where demon cults can use Barbed Devils as basic foot soldiers.


Meanwhile, outside of combat, the bread-and-butter of adventuring becomes trivial. Crossing the Mountains of Peril is easy when you can just teleport. Everybody in the party can fly and the barbarian can bust down walls, so there's no reason to fight your way up the Tower of Doom, solving the Duke's Murder is fairly straightforwards when the Cleric can just cast Speak With Dead on the corpse.

Lost in the Desert? Pfft, if you didn't drop some pocket change on an ion stone that means you don't need food or drink, plenty can be conjured. Besides, the Ranger can usually find enough food to feed a small army.
Dealing with Courtly Intrigue? The Bard has +25 Diplomacy, everybody loves you now.The Rogue is basically undetectable, so you know all the kingdom's secrets.


It's an especially big deal if you leveled up from low-levels. It used to be that a handful of militia and a palisade wall was enough to keep a town safe, now suddenly you can't throw a rock without hitting a handful of Fire Giants.


Fifth edition is a bit better about this, since bounded accuracy means that it's easier to scale up encounters by increasing the number of enemies (You're still fighting Orcs, now you're just fighting a lot MORE orcs), and the reduced number of magic items means that you don't have the whole party able to fly.

[erikun]

In AD&D, there was a specific intent that the play style would change from individually going out to solve problems below 10th level into ruling groups and bringing comrades along above 10th level. There was a reason that most characters got followers around that time, and why HP switched from dice rolls into flat +2HP/level at that point.

I'd think that part of the reason it is something which happens across most/all systems of D&D has to do with a few things. PCs are at a greater risk of dying at lower levels. The orc with a 2d6 greataxe is a much greater threat to a 24 HP fighter or even a 40 HP fighter than to a 217 HP wizard. Magic is less common and less abundant so even something as simple as climbing a cliff needs to be resolved with something more than "just cast Fly on all party members". Equipment and expenses are more restricted as well, to the point where PCs don't just have dozens of potions and personalize magical equipment and so on.

Once you get to a certain level, common threats start becoming trivial which means the game needs to shift gears. Either you change the direction the game goes in - by having the PCs become landowners and managing groups, for example - or you just increase the numbers and start throwing ludicrous numbers at the party.

I think that some editions of D&D were intended to do this, it was just never officially written down and so got a bit mangled in later editions. Like I said, it seems like AD&D intended players to retire or at least deligate, which is why they got followers and why spellcasters had long-range mass teleport spells or Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion housing dozens of people. Later designers didn't take the change in theme into account, hence D&D3e's Leadership feat and some spells seemingly out of place for a small adventuring party.


So you're argument is that wizard (and to some extend cleric) spells are not too strong but primarily too diverse?

Interesting thought. Sounds quite convincing to me, actually.
I'd say that both numbers and spells are causing the problem. It's not just that a wizard could cast Fly and Invisibility and just float around summoning anything they like as much as they want. It's that a high level wizard simply cannot be meaningfully hurt by a low level threat. The orc with the greataxe can only do 15 damage, maximum, with an attack. When the wizard could easily have 100, 200, or over 500 HP, that kind of damage is a joke, even if it didn't miss 95% of the time.

But yes, the spell lists are causing a big part of the problem. Everybody is so focused on reproducing earlier editions with their spell lists that they don't focus on which spells are good to keep and which ones can be avoided or dropped - or, for that matter, how to change casting and spell designs to fit a particular theme.

[BayardSPSR]

In AD&D, there was a specific intent that the play style would change from individually going out to solve problems below 10th level into ruling groups and bringing comrades along above 10th level. There was a reason that most characters got followers around that time, and why HP switched from dice rolls into flat +2HP/level at that point.

...

But yes, the spell lists are causing a big part of the problem. Everybody is so focused on reproducing earlier editions with their spell lists that they don't focus on which spells are good to keep and which ones can be avoided or dropped - or, for that matter, how to change casting and spell designs to fit a particular theme.

It sounds like later edition designers confused "reproducing D&D" with "reproducing D&D."

[Tiktakkat]

Because nobody ever really tested the system that far, so nobody ever realized that the scaling just doesn't work because the numbers become so big that every action is either so minor as to be irrelevant or so major as to be instant win.
Originally it was not that important because very few people long enough to get that far, and the few that did simply did not care. That held up through AD&D 2nd edition.

When D20 came around they tried making plans for it but they still did not playtest much beyond 10th level, and by the time they got that far they had added so much splat that optimization made it even worse, and there was nothing to do but shrug and pretend it didn't exist even though everyone was fully aware of it.

When they tried "fixing" it after D20, they not only messed up the math, they gutted the things that made the classes distinct to the point that they made "refluffing" a default element.

I expect the same problem still exists with the current version of the rules.

[Yora]

At low levels, fighting the Evil Sorceror could mean fighting his Orcish Mercenaries at the door, then a handful of conjured minions and animated constructs in the tower, before facing off against the Sorceror himself.

At higher levels, you can't just use a handful of Orcish Mercenaries, A CR 10 group of Orcs would be The Legendary Blood Fist Raiders. Inside the tower, "Conjured Minions" turn into "THE DUKES OF HELL SUMMONED TO DO THE SORCERORS BIDDING", animated constructs become UNSTOPPABLE WEAPONS CAPABLE OF WIPING OUT ENTIRE CITIES.

You either get to the point where every battle is against some unique, legendary foe, or where it strains credability that 1st level commoners could survive in this world where demon cults can use Barbed Devils as basic foot soldiers.


I'd say that both numbers and spells are causing the problem. It's not just that a wizard could cast Fly and Invisibility and just float around summoning anything they like as much as they want. It's that a high level wizard simply cannot be meaningfully hurt by a low level threat. The orc with the greataxe can only do 15 damage, maximum, with an attack. When the wizard could easily have 100, 200, or over 500 HP, that kind of damage is a joke, even if it didn't miss 95% of the time.

This seems to me to be primarily an issue of the numbers no longer matching up with the expected story and setting. I wouldn't call it a mechanical flaw as you could move on to more dangerous environments. But when it leads to players being unhappy with how their story progresses that's still a problem with game design.


Because nobody ever really tested the system that far, so nobody ever realized that the scaling just doesn't work because the numbers become so big that every action is either so minor as to be irrelevant or so major as to be instant win.
That's a really good point. I think this might actually be the issue that has been troubling me. While you can scale up the modifiers, the number range of the dice always remains the same so the whole system scales unevenly. A 2nd level fighter having +2 to attack and a 2nd level wizard +1 isn't a big deal when rolling a d20. At 20th level the difference between +20 and +10 (which in practice will be more like +35 and +15) on a d20 is much bigger. And that would be a problem actually inherent to the very basic resolution mechanic of D&D. And would explain while the problem has always been there.

Though wizard spells obviously don't help either.

I am thinking I am going to treat my B/X campaign as E9. After that it's only going to be more hp, magic items, and one spell slot per level for casters.

[Tiktakkat]

That's a really good point. I think this might actually be the issue that has been troubling me. While you can scale up the modifiers, the number range of the dice always remains the same so the whole system scales unevenly. A 2nd level fighter having +2 to attack and a 2nd level wizard +1 isn't a big deal when rolling a d20. At 20th level the difference between +20 and +10 (which in practice will be more like +35 and +15) on a d20 is much bigger. And that would be a problem actually inherent to the very basic resolution mechanic of D&D. And would explain while the problem has always been there.

It is more than just the attack modifier.
Particularly in D20, an attack at 1st level deals 1-20 damage against enemies with 1-20 hp, while an attack at 20th level deals 30-200 damage against enemies with 300 hp. That's "1 hit kill" to "2-10 hit kill" (not including misses, which skews the results even more).

OD&D, BECMI, and AD&D weren't as bad, but the Strength bonuses for monsters added in AD&D 2nd, and the weapon specialization and further options added in AD&D 2.5, brought the melee damage range close to D20 levels.

Mind you, that's why the "4th" edition failed when they tried using tweaks and math so "everyone" was "supposed" to hit 50% of the time at every level. The calculations failed when you started using anything BUT standard monsters of the same level as the PCs, compounded by the bonuses for elite and solo monsters, compounded further by not realizing that the 50% miss chance could come on the Daily Power that was "supposed" to account for the greater hit points at higher levels while the 50% hit chance could only come on the At-Will Powers that really couldn't handle the job, compounded still further by their complete misunderstanding of probability because of Gambler's Fallacy with saves.


Though wizard spells obviously don't help either.

Exactly. Magic jumps to "save or die" from merely "save or suck", causing the same massive variation in effect.


I am thinking I am going to treat my B/X campaign as E9. After that it's only going to be more hp, magic items, and one spell slot per level for casters.

I've contemplated using "epic level" advancement after 10th level.

[Telok]

That's a really good point. I think this might actually be the issue that has been troubling me. While you can scale up the modifiers, the number range of the dice always remains the same so the whole system scales unevenly. A 2nd level fighter having +2 to attack and a 2nd level wizard +1 isn't a big deal when rolling a d20. At 20th level the difference between +20 and +10 (which in practice will be more like +35 and +15) on a d20 is much bigger. And that would be a problem actually inherent to the very basic resolution mechanic of D&D. And would explain while the problem has always been there.
Mind of course that a fighter with +2 attack and a wizard with +1 attack are almost indistinguishable except for what armor they happen to be wearing and that the fighter can take one more hit than the wizard. D&D editions 3+ seem to have the most scaling issues. 3e with to-hit and damage and hit points, the others with just damage and hit points (4e and 5e limit everyone to about the same range of AC and to-hit regardless of class).

In AD&D 1e at 17th level the die roll to hit AC 0 is 4 for fighters (+16), 10 for clerics (+10), 12 for rogues (+8), and 13 for magic-users (+7). Which maps about equally to your base assumptions based on level. Add 18/00 strength for +3 to hit and a +5 weapon for the fighter, a +4 mace for the cleric, and a +2 weapon for anyone else. This gives us a roll to hit AC 0 of -4 for fighters (+24), 6 for clerics (+14), and 10 for thieves (+10). At 17th level the cleric has 2,025,001 xp, the fighter 2,100,001 xp, the magic-user 2,625,001 xp, and the thief 1,540,001 xp. Here's an issue then, at the high levels not everyone is the same level.

<snipped long xp equivalency stuff>

Of course AD&D was a different beast from the later editions, combat had different assumptions about how it was approached and played out. Still, all the attack bonuses are within 10 points for the non-fighters (fighters are much much better at fighting, which is good) and nobody has more than 100 hit points. So the combat didn't have much of a scaling issue, and the caster classes gained spells as they fell behind on combat prowess. Still, if you didn't start moving into domain or keep building stuff and stayed with the homeless adventurer model things start to look a little strange with superheroes wandering the countryside carrying a wagon full of bags of holding filled with gold and looking for dragons and titans to fight.

[BayardSPSR]

This seems to me to be primarily an issue of the numbers no longer matching up with the expected story and setting. I wouldn't call it a mechanical flaw as you could move on to more dangerous environments. But when it leads to players being unhappy with how their story progresses that's still a problem with game design.

That does seem like it would often lead to that, since the one story it produces is "we were a bunch of treasure hunters in a relatively safe area who succeeded too often and decided to go somewhere we'd have a chance of dying, because reasons."

[Morty]

I am thinking I am going to treat my B/X campaign as E9. After that it's only going to be more hp, magic items, and one spell slot per level for casters.

I'd remove HP from this equation, since their ungodly bloat is one of the reasons high levels come apart at the seams.

Also, 4e makes the most effort to actually define the kind of gameplay experience that different levels should bring, but unfortunately, that effort is pretty half-baked. It doesn't help that 4e does little to combat the "same thing, but with bigger numbers" problem. It arguably makes it worse, really.

[Yora]

I'd remove HP from this equation, since their ungodly bloat is one of the reasons high levels come apart at the seams.

With a fixed +3 or +1 per level I don't see that becoming a problem. Not after fighters previously getting 1d8+2 per level.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'd remove HP from this equation, since their ungodly bloat is one of the reasons high levels come apart at the seams.

Eh, if I remember B/X gives either 1HP or 2HP per level after 9th, although fighters might get 3HP a level (they do in AD&D2e, although I only know that as I own the books). I'm going to use Basic Fantasy, as I have the pdf and it's close enough for our purpose, so fighters get +2HP per level. Assuming 10 CON (reasonable because stats are randomly generated in order) and average hp rolls for both a fighter and a wizard the fighter ends up with 62.5 hp compared to 90 if they just continued getting hit dice, while the wizard has 33.5 hp compared to 50.

A T-rex does 6d6 damage per attack and attacks once per round. That averages at 21 damage per attack, so the wizard is eaten in two rounds (one if unlucky), while the fighter needs three rounds on average. Using a Red Dragon we get a claw/claw/bite dealing 1d8/1d8/4d8, and assuming they all hit we deal an average of 27 damage, so the wizard is gone in one round and the fighter in two.


Also, 4e makes the most effort to actually define the kind of gameplay experience that different levels should bring, but unfortunately, that effort is pretty half-baked. It doesn't help that 4e does little to combat the "same thing, but with bigger numbers" problem. It arguably makes it worse, really.

4e's vision of higher levels is 'same thing, but with bigger numbers and you can teleport 30 feet once per combat'. It's also at the weird point where the most interesting gameplay is arguably at levels 1-10, but to me the most interest part of your characters is at levels 11-20. Paragon Paths were much more interesting than Epic Destinies, and more fun because you had a decent number of options (except for a few cases where your 1st level choice funneled you into one).

I'm annoyed that more Paragon Paths didn't become 5e archetypes. I mean, you can fit some into existing classes fairly easily (avenger->paladin and invoker->cleric, seeker->ranger is also fairly easy). Also they could have chosen the Initiate of the Dragon, Mountain Devotee, or Radiant Fist as the third monk archetype instead of the Four Elements one, and I'm sure several people would have preferred it.

[Psikerlord]

This seems to me to be primarily an issue of the numbers no longer matching up with the expected story and setting. I wouldn't call it a mechanical flaw as you could move on to more dangerous environments. But when it leads to players being unhappy with how their story progresses that's still a problem with game design.


That's a really good point. I think this might actually be the issue that has been troubling me. While you can scale up the modifiers, the number range of the dice always remains the same so the whole system scales unevenly. A 2nd level fighter having +2 to attack and a 2nd level wizard +1 isn't a big deal when rolling a d20. At 20th level the difference between +20 and +10 (which in practice will be more like +35 and +15) on a d20 is much bigger. And that would be a problem actually inherent to the very basic resolution mechanic of D&D. And would explain while the problem has always been there.

Though wizard spells obviously don't help either.

I am thinking I am going to treat my B/X campaign as E9. After that it's only going to be more hp, magic items, and one spell slot per level for casters.

I went with max level 12 for Low Fantasy Gaming. It might be what you're looking for - free PDF at the link https://lowfantasygaming.com/

To reiterate what other posters have already said, I think most D&D falls apart after about level 10 because:

1) Magic is too strong - teleport, raise dead, too many fly spells, etc

2) For 3e and later, Hit points and damage inflation is too high, making lower level monsters irrelevant

3) Paradigm shift - the classic open world sword and sorcery/adventurer seeking riches/glory - which I suspect is the kind of game many folks want to play - falls away, and instead the party turns into epic heroes charged with saving the world/politics style game.

4) I genuinely think many players simply get a bit bored with the same PCs/setting/game system after 12-18 months of real time (at which point your party might be in the early teen levels?). So, just a natural wish for a change after that long time playing.

5) At the mid teens etc the party fears no enemy, barring demigods or similar. The danger/suspense tends to go out of the game.

[Yora]

Party compositions losing steam around 8th to 10th level is something I've noticed with both my 3rd edition and Pathfinder games and it wasn't like anyone voiced any kind of dissatisfaction with the combats. But that happened to me only three times over 16 years, so I am not sure how representative that really might be.
However, I think that at least in my cases, it really was more about the campaigns being mostly serial one-shots with little investment in either the characters or the setting by the players and that it was primarily a matter of play time and not about character advancement. I believe with a campaign that has more long term goals and a deeper integration of the PCs into the game world this would probably be much less of a problem.

[Eldariel]

Having started campaigns at level 13+, I can say that the game can be very enjoyable in that range too. However, it requires that the party be crafted so that everyone is playing the same game (essentially, everyone or nobody is a full list spellcaster). Our first 3rd edition campaign ran from 1st level to a mishmash of 13th-14th level and even the caster players who had no idea of what they were doing were just clearly playing a different game than the rest at that point. When we played Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, our party had a caster and a non-caster and ultimately the party had a caster, a few demons more powerful than the non-caster subservient to the caster, and said non-caster. The non-caster was essentially a completely trivial existence. However, games where we've actually all rolled on the same side of the spell versatility/power spectrum, those are great. The system is just two different games in one - non-casters don't advance far enough. Epic non-casters would need to be capable of deeds like those of Heracles or Achilleus to be able to exist in the same spectrum.

In AD&D it was a bit different due to the casters' leveling speed, spell preparation times, dangers of casting certain spells and spells' vulnerability to disruption, but fundamentally the same dynamics exist (hell, that's true for the OG characters as is apparent from literature) - though back then it was only Mages, but they were still playing the game of "divine ascension, guardian of the world, etc." while non-casters were high level Mercenaries or whatever. Essentially, the Mages were the big world-defining beings that were on a quest for ultimate power/artifact/stopping whatever evil being from being manifested in any given plane, while the other characters (if any) were the tagalongs. Everyone had their strongholds and retainers and potentially countries or whatever, but the personal power of the magi was still the thing that truly shaped the world; hell, the classic adventures are generally "Spellcaster X does Y, heroes try to intervene" (be it Vecna's ascension, Acecerak's untold plan or whatever). Magus Keeps in and of themselves exist mostly so that the spellcasters can use their arcane rituals in peace.

[LibraryOgre]

FWIW, Hackmaster somewhat addresses this by flattening the curve... a level 20 HM character is about on par with a level 10 AD&D character, or a level 7 WD&D character. Mundane skills have limits, and many skills are opposed checks, so your Rogue can't have a check that always succeeds... just one that usually succeeds.

So, you still get the experience of moving forward, but each move is a smaller step than AD&D or WD&D.

[Dizlag]

This question makes me think of the following article. A very interesting read. Enjoy!

D&D Calibrating your Expectations (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2)

Enjoy!

Dizlag

[2D8HP]

Ultimately, because the powers and abilities of both the PCs and their foes at high level outstrip the conventions of the primary genres D&D takes inspiration from: sword & sorcery and its prettier cousin, high fantasy. Low-level play is practically a chapter out of a Fritz Lieber book, while high-level play gives the party far more powers, and more variety of powers (including setting-destabilizing ones), than are found in most high fantasy books (even ones where magic is commonplace, like Tamora Pierce novels).
I think part of this comes from an early design standpoint to avoid placing thematic or cultural restrictions on the base classes (mage, fighter, and to a lesser extent cleric). Even the original name of the mage class, "magic-user," speaks to this design intent. Consequently, things from every fantasy book, every myth, end up being lumped into the abilities of few enough classes that the party can fill all the roles simultaneously.
From a different thread I learned that some prefer high level "anima" style play rather than low level traditional Swords and Sorcery inspired stories.
The point ultimately being that, no, not only DBZ is above 5th edition character representation when it comes to heroes in Eastern fiction. Eastern Fantasy is even more ludicrous, as the protagonists in Eastern mythology tend to fall hard on the demigod/god side of the equation.

Blue Lantern's post right below yours and Zman's right above yours holds my onerous with the community. It's 2016 and we're still dealing with Stormwind and "Weeaboo Fightin Magick".

The community, as I've been exposed to it, gives me a rub that we should be happy playing SoIF characters and we need to go back to watching our Animooz if we want to play as Hercules or Samson or Cú Chulainn or Sun Wukong.

Edit:

In short, I feel like (from my exposure) that 5th edition is sliding the game and the community back to what I heard (and have seen) it was like back in 1e/2e days. I don't like that and it's not a community I want to be a part of.
Well I may very well be one of the "abrasive" poster's, when you express some strong opinions (i.e. "Cyberpunk is lame", "Swords and Sorcery rocks") than that is hard to avoid (also "abrasive" is just plain funnier) so sorry about that. While I bought 3e (and then was irked by first 3.5 & then 4e were released so soon afterward), I never found a chance to play it, and I've been curious to try since the "Inner Sea" setting looks interesting and while previously I felt that
-snip-
after reading in this thread what some say 3.P does "better", I'm reconsidering trying it since those aspects are what I don't like about 5e!
That is I prefer something closer to the "Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser" stories I read, rather than the "Naruto" cartoons my son watches, plus I now quickly suffer from "options fatigue".
While I've had "hella" fun playing 5e, it is not the perfect edition of D&D for me, because that edition doesn't exist.
My ideal form of D&D would:
1) Be as easy to learn and to create PC's as the 1977 "Basic" D&D rules were.
2) Have as quick flowing combat as 5e has.
3) The ability to make special "snowflake" PC's like 3.x D&D.
4) Feel as intuitive to GM as early 1980's "Call of Cthullu".
5) Have a "Ranger" class as awesome as the1e AD&D Ranger was.
Since "perfect" D&D doesn't exist, the free 5e Basic Rules plus some of the extra rules in the PHB is "close enough for government work", and plenty fun for me.
:smile:


@ 2D8HP: Then you definitely want 5th edition or E6 3.P. That simulates the level of sword and sorcery you're looking for, while full blown 3.P quickly escalates into high end mythology where you're fighting unborn moons while throwing mountains and channeling a spell capable of nuking cities from your private demi-plane, while controlling your army of custom made supersoldiers.

And that's it, low and high (or traditional D&D vs. D20) are different genre's.
One is Howard and Leiber, the other is Myth and Wuxia. The transition from one to the other is jarring (also the more I learn of them D20 sounds as bad or worse to me than the much maligned 4e).
For the types of Swords and Sorcery stories I like, I think oD&D was often better, and my ideal D&D would combine oD&D and 5e.
Also the BRP'ish Stormbringer! game of the early 1980's often did Swords and Sorcery better than D&D, but it's flaw was that with its random generation method your PC was as likely to be a drooling begger as well as a mighty sorcerers or warrior, making many of the PC's "sidekicks". Perhaps something with Champions/GURPS style build points, and just get away from levels?

[VoxRationis]

From a different thread I learned that some prefer high level "anima" style play rather than low level traditional Swords and Sorcery inspired stories.

And that's it, low and high (or traditional D&D vs. D20) are different genre's.
One is Howard and Leiber, the other is Myth and Wuxia. The transition from one to the other is jarring (also the more I learn of them D20 sounds as bad or worse to me than the much maligned 4e).
For the types of Swords and Sorcery stories I like, I think oD&D was often better, and my ideal D&D would combine oD&D and 5e.


Yes, but the question was about all editions of D&D, and the "bigger, flashier, cooler" crowd was much more influential in 3.5 and later than it was at the beginning. The problems with the system are legacy-preserved and predate that bunch.

[Morty]

That high-level D&D supports a different genre than low levels do was never in question. The problem being discussed here is that high-level rules don't work for the power level they imply. Or at all. It's also arguable how much of the power increase was predicted and intended by the designers.

[Nightcanon]

I think part of the issue (as far as I understand it) is that D&D grew out of the house-rules of a bunch of gamers whose original campaign characters (Bigby, Mordankainen et al) were magic-users, and a lot of the mechanics kind of assume that it will be the wizards who will be the world-shakers and shapers. That doesn't fit with much of other fantasy literature sources, where martial and roguish types have more ability to do the heroic deeds that change the world (often by killing the wizard overlord). If you look at core things that define D&D, I would say that amongst them are the D20 die roll vs AC for the to-hit mechanic, Fighters getting +1 to hit per level, and casters getting a new spell level every odd level, with fireball and lightning bolt at level 3 and teleport and cloudkill at 5. Even with the differential XP requirements in 2nd Ed, linear martials and exponential casters is sufficiently hard-baked into D&D that if one were to try, say, giving full casters bardic spell progression, the game would be unrecognisable as D&D.
Another issue in my mind is the advent of cRPGs and the internet. I played tabletop D&D for much of the early part of my teens, and getting a character above 5th level was a pretty rare occurrence, either because the campaign was too deadly or the DM had a better idea and wanted to start again. Between reloading after character deaths and replaying after a TPK, there's an assumption that the player will eventually complete and win a cRPG, and generally that means advancing characters to the limits of the (limited, compared to ttRPG) advancement and power available. This perhaps creates an expectation that if you create a wizard, he will be able, at some point, to cast, quickened stinking clouds and contingencies and the rest. Even early level weaknesses are avoided by the likes of abrupt jaunt. Any difficulties in squeezing maximal power out of a build can be overcome by a quick trip to the playground for advice from experts in optimisation.

[Greg_S]

I haven't seen this one mentioned yet: resurrection. At low levels, failing in a quest can mean death. At low levels, that's the end of that character's story, and the player rolls up a new one. Death matters. Once raising dead characters becomes an option, then you can't threaten the characters with death like you used to. Instead of "if you fail, you die" being a motivator, it becomes "fail, and the undead hordes overrun the kingdom". Once that happens, you're telling a different story than you were, one that's about grand strategy and logistics instead of the people at first level.

[sktarq]

This seems to me to be primarily an issue of the numbers no longer matching up with the expected story and setting. I wouldn't call it a mechanical flaw as you could move on to more dangerous environments. But when it leads to players being unhappy with how their story progresses that's still a problem with game design.

The issue with this is continuity. That the world described at level 1 and level 15 are supposed to be the same world but do not feel that way-one is a world of tracking dried rations, torches, and putting a piece of steel through a goblin that a farming family could kill themselves but not without getting hurt...thee later involves hell beasts, dragons, magical devices etc. . . The effects of the later world are disruptive to the former even if they are not exactly overlapping in physical space.

As for why the transition to building your keep at tenth level (which was treated as assume/forced in some books) never caught on is that while historically "the best fighter becomes leader" was basically true the definition of fighter was broader in that by 4-6th level much of their duties. Would be small group battles that most D&D doesn't cover. Thus the switch can seem unnatural in the game. Yes. It is basically two different games but really it should have been three, they just dropped the middle one.

[Psikerlord]

I haven't seen this one mentioned yet: resurrection. At low levels, failing in a quest can mean death. At low levels, that's the end of that character's story, and the player rolls up a new one. Death matters. Once raising dead characters becomes an option, then you can't threaten the characters with death like you used to. Instead of "if you fail, you die" being a motivator, it becomes "fail, and the undead hordes overrun the kingdom". Once that happens, you're telling a different story than you were, one that's about grand strategy and logistics instead of the people at first level.

yes i think this is a very important insight.

[Chambers]

In my experience with 4e the game began to crack in the mid paragon levels (15+) and was truly broken in low epic (22+). I've both played and DM'd Epic 4e games and the mechanics just end up getting in the way, there's do much stuff that your character has in terms of powers, items, features and at those levels it all starts to become unwieldy. I have enjoyed those tiers of play in 4e, but they are not the strong point of the system (that'd be Heroic and low Paragon).

By contrast, my 5e experience has been really good at all levels of play. My RL group just hit 19th level and none of us feel the crushing weight of character options that we did on 4e at equivalent levels. In our experience the game remains balanced between characters within the party and fights don't drag on for hours like in 4e.

[Mordar]

How many of TSRs other RPG's can you even recall, with out resorting to Google?

Um...so not the point of the thread, but I remember:


Top Secret
Gamma World
Boot Hill
Star Frontiers
Marvel Super Heroes
Indiana Jones (or was it Raiders of the Lost Ark?)


Gotta be more than that...

- M

[2D8HP]

How many of TSRs other RPG's can you even recall, with out resorting to Google?
Um...so not the point of the thread, but I remember:....


DUNGEON! (Boardgame)
Warlocks and Warriors (Boardgame)
Buck Rogers

[Darth Ultron]

The simple answer might be that the creators of D&D don't have the ability to look ahead. But then, even if they could they would still need to ''think like a gamer'', and most can't do that anyway. They would also need to see the rules as more ''rules for an alternate reality'' and not ''some rules to just adventure with'', but few can do that.

Ultimately it might just be harsh reality. A 1-20 system would take lots of work, time, rules and most of all insight. But the publisher just ''wants to toss a game out there and make some money''. And more ''reality rules'' and ''high level play rules'' would have added pages. And the books are big as it is....and expensive enough too.

The old basic/expert/companion/master/immortal sets might be the best leveled D&D.

[Pippa the Pixie]

They put a lot of effort into making the ''basic'' game, that is levels 1-5. They put a tiny bit of thought into 5-10, but then they just stop. You notice how there are fewer high level everythings...abilities, spells, items....everything.

As some one who has played a lot of spellcasters I've always been annoyed when I get a high level spellcaster that specializes in a type of magic...and they have two whole spells at a level I can pick from.....

[Digitalelf]

Gotta be more than that...

- M

There is! :smallbiggrin:


Dawn Patrol
Metamorphosis Alpha
Gangbusters
Top Secret SSI

And yes, ALL from memory!

[Darth Ultron]

The basic mindset of D&D is that you will only play a character for a limited time. A character will start off small, adventure, and then end with a big climax.

Like levels 1-5 are Basic: the character is just learning the ropes, 6-10 the character is an expert and they are right in their prime. But after 10th they are a master, and a bit too powerful for mundane things. And this is even more true with 15th level plus of grandmaster.

It is easy to see a 1-10th level character doing thinks like opening locked doors, sneaking past guards and fighting minions. But after 10th level it becomes a bit awkward. A master character does not feel right doing such mundane things like opening a door. And there is only a slight window where a high level character might ''pick open the gates of Hell'', but you really can't do that more then once.

D&D just does not scale up much past that level of power. It is easy to see in just characters as they could not think of a high level abilities for most classes. The same way there are only a few higher level feats, spells, magic items and just about everything else.

And that is how the creators see it, and designed the game.

[Mordar]

There is! :smallbiggrin:


Dawn Patrol
Metamorphosis Alpha
Gangbusters
Top Secret SSI

And yes, ALL from memory!

Top Secret was the top of my list...but I can't believe I forgot Gangbusters!

- M

[Elkad]

Fall apart? It's just making the jump from good to excellent.

Assuming no cheese. (mainly summons Wishes or unlimited wealth tricks)

Teleport is a thing, but it's awkward. The Cleric can manage to bust out one Heal, but not chain them. The melee types are just getting to where their feats/ability chains are coming online, and they have enough spare cash to get some cool bonuses on their weapon. The Paladin is thinking that if he sold everything he owned, he could maybe afford that Holy Avenger, even if it wouldn't be practical for a few more levels.

And look at what you get to face. Real demons, devils, vampires, adult dragons, groups of fire giants, the kraken, really big hydras, purple worms, a lich or ghost with a bunch of class levels, and all the other iconic creatures.

The DM gets to give out iconic treasures without blowing up his game. A big flying carpet. A few Wishes at the end of a quest. Etc.

Some of the best classic modules fall right in that range. Tomb of Horrors. Against the Giants. Barrier Peak.


For me, the game doesn't come apart until 9th level spells are common. That means if you did some cheesy stuff to get them at L13, you broke the game, but it should really be L18 or so.

[Earthwalker]

Unlike a lot in this thread my experience is mainly with 3.5 or Pathfinder.
I haven't managed to take a game past level 8, I don't think this is to do with the game falling apart more to do with the players getting bored of their characters and wanting to try something else.

I guess a simple way for me to test this is start a game at lvl 10 and see how long it lasts.

[Telwar]

They put a lot of effort into making the ''basic'' game, that is levels 1-5. They put a tiny bit of thought into 5-10, but then they just stop. You notice how there are fewer high level everythings...abilities, spells, items....everything.

As some one who has played a lot of spellcasters I've always been annoyed when I get a high level spellcaster that specializes in a type of magic...and they have two whole spells at a level I can pick from.....

That's a lot of it. Actually, it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. They don't put a lot of resources into supporting high-level play, since nobody plays at high level. And because there's very little support for high-level play, nobody plays at high level.

Most of the rest is the increasing complexity. As players (and GMs) get more resources, they wind up combining in unforeseen ways, and there are more decision points to make. While you still have the same number of actions (most likely), the number of choices about what to do with your action go up substantially, as well as the effort involved.

[2D8HP]

I posted the following in a different thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=21148908), but since it seems to fit:

Quite true, high level and low level D&D play are not the same.
Recently this Forum has had threads by those who don't like high levels:
Why do almost all editions of D&D fall apart around 10th level (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?495989-Why-do-almost-all-editions-of-D-amp-D-fall-apart-around-10th-level)
Those who like high level "Naruto/Wuxia"" style adventures, and prefer 3.5 because of that:
Sell me on 5th edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?495557-Sell-me-on-5th-edition&highlight=2D8HP)
And those that simply hate low levels
Roleplaying level one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?494879-Roleplaying-level-one&highlight=2D8HP)
I think it's a strength that D&D can accommodate different power levels, but if players & DM's enjoy those different levels is another matter.
While going "Dragonslaying" has appeal, I (for example) usually retire PC''s at around 5th level, others may start at even higher levels. To each their own, but it may be a more noticible problem now because (at least with 5e) PC's level up much faster than they used to! This makes the transition from low to high levels harder to acclimate to. IIRC it used to take at least three times as much "table-time" to "level up", as it used to. But don't just take my word for it, let's see what a co-creator of D&D wrote about level progression:




D&D IS ONLY AS

GOOD AS THE DM

by Gary Gygax

Successful play of D & D is a blend of desire, skill and luck. Desire is often
initiated by actually participating in a game. It is absolutely a reflection of the
referee’s ability to maintain an interesting and challenging game. Skill is a blend
of knowledge of the rules and game background as applied to the particular game
circumstances favored by the referee. Memory or recall is often a skill function.
Luck is the least important of the three, but it is a factor in successful play
nonetheless. Using the above criteria it would seem that players who have attained
a score or more of levels in their respective campaigns are successful indeed. This
is generally quite untrue. Usually such meteoric rise simply reflects an in-
competent Dungeonmaster.
While adventurers in a D & D campaign must grade their play to their
referee, it is also incumbent upon the Dungeonmaster to suit his campaign to the
participants. This interaction is absolutely necessary if the campaign is to con-
tinue to be of interest to all parties. It is often a temptation to the referee to turn
his dungeons into a veritable gift shoppe of magical goodies, ripe for plucking by
his players. Similarly, by a bit of fudging, outdoor expeditions become trips to the
welfare department for heaps of loot. Monsters exist for the slaying of the ad-
venturers — whether of the sort who “guard” treasure, or of the wandering
variety. Experience points are heaped upon the undeserving heads of players,
levels accumulate like dead leaves in autumn, and if players with standings in the
20’s, 30’s and 40’s of levels do not become bored, they typically become filled with
an entirely false sense of accomplishment, they are puffed up with hubris. As they
have not really earned their standings, and their actual ability has no reflection on
their campaign level, they are easily deflated (killed) in a game which demands
competence in proportionate measure to players’ levels.
It is, therefore, time that referees reconsider their judging. First, is magic ac-
tually quite scarce in your dungeons? It should be! Likewise, treasures should be
proportionate both to the levels of the dungeon and the monsters guarding them.
Second, absolute disinterest must be exercised by the Dungeonmaster, and if a
favorite player stupidly puts himself into a situation where he is about to be killed,
let the dice tell the story and KILL him. This is not to say that you should never
temper chance with a bit of “Divine Intervention,” but helping players should be a
rare act on the referee’s part, and the action should only be taken when fate seems
to have unjustly condemned an otherwise good player, and then not in every cir-
cumstance should the referee intervene. Third, create personas for the inhabitants
of your dungeon — if they are intelligent they would act cleverly to preserve them-
selves and slay intruding expeditions out to do them in and steal their treasures.
The same is true for wandering monsters. Fourth, there should be some high-level,
very tricky and clever chaps in the nearest inhabitation to the dungeon, folks who
skin adventures out of their wealth just as prospectors were generally fleeced for
their gold in the Old West. When the campaign turkies flock to town trying to buy
magical weapons, potions, scrolls, various other items of magical nature, get a
chum turned back to flesh, have a corpse resurrected, or whatever, make them pay
through their proverbial noses. For example, what would a player charge for like
items or services? Find out, add a good bit, and that is the cost you as referee will
make your personas charge. This will certainly be entertaining to you, and laying
little traps in addition will keep the players on their collective toes. After all,Dungeonmasters are entitled to a little fun too! Another point to remember is that
you should keep a strict account of time. The wizard who spends six months
writing scrolls and enchanting items is OUT of the campaign for six months, he
cannot play during these six game months, and if the time system is anywhere
reflective of the proper scale that means a period of actual time in the neigh-
borhood of three months. That will pretty well eliminate all that sort of
foolishness. Ingredients for scroll writing and potion making should also be
stipulated (we will treat this in an upcoming issue of SR or in a D & D supplement
as it should be dealt with at length) so that it is no easy task to prepare scrolls or
duplicate potions.
When players no longer have reams of goodies at their fingertips they must
use their abilities instead, and as you will have made your dungeons and wilder-
nesses far more difficult and demanding, it will require considerable skill,
imagination, and intellectual exercise to actually gain from the course of an ad-
venture. Furthermore, when magic is rare it is valuable, and only if it is scarce
will there be real interest in seeking it. When it is difficult to survive, a long
process to gain levels, when there are many desired items of magical nature to seek
for, then a campaign is interesting and challenging. Think about how much fun it
is to have something handed to you on a silver platter — nice once in a while but
unappreciated when it becomes common occurrence. This analogy applies to ex-
perience and treasure in the D & D campaign.
It requires no careful study to determine that D & D is aimed at progression
which is geared to the approach noted above. There are no monsters to challenge
the capabilities of 30th level lords, 40th level patriarchs, and so on. Now I know of
the games played at CalTech where the rules have been expanded and changed to
reflect incredibly high levels, comic book characters and spells, and so on. Okay.
Different strokes for different folks, but that is not D & D. While D & D is pretty
flexible, that sort of thing stretches it too far, and the boys out there are playing
something entirely different — perhaps their own name “Dungeons & Beavers,”
tells it best. It is reasonable to calculate that if a fair player takes part in 50 to 75
games in the course of a year he should acquire sufficient experience points to
make him about 9th to 11th level, assuming that he manages to survive all that
play. The acquisition of successively higher levels will be proportionate to enhanced
power and the number of experience points necessary to attain them, so another
year of play will by no means mean a doubling of levels but rather the addition of
perhaps two or three levels. Using this gauge, it should take four or five years to
see 20th level. As BLACKMOOR is the only campaign with a life of five years, and
GREYHAWK with a life of four is the second longest running campaign, the most
able adventurers should not yet have attained 20th level except in the two named
campaigns. To my certain knowledge no player in either BLACKMOOR or
GREYHAWK has risen above 14th level.
By requiring players to work for experience, to earn their treasure, means that
the opportunity to retain interest will remain. It will also mean that the rules will
fit the existing situation, a dragon, balrog, or whatever will be a fearsome
challenge rather than a pushover. It is still up to the Dungeonmaster to make the
campaign really interesting to his players by adding imaginative touches, through
exertion to develop background and detailed data regarding the campaign, and to
make certain that there is always something new and exciting to learn about or
acquire. It will, however, be an easier task. So if a 33rd level wizard reflects a
poorly managed campaign, a continuing mortality rate of 50% per expedition
generally reflects over-reaction and likewise a poorly managed campaign. It is
unreasonable to place three blue dragons on the first dungeon level, just as
unreasonable as it is to allow a 10th level fighter to rampage through the upper
levels of a dungeon rousting kobolds and giant rats to gain easy loot and ex-
perience. When you tighten up your refereeing be careful not to go too far the other way.

[Morty]

D&D can't accommodate different power levels. That's the whole ticket here. It claims to do so, but it doesn't. Different editions have different breaking points, but it always happens. "The DM needs to decide" is a non-answer with about as much meaning as your average marketing slogan. The person running the game always needs to adjust and make judgements of some sort. But the system is supposed to cooperate with them on it.

[D+1]

D&D can't accommodate different power levels. That's the whole ticket here. It claims to do so, but it doesn't. Different editions have different breaking points, but it always happens. "The DM needs to decide" is a non-answer with about as much meaning as your average marketing slogan. The person running the game always needs to adjust and make judgements of some sort. But the system is supposed to cooperate with them on it.

I wouldn't say that D&D makes particular claims that it accommodates different power levels (certainly no outright claims that it does so effectively), but it has always been arranged to ALLOW vastly different power levels with the same characters and same campaign over time. It DOESN'T manage this shift in power levels at all well. It never even warns you that it can/will occur. It just IS how it is and it's pretty much always been left for the individual participants to know about it beforehand or learn it the hard way.

"The DM needs to decide," is, however, a perfectly valid answer. The DM always does decide, as you say, even in a system which keeps PC's much closer within the same power range from the start to finish of a campaign. In ANY game (whether it's D&D or something else) it is possible for PC's to exceed the expected range of power that the DM is prepared for. The DM then either needs to escalate from his side so that opponents and challenges begin to match the PC's greater capabilities, or else take steps to REDUCE PC power to whatever is more manageable. Most games don't really allow for the latter. In D&D you could destroy some magic items and reduce PC power that way, but that will only go so far. For most practical purposes if a D&D game gets into a power scale that the DM doesn't like or can't handle you don't have much option but to just start over with a new game, or at least new PC's. That tends to be unsatisfying for everybody.

Is it supposed to cooperate to allow tweaking power levels? It would be better if it did, but it really doesn't and never has. Prior to 3E there's almost no tools except experience to help a DM make judgement calls about the game's power level. 3E made use of a "Challenge Rating" system for helping to adjust the power level of encounters to the abilities of the PC's, but it's still just a TOOL and not a FORMULA that guarantees any consistent results. There are simply too many variables to make it practical.

But the idea of what D&D really is and how it is meant to be played has actually changed A LOT since it was first published. Early on it was not really thought of as a roleplaying game at all. It was a dungeon exploration game which differed from other wargames that it was derived from by focusing on one or two individual persona for each player rather than large military units. It wasn't until AD&D (1E) was published that actual roleplaying was being emphasized at all, but it was still heavily an "action" game with individual characters rather than military groups, and lots of reference to the presence of large military groups within the game can still be seen. 2E de-emphasized the military angle even more and played up the individual character more. With 3E it had become ALL about the individual PC and in fact the game was designed NOT around roleplaying so much (though it was still there) but promoted that the idea of D&D was that the FUN was to be found in building the most powerful, effective individual character that you could and becoming experienced and knowledgeable enough about the rules to do so. It became as much or more a game of individual achievement in character construction as roleplaying and cooperation with other players and their PC's for survival. Certainly it was the aspect of individual character design that the rules revolved around and it was those rules that WotC emphasized over everything else. That and the details of tactical combat rules.

That doesn't mean 3E was BadWrongFun. It just means that it was now quite different from what the game once had been. But much of the general rules structure was largely unchanged. Characters still began at 1st and with each level gained better ability to hit, absorb damage, etc and that meant that the same shift in power occurs in the game DESPITE the considerable change in what the gameplay was supposed to be focused around.

Think of it this way: At first level you have 1 HD. At 10th level you're gonna have 10 HD (along with various other increases in basic power that are somewhat parallel to HD.) People don't think about it much but that means that a character has TEN TIMES the damage absorption that he had when he first started. That applies whether your HD were d4's or d12's. Not everything about combat scales equally during that time but it's easily seen that this means a HUGE shift in what actually will challenge the character. Monsters and situations that were a challenge at 1st are no challenge whatever at 10th - by a factor of nearly ten. You either KNOW that about the game and take steps as DM accordingly - or you learn it the hard way and end up dealing with it in any case. You can embrace the power shift. You can do your best to try to ignore it. You can make changes to render it as ineffective as possible, such as by continuing to scale up challenges in an equal manner rather than leaving them with relatively fixed numbers.

"The DM decides," isn't just a valid answer - it's pretty much the only answer.

[kyoryu]

Early on it was not really thought of as a roleplaying game at all. It was a dungeon exploration game which differed from other wargames that it was derived from by focusing on one or two individual persona for each player rather than large military units. It wasn't until AD&D (1E) was published that actual roleplaying was being emphasized at all, but it was still heavily an "action" game with individual characters rather than military groups, and lots of reference to the presence of large military groups within the game can still be seen.

Eh.... I don't think that I'd agree with that.

Yes, it switched from being primarily a dungeon exploration game to being one more about "stories", but I really don't think that makes one or the other more or less a "roleplaying" game.

The essence of roleplaying, to me, is:

"You're in this situation, what do you do?"
"I do this!"

What the situation is specifically is fairly irrelevant.

What is true is that the game became less specialized over time, or at least specialized in different areas.

[Cluedrew]

Yes, it switched from being primarily a dungeon exploration game to being one more about "stories", but I really don't think that makes one or the other more or less a "roleplaying" game.I think the characters are very important to role-playing. If I may paraphrase what you said:

The essence of roleplaying, to me, is:

"Your character in this situation, what do you do?"
"S/he does this!"

In fact the separation between you and your character is a very significant difference between role-playing games and every other type of game there is. ... I also think that most CRPGs are actually mislabelled, but there you have it.

[ace rooster]

I would definately second that it is because it started as a collection of house rules to handle dungeon crawls. There was never any real coherent design behind the original setup. For example, the magic system is entirely seperate from the combat system. The skill system is bolted on seperately again, and hacked together at best. The concepts are not properly defined, giving you such results as power attacks being less likely to get through armour, and elephants being some of the best animals at dodging things. There is also an abundance of absolute effects with specific defenses, and very rarely is there trade offs. For example, there is no "obscure vision" spell line applying scaling penalties, there is simply "blindness". Iron heart surge like effects are much needed to avoid christmas trees of items against every shut down effect. Ideally there should be some cost to the defender that depends on the power of the effect, but the system is not set up to facilitate that. By the time you get past level 10 the system is a mess.

Special mention goes to black tentacles, which creates magically invincible nonmagical tentacles that hit even if a god gives you an AC of 'no' (+100 sacred bonus), then grapple without following the grapple rules... Why!? :smallfurious:

Basically the system was built outwards from wizards on a dungeon crawl without much planning, so the parts don't line up. This gets more extreme the further from 'basic' you get: ie, higher level.

[kyoryu]

"Your character in this situation, what do you do?"
"S/he does this!"


Sure, the character was implied, if you feel better making it explicit, go for it :D

THough really, that's just one of the common roleplaying patterns. There's roleplaying games that don't really use that interaction pattern.

[Cluedrew]

Sure, the character was implied, if you feel better making it explicit, go for it :D

THough really, that's just one of the common roleplaying patterns. There's roleplaying games that don't really use that interaction pattern.

To kyoryu: I feel it is an important distinction, so I guess I do feel better if it is explicit. What are the other "patterns" used in other role-playing games? Reacting to a changing situation, and hence effecting the situation, seems to be the minimum for interaction. I'm not sure how far you can get from that.

[kyoryu]

To kyoryu: I feel it is an important distinction, so I guess I do feel better if it is explicit. What are the other "patterns" used in other role-playing games? Reacting to a changing situation, and hence effecting the situation, seems to be the minimum for interaction. I'm not sure how far you can get from that.

(I was mostly presuming people talk in character, so...)

1)
GM: "This is the situation your character is in."
Player: "My character does the thing!"
GM: "This is the new situation your character is in."

2)
Player 1: "I move my piece in accordance with the rules."
Player 2: "I move my piece in accordance with the rules."
Player 3: "I move my piece in accordance with the rules."

3)
Player 1: "This thing happens!"
Player 2: "Then this thing happens!"
Player 3: "Then this thing happens!"

None of these types are usually "pure" in a given game, and games can switch between these interactions. Most "combat systems" veer heavily towards type two, while "out-of-combat" roleplaying is typically type one. Type three is usually associated with "storygames", though can appear in non-storygames as well.

Apocalypse World is very heavily Type 1, as is old-school D&D. Newer versions of D&D switch between types one and two, mostly, depending on whether or not you're in combat. Fate pretty much floats between the three. Etc, etc.

[Cluedrew]

(I was mostly presuming people talk in character, so...)Oh, I get it now. Anyways, thanks for the explanation.

[Morty]

I would definately second that it is because it started as a collection of house rules to handle dungeon crawls. There was never any real coherent design behind the original setup. For example, the magic system is entirely seperate from the combat system. The skill system is bolted on seperately again, and hacked together at best. The concepts are not properly defined, giving you such results as power attacks being less likely to get through armour, and elephants being some of the best animals at dodging things. There is also an abundance of absolute effects with specific defenses, and very rarely is there trade offs. For example, there is no "obscure vision" spell line applying scaling penalties, there is simply "blindness". Iron heart surge like effects are much needed to avoid christmas trees of items against every shut down effect. Ideally there should be some cost to the defender that depends on the power of the effect, but the system is not set up to facilitate that. By the time you get past level 10 the system is a mess.

Special mention goes to black tentacles, which creates magically invincible nonmagical tentacles that hit even if a god gives you an AC of 'no' (+100 sacred bonus), then grapple without following the grapple rules... Why!? :smallfurious:

Basically the system was built outwards from wizards on a dungeon crawl without much planning, so the parts don't line up. This gets more extreme the further from 'basic' you get: ie, higher level.

That's a pretty good summary, I think.

[druid91]

The lack of danger can really kill the vibe. I was running a game of 5e recently, and in the early days it was amazing fun for everyone (Or so I was told.) But towards the end of it it had gotten rather.... dull.

And I think a big part of that is that we kind of had an end of campaign thing happen. There was a massive battle where the party defended their floating ocean city against god-slaying cyborgs.

A battle in which their cleric literally summoned Tiamat. Using the miracle capstone feature to defend his investments in the city. And Tiamat died like a chump.

Part of this was some rather unbalanced homebrew magitech, and part of this was the fact that they'd been roided out via the deck of many things. But the PC's had more oomph than the literal god of all evil dragons.

And then they went back to dungeon crawls and adventuring. Where's the tension in that? It basically became "Where's the enemy? NUKE IT." If Meteor Swarm didn't work. The Paladin would go over and smash their face in.

[Telok]

I think that might be WotC era hp scaling and the removal of strong abilities to bypass hp in the post 3.5 versions. Since hit dice never cap out you need to keep increasing damage numbers to keep up threats. But if you have a spread from 70 to 270 hp (3e) or even 110 to 230 (5e) the gap is so big that threatening levels of damage are back up to the insta-kill range. Since WotC has depreciated binary death effects they can't have really big levels of damage on the monsters. So you're down to whittling down hp and there's no sense of threat from incremental nickle and dime fights. Even the 3e high level rocket tag often felt more surprising than threatening because that was mostly a question of counters and rolling very high or very low.

Early D&Ds were a bit better with the flat and low hp increase after 9th/10th and a sort of soft cap on AC. But even they had issues after 10th, although they were a bit more honest by calling higher level fighters superheroes (at least in one version).

[Kaiu Keiichi]

This all brings up an important point - systems should be honest. I feel that most often high level mechanics exist more often as means for GMs to control their settings and have NPCs control their game worlds instead of PCs. Why not let PCs be the movers and shakers? I abhor the idea that GMs have final say. Players should be the final authority for all table play, and most often I've seen in my 30+ years of play high level mechanics only being demonstrated as means through which GMs have their personal Elminsters and Gandalfs send players off on quests, and then end campaigns before letting players get to the level where they get things like keeps and temples as outlined in the AD&D 1 players handbook.

Also, system matters. This is why 4E was designed with tiered play. But the fan base, in it's lust for nostalgia, disregarded what was arguably the best and most transparent edition of D&D ever written. 4E was straight with players, and the fan base never forgave WOTC for that.

I think for that bare bones experience that some folks want, many OSR offerings is what should be sought, or hardcore sim engines like Runequest.

[2D8HP]

and most often I've seen in my 30+ years of play high level mechanics only being demonstrated as means through which GMs have their personal Elminsters and Gandalfs send players off on quests, and then end campaigns before letting players get to the level where they get things like keeps and temples as outlined in the AD&D 1 players handbook Elminster!
:furious:
While I'll probably never attempt to DM a 5e D&D game again without a lot of subtraction (or by limiting the game to level 5, and mostly only using the free "Basic" rules (and while I'd play it, I wouldn't DM 3.5/Pathfinder unless I was paid well to do it). What I least like about the 5e default setting ("Forgotten Realms") are the Avengers/Control/MI-7/Superfriends like "Factions". I liked "World of Greyhawk's" Thieves Guild's and Orders of Knighthood, and I can't articulate what the difference between them and the Forgotten Realms "Factions" that I hate is, but I feel it strongly.
I didn't like 1985's Unearthed Arcana, and I stopped buying TSR publications after then, so I skipped 2e AD&D (the artwork turned me off), from what I've read in this Forum about 2e AD&D, and post 1977 Basic/Classic, I've decided that I should have a look at them, and I'm finding out that there more like '70's D&D, and less like "Unearthed Arcana", than I thought they would be, and I've liked what I've seen (more than 3.x), until I came across 1993's "The Harpers". A brief skim was enough to show me that I need to be selective in what '90's DnD materials I buy, because it's awful junk.
"The Harpers" details an organization that seems more Spy/Superhero Fantasy than Swords & Sorcery, and it is full of Marty/Mary Sue's including one "Elminster" who has to be one of the worst examples of a DMPC that I've seen (OK Greyhawk's "Murlynd" was godawful, but that was a PC). At the end there is an ad to "Read the Harpers Novels", um no not ever!
Just ugh, please spare me.
:yuk:

I think for that bare bones experience that some folks want, many OSR offerings is what should be sought, or hardcore sim engines like Runequest.
I played 1978 rules Runequest in the mid '80's and I found it to be much more intuitive and easier to learn than 1e AD&D, but not quite as fun as oD&D, I'd love to see a "Heartbreaker" based on it!

[2D8HP]

I thought this would fit this thread:

Time passed and the game continued to grow as well as expand in unexpected directions. Level-creep--PC’s at high Levels that were never considered, let alone allowed for, began to proliferate. In the early years PC’s “retired” at Lvl 9 or 10 and a new PC started; this level-creep was eating up the game. We were getting pleas for help from DM’s and players alike.


The tipping point came one day in a letter I had to open *that day that spurred a supplement almost that very *week. (I must have “had the duty” that day; we took turns opening and reading mail to TSR.) In this powerful thought provoker, a bewildered DM wrote the following, more or less (I will paraphrase a bit):*


“Dear TSR, I don’t know where to go with my campaign next. Last session, my players went to Valhalla. They killed Loki, all the Valar, a dozen Valkyries, Thor and Odin and destroyed the Bifrost Bridge. “*


I read this aloud to Gary and Brian; when we picked ourselves up off the floor or regained our senses, as the case may have been, ( I swear to you that this is true) we knew level-creep had gone too far. That week saw the impetus for one more supplement gather enough steam that I set out to edit the last of the RPG-oriented supplements,*Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes. This was the closest to a rule book that we came; we felt that PC’s should not be powerful enough to knock off gods. So we gave them really high amounts of HP: Odin 300, Thor 275. We charted out character levels undreamed of in the original game.

The source of the quote is here (http://kaskoid.blogspot.com/2016/02/how-i-helped-to-pull-rope-that-tolled.html?m=1).

[Telok]

I have the Gods, Demigods, and Heroes booklet. It's pretty neat once you get to the Hindu, Shinto, and... Old Danish/Finnish? stuff.

[gkathellar]

Mechanically, it's because it's hard to design a system that (a) scales well and (b) doesn't feel the same at every level. If everything scales in perfectly even fashion, advancement is functionally meaningless, which is sort of problematic and removes a lot of the fun from level-based games. By contrast, if values scale asymmetrically, then you will eventually reach a point where the mechanics do not behave in the same ways that they did at lower levels. In theory, you can make up for this by introducing new quantities and dimensions to gameplay, but in practice this is very difficult to do well and leads to complexity creep.

There's also a secondary narrative consideration: Power Is Weird. When the impossible becomes possible, the narratives and stories that make sense change dramatically. Think, for instance, of all the stories that can't take place in the modern day due to instantaneous communication over great distances. Cell phones change everything, including the stories we tell, the narratives we use, and the conventions of genre we appreciate. The staples of speculative fiction often have the potential to transform the world in similar ways, ways that sometimes undermine the tropes and conceits of the very stories they take place in.

In a novel or a comic book or a video game, the author can ask you to suspend disbelief and just assume that no, the ability to cast message hasn't resulted in a total transformation of communication infrastructure the world over. TTRPGs don't really have that privilege, because players are independent actors who want to use the tools that are available to them. And as they level up, those tools become ever more numerous and more narratively significant, until your campaign doesn't have a functioning concept of distance because teleportation spits in its stupid face. Under these circumstances, it becomes difficult or impossible to justify the tropes and narrative conventions that worked fine at earlier levels.

[Yora]

Some more on the topic of high level spells. (http://dmdavid.com/tag/the-dungeons-dragons-spells-gary-gygax-never-meant-for-players/) Which mentions that early on it wad assumed that 9th level would be indeed the maximum level.

[winemaker81]

A lot of good points have been made in this thread, but I don't think anyone hit on this point:

D&D doesn't fail, the players & DM fail.

My first campaign went to 13th level. My co-DM and I discovered we were having a hard time writing-n-running good adventures -- everything was either a cakewalk or an "edge of oblivion" where any major mistake by the party or a bad run of dice would produce a TPK. The group discussed the issue and we agreed that we'd terminate the campaign and start over.

From what I read, this situation is not unusual.

Fast forward 20+ years. My current party is at 12th level and we're not having any such problems.

Why?

I'm a better DM today than I was BITD. More experienced, better perspective, different POV. I have far less time to play, but put more effort into the preparation. High level play can be FAR more complicated due to magic (I run a high magic campaign) so I have to understand and plan out what the monsters will do, with the understanding that no plan survives the initial contact with the enemy.

My players have to prepare as well. They have to know their characters' abilities spells, and magic items. They also must instinctively know how to work together to defeat situations in which they are (on paper) outclassed. The game requires more thought -- mere hack-n-slash won't win the day, although it will often certainly contribute to success.

I focus on entertaining the players, not the PCs. We run a variety of adventure types -- mass combat, mysteries, town, dungeon crawls, politics, other planes. We have situations where spells, magic items, and character abilities will NOT carry the day -- player thought and decisions are the difference between success and TPK.

If this isn't for you? Terminate the campaign and start a new one. This is supposed to be fun -- each group should do that they need to do to keep it fun.

[Lord Torath]

Some more on the topic of high level spells. (http://trollsmyth.blogspot.com/) Which mentions that early on it wad assumed that 9th level would be indeed the maximum level.Can you fix this link? All I'm getting is Trollsmyth's most recent blog post, which happens to be "Money, Money, Money!

[Yora]

Yeah, my bad. Happens when you juggle multiple links at the same time. Fixed now.

[Darth Ultron]

D&D doesn't fail, the players & DM fail.

My current party is at 12th level and we're not having any such problems.

I focus on entertaining the players, not the PCs. We run a variety of adventure types -- mass combat, mysteries, town, dungeon crawls, politics, other planes. We have situations where spells, magic items, and character abilities will NOT carry the day -- player thought and decisions are the difference between success and TPK.

Except your saying that D&D does not fail, when you don't use the rules. If your not using spells, magic items, and character abilities then your just role playing. And by not using all the crunchy rules, you do seem to be saying they fall apart right?

Role playing is part of D&D, but it's not the part that falls apart anyway. Sure, your not using all the crunchy rules as you don't want to and it's not your play style....but, stop and ask yourself: if you did use the rules, would they work?

[Morty]

A lot of good points have been made in this thread, but I don't think anyone hit on this point:

D&D doesn't fail, the players & DM fail.

My first campaign went to 13th level. My co-DM and I discovered we were having a hard time writing-n-running good adventures -- everything was either a cakewalk or an "edge of oblivion" where any major mistake by the party or a bad run of dice would produce a TPK. The group discussed the issue and we agreed that we'd terminate the campaign and start over.

From what I read, this situation is not unusual.

Fast forward 20+ years. My current party is at 12th level and we're not having any such problems.

Why?

I'm a better DM today than I was BITD. More experienced, better perspective, different POV. I have far less time to play, but put more effort into the preparation. High level play can be FAR more complicated due to magic (I run a high magic campaign) so I have to understand and plan out what the monsters will do, with the understanding that no plan survives the initial contact with the enemy.

My players have to prepare as well. They have to know their characters' abilities spells, and magic items. They also must instinctively know how to work together to defeat situations in which they are (on paper) outclassed. The game requires more thought -- mere hack-n-slash won't win the day, although it will often certainly contribute to success.

I focus on entertaining the players, not the PCs. We run a variety of adventure types -- mass combat, mysteries, town, dungeon crawls, politics, other planes. We have situations where spells, magic items, and character abilities will NOT carry the day -- player thought and decisions are the difference between success and TPK.

If this isn't for you? Terminate the campaign and start a new one. This is supposed to be fun -- each group should do that they need to do to keep it fun.

In other words, high-level D&D campaign require more effort and a lot of trial and error in order to work. I'm not sure how it refutes the thread's point.

[Beneath]

I agree with the previous posters who talked about how characters of teen+ levels are more myth than mortal, and I want to add that D&D doesn't handle mythic feats very well at all.

First the serialized adventuring format doesn't handle being mythic very well (the DBZ problem); mythic feats lose their charm if they aren't few and far between, as opposed to every week (and, as mentioned, the supply of mythic opponents this takes is damaging to verisimilitude, unless they're just sitting out there waiting for you to kill them instead of threatening you)

Second, D&D is a skirmish wargame at heart, with roleplaying elements. It's meant to handle small but decisive skirmishes between forces of soldiers and magical creatures. You can kiiiinda cludge some of, e.g. the Labors of Herakles into that system; the Hydra and Nemean Lion, in particular, and depending on the edition's grappling rules the Hind, but cleaning stables by rerouting a river into them would have to be it's own thing, or in D&D would probably just be handled by the player giving a plan and the GM saying "sure, that sounds like it would work". But even the fights, though, if you fit them into a framework based on initiative rolls and taking turns making attack rolls, they become more of a static die-rolling contest and less of a dynamic mythic battle.

[Duff]

I don't think I agree with the premise that all D&D editions fall apart around level 10.

What is true, at least for 2e and 3.5, is that there is a paradigm shift at higher levels. Higher level parties need different kinds of adventures than lower level parties.
This only becomes a problem if the DM (or the players) don't realize that shift, or are not interested or able to provide the type of adventure suitable for higher level play.

Sadly this seems to be true way to often for the writers of published adventures. You're seeing the same simple dungeon layouts just with tougher enemies passed as an adventure for high level characters.
Thats not how it should be. The discrete encounter model just won't cut it. A good high level adventure should operate on a grander scope. Politics, information gathering and combat-as-war become increasingly important themes as you get into higher levels.

A good high level campaign can be very rewarding for both the players and the DM, because of the increased complexity.

This. Very, Very This!

[gtwucla]

Because we are human and being a god is beyond our apprehension.

[FreddyNoNose]

The problem with that is that wargaming and politics is not really a natural development from dungeon crawling and monster slaying. The mechanical abilities your character developed at the early levels become largely useless and there's no real need to wait for high level to start with these things.
There is some rough consent in my experience that strongholds were added so that players wouldn't throw away the yellow junk they got from a dungeon once they got their XP for it. When you have all the equipment money can buy, getting more money becomes pointless. Which is a real problem in a game that is primarily about finding treasure.

I think it's a bit like the problem often described by Sanderson as an example of flawed novel writing: When you change the concept in the middle, who is wanting to read it? Those who like the first concept will be disappointed when you replace it with something very different. Those who like the second concept probably won't be interested to start reading in the first place.
If you make a game about dungeon crawling, make it dungeon crawling from start to end. If you want to make a game about commanding armies, make it about commanding armies from the start, don't put it behind an entry barrier.
Now there is some space where the two actually work quite well together. Once the characters got famous and known as sworn enemy of a main villain, then it can be pretty cool to let the players take charge of the army of allies they have gathered to confront the villain's forces. But I think that probably works best as an occasional special event, not as something that replaces the regular style of play. And another problem with wargaming is that there can be only one commander. What are the other 3 to 7 party members to do for the rest of the campaign. When Conan was a king, all his stories were about times where he wasn't active in politics or leading but was by himself on an adventure.
OMG. Why do you play these games?

[barna10]

OMG. Why do you play these games?

Lol. I was thinking the same thing.

I must be either really stupid or 100% out-of-touch because I've never experienced many of the issues expressed in this thread. I've enjoyed D&D at 1st level, and 20th+ level in Basic, AD&D, 2ed, and 3rd/3.5 (never played 4th or 5th). I never experienced issues with high level characters in either trying to balance them or with running fun campaigns with them.

Yes, the game changes over time, but it's a gradual shift and one that's organic dependent on the players, the characters they are playing, and the options available in the world.

Yes, the original game seems to have encouraged characters to grow in influence over time, but did not intend for them to ONLY rule a kingdom or run a school etc.

The Companion Set's (BECMI) mass combat rules takes into account a leader (the PC) fighting a single battle and the army getting bonuses or penalties based on this. This mechanic allowed you to have the PC fight a single combatant from the other "army" and have the result of that combat affect the outcome of the entire battle. you could have a knight fight another knight, a mage take out an elemental, a cleric fight a demon, whatever.

There are infinite ways to evolve the game, or you can always start over. NEVER forget, the game is a SYSTEM. There is not one play to play it, nor can you play it WRONG. It HAS to be generic. The onus is on YOU the players and GMs to make it work for YOU! It is not the designer's job to account for every situation, every play style, every group's "comfort zone", every possible world, etc.

[Knaight]

There are infinite ways to evolve the game, or you can always start over. NEVER forget, the game is a SYSTEM. There is not one play to play it, nor can you play it WRONG. It HAS to be generic. The onus is on YOU the players and GMs to make it work for YOU! It is not the designer's job to account for every situation, every play style, every group's "comfort zone", every possible world, etc.

D&D is not a generic system. It's hyper specialized towards some very specific subgenres of fantasy which follow some very specific characters, and the further you get away from that comparatively small niche the more it struggles.

[barna10]

D&D is not a generic system. It's hyper specialized towards some very specific subgenres of fantasy which follow some very specific characters, and the further you get away from that comparatively small niche the more it struggles.

Sorry, not true. Check out Deities & Demi-gods from Ad&d. There are entries for all different types of cultures. Are you going to say a Native American themed game is going to be the same as a European-themed one? Hardly.

Also, the Ad&d DMG had tons of options for tailoring the game to your liking. There's nothing dictating that you pay the game one particular way.

It is what you make it, just like every other RPG.

[Knaight]

It is what you make it, just like every other RPG.

Yes, and just like any other RPG it can be made into specific things much more effectively than into other things. Take the whole level structure, where characters get progressively more powerful across the board with a particular focus in getting better at fighting and possibly better at magic. If you're trying to run a hero's journey type of game where characters grow into becoming major heroes the system has done a whole bunch of your work for you. There's the classes and their implication on setting, particularly the magic classes - if you want a setting where magic exists as discrete spells drawn from either the divine or specialized knowledge, D&D has you covered. There's the focus of the rules towards doing violence, getting treasure, and navigating hostile terrain; from the various experience systems that have shown up to the capabilities that crop up in all classes to things like what gets rules. There's the way the game was deliberately built to cover a huge variety of monsters and the way it wasn't built to cover a huge variety of things out of focus.

It is in short a game hyperspecialized towards explorer-combatants growing in power as they navigate a world full of a variety of fantastic creatures. There's some flexibility here, largely by cutting elements out, but there's also a lot that it just isn't that good at.


Sorry, not true. Check out Deities & Demi-gods from Ad&d. There are entries for all different types of cultures. Are you going to say a Native American themed game is going to be the same as a European-themed one? Hardly.
No. What I will claim is that both of them are still within a narrow niche, and that even going to the native american themed game involves a level of work consistent with adapting a system made for something else and not a truly generic system. Take the cleric class, which has historically worked by having some sort of system where you are associated with the domains of a particular deity, and which thus assumes a fantasy polytheism that resembles a lot of coexisting monotheistic systems. That doesn't transfer well. Take the way various warrior classes were designed around having various amounts of armor (and for that matter the whole AC system being focused heavily on armor to begin with) and apply it to a culture where armor developed really differently and was never emphasized the same way and you'll run into problems. Then note that even within these two different themes you're still fundamentally following an adventuring party most of the time, or else you run into much bigger problems.

[barna10]

Yes, and just like any other RPG it can be made into specific things much more effectively than into other things. Take the whole level structure, where characters get progressively more powerful across the board with a particular focus in getting better at fighting and possibly better at magic. If you're trying to run a hero's journey type of game where characters grow into becoming major heroes the system has done a whole bunch of your work for you. There's the classes and their implication on setting, particularly the magic classes - if you want a setting where magic exists as discrete spells drawn from either the divine or specialized knowledge, D&D has you covered. There's the focus of the rules towards doing violence, getting treasure, and navigating hostile terrain; from the various experience systems that have shown up to the capabilities that crop up in all classes to things like what gets rules. There's the way the game was deliberately built to cover a huge variety of monsters and the way it wasn't built to cover a huge variety of things out of focus.

Yes...it's an adventure game...but you criticized it early as being "..hyper specialized towards some very specific subgenres of fantasy which follow some very specific characters, and the further you get away from that comparatively small niche the more it struggles." Now you are criticizing it for being an RPG about adventuring. I am confused...is it that the adventures only work in "hyper specialized..subgeneres of fantasy" or that it is a game focused on adventuring that you have a problem with? Also, you don't accurately portray all version of D&D. The older editions ABSOLUTELY encouraged sneaking around and NOT fighting! This is the beauty of the 1 GP = 1 XP rule; you could steal the treasure without having to kill ANYTHING and still succeed.



It is in short a game hyperspecialized towards explorer-combatants growing in power as they navigate a world full of a variety of fantastic creatures. There's some flexibility here, largely by cutting elements out, but there's also a lot that it just isn't that good at.

What elements do you need to cut out? What is it not good at? Yes, there are not rules for everything (until you get into newer versions), but it is a product of simpler times when players and DMs didn't need someone else to tell them how to handle EVERY situation.



No. What I will claim is that both of them are still within a narrow niche, and that even going to the native american themed game involves a level of work consistent with adapting a system made for something else and not a truly generic system. Take the cleric class, which has historically worked by having some sort of system where you are associated with the domains of a particular deity, and which thus assumes a fantasy polytheism that resembles a lot of coexisting monotheistic systems. That doesn't transfer well. Take the way various warrior classes were designed around having various amounts of armor (and for that matter the whole AC system being focused heavily on armor to begin with) and apply it to a culture where armor developed really differently and was never emphasized the same way and you'll run into problems. Then note that even within these two different themes you're still fundamentally following an adventuring party most of the time, or else you run into much bigger problems.

What adaptation needs to happen to play a Native American campaign? So what if they don't wear armor? All this means is the warriors don't become walking tanks! Also, it wasn't until 2nd edition with the Priest subclass that the Cleric class started to get "mythos" abilities. Prior to that Clerics could simply follow an ethos like "good" or "chaos" (yes, saying "..the cleric class, which has historically worked by having some sort of system where you are associated with the domains of a particular deity, and which thus assumes a fantasy polytheism that resembles a lot of coexisting monotheistic systems." IS accurate after 2nd edition, but it that implies the history of the game began with 2nd edition.)

All one needs to do is read some old Dragon articles to see how adaptable the system can be. Gygax used to include sci-fi elements, old west themes, and MANY alternate mythologies into his games. The key to this was the game's simplicity which made it easily adaptable. As the game became more complex, this became harder to do. Further evidence can be seen in the games early modules which included many alternate types of stories like detective stories, stealth missions, diplomatic missions, etc.

[Knaight]

Yes...it's an adventure game...but you criticized it early as being "..hyper specialized towards some very specific subgenres of fantasy which follow some very specific characters, and the further you get away from that comparatively small niche the more it struggles." Now you are criticizing it for being an RPG about adventuring. I am confused...is it that the adventures only work in "hyper specialized..subgeneres of fantasy" or that it is a game focused on adventuring that you have a problem with? Also, you don't accurately portray all version of D&D. The older editions ABSOLUTELY encouraged sneaking around and NOT fighting! This is the beauty of the 1 GP = 1 XP rule; you could steal the treasure without having to kill ANYTHING and still succeed.

Adventurers adventuring is hyperspecialized - and I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with pretending that it's more generic than it is, particularly given that there are genuinely generic games out there, but specialization is fine by me - it should just be understood as specialization. Being about adventurers specifically is specialization. Being about characters who dramatically grow in personal power is specialization. Focusing on combat is specialization. Implementing a particular magic system is specialization. As for those older editions that encouraged sneaking around and not fighting, they still had a fighting man class from the beginning, a bunch of battle magic from the beginning, etc. Picking fights wasn't an end in and of itself, and treasure gathering was emphasized more, but it's the same set of core elements.

[barna10]

Adventurers adventuring is hyperspecialized - and I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with pretending that it's more generic than it is, particularly given that there are genuinely generic games out there, but specialization is fine by me - it should just be understood as specialization. Being about adventurers specifically is specialization. Being about characters who dramatically grow in personal power is specialization. Focusing on combat is specialization. Implementing a particular magic system is specialization. As for those older editions that encouraged sneaking around and not fighting, they still had a fighting man class from the beginning, a bunch of battle magic from the beginning, etc. Picking fights wasn't an end in and of itself, and treasure gathering was emphasized more, but it's the same set of core elements.

OK...

And none of this has anything to do with the OP's question of why "all editions of D&D fall apart around 10th level", which they don't.

It's not the system that falls apart after 10th level, it's the players and DMs that expect 11th level adventures to be like 1st level adventures that are the problem. It's really no different than expecting college to be exactly like elementary school and then complaining when it's not and blaming that difference on poor design.

It all comes down to what you want out of the game. If you enjoy dungeon delving, play low level adventures. If you want to be involved in dimension-hopping or king-making, play a high level game.

Yes, the game was originally designed around a certain arc: young adventurer finds glory, comes home and becomes landed gentry, and then becomes a legend. It was never supposed to be an adventure game from levels 1 -> infinity.

This arc is absolutely shown in the spells available at higher levels. Spells like meteor swarm are intended for use against an army, a throw-back to the games war-gaming origins. The idea was that at 17th level+ the types of activities a magic-user might be involved in would be battles between kingdoms, not running through a 10x10 corridor and fighting orcs.

IMO, it's not the game that breaks down after 10th level, its the imagination of the players and DMs.

[CharonsHelper]

It's not the system that falls apart after 10th level, it's the players and DMs that expect 11th level adventures to be like 1st level adventures that are the problem. It's really no different than expecting college to be exactly like elementary school and then complaining when it's not and blaming that difference on poor design.


I'd say that it's both.

The biggest thing to me is that Caster/Martial disparity isn't bad until 7-9ish, and it cranks it up to 11 at about... level 11-13.

There is no reason to bring a martial along at level 13 as opposed to another caster who can just summon melee tanks at need, or even polymorph into one.

[barna10]

I'd say that it's both.

The biggest thing to me is that Caster/Martial disparity isn't bad until 7-9ish, and it cranks it up to 11 at about... level 11-13.

There is no reason to bring a martial along at level 13 as opposed to another caster who can just summon melee tanks at need, or even polymorph into one.

And this I don't understand. We never used to worry about this 20 years ago. If you wanted to play a fighter, you played a fighter and didn't worry about how powerful he was compared to the rest of the group. In fact, it was originally perceived that fighters were TOO powerful...

[CharonsHelper]

And this I don't understand. We never used to worry about this 20 years ago. If you wanted to play a fighter, you played a fighter and didn't worry about how powerful he was compared to the rest of the group. In fact, it was originally perceived that fighters were TOO powerful...

Good for you and your group. I'm glad that it's a non-issue for you.

But that's anecdotal, and the actual math etc. disagrees. It's not hard to make martials pretty irrelevant by the teens if you use much system mastery.

I'm not going to argue that your group can't have fun at higher levels. But you also can't use your anecdotal evidence to tell me that my math is wrong or that everyone else is wrong and it's a non-issue.

[Telok]

Well part of what's going on is that people are focusing on the wizard's post-10th level abilities and ignoring the fighter's post-10th level abilities. That castle and the men at arms are part of a greater campaign world. The fighter is a lord with real social status and political influence, there are peasants and merchants to tax, he is expected to raise and lead armies.

Ignoring everything a fighter gets from it's class after that level is like ignoring all the wizard spells and slots after 10th level. It's just that while the wizard keeps on getting personal level powers the fighter gets social, political, and military powers. Which is a pretty big change from what it used to have in the first 9 levels of the class. So it's easy for people (DMs and players) to miss what's happening and to accidentally strip all the post-10th level abilities from the fighter just because they aren't like what it used to get. It is, admittedly, quite poorly explained in the books.

Now if you want to play a homeless adventurer with no friends or family after level 10 then playing a fighter will be a bit lackluster, they have no class abilities after 10th level that are devoted to playing "4 guys raiding a dungeon". It would be sort of like playing a wizard with no magic past 5th level spells.

[barna10]

Good for you and your group. I'm glad that it's a non-issue for you.

But that's anecdotal, and the actual math etc. disagrees. It's not hard to make martials pretty irrelevant by the teens if you use much system mastery.

I'm not going to argue that your group can't have fun at higher levels. But you also can't use your anecdotal evidence to tell me that my math is wrong or that everyone else is wrong and it's a non-issue.

What are you even taking about? What math determines whether the game is entertaining or not? Also, how is my stating I don't understand a position because it never used to be a problem anecdotal evidence?

Lastly, who cares if "martials" are "irrelevant" (whatever that means) because that implies players can't possibly have fun playing a M-U or thief at low levels (really a thief at ANY level) because they can't do crap in combat.

Again, I simply don't understand this position because in my 30+ years of playing D&D with 8 different groups I haven't experienced these issues.

[Milo v3]

Well part of what's going on is that people are focusing on the wizard's post-10th level abilities and ignoring the fighter's post-10th level abilities. That castle and the men at arms are part of a greater campaign world. The fighter is a lord with real social status and political influence, there are peasants and merchants to tax, he is expected to raise and lead armies.
Fighter hasn't gotten that as abilities for a very long time, and when they did wizards got mage schools and thieves got guilds so it wasn't even a benefit other classes lacked everyone just got "I'm suddenly a leader now".... which to be honest is a good thing since most character concepts I've seen don't really fit becoming a leader.

Fighters in the modern day D&D do not have castles, social status and armies as class features. We aren't ignoring them. It's just.... they literally don't exist.


Ignoring everything a fighter gets from it's class after that level is like ignoring all the wizard spells and slots after 10th level.
Except wizards have spell and slots after 10th level.... and the fighter doesn't get anything new from 10th level onward that isn't "I Stab Betterer"


Lastly, who cares if "martials" are "irrelevant" (whatever that means) because that implies players can't possibly have fun playing a M-U or thief at low levels (really a thief at ANY level) because they can't do crap in combat.
I don't know how much fun it would be being stuck with the narrative role of "Escort Mission" since there is literally no reason to have you as part of the party anymore just because you didn't pick a caster at the start of the game. This is less of an issue with 5e though with how it handles bounded accuracy, though I don't really agree with it's style of bounded accuracy.

[CharonsHelper]

Lastly, who cares if "martials" are "irrelevant" (whatever that means) because that implies players can't possibly have fun playing a M-U or thief at low levels (really a thief at ANY level) because they can't do crap in combat.

Because the old thief could do unique things out of combat which casters couldn't.

Martials can't do anything at high levels which a caster can't do better, either in or out of combat.

[Bohandas]

Martials can't do anything at high levels which a caster can't do better, either in or out of combat.

Except take or throw a punch...

In fact, what if we simply made these changes to the wizard

Fortitude save bonus: None
Reflex save bonus: None
Base Attack Bonus: None
Hit dice: 1/2 d4 --> they gain 1d4+(con bonus) hp every odd numbered level. Nothing on even levels

weapon proficiencies: staff and dagger only
skill points per level: unchanged
special abilities: maybe add toughness as an available bonus feat but otherwise unchanged

[Milo v3]

Except take or throw a punch...
Casts tensers transformation/shapechanges into a dragon/was on completely different plane of existence the whole time


In fact, what if we simply made these changes to the wizard
Grods law enters play.

[barna10]

Well part of what's going on is that people are focusing on the wizard's post-10th level abilities and ignoring the fighter's post-10th level abilities. That castle and the men at arms are part of a greater campaign world. The fighter is a lord with real social status and political influence, there are peasants and merchants to tax, he is expected to raise and lead armies.

Ignoring everything a fighter gets from it's class after that level is like ignoring all the wizard spells and slots after 10th level. It's just that while the wizard keeps on getting personal level powers the fighter gets social, political, and military powers. Which is a pretty big change from what it used to have in the first 9 levels of the class. So it's easy for people (DMs and players) to miss what's happening and to accidentally strip all the post-10th level abilities from the fighter just because they aren't like what it used to get. It is, admittedly, quite poorly explained in the books.

Now if you want to play a homeless adventurer with no friends or family after level 10 then playing a fighter will be a bit lackluster, they have no class abilities after 10th level that are devoted to playing "4 guys raiding a dungeon". It would be sort of like playing a wizard with no magic past 5th level spells.

Exactly what he said

[barna10]

Because the old thief could do unique things out of combat which casters couldn't.

Martials can't do anything at high levels which a caster can't do better, either in or out of combat.

Which only matters if all you do is focus on combat. If you see the game as simply a tactical simulation then I can see the problem, but if it's played as an RPG then I don't understand the problem.

[CharonsHelper]

Which only matters if all you do is focus on combat. If you see the game as simply a tactical simulation then I can see the problem, but if it's played as an RPG then I don't understand the problem.

Because the martial is invalidated in every way. Not just combat.

That's exactly what I said in what you quoted.

...I'm confused as to where you're coming from now.

[Telok]

wizards got mage schools and thieves got guilds so it wasn't even a benefit other classes lacked everyone just got "I'm suddenly a leader now"

I checked the AD&D PHB for you.

Clerics: Build a 2000+ square foot religious stronghold and secure the area. Gain 2d10*10 0-level followers, and a random assortment of men-at-arms (average 103 total). Get tithes and taxes of 9 silver per human per month in the local area.

Fighters: Build or gain a stronghold and become a Lord. You automatically get a 5th to 7th level fighter cohort with magic gear who leads a company of 80 - 120 well equipped troops, including cavalry. Get taxes and income of 7 silver per person per month in the area out to about 50 miles.

Wizards: Build a stronghold, pacify and administer the area, and get 5 silver per person per month in the area out to about 20 miles. Hire, manage, and pay for all followers, troops, and equipment.

Thieves: Build a stronghold and attract 4d6 thieves of 1st to 8th level. Automatically start a guild war with the local Thieves Guild and risk being assassinated. Gain no revenue and pay for everything yourself, including wages for your followers and their equipment. Deal with any other 10+ level thief who does the same thing in your area.

Assassins: Assassinate a Grandmaster. Gain 7d4 minus 25% first through eighth level followers. Pay the followers 1000 gold per level, tear down the old guild hall, build a new guild hall. Gain no revenue and pay for everything yourself, including wages for your followers and their equipment. Constantly risk being assassinated as lower level assassins now seek to kill you.

So no wizard schools, no surprise leadership, and no freebies beyond the cleric and fighter getting troops. Of that only the fighter gets an actual military unit.

[Milo v3]

So no wizard schools,
*Shrug* I was going off what old D&D players told me.


no surprise leadership
Considering it can go from any fighter concept to "I now have an army"... I'd consider that rather surprising since a lot of fighter concepts wouldn't make sense for that to be applicable.


Of that only the fighter gets an actual military unit.
Of course only fighter would get a military unit.

Still, I'm not really sure how "I have an army helps at high level." helps much. I mean, it doesn't make sense for most characters and even then it's not like it's hard for mages to create their own armies through calling/summoning/simulacrums/mind control....

[barna10]

...and getting back to the OP, older editions DO NOT fall apart after 10th level.

20 years ago the debate was whether double weapon specialization made fighters too powerful.

In the BECMI basic book Menzter stated the fighter was the most powerful class because he only relies on his strength and it didn't run out, and he had the most HP.

And why wasn't this a problem before? Because the combat section of the books were a few pages long, and spell descriptions were a paragraph or two.

This all started going downhill with 2nd Edition, IMO. Before that there simply were no debates about play balance, who dealt more damage in a round, or whether a M-U getting high-level spells broke the game. We also spent a heck of a lot less time debating the rules and whole lot more time simply playing the game!

[CharonsHelper]

This all started going downhill with 2nd Edition, IMO. Before that there simply were no debates about play balance, who dealt more damage in a round, or whether a M-U getting high-level spells broke the game. We also spent a heck of a lot less time debating the rules and whole lot more time simply playing the game!

And walked uphill both ways to do it?

Just because you can have fun doing something doesn't prove that it's balanced.

[Cluedrew]

[QUOTE=barna10;21456063This all started going downhill with 2nd Edition, IMO.[/QUOTE]Would 2nd edition and on count as "almost all"? Just out of curiosity.

[barna10]

And walked uphill both ways to do it?

Just because you can have fun doing something doesn't prove that it's balanced.

?? That's the point, don't care if it's balanced and it takes very little effort to show how unbalanced it was. Doesn't have to be balanced to be fun.

[barna10]

Would 2nd edition and on count as "almost all"? Just out of curiosity.

Well, there's original, Holmes, Ad&d, Moldvay, and becmi before 2ND.

Then there's 2ND, 3Rd, 3.5, 4th, and 5th.

To me, it's not " almost all".

[Quickblade]

I agree with Barna10. I played 2nd edition and found it a natural progression from wanderer to a commander of armies. Even though individual characters can be powerful in combat this becomes irrelevant in politics or mass combat.' Test of the Warlords' introduced a much larger world to play in and there were both party adventuring modules and large scale campaigns so if you want to keep hacking away in "dungeons" go ahead. You will get back to your castle in time to find there is strife in the kingdom and thus you play a large scale campaign next.

[Telok]

Still, I'm not really sure how "I have an army helps at high level." helps much. I mean, it doesn't make sense for most characters and even then it's not like it's hard for mages to create their own armies through calling/summoning/simulacrums/mind control....

It's not just the military force, it's the fact that the classes were merged into the campaign world in a way that progressed mostly naturally and gave different people different tools. By 10th level characters were supposed to be famous, respected heroes. The fighter was designed to become landed nobility with the social and economic power that implied. Wizards didn't get that even if they did build a castle and magic wasn't a safe and free way to aquire troops or wealth.

This changed over the editions. Fighters lost the class features that gave them social, economic, and military power at higher levels. Wizards got more spells that worked better. People stopped changing the scope of the game at higher levels and stuck with clearing dungeons for more money. Then you ended up with fighters whose ability was Improved Hit It With A Stick trying to contribue beside wizards who could safely and reliably mind control a dragon every day before breakfast. And these characters weren't set up to become famous heros and nobles, they easily stayed in the anonymous adventurer category.

We literally play a different game/s in the WotC versions but classes like wizards and kept the abilities they had in the old editions and got power boosts while the fighters lost abilities. Modern D&D inherited things from older editions and many people never realize how that affects the way that the games play today.

[LibraryOgre]

We literally play a different game/s in the WotC versions but classes like wizards and kept the abilities they had in the old editions and got power boosts while the fighters lost abilities. Modern D&D inherited things from older editions and many people never realize how that affects the way that the games play today.

Not to mention the other ways the RAW buffed spellcasters... such as saves being less effective, and spells being quicker to recover. A lot of changes happened between 2e and 3e that heavily shifted the balance of power towards spellcasters... some were good (I'm generally a fan of "scrolls are easy to make", and view it as a big consideration in balancing some of AD&D's problems with spellcasters), others were not (saves, time to recharge, etc.)

A part of that was the idea of leadership. While a mage had immense personal power, the fighter had a much more diffuse political power. But Leadership became a feat that anyone could take, and that changed the nature of it.

When comparing TD&D (which is by no means monolithic) to WD&D, there's a lot of interlocking systems that changed the balance of power heavily towards spellcasters. Largely, IMO, it was the idea of "If it's a mundane skill, anyone can learn it, while if it's a magical skill, only magic-users can learn it." In a lot of ways, 4e most heavily diverged from this, with an almost-Earthdawn-like path... classes were classes and could do what they could do, but those mundane skills could be learned by anyone, without impinging on other classes' area.

[MeeposFire]

Not to mention the other ways the RAW buffed spellcasters... such as saves being less effective, and spells being quicker to recover. A lot of changes happened between 2e and 3e that heavily shifted the balance of power towards spellcasters... some were good (I'm generally a fan of "scrolls are easy to make", and view it as a big consideration in balancing some of AD&D's problems with spellcasters), others were not (saves, time to recharge, etc.)

A part of that was the idea of leadership. While a mage had immense personal power, the fighter had a much more diffuse political power. But Leadership became a feat that anyone could take, and that changed the nature of it.

When comparing TD&D (which is by no means monolithic) to WD&D, there's a lot of interlocking systems that changed the balance of power heavily towards spellcasters. Largely, IMO, it was the idea of "If it's a mundane skill, anyone can learn it, while if it's a magical skill, only magic-users can learn it." In a lot of ways, 4e most heavily diverged from this, with an almost-Earthdawn-like path... classes were classes and could do what they could do, but those mundane skills could be learned by anyone, without impinging on other classes' area.

Yea a lot of people gloss over it but the many "minor" changes between AD&D and 3e make a huge difference on how effective a weapon user will be. In AD&D even at high levels fighters were nasty and your arty still wanted them. Wizards could not really be adequate replacements over the course of an entire adventure (too expensive and too vulnerable). 3e makes it really easy and that costs the weapon using classes a lot heck the easy access to bonus spells and wands (that you can choose what spells are in them and make them nearly at will with just a feat) make a huge difference in itself.

Wizards and the like were more powerful in AD&D than a fighter but the fighter was still powerful in its own right and was still needed for what it does. In 3e casters are more powerful and you can make legitimate arguments that straight weapon users are no longer required.

[kyoryu]

Plus, if you're looking at the original context of the game (which was pretty well dead by 2e, admittedly), you had a few things going on that were very different.

Since you had multiple characters, there was less of an emphasis on playing one character "to the end". Heck, even the idea of "an end" was foreign.

Secondly, since death was Really A Thing, and wizards were more fragile, not a lot of them survived to higher levels

The biggest problem with D&D is that the basic structure of the game changed, and the rules didn't change with it.

[barna10]

Plus, if you're looking at the original context of the game (which was pretty well dead by 2e, admittedly), you had a few things going on that were very different.

Since you had multiple characters, there was less of an emphasis on playing one character "to the end". Heck, even the idea of "an end" was foreign.

Secondly, since death was Really A Thing, and wizards were more fragile, not a lot of them survived to higher levels

The biggest problem with D&D is that the basic structure of the game changed, and the rules didn't change with it.

Seconded.

IMO, it's Feats that really tipped the balance. Being able to cast several quickened-maximized-heightened-empowered fireballs in one round before anyone could knock an arrow turned the game into a MMO simulation instead of an RPG.

It's still possible to capture the feel of the older systems, but it takes special players to not let it turn into "How much damage can I do this round!"

[Milo v3]

It's not just the military force, it's the fact that the classes were merged into the campaign world in a way that progressed mostly naturally and gave different people different tools.
How was it a natural progression, it sounds really artificial? (Sincere question in case my tone isn't coming across right)

[Quickblade]

I mean a natural progression in that your gaming skills and character are beyond the basic linear dungeon and need new challenges. Gives a good opportunity to spend all the yellow stuff you have collected as well.

[Cluedrew]

To barna10, on Almost All: You know I know that it just didn't go 1st, 2nd, 3rd... but I always forget just how many there are back there.

I'm not going to comment on martial/caster right now. But I will say that even if 10+ holds up if you understand what is it about. But I get the feeling that it doesn't help you in that transition very well (I don't have any of the early books). Which can be enough to cause the game to fall apart.

[barna10]

To barna10, on Almost All: You know I know that it just didn't go 1st, 2nd, 3rd... but I always forget just how many there are back there.

I'm not going to comment on martial/caster right now. But I will say that even if 10+ holds up if you understand what is it about. But I get the feeling that it doesn't help you in that transition very well (I don't have any of the early books). Which can be enough to cause the game to fall apart.

To be fair, "almost all is after 2nd edition" is true if you purely look at publishing dates, but where it doesn't hold up is all the play that still goes on even with OD&D. my one group played strictly 1st edition from 1995-2000. Then I joined another group in 2001-2002 where we tried out 3rd for a few years, but then I ran a group from 2010 - 2012 where we used 1st edition, and now I play only BECMI.

There are probably just as many players playing pre-3rd edition versions as there are playing 3rd edition+.

[barna10]

How was it a natural progression, it sounds really artificial? (Sincere question in case my tone isn't coming across right)

The "natural progression" is simply that you spent levels 1-9 building a reputation as a hero and it starts to pay off after 9th level.

The 1st edition Fighter, for instance, can establish a "Freehold" at 9th level. Some players used to argue he could ONLY do this at 9th level, but just as many would argue he could do it any time AFTER reaching 9th level. 2nd edition states the fighter attracts a band of men-at-arms due to his rep, but only if he has already established a "manor".

The 2nd edition DMG (pg 20) has a great article about "high level" characters. It states "High level" is determined by the group: "Campaigns that commonly have 4th to 8th level characters consider 12th level or more to be high level, while those with 12th-level characters set the limit closer to 18th or 20th level. While there is no set break-point for high level, character duties and responsibilities begin to change around between 9th and 12th level."

It goes on to describe how fighting monsters and hunting treasure tends to become less satisfying as the characters increase in power. Described is how as the characters become "jaded" the adventures they become involved in need evolve into ones where the characters' greater power and influence starts affecting the world at large, possibly having wide-reaching effects.

A sample character, Varrack, is used as an example wherein he gets appointed sheriff due to his great deeds, defends a village against bandits, gets appointed steward over several villages. Intrigue ensues and as Varrack grows in influence, his enemies become more insidious and numerous.

The DMG goes on to discuss "semi-retirement" where the PCs live on as NPCs that return when needed.

IMO, the way to keep the game fresh after a certain point, in any system, is to change the risks and rewards. As with Varrack above, the risk is no longer about his own well-being, it is about keeping the town safe. The reward is not a few gold pieces. The reward is instead greater reputation, influence, and responsibility, maybe even a title. It doesn't have to be about mass combat, running a kingdom, or fighting the entire Who's Who of demon lords.

Even with high-level Magic-Users that can teleport and blast entire armies into cinders there are opportunities at high levels. What if the group has gotten on the wrong side of a demon lord that can make troops materialize anywhere on the plane to harass or kill the group's family, followers, students, or allies? How do you stop it? How do you know where they are striking now or next? How do you keep your friends safe? Do you take the battle to the demon lord and risk losing some family while you are away? Do you strike a deal to stop the bloodshed? Do you enact a barrier around the entire plane that prevents the demons from entering but also prevents all teleportation and dimension-hoping magic (and probably makes more enemies of those that want to keep using these magics)?

I guess the best way to sum-up my impression of high-level campaigns is they become less about fighting and more about imagination, for both the players and the DM. IMO as the levels and powers of the group grows, so does the list of possible story lines.

[Knaight]

There are probably just as many players playing pre-3rd edition versions as there are playing 3rd edition+.

I doubt it. Market data is murky, but 3.5, Pathfinder, and 5e all sold vastly more copies than earlier editions.

[barna10]

I doubt it. Market data is murky, but 3.5, Pathfinder, and 5e all sold vastly more copies than earlier editions.

Not trying to argue, but that really means nothing. Most of those sales are redundant as the same player that bought 3Rd edition also bought 3.5, and possibly bought Pathfinder, etc. Also, just because they bought them doesn't mean they actually play those editions. In addition, we don't have numbers for OSRIC or pirated Pdfs of older editions, or for players that never bought a book.

What you can do for a fairer estimate is browse the Internet for sites dedicated to the various editions. Giant in the Playground is obviously for newer editions, but there are many sites out there dedicated to older editions. There are several Facebook groups exclusively for older editions. These are fairly well distributed across the various editions.

[Knaight]

Not trying to argue, but that really means nothing. Most of those sales are redundant as the same player that bought 3Rd edition also bought 3.5, and possibly bought Pathfinder, etc. Also, just because they bought them doesn't mean they actually play those editions. In addition, we don't have numbers for OSRIC or pirated Pdfs of older editions, or for players that never bought a book.

It's an imperfect measure, but realistically speaking OSRIC and the rest of the retroclones are less significant than the actual D&D editions at the time, and while the same player likely bought multiple books that doesn't mean they didn't also play multiple games and shouldn't be counted as players. There's also no particular reason to think that the book to player ratio has changed meaningfully.


What you can do for a fairer estimate is browse the Internet for sites dedicated to the various editions. Giant in the Playground is obviously for newer editions, but there are many sites out there dedicated to older editions. There are several Facebook groups exclusively for older editions. These are fairly well distributed across the various editions.
This estimate doesn't account for the number of people on the sites, and on top of that it's a terrible reflection of the players as a whole. There's only a subset that is going to go online and talk about RPGs, and we tend to be much more into the hobby than average. As such, certain groups are way over represented. OSR diehards are in that category, as are the people really into the mechanical intricacies of newer editions, as is the generally D&D hostile crowd that's familiar with a wide variety of independent RPGs, as are the people with extensive homebrew and/or game design work. Casual players don't tend to show up. With regards to D&D specifically, casual players are much more likely to be playing a currently supported edition, whereas the people still playing an edition decades old tend to be diehards. Yes, some new people are introduced to older games, but this just isn't a reliable metric. Anything other than D&D is also going to be over represented, D&D's the obvious entry point and just about everyone starts there and only people who get into RPGs stick around, switch to a different system (or more likely a collection of different systems), and play that.

Speaking from personal experience, it is downright easy to find an online group that is either familiar with or willing to learn niche RPGs even if they're highly complicated. In real life? D&D 5e and Pathfinder have a public presence, and in home groups I've consistently been able to GM whatever rules light RPG I can quickly explain to people and they don't need to read anything for that I want, but know other people who are stuck playing D&D because it's the only thing people will play.

[LibraryOgre]

Not to mention, just in a numbers game, there were twice as many people in the world in 2010 over 1980... 50% more in the US. With numbers like that, it's not hard for a new product to get over the old product.

[Milo v3]

I mean a natural progression in that your gaming skills and character are beyond the basic linear dungeon and need new challenges. Gives a good opportunity to spend all the yellow stuff you have collected as well.


The "natural progression" is simply that you spent levels 1-9 building a reputation as a hero and it starts to pay off after 9th level.

The 1st edition Fighter, for instance, can establish a "Freehold" at 9th level. Some players used to argue he could ONLY do this at 9th level, but just as many would argue he could do it any time AFTER reaching 9th level. 2nd edition states the fighter attracts a band of men-at-arms due to his rep, but only if he has already established a "manor".

The 2nd edition DMG (pg 20) has a great article about "high level" characters. It states "High level" is determined by the group: "Campaigns that commonly have 4th to 8th level characters consider 12th level or more to be high level, while those with 12th-level characters set the limit closer to 18th or 20th level. While there is no set break-point for high level, character duties and responsibilities begin to change around between 9th and 12th level."

It goes on to describe how fighting monsters and hunting treasure tends to become less satisfying as the characters increase in power. Described is how as the characters become "jaded" the adventures they become involved in need evolve into ones where the characters' greater power and influence starts affecting the world at large, possibly having wide-reaching effects.

A sample character, Varrack, is used as an example wherein he gets appointed sheriff due to his great deeds, defends a village against bandits, gets appointed steward over several villages. Intrigue ensues and as Varrack grows in influence, his enemies become more insidious and numerous.

The DMG goes on to discuss "semi-retirement" where the PCs live on as NPCs that return when needed.

IMO, the way to keep the game fresh after a certain point, in any system, is to change the risks and rewards. As with Varrack above, the risk is no longer about his own well-being, it is about keeping the town safe. The reward is not a few gold pieces. The reward is instead greater reputation, influence, and responsibility, maybe even a title. It doesn't have to be about mass combat, running a kingdom, or fighting the entire Who's Who of demon lords.

Even with high-level Magic-Users that can teleport and blast entire armies into cinders there are opportunities at high levels. What if the group has gotten on the wrong side of a demon lord that can make troops materialize anywhere on the plane to harass or kill the group's family, followers, students, or allies? How do you stop it? How do you know where they are striking now or next? How do you keep your friends safe? Do you take the battle to the demon lord and risk losing some family while you are away? Do you strike a deal to stop the bloodshed? Do you enact a barrier around the entire plane that prevents the demons from entering but also prevents all teleportation and dimension-hoping magic (and probably makes more enemies of those that want to keep using these magics)?

I guess the best way to sum-up my impression of high-level campaigns is they become less about fighting and more about imagination, for both the players and the DM. IMO as the levels and powers of the group grows, so does the list of possible story lines.

Yeah those sound artificial to me since it only works with a small number of character concepts.

[barna10]

And which concepts does it not work for?

[thirdkingdom]

Yeah those sound artificial to me since it only works with a small number of character concepts.

I would argue that the issue is not with the explicit expectation that older games have of an evolving style of play as the characters grow more powerful but rather your understanding of "character concepts".

[Cluedrew]

To thirdkingdom: Could you expand on that point a bit?

I mean... it doesn't quite fit "wondering vagabond", not as I understand the concept and the rules.

[SaurOps]

And which concepts does it not work for?

There are several ranger kits that explicitly rule out fortifications and followers - beastmasters, feralans, mountain men and what have you - and several others where it's not explicitly noted but I could definitely see it not happening, like with the guardians or wardens, as the former guards a tract of wilderness and the latter is already beholden to an overlord and doesn't appear to really ever get out from under said boss's control. Explorers are also likely very busy away from home, which might interfere with running a landhold enough for one to not show up.

I never really got a good look at the fighter book, but presumably, there are several kits for it that might not jive with becoming a feudal landholder, either.

[barna10]

To thirdkingdom: Could you expand on that point a bit?

I mean... it doesn't quite fit "wondering vagabond", not as I understand the concept and the rules.

And what is "it"? Just because a player chooses to not take advantage of class features does not mean the game is broken or doomed to failure.

You could just as easily have a Magic-User from any edition that only takes detection spells and then argue the character is too weak when compared to all the other PCs so the system must be broken.

These systems work for the "wandering vagabond" because it does nothing to prohibit the concept. What else should be included to support this concept? Some sort of special abilities only available to wandering vagabonds? I don't think think there's much needed to support this concept besides the ability to wander.

[barna10]

There are several ranger kits that explicitly rule out fortifications and followers - beastmasters, feralans, mountain men and what have you - and several others where it's not explicitly noted but I could definitely see it not happening, like with the guardians or wardens, as the former guards a tract of wilderness and the latter is already beholden to an overlord and doesn't appear to really ever get out from under said boss's control. Explorers are also likely very busy away from home, which might interfere with running a landhold enough for one to not show up.

I never really got a good look at the fighter book, but presumably, there are several kits for it that might not jive with becoming a feudal landholder, either.

Again, a player making a choice to have his PC be one that doesn't take advantage of what is available does not prove the system is doomed to failure or will fall apart. If anything, your example of kits shows there are other choices besides just becoming a landed noble!

In the case of these kits, in a game I were running, the character would still benefit from an increased influence in the areas he patrols. He'd most likely be friends with all the woodland people, creatures, and various spirits that roam the woods. while he can't have followers, he can still have allies and friends. He could still become an epic hero and could still grow in amazing ways, which I assume the player would want since he choose a kit that didn't benefit from the normal perks of high level.

Beastmaster - cannot build a fortress can establish a tract of land he protects, "equivalent to a barony." He can also summon an animal horde of 100HD per level of the Beastmaster!

Feralans - These are basically feral humans. They start getting followers at 5th level and will rule a pack of wolves, caribou, or whatever they want at higher levels.

Mountain Man - not a candidate for high level greatness, but it might be fun for the right player.

Warden - Hey some people like to serve. There's nothing preventing the Warden from becoming a Baron or some other sort of important figure under his liege. It's just unlikely he'll ever be the head honcho.

[Milo v3]

Just because a player chooses to not take advantage of class features does not mean the game is broken or doomed to failure.
No, it just means that it doesn't fit all character concepts and everyone moving to a different style of play regardless of their character's personalities doesn't sit right with me. But if the character doesn't decide to, then they get left behind.


These systems work for the "wandering vagabond" because it does nothing to prohibit the concept. What else should be included to support this concept? Some sort of special abilities only available to wandering vagabonds? I don't think think there's much needed to support this concept besides the ability to wander.
.... I don't really agree with this line of thinking, I don't think you should have to not use class features just because your character doesn't completely change their characterisation from "Wandering hero" to "Orcus on his throne"... since that doesn't really fit with a lot of characters. There's a reason why games do give choices so you don't have to take class features that don't fit your character.

[barna10]

No, it just means that it doesn't fit all character concepts and everyone moving to a different style of play regardless of their character's personalities doesn't sit right with me. But if the character doesn't decide to, then they get left behind.
This can happen in every group and every system. If you have a player chooses to go in a different direction than the norm. This proves nothing.



.... I don't really agree with this line of thinking, I don't think you should have to not use class features just because your character doesn't completely change their characterisation from "Wandering hero" to "Orcus on his throne"... since that doesn't really fit with a lot of characters. There's a reason why games do give choices so you don't have to take class features that don't fit your character.

No one says you have to do anything.

Now, in 3Rd edition+, you must continue to concentrate on combat or you will be left behind.

[Milo v3]

This can happen in every group and every system. If you have a player chooses to go in a different direction than the norm. This proves nothing.
Except the character concept that doesn't fit with the "way high level is expected to be" is.... the standard character archetypes of low-level. If you follow the norm, that norm becomes wrong the higher level your character becomes...

Now, in 3Rd edition+, you must continue to concentrate on combat or you will be left behind.
Yes, except that's true from level 1 to 20. You make your characters from level 1 with that in mind.

[barna10]

Except the character concept that doesn't fit with the "way high level is expected to be" is.... the standard character archetypes of low-level. If you follow the norm, that norm becomes wrong the higher level your character becomes...

Interesting statement. Please back it up with some examples or facts. You might as well say "Slow doesn't fit with fast". And what is "the norm". What "norm" is understood by everyone that I just seem to be too dense to understand?

This may help illustrate my point much better than I can (http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/3019000/3019374/1/print/3019374.pdf), especially zen moments 3 and 4.

[thirdkingdom]

To thirdkingdom: Could you expand on that point a bit?

I mean... it doesn't quite fit "wondering vagabond", not as I understand the concept and the rules.

I'm just not sure what he's trying to say about "character concept". The way I see it is this: starting with about halfway through 2e there was a de-emphasis on the end game of domain level play that, a removal of some of the features that helped maintain relevance for all classes at higher levels (note that I never said parity; it was never a design goal to have each class equally powerful at each level), to the point where, if played as intended, older games such as 1e or B/X have different design assumptions than 3.5 or 4e about what characters would do at higher levels*. In other words, the expectation was that you played the game with different goals in mind. It's kind of like trying to bring your D&D character into a straight Call of Cthulhu game; the two systems are aiming to do different things, and if you try a different playstyle than intended it is likely that you'll be disappointed. It's not the game's fault, though.

Here's (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?608196-When-was-the-quot-Lost-Endgame-quot-Lost) an interesting thread about the demise of domain-level play. One of the most interesting quotes, I think, is from Michael Mornard (Old Geezer), one of the original players in Gygax's game:


Also, remember that "the group is one, solid, and indissoluble" was not a concept. We were all roving adventurers who would band together at times, but the highest form of play was to play solo. So once strongholds were built, one player might be a wizard staying in his tower and sending minions out to gather components for spell research, one might be building a mighty army, one interacting in the political intrigue, etc.

The higher levels of play as first practiced relied both on the benefits that characters got at Name Level (the ability to build a stronghold and gain followers, etc.) and the existence of henchmen (which were also phased out in 3e, largely). As was implicitly understood, each Player would have a main character with a number of henchmen, which could in turn have their own henchmen, and so forth. So, a 10th-level fighter PC might rule a small domain and send his henchmen out to adventure as needed, only emerging from his keep when the land is truly threatened (by war, the Tarrasque, etc.).


*That's not to say that you can't dungeoncrawl at high levels in older games. You certainly can, and I know that when I was 12 we pretty much ignored the domain aspects of the game. But now, with the benefit of age and hopefully some wisdom I've come to understand how important that transition is to the game.

[barna10]

I'm just not sure what he's trying to say about "character concept". The way I see it is this: starting with about halfway through 2e there was a de-emphasis on the end game of domain level play that, a removal of some of the features that helped maintain relevance for all classes at higher levels (note that I never said parity; it was never a design goal to have each class equally powerful at each level), to the point where, if played as intended, older games such as 1e or B/X have different design assumptions than 3.5 or 4e about what characters would do at higher levels*. In other words, the expectation was that you played the game with different goals in mind. It's kind of like trying to bring your D&D character into a straight Call of Cthulhu game; the two systems are aiming to do different things, and if you try a different playstyle than intended it is likely that you'll be disappointed. It's not the game's fault, though.

Here's (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?608196-When-was-the-quot-Lost-Endgame-quot-Lost) an interesting thread about the demise of domain-level play. One of the most interesting quotes, I think, is from Michael Mornard (Old Geezer), one of the original players in Gygax's game:



The higher levels of play as first practiced relied both on the benefits that characters got at Name Level (the ability to build a stronghold and gain followers, etc.) and the existence of henchmen (which were also phased out in 3e, largely). As was implicitly understood, each Player would have a main character with a number of henchmen, which could in turn have their own henchmen, and so forth. So, a 10th-level fighter PC might rule a small domain and send his henchmen out to adventure as needed, only emerging from his keep when the land is truly threatened (by war, the Tarrasque, etc.).


*That's not to say that you can't dungeoncrawl at high levels in older games. You certainly can, and I know that when I was 12 we pretty much ignored the domain aspects of the game. But now, with the benefit of age and hopefully some wisdom I've come to understand how important that transition is to the game.

100% agree

[LibraryOgre]

And, of course, you've got the other side... Birthright, which re-emphasized the domain aspects, designing systems to run those aspects, and making it a core part of the assumptions of the setting.

[thirdkingdom]

And, of course, you've got the other side... Birthright, which re-emphasized the domain aspects, designing systems to run those aspects, and making it a core part of the assumptions of the setting.

You know, Birthright is something I never actually got around to checking out. It came out about a year or two after I was no longer gaming. I *think*, however, that the assumption was that you could essentially start low-level play as nobility, as opposed to having domain rulership be an eventual goal you worked *towards*.

[LibraryOgre]

You know, Birthright is something I never actually got around to checking out. It came out about a year or two after I was no longer gaming. I *think*, however, that the assumption was that you could essentially start low-level play as nobility, as opposed to having domain rulership be an eventual goal you worked *towards*.

Exactly. You could choose to start as a blooded scion of one of the old gods, with access to the resources of your holdings... you might have a small fiefdom, a source of magical power, a temple, a guild holding... all sorts of things, in combination. Some of the game was given over to managing these holdings, but you could also do the pure adventuring stuff... either by ignoring your responsibilities, or never having them in the first place.

[barna10]

Exactly. You could choose to start as a blooded scion of one of the old gods, with access to the resources of your holdings... you might have a small fiefdom, a source of magical power, a temple, a guild holding... all sorts of things, in combination. Some of the game was given over to managing these holdings, but you could also do the pure adventuring stuff... either by ignoring your responsibilities, or never having them in the first place.

Interesting. I never gave Birthright much attention beyond reading about the different human races, but maybe I should now...

[thirdkingdom]

To thirdkingdom: Could you expand on that point a bit?

I mean... it doesn't quite fit "wondering vagabond", not as I understand the concept and the rules.

Actually, I've got a better example. When I was in middle school, playing Basic with my friends, Charisma was a dump stat. Who the hell wants a high Charisma. Now that I'm older and actually know (somewhat) what I'm doing I recognize that Charisma is perhaps the most important stat in the game . . . if you're playing as intended. If I had to chose between a Fighter with a Strength of 18 and a Charisma of 9 or a Fighter with a Strength of 9 and a Charisma of 18 I'd pick the latter, every single time. Charisma affects your reaction rolls, so you're more likely to avoid fighting (again, one of the design assumptions of early D&D is that you *avoid* fights when possible) and make friends with NPCs. The higher your Charisma the more henchmen you can have and the more loyal they're going to be.

If you're going to ignore integral parts of the system you really can't claim that it's the system that's broken.

[Milo v3]

Interesting statement. Please back it up with some examples or facts.
I was directly responding to how it was been described by the people in this thread, and asked for more information because I don't have any editions before 3.0. It's impossible for me to have facts when I'm directly talking about "Could you describe x in more detail because from the little you've said it seems problematic?" and saying the impression I'm getting from what others are saying.


You might as well say "Slow doesn't fit with fast". And what is "the norm". What "norm" is understood by everyone that I just seem to be too dense to understand?
"Wandering hero" does not match "I'm building castles now and no longer adventure". So if it is how the other people on this thread described, it sounds rather artificial having to have your character concept change as you leveled up.


This may help illustrate my point much better than I can (http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/3019000/3019374/1/print/3019374.pdf), especially zen moments 3 and 4.
That had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

edit: Also, what's with people saying things like "You don't get to claim it's broken" when the person didn't say it was broken. I know it's in the thread's title, but not all individuals in this thread are saying it's broken and it seems unnecessarily hostile (I'm one of the people who thinks D&D doesn't break at high levels for godsake).

[barna10]

That had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

edit: Also, what's with people saying things like "You don't get to claim it's broken" when the person didn't say it was broken. I know it's in the thread's title, but not all individuals in this thread are saying it's broken and it seems unnecessarily hostile (I'm one of the people who thinks D&D doesn't break at high levels for godsake).

First, that had everything to do with what I was talking about, not you. That's why I said it would illustrate my point.

Second, no one has said "You don't get to claim it's broken". What has happened is people have made claims and others have disagreed or agreed with them. People often get offended when others disagree with them or don't think their examples make sense or are relevant.

[thirdkingdom]

I was directly responding to how it was been described by the people in this thread, and asked for more information because I don't have any editions before 3.0. It's impossible for me to have facts when I'm directly talking about "Could you describe x in more detail because from the little you've said it seems problematic?" and saying the impression I'm getting from what others are saying.


"Wandering hero" does not match "I'm building castles now and no longer adventure". So if it is how the other people on this thread described, it sounds rather artificial having to have your character concept change as you leveled up.


That had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

edit: Also, what's with people saying things like "You don't get to claim it's broken" when the person didn't say it was broken. I know it's in the thread's title, but not all individuals in this thread are saying it's broken and it seems unnecessarily hostile (I'm one of the people who thinks D&D doesn't break at high levels for godsake).

Well, you admit that you've never played anything older than 3rd edition and insist that the idea of a character's goals changing over their career is "limiting" and "artificial", despite it being pointed out that is *literally* what the people who invented the game in the first place intended to happen.

[Milo v3]

First, that had everything to do with what I was talking about, not you. That's why I said it would illustrate my point.
Yeah... I'm saying I don't know why you said that since it has nothing to do with what I was saying. Why quote someone and then say random things that are unrelated to what your quoting.


Second, no one has said "You don't get to claim it's broken".
Literally the post above mine "you really can't claim that it's the system that's broken". and other times it's people saying "Just because a player chooses to not take advantage of class features does not mean the game is broken or doomed to failure." in response despite the fact that they didn't suggest the game was broken or doomed to failure.

edit:

Well, you admit that you've never played anything older than 3rd edition and insist that the idea of a character's goals changing over their career is "limiting" and "artificial", despite it being pointed out that is *literally* what the people who invented the game in the first place intended to happen.
Intended =! Good

And my suggestion is based on the fact that it is literally what the people who invented the game in the first place intended.... The game apparently having the expectation of the character goals changing so drastically is what I found limiting and artificial.

[thirdkingdom]

So, your goals, ambitions and dreams haven't changed since you were younger?

[barna10]

Literally the post above mine "you really can't claim that it's the system that's broken". and other times it's people saying "Just because a player chooses to not take advantage of class features does not mean the game is broken or doomed to failure." in response despite the fact that they didn't suggest the game was broken or doomed to failure.


Saying "If you're going to ignore integral parts of the system you really can't claim that it's the system that's broken." is entirely different than saying "you really can't claim it's the system that's broken". You can't take half a sentence and then claim someone is saying something they are not. The later is stating your argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It is not a dictum stating "You are not allowed to say the system is broken!"



Intended =! Good

And my suggestion is based on the fact that it is literally what the people who invented the game in the first place intended.... The game apparently having the expectation of the character goals changing so drastically is what I found limiting and artificial.
You are 100% correct. Just because a creator intended something to be a certain way does not mean it is the best. If this were true we'd all still be playing OD&D.

That being said, this isn't a thread about which version of D&D is the best. This is a thread that was started with the question "Why do almost all editions of D&D fall apart around 10th level?" And the answer that questions is impossible to render because it's based on the false premise that "almost all editions of D&D fall apart around 10th level".

You are free to make any claim you want, but others are also free to criticize those claims and to dispute them with claims of their own.

I understand, very well, how players that never played any of the pre-3rd edition versions would find the concepts some of us have presented as weird, outlandish, or just distasteful. Probably the same reaction I feel in my gut when someone starts defending 4th edition...yeeeuck.

Beyond all that is the fact that many players have played each of the editions to high levels and not all of them think the systems break down at higher levels. Logically, since there are groups that succesfully run games at high levels, in each version of D&D, the systems themselves do not "fall apart around 10th level", but they apparently do become unpalatable for some groups, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I have been in several groups that hhhhaaaaaaattttteeeeeeee 1st level. Does this mean the system "falls apart" around 1st level because my group doesn't like playing it "as intended" where you start at first level, or does it simply mean it doesn't work for my group? Not working for each and every group, in each and every situation, and each and every level, does not mean the system is flawed or "falls apart".

It's no different with the "wandering vagabond" (which still hasn't been defined...) Just because there is one or more concepts which are a stretch and don't seem to fit well does not mean the game is broken. Can you start playing baseball in the middle of a football game and claim there's something wrong with football because it doesn't support people wanting to play baseball? How about if you decided to start a rugby scrum on the 9th hole of a golf course? Is golf or the golf course flawed, or falling apart, because this isn't supported?

What if someone wanted to play a starship pilot? Why not if we are looking for stretches to the theme. Yes, one could easily play a downed starship pilot in a D&D game, but there wouldn't be any special rules to support this, at any level. Does this make the system flawed or does it make it "fall apart"?

In fact, I don't think you'll find a single campaign that would support EVERY concept or idea. Yes, there are generic systems that will support this, but there are few if any CAMPAIGNS that will support widely divergent ideas. D&D is and was a fantasy adventure game where the characters become heroes. Yes, you can stretch it into a game about thieves, intrigue, politics, etc., but that it was never intended to be a universal system where anything was possible.

[Knaight]

Beyond all that is the fact that many players have played each of the editions to high levels and not all of them think the systems break down at higher levels. Logically, since there are groups that succesfully run games at high levels, in each version of D&D, the systems themselves do not "fall apart around 10th level", but they apparently do become unpalatable for some groups, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I have been in several groups that hhhhaaaaaaattttteeeeeeee 1st level. Does this mean the system "falls apart" around 1st level because my group doesn't like playing it "as intended" where you start at first level, or does it simply mean it doesn't work for my group? Not working for each and every group, in each and every situation, and each and every level, does not mean the system is flawed or "falls apart".

When lots and lots of groups routinely find the same few issues though, it does suggest that the game does have flaws and is not in fact perfect. High levels are a routine site for these common issues. 1st level is a routine site for these common issues. This suggests that the game probably could have been designed better in those regards from the beginning. That's not a problem - every system has flaws, it's just a matter of picking systems where the strengths line up with what the particular group values in a game and the weaknesses line up with what you just don't care about.

I get that saying that old D&D isn't a perfect game to which all others are inferior is OSR heresy, but it's true. Old D&D has weaknesses, most of them are shared with other editions of D&D (largely because most mechanics are shared between editions), and there are legitimate reasons to dislike the game.


In fact, I don't think you'll find a single campaign that would support EVERY concept or idea. Yes, there are generic systems that will support this, but there are few if any CAMPAIGNS that will support widely divergent ideas. D&D is and was a fantasy adventure game where the characters become heroes. Yes, you can stretch it into a game about thieves, intrigue, politics, etc., but that it was never intended to be a universal system where anything was possible.

Two pages ago:


There are infinite ways to evolve the game, or you can always start over. NEVER forget, the game is a SYSTEM. There is not one play to play it, nor can you play it WRONG. It HAS to be generic.
This is all I was saying - it's not generic, there are things it can't do. We appear to be on more or less the same page now, except for a willingness to put some of the blame for D&D not fitting groups on how it was designed and not the groups.

[Milo v3]

So, your goals, ambitions and dreams haven't changed since you were younger?
No actually, but that's rather anecdotal and I will not assume that my experience in that area is normal. My issue isn't that people change, it's that the expected change is into someone that is opposite in concept. Most people don't become the opposite of themselves. It fits for some people, some people do change drastically, but it's odd for such a drastic change to be expected as the default.


Saying "If you're going to ignore integral parts of the system you really can't claim that it's the system that's broken." is entirely different than saying "you really can't claim it's the system that's broken". You can't take half a sentence and then claim someone is saying something they are not. The later is stating your argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It is not a dictum stating "You are not allowed to say the system is broken!"
My issue wasn't tone, my issue is people acting like the person they are responding to are claiming it's broken when they aren't saying that.


That being said, this isn't a thread about which version of D&D is the best.
Yes? I wasn't trying to suggest that one version of D&D was better, I'll try and word my posts better if that is how it came across. Though I'm not sure how you got the impression that was what I was talking about.


This is a thread that was started with the question "Why do almost all editions of D&D fall apart around 10th level?" And the answer that questions is impossible to render because it's based on the false premise that "almost all editions of D&D fall apart around 10th level".
I agree.


You are free to make any claim you want, but others are also free to criticize those claims and to dispute them with claims of their own.
Yep.


I understand, very well, how players that never played any of the pre-3rd edition versions would find the concepts some of us have presented as weird, outlandish, or just distasteful.
Which is why I asked for further information, since my perspective is innately limited but not having used the rules being discussed at the time. Though, I'm actually pretty open to pre-3.0 gaming, first RPG's I played were pre-3.0 ones (just was cyberpunk, warhammer fantasy roleplay, and call of cthulhu rather than D&D).


Beyond all that is the fact that many players have played each of the editions to high levels and not all of them think the systems break down at higher levels. Logically, since there are groups that succesfully run games at high levels, in each version of D&D, the systems themselves do not "fall apart around 10th level", but they apparently do become unpalatable for some groups, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Yep.


I have been in several groups that hhhhaaaaaaattttteeeeeeee 1st level. Does this mean the system "falls apart" around 1st level because my group doesn't like playing it "as intended" where you start at first level, or does it simply mean it doesn't work for my group? Not working for each and every group, in each and every situation, and each and every level, does not mean the system is flawed or "falls apart".
Yep.


It's no different with the "wandering vagabond" (which still hasn't been defined...) Just because there is one or more concepts which are a stretch and don't seem to fit well does not mean the game is broken. Can you start playing baseball in the middle of a football game and claim there's something wrong with football because it doesn't support people wanting to play baseball? How about if you decided to start a rugby scrum on the 9th hole of a golf course? Is golf or the golf course flawed, or falling apart, because this isn't supported?
This I disagree with, since I feel that "wandering hero" (I wasn't the one who said vagabond so I wont discuss it, though feel free to dismiss this response as you are replying to the vagabond one) archetype is one of the most common in D&D including early D&D from what everyone has told me who played it (not saying all characters were obviously, some stayed in a single city, some were part of an army, etc.) but heroes who travel from place to place adventuring is sort of seen as the standard when it comes to D&D characters. It's playing baseball on a baseball field.


In fact, I don't think you'll find a single campaign that would support EVERY concept or idea. Yes, there are generic systems that will support this, but there are few if any CAMPAIGNS that will support widely divergent ideas. D&D is and was a fantasy adventure game where the characters become heroes. Yes, you can stretch it into a game about thieves, intrigue, politics, etc., but that it was never intended to be a universal system where anything was possible.
I agree. I just disagree that "wandering hero" is a character concept that is somehow not fitting for D&D... when I've been told my entire life that is it.

[thirdkingdom]

I agree. I just disagree that "wandering hero" is a character concept that is somehow not fitting for D&D... when I've been told my entire life that is it.

My most common backstory is "he came out of the wastelands with a broadsword and a bad attitude," so I think that the wandering swordsman is totally a D&D archetype. Just remember that Gygax was more heavily influenced by Howard than Tolkien. Conan eventually became a king, after all.


My main issue with your post was the "Now, I've never played anything older than 3e, but let me tell you what I think about it." Come on dude. I don't voice an opinion -- even if I do have one -- about 4th or 5th edition because I've never pl,ayed them before.

[Milo v3]

My main issue with your post was the "Now, I've never played anything older than 3e, but let me tell you what I think about it." Come on dude. I don't voice an opinion -- even if I do have one -- about 4th or 5th edition because I've never pl,ayed them before.
That was not my intent, and I apologise if I worded it poorly. I was specifically intending to be saying "Based on what the person I'm talking to just said, x mechanic sounds like y because of z, so can I get more info on it".

The fact that I haven't played any D&D older than 3e (I have played RPG's older than 3e) doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to comment on pre-3e mechanics, especially when the whole point was to reduce my ignorance on the subject. That's like saying I shouldn't be allowed to ask questions or have an opinion on history that occurred before my birth.

[Cluedrew]

That being said, this isn't a thread about which version of D&D is the best. This is a thread that was started with the question "Why do almost all editions of D&D fall apart around 10th level?" And the answer that questions is impossible to render because it's based on the false premise that "almost all editions of D&D fall apart around 10th level".Consider it a short hand for a question like: "Why, across various editions of D&D, does the highest rate of groups stopping a campaign because they find that the game has become less enjoyable do to their level advancement happen to be around or near level 10?" What would your answer be then?


Not working for each and every group, in each and every situation, and each and every level, does not mean the system is flawed or "falls apart".... It does mean it is flawed, because it has flaws. Perfection is a high standard. And I suppose you could say it does "fall apart" in those cases, although they may be very few. (Going the other way though, it doesn't mean it will always fall apart.)


"wandering vagabond" (which still hasn't been defined...)Well, vagabond basically means "one who wanders" so it basically means one who travels with no destination and few if any ties to a particular location. Hope that clarifies things for you.

[barna10]

So, regarding the "wandering hero" (Wow! Changing one word changes the concept....)

The wandering hero concept works just fine in older editions, at low levels and at high levels.

There are several questions that surround this archetype that need to answered to make the concept work:

Why does the hero wander?

What does he hope to accomplish/ what are his goals?

If the whole concept truly is that he "wanders", what happens to the concept when the hero finds some place he wants to settle down?

With that, there isn't a single character class in pre-3rd D&D that won't work with this concept. Certainly a Ranger is an obvious choice, but others work just as well.

-A barbarian is a natural given the Conan influence. This wouldn't preclude him from summoning his Horde (special ability from Unearthed Arcana that he can use at 8th level +).

-A Paladin could be on a holy crusade to rid the land of evil that would prevent him from settling down. This would work well as the character could still grow in influence and could travel from kingdom to kingdom schmoozing with royalty and high priests. Also he would gather a group of followers that would travel with him.

-A Cleric could be just like the Paladin.

-A Thief could just as easily become the head of a gypsy caravan, a traveling merchant, or even a highwayman that never stopped moving.

-A monk could become the star of a T.V. show called KUNG FU!

-A Druid could travel and garden anywhere

-A Cavalier could travel like the Paladin competing in jousting tournaments and trying to become the best

-A Magic-User or Illusionist only needs to look to Gandalf for inspiration

-A fighter can still wander, even after building his stronghold, or could wait indefinitely to build the stronghold

and at anytime, any of them could choose to settle down, or the home-bound could choose to pick up and adventure again.

There's no proscribed character development path.

There's also no "level cap" like in later editions. You don't simply transition to "epic" status at any time.

For instance, the Magic-User spells-by-level chart in AD&D goes to 29th level. Also, if you don't use Unearthed Arcana (or simply ignore this rule), there's no cap on spell damage...

Granted there is a clear drop-off of additional abilities: fighters stop gaining extra attacks, spellcasters stop gaining spell slots or higher levels of spells, thief abilities max-out, demi-humans max-out their levels, etc. but the amount of XP needed to go up in levels also levels out (ie 16th level costs just as much XP as 15th did).

Basically, after a certain point a character's level becomes more of a symbol than an actual measure of power.


Consider it a short hand for a question like: "Why, across various editions of D&D, does the highest rate of groups stopping a campaign because they find that the game has become less enjoyable do to their level advancement happen to be around or near level 10?" What would your answer be then?
I would say it's a question based on an assumption that is somehow relevant to you. I would say most games fall apart at 6th-7th level, and this has nothing to do with the system. "Most" games fall apart simply because the game goes stale. It really has nothing to do with the power levels, mechanics, or options available in the game. It's that the game started with a certain premise, that premise ran it's course, and the game falls apart.




... It does mean it is flawed, because it has flaws. Perfection is a high standard. And I suppose you could say it does "fall apart" in those cases, although they may be very few. (Going the other way though, it doesn't mean it will always fall apart.)
Never meant to say D&D, or any other system, was perfect. But what's been presented in this thread are not "flaws". They are aspects of the game that people don't like. I don't like Prestige Classes in 3.5, but that doesn't make them "flaw".



Well, vagabond basically means "one who wanders" so it basically means one who travels with no destination and few if any ties to a particular location. Hope that clarifies things for you.

So he's a wandering wanderer?

[Grac]

How was it a natural progression, it sounds really artificial? (Sincere question in case my tone isn't coming across right)
You loot dungeons. Eventually there is too much loot, or too bulky loot to be taken back by the party alone. So you grab a few miles. With pack animals, you also need to make sure they are fed and watered. While you are in the dungeon, you need to make sure the animals aren't nommed or stolen, so you need to have a few guards standing watch over them. This then makes a bigger target for random encounters, so you may also need to start clearing out or otherwise securing swathes of territory. Before you know it, you are growing into the domain game.

[SaurOps]

If the whole concept truly is that he "wanders", what happens to the concept when the hero finds some place he wants to settle down?

That's an if, not a when. Not every sword and sorcery character ends up like Conan, and if Conan had known what he had found out about ruling later on, he might not have done it.



I would say it's a question based on an assumption that is somehow relevant to you. I would say most games fall apart at 6th-7th level, and this has nothing to do with the system. "Most" games fall apart simply because the game goes stale. It really has nothing to do with the power levels, mechanics, or options available in the game. It's that the game started with a certain premise, that premise ran it's course, and the game falls apart.


The system might just be helping it grow stale in that situation.



Never meant to say D&D, or any other system, was perfect. But what's been presented in this thread are not "flaws". They are aspects of the game that people don't like. I don't like Prestige Classes in 3.5, but that doesn't make them "flaw".


I wouldn't be so charitable. PrCs tended to detract from the basic concepts of classes, which, for a class-based character system, is not really a good idea. So, if I'm labeling it, I'd say file it under the "mistake" header and don't replicate it in later design iterations.

[NightDweller]

Because we are human and being a god is beyond our apprehension.

Not really, we have written about many gods throughout history.

[Telok]

Not really, we have written about many gods throughout history.

I've read the Illiad, some of those gods have a severe case of "angry six year-old with a machine gun" going on.

Whether you like it or not, agree with the design principals or not, or think it's good or bad, the original D&D game was set up with a shift towards domain management and escalating scales of character influence starting at around 10th level. Some people don't want to play that and it's fine to like or to not like it.

As the rules have been rewritten and reinvented over the decades some of the focus of the game has changed. People play it differently, expect different things from it, and like or dislike some of the changes. Again, there's no problem with that. It's like people who don't like chocolate, they exist and there's really nothing for me to to do about it. But the way that the D&D rules have changed over the years is influenced by what the rules used. The domain stuff got dropped and the focus shifted to continuous dungeon encounter type adventures. But while the fighter class lost the social/domain class abilities they didn't gain anything and classes like wizards and clerics got power-ups while losing stuff that wasn't central to playing them at high levels any ways.

So the game is played in a new way, and classes still have the abilities that they had before sans the domain stuff but they weren't actually updated to the new play style. What you see in early 3e is essentially legacy classes in a new game dynamic that they weren't designed for. This is where the 3-to-P D&Ds show their level 10ish breakup issue and why E6 works so well. 4e solved the mechanical issue, the classes were rebuilt from the ground up to fit the style that the game was designed to use. We could argue about what went wrong with 4e to cause it to get dropped like it did, but the match of the class design to the game style was solid. My group's 4e game was killed at level 10 by the repetitious nature of the game style, but not by any mechanical mis-match between the style and the classes. I don't think 5e is old enough or well developed enough right now for me to pass judgement on it in any way.

What I think leads to the "D&D falls apart near 10th" perception is that for about the last 20 years the majority of D&D games have been seeing what are essentially high level AD&D characters with feats and customized gear playing either the level 5 dungeon crawl game with bigger numbers, or something more closely resembling Ebberon and the Tippyverse. Doing that highlights the fact that fighters without anything but the ability to hit stuff can't really function smoothly alongside wizards and clerics who are supposed to be capable of flattening armies. The original game worked fine, some people may not have wanted to play it the way it was set up to work, but it did work. Importing older edition classes into a new edition that abandons some of the model the old classes worked in caused problems, and that's the game many people have experience with now.

[thirdkingdom]

For anyone who's seriously interested in seeing how older games handle the transition from rags to rulership you should check out this thread (http://www.autarch.co/forums/actual-play/maze-du-ch%C3%A2tel) on the Autarch forums. It's a somewhat long read, in three parts, starting out at first level when the characters are exploring dungeons, but goes all the way through the mid-levels (when they're clearing and claiming land) and the high levels, when the respective characters reach name level and start becoming rulers in their own respective rights.

It's a great example of play as was intended by Gygax et al., goes into good mechanical detail about handling rulership (not only actual domain rulership, but also heading a church or thief's guild), henchmen trees and how levels higher than 10th work in practice (note that the particular game in question caps at 14th level).

~~~~~~~~~

I was thinking about an earlier comment about how it seemed artificial to change a character concept through play and I think one of the differences between, say 2e and older and 3e and more recent games is that in newer games, especially in 3e and 4e (I'm not terribly experienced in these games, but this is my understanding), is that in order to be an effective character you kind of have to plan out your character's future in advance. If you don't you could pick Feats or class dips at a low level that are sub-optimal at a higher level.

So, I *think* that one of the disconnects occurring is that when people playing newer games refer to a "character concept" they're talking about the mechanical path they've plotted for their character going forward in time. In older games that lack things like Feats or prestige classes, or don't allow easy multi-classing, you don't really have these traps. In addition, there is often little control over things like spell or magic item selection. So, the future concept of a character is often vague and undefined, which makes it much easier to change the "character concept".

[Cluedrew]

I would say most games fall apart at 6th-7th level, and this has nothing to do with the system. "Most" games fall apart simply because the game goes stale. It really has nothing to do with the power levels, mechanics, or options available in the game. It's that the game started with a certain premise, that premise ran it's course, and the game falls apart.Timing could very well be the reason. I think there might be something to the shift in premise, but I can't say for sure.

And the rest is just about word choice, yes "wandering vagabond" was really for emphasis and to get the connotations in.

To thirdkingdom: That thread sounds interesting, I'll give it a shot if I have time.

[barna10]

So, I *think* that one of the disconnects occurring is that when people playing newer games refer to a "character concept" they're talking about the mechanical path they've plotted for their character going forward in time. In older games that lack things like Feats or prestige classes, or don't allow easy multi-classing, you don't really have these traps. In addition, there is often little control over things like spell or magic item selection. So, the future concept of a character is often vague and undefined, which makes it much easier to change the "character concept".

This makes sense to me.

[kyoryu]

I think one of the definitions of "character concept" basically boils down to "the story I want for my character".

This, to be fair, isn't something that 1e ever really tried to do. It's not a "do everything simulator". It's a pretty good game about people going into dungeons, grabbing as much loot as they can, and hopefully getting out alive. And eventually retiring. It's a great game when played the way that Gygax played at his table - as a drop-in game where the "party" would change every night, and you might have multiple characters you'd choose between playing on a given night depending on who showed up that night.

I don't think it's a great game for the "one true party" style of play popularized with DragonLance, and which is now the standard. So by that measure, old-school D&D is broken - but in the same way that a hammer is "broken" if you try to use it as a screwdriver.

[thirdkingdom]

I think one of the definitions of "character concept" basically boils down to "the story I want for my character".

This, to be fair, isn't something that 1e ever really tried to do. It's not a "do everything simulator". It's a pretty good game about people going into dungeons, grabbing as much loot as they can, and hopefully getting out alive. And eventually retiring. It's a great game when played the way that Gygax played at his table - as a drop-in game where the "party" would change every night, and you might have multiple characters you'd choose between playing on a given night depending on who showed up that night.

I don't think it's a great game for the "one true party" style of play popularized with DragonLance, and which is now the standard. So by that measure, old-school D&D is broken - but in the same way that a hammer is "broken" if you try to use it as a screwdriver.

Interestingly, Michael Mornard, one of the original players in Gygax's game, is fond of saying that "the story is what emerges through play, not what you plan in advance."

[kyoryu]

Interestingly, Michael Mornard, one of the original players in Gygax's game, is fond of saying that "the story is what emerges through play, not what you plan in advance."

And I think Arneson said that "backstory is first through third level."

But a typical game at Gygax's table (per Mornard's tales, and I've seen similar in an old-school game I was able to be part of) is that you start above the dungeon, gather your party, go into the dungeon, and then end the session by coming out of the dungeon.

It's a very different style of play than most people are used to. There's no BBEG, no great quest, no single party. And this is the style of play that D&D evolved around. And a lot of rules make sense in this light (the insistence on keeping track of time, association restrictions, etc.) that are utterly broken or just nonsensical in the now-normal style of play.

Hammers and screwdrivers.

[thirdkingdom]

And I think Arneson said that "backstory is first through third level."

But a typical game at Gygax's table (per Mornard's tales, and I've seen similar in an old-school game I was able to be part of) is that you start above the dungeon, gather your party, go into the dungeon, and then end the session by coming out of the dungeon.

It's a very different style of play than most people are used to. There's no BBEG, no great quest, no single party. And this is the style of play that D&D evolved around. And a lot of rules make sense in this light (the insistence on keeping track of time, association restrictions, etc.) that are utterly broken or just nonsensical in the now-normal style of play.

Hammers and screwdrivers.


Sounds like we're on the same page, then :)

[barna10]

Interestingly, Michael Mornard, one of the original players in Gygax's game, is fond of saying that "the story is what emerges through play, not what you plan in advance."

And I think Arneson said that "backstory is first through third level."

But a typical game at Gygax's table (per Mornard's tales, and I've seen similar in an old-school game I was able to be part of) is that you start above the dungeon, gather your party, go into the dungeon, and then end the session by coming out of the dungeon.

It's a very different style of play than most people are used to. There's no BBEG, no great quest, no single party. And this is the style of play that D&D evolved around. And a lot of rules make sense in this light (the insistence on keeping track of time, association restrictions, etc.) that are utterly broken or just nonsensical in the now-normal style of play.

Hammers and screwdrivers.

Ahhh, the good ol' days. It really used to be a ton of fun and a lot less work.

[kyoryu]

Sounds like we're on the same page, then :)

Yup.

Sadly, "this game is bad at doing this thing I like, but good at doing certain things I don't care about" is way too frequently conflated with "this game is broken".

[CharonsHelper]

?? That's the point, don't care if it's balanced and it takes very little effort to show how unbalanced it was. Doesn't have to be balanced to be fun.

For you. And that's great.

For me, there has to be some semblance of balance for me to enjoy myself. I don't want to be the baggage carrier, and I don't want anyone else to have to be either.

[barna10]

For you. And that's great.

For me, there has to be some semblance of balance for me to enjoy myself. I don't want to be the baggage carrier, and I don't want anyone else to have to be either.

That's the beauty of RPGs: no one's a "baggage carrier" unless they choose to be. However, if they choose to be, its their own fault, not the system's.

If your desire is truly for everything to be "balanced", you risk losing variety. Also, the quest for "balance" invariably becomes the quest for complexity.

Take GURPS, for instance. EVERY character in GURPS is said to be equal to every other character of equal points, but are they really "balanced"? If one player puts all of his or her points into an energy blast power and another puts all points into allies, are they "balanced" or simply equal in points?

Often the quest for "balance" is centered around being equals in combat. What is just as often lost is that combat is only one aspect of any RPG. The only true "balance" attainable is when each player is afforded equal opportunity to play whatever character they want (within the limits of what makes sense for the game). Then, if one chooses to play a halfling rogue that only takes bluff-buff feats and another chooses to play a half-fiend barbarian with rage-obsession, neither has grounds to complain about "balance" during combat or social situations.

[CharonsHelper]

That's the beauty of RPGs: no one's a "baggage carrier" unless they choose to be. However, if they choose to be, its their own fault, not the system's.

I disagree entirely with your premise.


If your desire is truly for everything to be "balanced", you risk losing variety. Also, the quest for "balance" invariably becomes the quest for complexity.

Take GURPS, for instance. EVERY character in GURPS is said to be equal to every other character of equal points, but are they really "balanced"? If one player puts all of his or her points into an energy blast power and another puts all points into allies, are they "balanced" or simply equal in points?

Often the quest for "balance" is centered around being equals in combat. What is just as often lost is that combat is only one aspect of any RPG. The only true "balance" attainable is when each player is afforded equal opportunity to play whatever character they want (within the limits of what makes sense for the game). Then, if one chooses to play a halfling rogue that only takes bluff-buff feats and another chooses to play a half-fiend barbarian with rage-obsession, neither has grounds to complain about "balance" during combat or social situations.

That's sort of a straw-man, and not what I was referencing earlier at all.

If there is a wizard in the group with both the halfling rogue and the half-fiend barbarian and the wizard really knows what he's doing at high levels, he can do more than either of them in both combat and social situations. The two of them likely have a decent asymmetrical balance (which I'm all for) but both are sub-par to the wizard.

Hence a lack of balance.

I don't want equality in every situation. I want a general overall balance on the characters' effect upon the game. I don't think that most people have an issue if some characters are better in some situations. It's that the systems are set up so that at high levels, casters are better in EVERY situation.

[Milo v3]

That's the beauty of RPGs: no one's a "baggage carrier" unless they choose to be. However, if they choose to be, its their own fault, not the system's.
So when you reach high enough levels that there is literally no reason for you to remain in the group because you're just a waste of resources because you didn't pick a casting class at level 1, that's your fault, not the games?

[Cluedrew]

What is just as often lost is that combat is only one aspect of any RPG.While you are not wrong, your argument would be stronger if we were discussing pretty much any role-playing system that is not Dungeons and Dragons.

To CharonsHelper: Another even softer form of balance I have heard used that I would like to through out there is "the ability to meaningfully contribute." To the party, to the plot, whatever. Even if you are never "number one" you should never ask yourself why am I here. Having played some really "unbalanced" games, that may be enough.

To Milo v3: I think the answer is: In the good old days, that wasn't an issue.

[barna10]

I disagree entirely with your premise.

That's sort of a straw-man, and not what I was referencing earlier at all.

If there is a wizard in the group with both the halfling rogue and the half-fiend barbarian and the wizard really knows what he's doing at high levels, he can do more than either of them in both combat and social situations. The two of them likely have a decent asymmetrical balance (which I'm all for) but both are sub-par to the wizard.

Hence a lack of balance.

I don't want equality in every situation. I want a general overall balance on the characters' effect upon the game. I don't think that most people have an issue if some characters are better in some situations. It's that the systems are set up so that at high levels, casters are better in EVERY situation.

Strawman...love when people throw that around incorrectly...not even close to a strawman....what exactly was the strawman that I stood up to take your attention off of balance?

OK,rant over...

Yes, I've heard this before, the whole "tier" argument from 3rd+. It's a load of horse droppings. It's the argument that no one would ever want to play, or could have fun playing Jimmy Olson because he can't do what Superman can do. Therefore no one should be allowed to play Superman unless everyone is playing a Superman so the Jimmy Olson player doesn't have to feel inferior. Sorry, not buying it. If you want to play Superman, play Superman. If you want to play Jimmy, play Jimmy. Everyone has fun playing the character they want to play. If you feel the need to be the most effective character in the group, then play a Wizard. If you don't need the spotlight in every situation, play something else.


So when you reach high enough levels that there is literally no reason for you to remain in the group because you're just a waste of resources because you didn't pick a casting class at level 1, that's your fault, not the games?

Yes, absolutely no reason besides you having fun playing your character. I know that seems like an awful reason to play a game. I must be the ONLY player in this thread that ever played a thief and stole crap while everyone else was fighting...


While you are not wrong, your argument would be stronger if we were discussing pretty much any role-playing system that is not Dungeons and Dragons.

The system has nothing to do with it. It has 100% to do with the group playing the game. If your group wants to turn every campaign into a string of tactical simulations, any situation in any system is going to play out exactly the same. If your group is a RP-heavy group, the system becomes less of a factor.

[Milo v3]

Yes, absolutely no reason besides you having fun playing your character. I know that seems like an awful reason to play a game. I must be the ONLY player in this thread that ever played a thief and stole crap while everyone else was fighting...
I've played that, but that character wasn't literally a waste, and even then most groups would end up kicking that thief out of the group because that's the non-idiotic thing to do. But that's not what I'm talking about. After a certain level in some versions of D&D, a fighter and rogue should probably be stopped from going adventuring because they are just using up supplies that could be better spent and not giving anything.

How do you have fun when it gets the point of "I am just an escort mission for the rest of the group, dead weight who is just slowing everyone else down"? when "useless dead weight" wasn't what you wanted out of the character? How is the character even justifying staying in the group rather than retiring? At a certain stage it becomes something like "Military special forces (the wizard) is fighting against an evil threat and must keep his three year old toddler (non-casters) from getting murdered over and over again"... most people playing non-casters in my experience aren't doing it to play wastes of space.

It's not the players fault that if they don't end up having fun playing their character, when their character becomes a detriment to the party just because of the system.

[CharonsHelper]

Strawman...love when people throw that around incorrectly...not even close to a strawman....what exactly was the strawman that I stood up to take your attention off of balance?

OK,rant over...


I was talking about caster vs martial balance and your argument to prove that caster vs martial is a non-issue was barbarian vs rogue - which I never said was an issue. That's a staw-man.

[Cluedrew]

Strawman...love when people throw that around incorrectly...not even close to a strawman....what exactly was the strawman that I stood up to take your attention off of balance?I think strawman is the one where you attack a position your opponent does not hold. So deliberately misrepresenting your opponents argument is a strawman but to a lesser extent so is misunderstanding it.


Yes, I've heard this before, the whole "tier" argument from 3rd+.I believe the argument is officially "Angel Summoner & BMX Bandit"... or something like that. I have no idea where those names came from by the way. As for if it is valid or not... I think that type of power imbalance likely has the potential to cause problems, but I don't believe it would make a game unplayable.


Yes, absolutely no reason besides you having fun playing your character. I know that seems like an awful reason to play a game. I must be the ONLY player in this thread that ever played a thief and stole crap while everyone else was fighting...I've played a artificer and made spend rounds of combat modifying weapons. Does that count?
The system has nothing to do with it. It has 100% to do with the group playing the game. If your group wants to turn every campaign into a string of tactical simulations, any situation in any system is going to play out exactly the same. If your group is a RP-heavy group, the system becomes less of a factor.I agree that group is important, but saying that system plays no role what so ever... I'm going to disagree with you there.

I mean... I don't know what systems you have experience in so I am going to have to stay a bit theoretical. There is a theory of game design that goes something like this "The time spent in a game is proportional to the amount of rules for it." Now, groups can change those proportions some what but the base numbers are still set. And even if you only get into a "brief" combat in D&D 3.X/4e (which seem to be the slowest) you might be looking at a half hour for something that only took about 20 seconds in world.

Mean while your stage play took a Preform role and however much narration. If you are not in it for combat and want to tell the story of the traveling performers, you are wasting your time with D&D.

[Milo v3]

I believe the argument is officially "Angel Summoner & BMX Bandit"... or something like that. I have no idea where those names came from by the way.
It's from this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw).

edit:

Yes, I've heard this before, the whole "tier" argument from 3rd+. It's a load of horse droppings. It's the argument that no one would ever want to play, or could have fun playing Jimmy Olson because he can't do what Superman can do. Therefore no one should be allowed to play Superman unless everyone is playing a Superman so the Jimmy Olson player doesn't have to feel inferior. Sorry, not buying it. If you want to play Superman, play Superman. If you want to play Jimmy, play Jimmy. Everyone has fun playing the character they want to play. If you feel the need to be the most effective character in the group, then play a Wizard. If you don't need the spotlight in every situation, play something else.
Wow... that's a pretty severe misunderstanding of what tiers are.... It literally does the opposite of what you said.

It's not saying "You shouldn't play x because it's weak" it's saying "x class has a really wide scope and can cover tonnes of roles regardless of optimization skill and can take up the spotlight alot, and y class has a wide enough scope to cover a lot of situations but isn't amazing at all of them so everyone can get a chance in the spotlight, and z class is a really narrow scope and will only cover one type of situation".

It makes no judgement on what you should play, it just helps make informed choices so that you can see "I want to play a Jimmy Olson character so I'll play truenamer or healer", rather than picking wizard because you thought he'd be a weak-waif who needs his warrior friends to protect him but he accidentally became superman.

[kyoryu]

It's also worth noting that balance is quite different in old versions (hey, if you play by AD&D rules, you have to roll to see if you can learn a spell you find!) vs. 3rd. Interrupt rules, etc., all add up to make a pretty different game.

Also, in old-school games, being the wizard one week might mean you're the fighter the next week. And taking out that wizard, with the actual lethality of the game, meant that you were risking the death of the wizard. As opposed to the presumption in most games that death won't happen or be permanent.

There's balance factors in 1e that don't exist in 3rd. You can't say "balance is cool!" because of 1st and presume that the same is true in 3rd.

[barna10]

Wow... that's a pretty severe misunderstanding of what tiers are.... It literally does the opposite of what you said.

It's not saying "You shouldn't play x because it's weak" it's saying "x class has a really wide scope and can cover tonnes of roles regardless of optimization skill and can take up the spotlight alot, and y class has a wide enough scope to cover a lot of situations but isn't amazing at all of them so everyone can get a chance in the spotlight, and z class is a really narrow scope and will only cover one type of situation".

It makes no judgement on what you should play, it just helps make informed choices so that you can see "I want to play a Jimmy Olson character so I'll play truenamer or healer", rather than picking wizard because you thought he'd be a weak-waif who needs his warrior friends to protect him but he accidentally became superman.

Wow, that's a pretty severe misread of what I wrote. The tier system is ABSOLUTELY saying you shouldn't play Tier 1s with Tier 5s. the recommendation is to have all characters no more than a tier or two apart. So, if one wants to play a wizard (tier 1) and another wants to play a stable boy(tier 10+), the modern DM is supposed to say "No, the game simply won't be fun because these two are too far apart in the tier system".



I've played that, but that character wasn't literally a waste, and even then most groups would end up kicking that thief out of the group because that's the non-idiotic thing to do. But that's not what I'm talking about. After a certain level in some versions of D&D, a fighter and rogue should probably be stopped from going adventuring because they are just using up supplies that could be better spent and not giving anything.

How do you have fun when it gets the point of "I am just an escort mission for the rest of the group, dead weight who is just slowing everyone else down"? when "useless dead weight" wasn't what you wanted out of the character? How is the character even justifying staying in the group rather than retiring? At a certain stage it becomes something like "Military special forces (the wizard) is fighting against an evil threat and must keep his three year old toddler (non-casters) from getting murdered over and over again"... most people playing non-casters in my experience aren't doing it to play wastes of space.

It's not the players fault that if they don't end up having fun playing their character, when their character becomes a detriment to the party just because of the system.

Wow, is this seriously what younger gamers are doing these days? Doesn't anyone care about the story? About playing in-character? About doing more than simply trying to have an un-plugged version of W.O.W.? I believe this passage highlights the disconnect we are having, and if it describes the kind of game you find entertaining, we will never see eye-to-eye.

I see now there's absolutely no hope in continuing this conversation because we're not even speaking a common language.

One interesting thing to me is the D&D you describe seems to have come full-circle. We've shared a great deal of talk about the original "intent" of the game, one that has it's origins in war games, games were all you did was moved miniatures around a battle field and rolled some dice. They created D&D because they wanted more. They wanted to tell a story not simply have combats. The game you describe sounds more like what came before D&D than what came after. I'm simply not interested in that.

[CharonsHelper]

Wow, that's a pretty severe misread of what I wrote. The tier system is ABSOLUTELY saying you shouldn't play Tier 1s with Tier 5s. the recommendation is to have all characters no more than a tier or two apart. So, if one wants to play a wizard (tier 1) and another wants to play a stable boy(tier 10+), the modern DM is supposed to say "No, the game simply won't be fun because these two are too far apart in the tier system".

No. No it isn't. You obviously don't understand what it's about at all.


Wow, is this seriously what younger gamers are doing these days? Doesn't anyone care about the story? About playing in-character? About doing more than simply trying to have an un-plugged version of W.O.W.? I believe this passage highlights the disconnect we are having, and if it describes the kind of game you find entertaining, we will never see eye-to-eye.

Well - hello epitome of the Stormwind Fallacy!

[Milo v3]

Wow, that's a pretty severe misread of what I wrote. The tier system is ABSOLUTELY saying you shouldn't play Tier 1s with Tier 5s. the recommendation is to have all characters no more than a tier or two apart. So, if one wants to play a wizard (tier 1) and another wants to play a stable boy(tier 10+), the modern DM is supposed to say "No, the game simply won't be fun because these two are too far apart in the tier system".
No, the DM is meant to tell the players "Okay, stable boy is going to get overshadowed a lot and will be a handicap to the rest of the group, is everyone okay with this?"... also without sufficient understanding of the system the farm boy might accidently end up the strongest of the group resulting in the opposite narrative to the one desired.


Wow, is this seriously what younger gamers are doing these days? Doesn't anyone care about the story?
.... That's very judgemental, rude, and a baseless assumption.... :smallmad:
Nothing I said goes against caring about the story. I just prefer a story that makes sense rather than characters making non-sensical decisions as if their int scores where in the 6's, unless the character's int score is actually 6 or below.

Just because I wont shove an effectively defenseless person into a dungeon full of demons doesn't mean I don't care about the story. I spend far too much work on my settings and narratives for you to claim younger gamers don't care about story based on thinking it's not a good idea to shove a farmer in a blender. Seriously, what the hell...


About playing in-character?
What are you even talking about? I literally have no idea where you're coming from with this....
I was talking about in character. In character past a certain point, you do not send the farmer of the group into the dungeon. Even if he is your brother or your best friend (actually especially if he is your brother or you best friend), because what sort of jerk would send someone super vulnerable into the frontlines against challenges that they cannot cope with. When someone is an escort mission, it can make sense to keep them around for a while, but eventually the characters are going to realize that they are holding everyone back. There is a reason the military don't send the soldier's 14 year old along for the combat missions.


About doing more than simply trying to have an un-plugged version of W.O.W.?
Again... What?


I believe this passage highlights the disconnect we are having, and if it describes the kind of game you find entertaining, we will never see eye-to-eye.
It's not the type of game I find entertaining... I'm specifically saying it's a problem with the system. It's a mentality I dislike :smallsigh:


The game you describe sounds more like what came before D&D than what came after. I'm simply not interested in that.
You literally have no idea how I play D&D... I have had multi-year long campaigns that were just roleplaying without a single combat for godsake. Just because I have roleplay characters act in accordance to the level of intelligence doesn't somehow mean my games are just murderhobo stab & loots...

[137beth]

And I think Arneson said that "backstory is first through third level."

But a typical game at Gygax's table (per Mornard's tales, and I've seen similar in an old-school game I was able to be part of) is that you start above the dungeon, gather your party, go into the dungeon, and then end the session by coming out of the dungeon.

It's a very different style of play than most people are used to. There's no BBEG, no great quest, no single party. And this is the style of play that D&D evolved around. And a lot of rules make sense in this light (the insistence on keeping track of time, association restrictions, etc.) that are utterly broken or just nonsensical in the now-normal style of play.

Hammers and screwdrivers.
I think this pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject. Every iteration of D&D that I have seen revolves around combat. That's what the designers were and are focused on, and that's what the system is set up to handle. Try comparing the combat rules to the skill system in 5e, for example. One of them is thorough and detailed, the other is an afterthought.
If you want to run a game in which combat is the focus and skills are an afterthought, D&D can help. There are other systems for other things.


Wow, is this seriously what younger gamers are doing these days? Doesn't anyone care about the story? About playing in-character? About doing more than simply trying to have an un-plugged version of W.O.W.? I believe this passage highlights the disconnect we are having, and if it describes the kind of game you find entertaining, we will never see eye-to-eye.
Yea, back in my day, we had incredible detailed and rich stories that would all be worthy of Pulitzer prizes. Like Tomb of Horrors, or Keep on the Borderland. Nothing can compare with the deep characterization and themes of those amazing stories.
And while I haven't actually played it, a quick read through the relevant Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warcraft) suggests that World of Warcraft does, in fact, have a plot. And it has a far more intricate and detailed plot than the published D&D adventures when you were a kid had.

[Cluedrew]

On Tiers: Does anyone have a link to the tiers thread? Or is at least better at finding old threads then me? I feel we answer some questions just by going and reading it.


Wow, is this seriously what younger gamers are doing these days? Doesn't anyone care about the story? About playing in-character? About doing more than simply trying to have an un-plugged version of W.O.W.? I believe this passage highlights the disconnect we are having, and if it describes the kind of game you find entertaining, we will never see eye-to-eye.First off, I think this passage describes the type of game s/he doesn't enjoy, this is the problem "younger gamers these days" are trying to avoid, not embrace. We may not be as different as you think.

In reference to your 4 zen moments: my group we only strongly hits "forget game balance". In my last game I played a character that would have been capable of murdering the entire rest of the party if we went 4v1. And if they didn't bring along there hirelings I probably could have done it without taking damage. Of course narratively, I was one of the hirelings.

For rulings, not rules: Sometimes, but games tend to define general situation rules more often that you can apply easily so you don't have to go with your gut as often. Heroic, not Superhero is only a question because sometimes we don't even hit heroic levels of strength. We care not for player skill; at least not in the sense given.

Second, my knowledge of any system of D&D is far from perfect, but describing any of them as "about the story" (if you use role-playing games as a whole are your reference) is rather... odd. Sure you can use any of them to tell a story, but you do that by going over and above the system, not through it. D&D has almost no mechanics to support characterisation (one I can think of: class as character archetype) and quite a few about combat. Compare with FATE, which has character traits as the central part of your character sheet and has mechanics for plot control. Whether you like those are not is up to you, but the system certainly puts more focus on those parts of the game.

[kyoryu]

I think this pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject. Every iteration of D&D that I have seen revolves around combat. That's what the designers were and are focused on, and that's what the system is set up to handle. Try comparing the combat rules to the skill system in 5e, for example. One of them is thorough and detailed, the other is an afterthought.
If you want to run a game in which combat is the focus and skills are an afterthought, D&D can help. There are other systems for other things.

I'd actually argue that earlier editions (pre-2e) focused more on exploration than combat.

But, yeah.

[thirdkingdom]

I'd actually argue that earlier editions (pre-2e) focused more on exploration than combat.

But, yeah.

Yeah, the goal with earlier editions was to *avoid* combat when possible.

[137beth]

I'd actually argue that earlier editions (pre-2e) focused more on exploration than combat.

But, yeah.


Yeah, the goal with earlier editions was to *avoid* combat when possible.

Fair enough. I haven't played 2e, but in 1e there is certainly a lot about exploration. I still think combat is a bigger focus, just because of how much of the rulebooks are spent on their convoluted and intricate combat rules, but I can see the case for exploration being a bigger focus.

[MeeposFire]

I think there are more rules for combat but I think most people that play the game find they need more rules for that. Exploration in AD&D has more emphasis but it is not due to direct mechanics and more to do with rules that do not directly relate. For instance the XP rules for getting treasure give you an incentive to gain levels without fighting. That does not give you a direct rule for exploring but it does give you an incentive to not always fight.

[thirdkingdom]

Fair enough. I haven't played 2e, but in 1e there is certainly a lot about exploration. I still think combat is a bigger focus, just because of how much of the rulebooks are spent on their convoluted and intricate combat rules, but I can see the case for exploration being a bigger focus.

I'm actually not very familiar with 2e, so I can't speak to it, but I do know that in 0e, 1e and the Basic lines there is an implicit understanding that adventurers want to avoid combat whenever possible. The vast majority of XP is granted from finding and retrieving treasure, combat is deadly and swingy enough that fights are better off avoided when possible, and even the use of the reaction roll ensures that combat will occur only a fraction of times.

Let's look at magic-users in, say, B/X. A 9th level magic-user with no Constitution bonus will have, on average, 23 hit points. At, say, 14th level, the same magic-user will have 28 hit points, since after 9th level magic-users only gain 1 hp/level. Character death, even for high level characters, is much more a reality than in previous editions.

[Knaight]

That's the beauty of RPGs: no one's a "baggage carrier" unless they choose to be. However, if they choose to be, its their own fault, not the system's.

If your desire is truly for everything to be "balanced", you risk losing variety. Also, the quest for "balance" invariably becomes the quest for complexity.
Nonsense. Balance is more than one thing, and what matters varies by system - a huge variation in combat power matters a lot in a game hyper focused on combat and is totally irrelevant in something like Smallville which is fundamentally about characters navigating interpersonal relationships with members of their society who are generally not mortal enemies. The closest to a general model is spotlight balance, which has to do with the distribution of attention between the PCs and the level of impact they have on the things that matter for the setting. If that's exploring and killing things, you get a more D&D like balance. If it's interpersonal relationships you get a Smallville balance. If it's instigating a catastrophic chain of errors for comedic effect, you get Fiasco balance.

A well designed system should be made to encourage characters that fit within the specific spotlight balance. D&D as a hyper focused combat adventurer game has a set of character classes for combatant adventurers. There's a reason there's no merchant class in there (and that does detract from the genericness of the system, but that's a different argument), and there's definitely a reason there's no classes focused on staying put and living a mundane life. Having that class would be a trap option in the system where the system is absolutely at fault for creating the illusion of a meaningful option where none existed. In Smallville there's a reason that part of the character creation system is the establishment of a relationship web with various NPCs, other PCs, etc. and that there isn't a bunch of advice on how to create asocial loners who have no community ties. Asocial loners with no communities ties are going to be left behind by the system, and that's not the fault of the system. Fiasco similarly establishes a web (albeit a much smaller one), while also loading the PCs down with weaknesses and vulnerabilities that can go horribly awry. It's a black comedy game about things going horribly wrong, and while it can handle normal people fine high functioning people who aren't unreasonably unlucky get left behind.

As for the quest for complexity, that's even further off. Even early D&D is among the more complex games out there, and 3e is way up in the ranks of complexity. Making games more complex tends to make them harder and harder to balance, and there are plenty of very well balanced non-D&D games that are also simpler than D&D (more than a few also support a wider variety of characters, if not a wider variety of builds. Those of us playing them tend to care a lot more about the former than the latter, so it works out).


Yes, I've heard this before, the whole "tier" argument from 3rd+. It's a load of horse droppings. It's the argument that no one would ever want to play, or could have fun playing Jimmy Olson because he can't do what Superman can do. Therefore no one should be allowed to play Superman unless everyone is playing a Superman so the Jimmy Olson player doesn't have to feel inferior. Sorry, not buying it. If you want to play Superman, play Superman. If you want to play Jimmy, play Jimmy. Everyone has fun playing the character they want to play. If you feel the need to be the most effective character in the group, then play a Wizard. If you don't need the spotlight in every situation, play something else.
No. It's the argument that in a combat heavy game where the focus is on how characters get past obstacles Superman and Jimmy Olson don't fit together well. That's usually not overly stated, both because it's an underlying system assumption and because most D&D players have only played D&D and thus are not in a good position to see underlying assumptions*, but it's there. It also doesn't argue that everyone needs to be equivalent, just that the total range needs to be restricted. Superman can work with Batman just fine. Batman can work with The Shoveler just fine. Superman and The Shoveler is a system induced problem waiting to happen, but only because of what the focus of the game causes balance to be. Again, Smallville is totally fine with Superman going alongside Jimmy Olsen. I'm pretty sure they're both example characters even, and if Olsen isn't then you can just pick any number of non supers who are instead.

*Much the same way that one tends not to notice their own accent.

[CharonsHelper]

*Much the same way that one tends not to notice their own accent.

I don't have an accent. Everyone else does!

(Actually - since I know that I have an accent, but being from the midwest I practically don't since we're the most easily understood by everyone else - hence all actors/reporters being taught to speak like us. I know someone from Texas who says we all sound like news casters.)

[thirdkingdom]

Nonsense. Balance is more than one thing, and what matters varies by system - a huge variation in combat power matters a lot in a game hyper focused on combat and is totally irrelevant in something like Smallville which is fundamentally about characters navigating interpersonal relationships with members of their society who are generally not mortal enemies. The closest to a general model is spotlight balance, which has to do with the distribution of attention between the PCs and the level of impact they have on the things that matter for the setting. If that's exploring and killing things, you get a more D&D like balance. If it's interpersonal relationships you get a Smallville balance. If it's instigating a catastrophic chain of errors for comedic effect, you get Fiasco balance.

A well designed system should be made to encourage characters that fit within the specific spotlight balance. D&D as a hyper focused combat adventurer game has a set of character classes for combatant adventurers. There's a reason there's no merchant class in there (and that does detract from the genericness of the system, but that's a different argument), and there's definitely a reason there's no classes focused on staying put and living a mundane life. Having that class would be a trap option in the system where the system is absolutely at fault for creating the illusion of a meaningful option where none existed. In Smallville there's a reason that part of the character creation system is the establishment of a relationship web with various NPCs, other PCs, etc. and that there isn't a bunch of advice on how to create asocial loners who have no community ties. Asocial loners with no communities ties are going to be left behind by the system, and that's not the fault of the system. Fiasco similarly establishes a web (albeit a much smaller one), while also loading the PCs down with weaknesses and vulnerabilities that can go horribly awry. It's a black comedy game about things going horribly wrong, and while it can handle normal people fine high functioning people who aren't unreasonably unlucky get left behind.

As for the quest for complexity, that's even further off. Even early D&D is among the more complex games out there, and 3e is way up in the ranks of complexity. Making games more complex tends to make them harder and harder to balance, and there are plenty of very well balanced non-D&D games that are also simpler than D&D (more than a few also support a wider variety of characters, if not a wider variety of builds. Those of us playing them tend to care a lot more about the former than the latter, so it works out).


No. It's the argument that in a combat heavy game where the focus is on how characters get past obstacles Superman and Jimmy Olson don't fit together well. That's usually not overly stated, both because it's an underlying system assumption and because most D&D players have only played D&D and thus are not in a good position to see underlying assumptions*, but it's there. It also doesn't argue that everyone needs to be equivalent, just that the total range needs to be restricted. Superman can work with Batman just fine. Batman can work with The Shoveler just fine. Superman and The Shoveler is a system induced problem waiting to happen, but only because of what the focus of the game causes balance to be. Again, Smallville is totally fine with Superman going alongside Jimmy Olsen. I'm pretty sure they're both example characters even, and if Olsen isn't then you can just pick any number of non supers who are instead.

*Much the same way that one tends not to notice their own accent.

I'd argue this point somewhat. 1e is certainly complicated (I'm looking at you, segments, weapon speed, psionics, and unarmed combat!) but OD&D shares a kinship that is closer to B/X than 1e. OD&D certainly wasn't complex, but it was poorly written. Or rather, it was written with the assumption that the reader would already be familiar with wargame -- specifically Chainmail -- mechanics.

Otherwise I agree with you that its important to judge balance on what the system is trying to accomplish.

[MeeposFire]

I don't have an accent. Everyone else does!

(Actually - since I know that I have an accent, but being from the midwest I practically don't since we're the most easily understood by everyone else - hence all actors/reporters being taught to speak like us. I know someone from Texas who says we all sound like news casters.)

Lol the big joke about that is that the midwest does have an accent and in fact it is getting farther and farther from that broadcast standard that was chosen in the early part of the 20th century.

I live currently outside of Cleveland where that "broadcast" standard English was codified by a professor at a local university (he chose it by how they spoke in his local area). Nearly everybody around here claims they do not have an accent but it is not actually true and when they get asked about their accent they often get upset with the idea that they have an accent at all.

Now the accent does change depending on where exactly you live but long story short there has been a change in English being spoken from Rochester west to past Chicago I believe (some sort of vowel shift) and ironically the part of the country that thinks has no accent actually has one and is getting thicker by the year.

[CharonsHelper]

Now the accent does change depending on where exactly you live but long story short there has been a change in English being spoken from Rochester west to past Chicago I believe (some sort of vowel shift) and ironically the part of the country that thinks has no accent actually has one and is getting thicker by the year.

Really? I was under the impression that most of the world's English accents were lessening due to globalization & TV/radio. *shrug* I'm certainly no expert. (And yes - I know that we Ohioans have an accent [though I'm Columbus] it was just a joke.)

[MeeposFire]

Really? I was under the impression that most of the world's English accents were lessening due to globalization & TV/radio. *shrug* I'm certainly no expert. (And yes - I know that we Ohioans have an accent [though I'm Columbus] it was just a joke.)

To an extent that is true. However there are subtle things that you may not notice when you are around others like you but then you leave and people start to notice.

There was an interesting story based off of an Ohio University student here is the article if you are interested.

http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/the-origins-and-evolution-of-the-cleveland-accent-yes-you-have-an-accent-cleveland/Content?oid=4949852

[2D8HP]

So when you reach high enough levels that there is literally no reason for you to remain in the group because you're just a waste of resources because you didn't pick a casting class at level 1, that's your fault, not the games?I've never played 2e to 4e so I can't speak on them, but when I played "Oe" and "1e" Magic User PC's were almost only encountered at conventions where you started at higher levels, but at "home" games even when you rolled a high Intelligence, Magic User PC's were very rare, because with just one spell a game day, and low HP, it just wasn't that much fun to play a MU at first level.

[Morty]

The argument about how "balance means losing variety" would ring a bit less hollow if more editions of D&D had any actual variety in character creation without using magic.

[Milo v3]

I've never played 2e to 4e so I can't speak on them, but when I played "Oe" and "1e" Magic User PC's were almost only encountered at conventions where you started at higher levels, but at "home" games even when you rolled a high Intelligence, Magic User PC's were very rare, because with just one spell a game day, and low HP, it just wasn't that much fun to play a MU at first level.

It's primarily a 3e problem (it sort of exists in 5e but it's a much much smaller issue because of how they reduced how powerful casters can get and bounded accuracy means it's harder for them to auto-win things, and the skill system allows for rule-zero easier so non-casters can "theoretically" keep up abit better).

[hifidelity2]

Lol the big joke about that is that the midwest does have an accent and in fact it is getting farther and farther from that broadcast standard that was chosen in the early part of the 20th century.

I live currently outside of Cleveland where that "broadcast" standard English was codified by a professor at a local university (he chose it by how they spoke in his local area). Nearly everybody around here claims they do not have an accent but it is not actually true and when they get asked about their accent they often get upset with the idea that they have an accent at all.

Now the accent does change depending on where exactly you live but long story short there has been a change in English being spoken from Rochester west to past Chicago I believe (some sort of vowel shift) and ironically the part of the country that thinks has no accent actually has one and is getting thicker by the year.
Actually I don't have an accent as I am English - you all however do as you are American :smallwink: :smalltongue::smallsmile:

[CharonsHelper]

Actually I don't have an accent as I am English - you all however do as you are American :smallwink: :smalltongue::smallsmile:

Though of note, I believe that high class Southern (southern bell style) is supposed to bethe closest to old-school English.

Starting in the late 18th century England (arguably intentionally) changed their pronunciations, while the wealthy of the south (who spoke essentially the same accent beforehand) didn't.

(The same is true of French. Quebec French is more old-school than France's French. I believe that the argument is because England/France were more urban, and pronunciations change faster in cities. *shrug*)

http://the-toast.net/2014/03/19/a-linguist-explains-british-accents-of-yore/

[Mordar]

Yea, back in my day, we had incredible detailed and rich stories that would all be worthy of Pulitzer prizes. Like Tomb of Horrors, or Keep on the Borderland. Nothing can compare with the deep characterization and themes of those amazing stories.
And while I haven't actually played it, a quick read through the relevant Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warcraft) suggests that World of Warcraft does, in fact, have a plot. And it has a far more intricate and detailed plot than the published D&D adventures when you were a kid had.

Ah, but the interaction and impact on the plot...that's a horse of a different color! The paper-thin plot of Keep or Tomb can (and is) impacted by the players...the rich tapestry of WoW isn't. Not even a little bit. While there are certainly lots of D&D players who ignore the plot of their own game, virtually every group has at least one or two players who are invested in and impacting the plot of that home game. I'd wager there are lots more WoW players (percentage basis, to forestall any semantic argument) completely ignoring or ignorant of the intricate and detailed (and frankly pretty cool) plots of WoW...

- M

[kyoryu]

Ah, but the interaction and impact on the plot...that's a horse of a different color! The paper-thin plot of Keep or Tomb can (and is) impacted by the players...the rich tapestry of WoW isn't. Not even a little bit.

I'd argue that most Organized Play groups edge closer to the WoW-type experience.

[barna10]

This was originally posted by Frank Mentzer on FB and sums-up my thoughts


Sometimes I like a 7-course dinner with everything, a good wine, and a classy item from the dessert cart.

And sometimes I just grab a burger. (With too much cheese, since I'm in Wisconsin.)

In gaming, we all enjoy starting a character and working up. We tend to evaluate game playability and enjoyment based on our characters' functionality in this low range.

So why do I rarely hear about the other side -- starting with a mid- or high-level character and enjoying that part of the game?

The usual excuse in BECMI (my creation of the '80s) is "Level 36? No WAY do I have time to work up to that... I have a life, y'know!" So who said you have to eat the full 7-course meal? Jump to dessert and skip the rest. ;>

I know that BECMI works all the way up. (Well, okay, 'cept for thieves; I plan to do a free fix for that.) There are quite a few great adventures for levels in the teens and twenties.

You oughta try it. Don't tell me you're scared of new turf; you do that all the time in gaming. Yes, you will have a fair amount of resource management to deal with (frex, yes, your L21 cleric has 35 spells, every day). Why does that bug you? As I got older I had LOTS more real-life options and resources to juggle. You did too (or you will). It's not THAT hard, just a reorientation, a different way of looking at the game (or life).

One problem has always been treating mid- or high-level play as low-level on steroids... the same ol' same ol' dungeon/wilderness jaunt, whack bigger monsters, get bigger treasures, go home. ::yawn:: Or sometimes the problem goes the other direction, world-saving every week, like superheroes. ::re-yawn::

Here's the key: These adventures should involve little or no Force. Quite a lot of D&D adventuring (whatever edition) is based on using force to get your way (often the kill-the-monsters meme). Yawn again.

In the realworld, force is the ultimate resolution. But BEFORE that you get socioeconomic conflict, politics, negotiations, and the THREAT of force (either implicitly or overtly) having far more effect than its actual use.

Oh, I see... you're just not good enough a Game Master to create a scenario or setting where roleplaying, interaction, situation analysis, and other non-combat factors are prominent. You and your players just want a simplistic kill-the-bad-guy thing. If that's the case, if you just want comic-style escapism and nothing to really work your brain, then ignore this.

Ignore this unless you want to reach further and reach the great untapped potential of what our role-playing hobby can achieve.

[CharonsHelper]

This was originally posted by Frank Mentzer on FB and sums-up my thoughts

Not only do I mostly disagree, but it was written in an extremely self-congratulatory manner of knowing that if you don't do things his way, it means that you're not a good enough GM. *eye-roll*

Edit: Also - I fail to see the relevance to the topic at hand.

[Knaight]

Not only do I mostly disagree, but it was written in an extremely self-congratulatory manner of knowing that if you don't do things his way, it means that you're not a good enough GM. *eye-roll*

No kidding. That this comes with him implicitly admitting that he apparently doesn't do adventures about the conflicts he deems more valuable until high level is the icing on the cake. I mean, look at this:


In the realworld, force is the ultimate resolution. But BEFORE that you get socioeconomic conflict, politics, negotiations, and the THREAT of force (either implicitly or overtly) having far more effect than its actual use.

Oh, I see... you're just not good enough a Game Master to create a scenario or setting where roleplaying, interaction, situation analysis, and other non-combat factors are prominent. You and your players just want a simplistic kill-the-bad-guy thing. If that's the case, if you just want comic-style escapism and nothing to really work your brain, then ignore this.

Ignore this unless you want to reach further and reach the great untapped potential of what our role-playing hobby can achieve.
This doesn't take characters with huge amounts of personal power, which is what the system gives. All of these things can easily be achieved in a game about normal people, which in D&D would be low level. As for great untapped potential, that potential is tapped all the time. Tapping it is routine, and this arrogant, self congratulatory attitude just doesn't fit such a mundane achievement. It's like someone expounding on their brilliance because they managed to do arithmetic.

[137beth]

Ah, but the interaction and impact on the plot...that's a horse of a different color! The paper-thin plot of Keep or Tomb can (and is) impacted by the players...the rich tapestry of WoW isn't. Not even a little bit. While there are certainly lots of D&D players who ignore the plot of their own game, virtually every group has at least one or two players who are invested in and impacting the plot of that home game. I'd wager there are lots more WoW players (percentage basis, to forestall any semantic argument) completely ignoring or ignorant of the intricate and detailed (and frankly pretty cool) plots of WoW...

- M

Not really accurate on either front.

In the case of ToH and KotBL, the adventures themselves don't provide you with any ideas as to how players can influence the story, and they don't even really acknowledge it as a possibility. It's possible, if you hack at KotBL long enough, and write an enourmous amount of your own material, to create an adventure in which the players can have a meaningful impact on the story, but the published adventure will be pushing back against you every step of the way. If you want a story-rich adventure with lots of player choice, you would have an easier time writing your own adventure from scratch that trying to modify KotBL or ToH, because those published adventures won't help you at all in developing a player-choice-driven game.

Of course, there are tabletop RPGs which are already well suited to having player choice impact the story. I usually recommend Word Mill's Mythic Roleplaying (http://wordmillgames.com/mythic-rpg.html) to roleplayers interested in learning about how to do collaborative story-telling in an RPG.


On the video-game side of things, I'll admit I'm not really familiar with World of Warcraft. However, there are many MMOs which do give players a significant amount of control over the story. I don't know if WoW is one of those games, at least without considerable modding/hacking. In the world of offline video games, there are games like Undertale in which the player's choices have an enormous impact on the plot.

As with tabletop games, it's possible to take a video game that isn't really designed to allow for a player-driven story and modify it until it is. The original Super Mario Bros, for example, has about as much plot as KotBL or ToH. And out of the box, it gives players the same amount of influence over the plot as KotBL and ToH do: none whatsoever. However, as with KotBL, you could modify it. You could create an elaborate fantasy world, and hack it onto the SMB code. And you could add a bunch of opportunities for players to impact your story. And you could perform all of these modification to Super Mario Bros with nothing but your imagination and the computer you are using to read this forum.
But just as with Keep on the Borderland, you'd find that starting with SMB as a base to modify won't actually help you. On the contrary, if you want to create a story-rich game driven by player choice, you'd have a much easier time starting from scratch than trying to modify SMB or KotBL into the sort of game you want. Or, if making a game from scratch is too much work for you, you could start from a game that is already suited to a player-driven story-rich experience, like The Witcher or Undertale, and mod from there.

[Telok]

I had a great experience with Keep on the Borderlands having a player driven plot. What it didn't have was a predefined plot that was set up before the game. Our plot emerged during play from the decisions we made and the reactions of the monsters. I can compare that to my recent experience with the 5e Out of the Abyss which is player driven but does have a predefined plot and falls apart if the players don't know what the plot is. That's what happened with us, we stuck to our goal of "escape the underdark ASAP" and were perfectly happy to let random demon lords eat all the drow and mind flayers that caused everyone so much trouble. We were on track to get out at 5th level and had no interest or incentive to return. Plot? Yes. Player driven? Yes. Good adventure? Not for us.

[barna10]

Not only do I mostly disagree, but it was written in an extremely self-congratulatory manner of knowing that if you don't do things his way, it means that you're not a good enough GM. *eye-roll*

Edit: Also - I fail to see the relevance to the topic at hand.

And again I say: we'll never see eye-to-eye. If a quote from one of the grognards that helped design the very game we're talking about isn't relevant, I don't know what is.

Especially this portion:

...One problem has always been treating mid- or high-level play as low-level on steroids... the same ol' same ol' dungeon/wilderness jaunt, whack bigger monsters, get bigger treasures, go home. ::yawn:: Or sometimes the problem goes the other direction, world-saving every week, like superheroes. ::re-yawn::...

So yes, Frank is "self-congratulatory" because he literally wrote the book! And yes, if someone is having trouble running the game, they're probably not a very good DM. Not saying he or she never will be a good DM, just not yet. Sorry, truth hurts. The game can't run itself. There is no auto-pilot, Not even with a published adventure.

[Knaight]

And again I say: we'll never see eye-to-eye. If a quote from one of the grognards that helped design the very game we're talking about isn't relevant, I don't know what is.
A person who designed something claiming it's perfect and that any flaws people are having with it is just because they're using it incorrectly is if anything in less of a position to be taken seriously than someone who wasn't involved in its creation and just genuinely likes it.


So yes, Frank is "self-congratulatory" because he literally wrote the book! And yes, if someone is having trouble running the game, they're probably not a very good DM. Not saying he or she never will be a good DM, just not yet. Sorry, truth hurts. The game can't run itself. There is no auto-pilot, Not even with a published adventure.
That's one way to put it. Another would be that when someone routinely GMs excellent games with other systems and then sees a quality drop when DMing 1e, it's an indication that system flaws are dragging the game down.

[Cluedrew]

To barna10: Are you saying* that the game requires a higher level of skill to run in the 10+ range than in the 1-9 range? Because if that is true (even if the games you end up running are even more fun) the game will fall apart around 10th level for anyone who is good enough to run an low level game, but not good enough to run a high level game. I don't have any numbers on this but that could be a lot of games.

* Or are you in agreement with Frank who you believe is saying, either way.

[Yora]

I've never played 2e to 4e so I can't speak on them, but when I played "Oe" and "1e" Magic User PC's were almost only encountered at conventions where you started at higher levels, but at "home" games even when you rolled a high Intelligence, Magic User PC's were very rare, because with just one spell a game day, and low HP, it just wasn't that much fun to play a MU at first level.

The big change, and literal game changer, was the drop of XP for gold. OD&D, Basic, and 1st edition all worked under the assumption that players are motivated to steal treasures without getting into fight for it. In 2nd edition this disappears but the rest of the rules remain mostly the same, which eventually lead to a very different experience.
I believe 2nd edition had various class-specific task based XP rewards, but at 3rd edition at the latest XP was almost only for combat. Instead of being motivated to avoid combat, you now get urged to seek it.

[barna10]

To barna10: Are you saying* that the game requires a higher level of skill to run in the 10+ range than in the 1-9 range? Because if that is true (even if the games you end up running are even more fun) the game will fall apart around 10th level for anyone who is good enough to run an low level game, but not good enough to run a high level game. I don't have any numbers on this but that could be a lot of games.

* Or are you in agreement with Frank who you believe is saying, either way.

I'm not sure what Frank was trying to say. I can't speak fro him.

What I can say is I didn't take his message as insulting at all. I 100% agreed with it.

That being said, I don't think it has as much to do with the skill of the GM as it has to do with his creativity. The game can't give you creativity, no "system" can. Running high-level games aren't as simple as rolling a few dice and setting up a few combats. It takes creativity to keep the game fresh and entertaining. Also, it requires that the players actually want to do something other than hack'n'slash. If there is no player buy-in to more mature plots, then the game will fall apart.

So, I believe the GM and the players are the "problem" when the game starts falling apart. This can happen at any level.

[2D8HP]

The big change, and literal game changer, was.....
...... at 3rd edition at the latest XP was almost only for combat. Instead of being motivated to avoid combat, you now get urged to seek it.Since it seems to be the most popular edition I still want to learn it, but the more I learn about 3.x the less it seems to be for me (from my brief glance at 4e on the other hand, it so different from the D&D that I knew I fear the learning curve would be too high, plus who would I play it with?).
I suspect that I will stick with 5e and the few rare'70's and '80's rules D&D games that I'm lucky enough to play.
From my point of view 5e becomes a great game with a little bit of rules subtraction (and some familiarity with classic style play).
Besides level limits what improves 3e?

[Knaight]

That being said, I don't think it has as much to do with the skill of the GM as it has to do with his creativity. The game can't give you creativity, no "system" can. Running high-level games aren't as simple as rolling a few dice and setting up a few combats. It takes creativity to keep the game fresh and entertaining. Also, it requires that the players actually want to do something other than hack'n'slash. If there is no player buy-in to more mature plots, then the game will fall apart.

This is what we're talking about. The assumption that everyone who dislikes high level D&D dislikes it because they only want to hack'n'slash is abject nonsense. The assumption that the problem is an absence of buy-in to more mature plots is abject nonsense. That it comes from someone who basically admits that they run low level games that way while simultaneously chastising people for the way he incorrectly assumes they play is the icing on the cake.

[Tiktakkat]

A person who designed something claiming it's perfect and that any flaws people are having with it is just because they're using it incorrectly is if anything in less of a position to be taken seriously than someone who wasn't involved in its creation and just genuinely likes it.

So if you use a screwdriver to hammer in nails and it doesn't work very well, then the guy who designed the screwdriver should be considered to have a less relevant opinion than you because you really like the screwdriver.


That's one way to put it. Another would be that when someone routinely GMs excellent games with other systems and then sees a quality drop when DMing 1e, it's an indication that system flaws are dragging the game down.

And another would be that an ability to run a game in one system inherently includes an ability to run a game in every system: a football referee by default is just as capable of umpiring a baseball game or being a line judge for a tennis match because "referee".


Meanwhile:

I know that BECMI works all the way up. (Well, okay, 'cept for thieves; I plan to do a free fix for that.) There are quite a few great adventures for levels in the teens and twenties.

. . .

One problem has always been treating mid- or high-level play as low-level on steroids... the same ol' same ol' dungeon/wilderness jaunt, whack bigger monsters, get bigger treasures, go home. ::yawn:: Or sometimes the problem goes the other direction, world-saving every week, like superheroes. ::re-yawn::

Here's the key: These adventures should involve little or no Force. Quite a lot of D&D adventuring (whatever edition) is based on using force to get your way (often the kill-the-monsters meme). Yawn again.

Yeah, see . . .

I've got all the Companion and Master adventures TSR published back in the day.
And despite what Frank is suggesting here, they contain their fair share of location jaunting, bigger monster whacking, and bigger treasure getting. Indeed the rule books for those levels contain more than enough newer monsters and more powerful treasures specifically for such encounters.
They also have lots of wonderful army battles that are hardwired into the adventures, so that, you know, you absolutely have to use large scale Force to get your way.

Maybe Frank should have talked things over with the authors and made sure they knew how to write adventures the "right" way.
Or perhaps they should be the ones insulted by his statement.

I don't know when he wrote that, but that is the same kind of attitude that spewed forth WotC R&D over 4E.
All the same haughty declarations that people simply didn't know how to play the game the right way, but that they did, and that they were here to save the day for us, giving us a system that really worked, and blah, blah, blah.
How exactly did that work out for them? Oh right.

[Thrudd]

Not really accurate on either front.

In the case of ToH and KotBL, the adventures themselves don't provide you with any ideas as to how players can influence the story, and they don't even really acknowledge it as a possibility. It's possible, if you hack at KotBL long enough, and write an enourmous amount of your own material, to create an adventure in which the players can have a meaningful impact on the story, but the published adventure will be pushing back against you every step of the way. If you want a story-rich adventure with lots of player choice, you would have an easier time writing your own adventure from scratch that trying to modify KotBL or ToH, because those published adventures won't help you at all in developing a player-choice-driven game.

Of course, there are tabletop RPGs which are already well suited to having player choice impact the story. I usually recommend Word Mill's Mythic Roleplaying (http://wordmillgames.com/mythic-rpg.html) to roleplayers interested in learning about how to do collaborative story-telling in an RPG.


On the video-game side of things, I'll admit I'm not really familiar with World of Warcraft. However, there are many MMOs which do give players a significant amount of control over the story. I don't know if WoW is one of those games, at least without considerable modding/hacking. In the world of offline video games, there are games like Undertale in which the player's choices have an enormous impact on the plot.

As with tabletop games, it's possible to take a video game that isn't really designed to allow for a player-driven story and modify it until it is. The original Super Mario Bros, for example, has about as much plot as KotBL or ToH. And out of the box, it gives players the same amount of influence over the plot as KotBL and ToH do: none whatsoever. However, as with KotBL, you could modify it. You could create an elaborate fantasy world, and hack it onto the SMB code. And you could add a bunch of opportunities for players to impact your story. And you could perform all of these modification to Super Mario Bros with nothing but your imagination and the computer you are using to read this forum.
But just as with Keep on the Borderland, you'd find that starting with SMB as a base to modify won't actually help you. On the contrary, if you want to create a story-rich game driven by player choice, you'd have a much easier time starting from scratch than trying to modify SMB or KotBL into the sort of game you want. Or, if making a game from scratch is too much work for you, you could start from a game that is already suited to a player-driven story-rich experience, like The Witcher or Undertale, and mod from there.

I don't know what you're talking about with B2. It is nothing but player-driven, there isn't a plot that needs to be followed.
How the players choose to approach it will define everything. ToH is a different beast, it is a convention game that is about challenging players to survive a series of deadly puzzles. But again, how players approach it will define everything, it is all about player ingenuity. It is not really a good module to use as an example of typical D&D adventure design, it is a singularly unique case.
You can't compare either of these to Mario Bros. - In games like that, the player has no choice whatsoever, there is only one direction to move in, and one action with which to address every challenge (jump).

The story of B2 is whatever the DM makes it, the module gives you an environment and some possible plot threads. It doesn't have a set story, so the amount of influence the players have over it is 100%. Whatever they choose to do and whatever happens, that was the story. It is really easy for the DM to take any of the many elements presented in the module and invent background motivations and plots occurring, with the evil cult and the reason that the various monsters are gathering in the caves, what the mad hermit is about, whether the lizardmen have any agenda, etc.

Yes, for the module to work the players need to want to go into the caves of chaos. That is handled by the basic assumption of D&D - the PCs are adventurers in search of treasure. The caves are where treasure is, so of course they want to go get it. The scenario is open and allows players to approach the caves from different directions, start in different caves, interact with the occupants however they want. Do they get betrayed by the evil cleric? Do they befriend anyone in the Keep? What happens with the warring tribes of monsters? Do they make truce with any of them? Does one group dominate the others? Depends entirely on the players.

[Knaight]

So if you use a screwdriver to hammer in nails and it doesn't work very well, then the guy who designed the screwdriver should be considered to have a less relevant opinion than you because you really like the screwdriver.

No. But if a company makes a hammer and then there are a whole bunch of complaints about it not hammering in nails, a company representative coming in and saying that the hammer works fine and everyone is just using it wrong is a lot less convincing than a neutral party saying the hammer works fine for them.

[MeeposFire]

The big change, and literal game changer, was the drop of XP for gold. OD&D, Basic, and 1st edition all worked under the assumption that players are motivated to steal treasures without getting into fight for it. In 2nd edition this disappears but the rest of the rules remain mostly the same, which eventually lead to a very different experience.
I believe 2nd edition had various class-specific task based XP rewards, but at 3rd edition at the latest XP was almost only for combat. Instead of being motivated to avoid combat, you now get urged to seek it.

Actually there is a treasure for XP rules in 2e but it is "hidden" (it is not actually hidden but a lot of people miss it. It is technically optional just like most of the rules in 2e including the class specific XP rules you are referencing). I think the general rule is 1xp per 2 GP but I could be wrong on that account (also rogues get additional XP for treasure).

In fact if you don't use both those class rewards and treasure for XP then you had better give out a trove (as in a LOT) of quest XP and the like because only using combat XP makes 2e leveling extremely slow. That is why some people complain about 2e leveling speed since they often do not use (or know about) the treasure for XP rules and combat XP is not really up to the task (at least to some).

[MeeposFire]

Since it seems to be the most popular edition I still want to learn it, but the more I learn about 3.x the less it seems to be for me (from my brief glance at 4e on the other hand, it so different from the D&D that I knew I fear the learning curve would be too high, plus who would I play it with?).
I suspect that I will stick with 5e and the few rare'70's and '80's rules D&D games that I'm lucky enough to play.
From my point of view 5e becomes a great game with a little bit of rules subtraction (and some familiarity with classic style play).
Besides level limits what improves 3e?

4e is relatively rules heavy though fairly internally consistent. It is also does not dress most of the rules (especially at the start) in fluffy dressing. In many ways it gives you a game effect and wants you to fluff it how you want. Makes it very flexible but some people do not like seeing the bones of the games rules.

In terms of D&D the biggest reason to play 4e over any other edition is if you want D&D but you want combat to be focusing on things like positioning, forced movement, creating difficult terrain/damage zones, and all sorts of other small scale tactical gaming. If that sort of combat sounds like fun then 4e is the best system of D&D for it. If not then a different version of D&D could be better.


3e on the other hand is also a heavier rules set and its best attribute is the minutia. There are rules for all sorts of random things and relative to other editions it is fairly complicated. IMO it is the version that makes the DM (and players though that is not as big a deal for a veteran) work the most (it takes the most time to prepare and the most details to use).

Of the versions I have played (and I have played all of the big ones though 5e is the least so far) 3e is the hardest for me to hold together. A lot of the problems brought up in this thread are most prevalent in that edition and they can be the hardest to control. Magic is at its most powerful relative to everything with little to no practical limits. It is also the edition where making a character can have the lowest floor in ability and the highest ceiling. I did do a 1-20 campaign and at the end I was having to invest significant amounts of time to make encounters that were fun, interesting, and challenging (the monster/NPC rules in 3e DO NOT help in this regard). I was helped at the very end using concepts introduced in 4e that made creating encounters easier and faster (minion rules were a lifesaver).


As a player I still find it fun to play though the most fun is building a character (due to all the details you can mess with) though it can be difficult to play with new people (also due to all the details and odd rules interactions full attack actions are one of the worst things forced upon weapon users ever in D&D). It is not the edition that I would recommend showing to a person who has never played any D&D of any sort before (I think 5e or RC/basic are the best for that 2e can be ok too). For somebody that loves creating the most detailed and/or getting the most out of a concept and/or creating a very specific concept 3e can be excellent at that. In 3e you might be able to directly create your Naruto character (though it may be terrible in play) whereas in 4e you probably have to refluff a class or powers to get what you want (but it will probably work alright).

[Tiktakkat]

No. But if a company makes a hammer and then there are a whole bunch of complaints about it not hammering in nails, a company representative coming in and saying that the hammer works fine and everyone is just using it wrong is a lot less convincing than a neutral party saying the hammer works fine for them.

So . . . having some other player tell you that you are playing wrong is more convincing?
And that has worked how many times exactly?

Now I have seen instances where people who had complaints, about game play in general and a form for tournament play specifically, were in fact playing completely wrong. For whatever reason they just plain didn't understand how the rules interacted for play, or how they affected play in a competitive format.
And when the designer and event organizer solicited me I had to confirm that they were serious, as the proper mode of play and changes required for the tournament format were blatantly obvious to me, and I had absolutely no issues either understanding them, or accounting for them while playing.
I really don't see where that would make me saying so to the people with the complaints any more convincing, and particularly any more welcome, than the designer or event organizer telling them they just didn't get it.


But if you think it would help, I can tell you that breaking out my copy of the Companion Rule Book, it does indeed say to the effect that you are supposed to play the game differently from levels 1-6 (Basic and start of Expert), 7-14 (the rest of Expert), 15-25 (Companion), and 26-36 (Masters).

Again, I think the adventures published to support those rules don't reflect as "non-force" game as he is suggesting, but that doesn't change what he wrote in the rules themselves.
And, going by what I said back at the start of this thread, given the time between the Expert Rules and the Companion Rules, and the number of adventures he suggests for leveling in the Companion Rules, I find it difficult to believe he playtested it anywhere near sufficiently. (By his numbers, it should take at least a year of playing once per week to get through the Companion levels. The Companion rules appeared 3 years after the Expert Rules. How many different parties did he manage to get through those levels, and doing so, why didn't he "fix" the thief back then?)

He is however quite clear though that game play is supposed to change from each tier.
If yours didn't . . . well, just because you bought a hammer doesn't mean you need nails for the task at hand, and hammering them in anyway is just not going to work very well no matter how good the hammer is.

[Morty]

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the main feature of old D&D is the warm, fuzzy feeling of superiority towards people who play anything newer.

[Yora]

Besides level limits what improves 3e?

The main "innovation" of 3rd edition is that it finally ditched the idea of backward compatibility with previous edition and gets rid of a lot of slightly different tables for almost the same thing and replaces them with standardized charts that apply to all classes and ability scores.

In 3rd edition, an ability score of 15 means that you get a +2 bonus to every d20 roll that is based on that ability. And that applies to all six ability scores, for all applications, and for all classes. In, AD&D a score of 15 could get you different modifiers based on which ability score you use, what you use it for, and what class you have. And it's always a d20, never a d6 or a d100. (Except for turn undead, which still had a 2d6 roll.)
1981 Basic/Expert almost did that already two decades earlier, but with 3rd edition it became a fully universal standard that applies in all situations. It's really a very basic and obvious idea, and no remarkable innovation, but was a big step forward from the mess that had accumulated in the previous 25 years.
As part of that, all classes now get a new level at the same amount of XP, which made it possible to multiclass by simply starting a new class at 1st level any time you want.

Where I think they overshot the target was the introduction of skill points and feats (especially prerequisite feats that are needed to access other feats). And the biggest mistake in hindsight was prestige classes. Prestige classes that require the character to have certain skill ranks and feats before you can take levels in the class. The result was that if you start a character and know you want to pick a prestige class later, you had to plan your feats and skills (and the classes you advance at each level) for the first 7 to 10 levels before the campaign even starts. I believe this is where everything went wrong.
(The original 2000 3rd edition Player's Handbook by itself seems a much less problematic game to me in hindsight, even though I was a big fan of 3.5e when it came out.)

[RazorChain]

Having had some interesting conversations about various older editions of D&D over the last weeks and several people have said that even in the very early editions the fun levels were in the 3 to 10 range. 3rd edition is infamous for getting completely out of balance around 10th level to the point that there was a hugely popular variant that ended level advancement at 6th (or alternatively 8th or 10th) level. But even when B/X was expanded in 1983 to BECMI which raised the maximum level from 14 to 36 it doesn't seem to have been very popular in the long run. Almost all the Basic retroclones around to day stick to the original 14 levels or just 12 or 10. I've even seen the complaint made against OD&D. And now 5th edition was designed explicitly to avoid that flaw. I don't know how much success they had with that.

Why is this the case? The rules have a lot of big differences, but the problem seems to be always the same.
Is it really just the spells of 5th level and higher that wrack the dynamics of lower level gameplay? Or is there some flaw in the level system itself that causes that?


Because when you are playing post level 10 then you aren't playing the same game as when you started, not even remotely. You started with deadly dungeon romp that evolved into heroic fantasy and then suddenly it became four color supers. When I start a fantasy game I don't want to play four color supers.

[Mordar]

Ah, but the interaction and impact on the plot...that's a horse of a different color! The paper-thin plot of Keep or Tomb can (and is) impacted by the players...the rich tapestry of WoW isn't. Not even a little bit. While there are certainly lots of D&D players who ignore the plot of their own game, virtually every group has at least one or two players who are invested in and impacting the plot of that home game. I'd wager there are lots more WoW players (percentage basis, to forestall any semantic argument) completely ignoring or ignorant of the intricate and detailed (and frankly pretty cool) plots of WoW...


Not really accurate on either front.

In the case of ToH and KotBL, the adventures themselves don't provide you with any ideas as to how players can influence the story, and they don't even really acknowledge it as a possibility. It's possible, if you hack at KotBL long enough, and write an enourmous amount of your own material, to create an adventure in which the players can have a meaningful impact on the story, but the published adventure will be pushing back against you every step of the way. If you want a story-rich adventure with lots of player choice, you would have an easier time writing your own adventure from scratch that trying to modify KotBL or ToH, because those published adventures won't help you at all in developing a player-choice-driven game.

Of course, there are tabletop RPGs which are already well suited to having player choice impact the story. I usually recommend Word Mill's Mythic Roleplaying (http://wordmillgames.com/mythic-rpg.html) to roleplayers interested in learning about how to do collaborative story-telling in an RPG.


On the video-game side of things, I'll admit I'm not really familiar with World of Warcraft. However, there are many MMOs which do give players a significant amount of control over the story. I don't know if WoW is one of those games, at least without considerable modding/hacking. In the world of offline video games, there are games like Undertale in which the player's choices have an enormous impact on the plot.

As with tabletop games, it's possible to take a video game that isn't really designed to allow for a player-driven story and modify it until it is. The original Super Mario Bros, for example, has about as much plot as KotBL or ToH. And out of the box, it gives players the same amount of influence over the plot as KotBL and ToH do: none whatsoever. However, as with KotBL, you could modify it. You could create an elaborate fantasy world, and hack it onto the SMB code. And you could add a bunch of opportunities for players to impact your story. And you could perform all of these modification to Super Mario Bros with nothing but your imagination and the computer you are using to read this forum.
But just as with Keep on the Borderland, you'd find that starting with SMB as a base to modify won't actually help you. On the contrary, if you want to create a story-rich game driven by player choice, you'd have a much easier time starting from scratch than trying to modify SMB or KotBL into the sort of game you want. Or, if making a game from scratch is too much work for you, you could start from a game that is already suited to a player-driven story-rich experience, like The Witcher or Undertale, and mod from there.

I'm not sure where to start here...so I wonder if maybe our use of plot is dissimilar. In ToH or KotB, the actions of the players will have dramatic effect on the environment within that world. If group A clears ToH and puts down the Big Bad Evil Guy, no subsequent group will ever be able to do so. The legend of the Group A will grow and the world of Group A will be changed because of the successes and failures at ToH. The module writers don't know the whole of Group A's story, so it isn't on them to provide the DM with direction on how they Group A's world will be changed (or ToH will be changed by Group A having completed Expedition to the Barrier Peaks before entering ToH)...it is just on them to provide this module to be plugged into Group A's campaign.

In WoW (or EQ or whatever), if Group A completes Karazhan and clears it all...not only can Groups B - Z come in and do the EXACT SAME THING later, Group A can come back and do it again themselves. The same NPCs will be in the same positions providing the same challenges every single time. You can then use the loot you got from killing Boss 2 to make killing Boss 2 easier. Sure, you can't go back and get credit for repeating the same quests...but you can still complete every step of every quest and wonder exactly how many times must Timmy have fallen down the well, or how many times Hogger has been slaughtered out in the forest.

Sure, that's the nature of an MMO...but it is also my point. It can't change based on my actions because that will change the world and the experience for the next player to come along. In ToH Group A's world, that change is possible. Even if all of Group A dies in ToH, Group B in that same world can see repercussions...and the quests/experiences/modules completed by Group A prior to their death will still have happened and still have impacted that world.

On the other side of things (the players ignoring the "fluff") - of course there will be exceptions based on group, game, whatever...but if you don't think there are tons of WoW players who blitz past all of the quest text just to see the objective, I think you are mistaken. And as I said, there will be plenty of pen-and-paper types who ignore all but a few key words...but the nature of the two games is such that I believe a higher density of players in the PnP games will hear and recall details and follow the "story" than players - even the exact same players - in a standard MMO.

- M

[thirdkingdom]

Because when you are playing post level 10 then you aren't playing the same game as when you started, not even remotely. You started with deadly dungeon romp that evolved into heroic fantasy and then suddenly it became four color supers. When I start a fantasy game I don't want to play four color supers.

Again, it depends of which editions you're talking about. 0e and 1e, and B/X, are certainly not four-color supers. I can't speak to 2e or 3e -- BECMI certainly turns into that in the higher levels/Immortal level set, or, at least, it can.

I don't have any experience with 4e (I've at least *played* 2e and 3.x before), but from what I hear it is perhaps the most internally consistent version across the levels.

[Jay R]

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the main feature of old D&D is the warm, fuzzy feeling of superiority towards people who play anything newer.

And vice versa. Yes, everybody believes in their own opinions and experiences.

[2D8HP]

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the main feature of old D&D is the warm, fuzzy feeling of superiority towards people who play anything newer.But of course!
:wink:
(Actually there's a lot I like about 5e more than old D&D, but there's also a lot about old D&D that I like more than 5e, but the best D&D is always a game that you can play with actual other people whatever the edition. Unless the game was Cyberpunk or Vampire which were lame :yuk:)

[LibraryOgre]

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the main feature of old D&D is the warm, fuzzy feeling of superiority towards people who play anything newer.

I disagree, though it can certainly seem like it.

One of my complaints about 3.x and 4e (though it's somewhat lesser in 4e) is "Character creation as an ongoing, winnable mini-game."

In AD&D, I made a character. I might draw on a huge array of options, making a grey elf bladesinger and using Skills and Powers, Spells and Magic, and the Complete Book of Elves in coordination. But once I made the character, he was more or less mechanically "finished"... he would grow and develop, he would learn new spells and get access to new spell levels, but he'd still primarily be describable as a "grey elf bladesinger". Aside from story events, my character at 1st level would look like my character at 20th level.

In 3.x, however, character creation is an ongoing, mechanical process. My character at 1st level and my character at 20th level won't necessarily look anything alike... because I started as a rogue to get more skill points, but then when Wizard so I could have access to this spell, so I'd qualify for this prestige class that gave me entirely different powers. How I am described at 1st level and 20th level might be very different.

And then we get to traps. It was possible to make a bad character in AD&D, but you had to work at it a little bit. If your thief had Dexterity as one of his best stats, chances are he'd be a decent thief. If your wizard had a decent intelligence, chances are he'd be a decent wizard. Unless you actively tried to screw everything up (clumsy thief who likes to jump into combat is a good example), you would have trouble making a mechanically bad character. 3.x, however, is rife with traps... feat choices that won't help you much in the long run, insufficient planning so you can't get a useful prestige class, even core races that don't set out to be what they want to be. It is easier in 3.x to make a mechanically unsatisfying character, and poor choices early on can effectively doom you into a spiral of ineffectiveness. And you have to do it again at every level.

Now, this isn't to say AD&D is without flaws; 1st edition initiative is famously incomprehensible, and Players Option and the Complete Books were never designed to go together, among other things. But, your 1st level character was who you wanted to play, not a step in making the character you eventually wanted to play, with a sweet spot where you were exactly that, after you'd labored through levels of building and before you grew either crazy powerful or ineffective for your level.

[thirdkingdom]

I disagree, though it can certainly seem like it.

One of my complaints about 3.x and 4e (though it's somewhat lesser in 4e) is "Character creation as an ongoing, winnable mini-game."

In AD&D, I made a character. I might draw on a huge array of options, making a grey elf bladesinger and using Skills and Powers, Spells and Magic, and the Complete Book of Elves in coordination. But once I made the character, he was more or less mechanically "finished"... he would grow and develop, he would learn new spells and get access to new spell levels, but he'd still primarily be describable as a "grey elf bladesinger". Aside from story events, my character at 1st level would look like my character at 20th level.

In 3.x, however, character creation is an ongoing, mechanical process. My character at 1st level and my character at 20th level won't necessarily look anything alike... because I started as a rogue to get more skill points, but then when Wizard so I could have access to this spell, so I'd qualify for this prestige class that gave me entirely different powers. How I am described at 1st level and 20th level might be very different.

And then we get to traps. It was possible to make a bad character in AD&D, but you had to work at it a little bit. If your thief had Dexterity as one of his best stats, chances are he'd be a decent thief. If your wizard had a decent intelligence, chances are he'd be a decent wizard. Unless you actively tried to screw everything up (clumsy thief who likes to jump into combat is a good example), you would have trouble making a mechanically bad character. 3.x, however, is rife with traps... feat choices that won't help you much in the long run, insufficient planning so you can't get a useful prestige class, even core races that don't set out to be what they want to be. It is easier in 3.x to make a mechanically unsatisfying character, and poor choices early on can effectively doom you into a spiral of ineffectiveness. And you have to do it again at every level.

Now, this isn't to say AD&D is without flaws; 1st edition initiative is famously incomprehensible, and Players Option and the Complete Books were never designed to go together, among other things. But, your 1st level character was who you wanted to play, not a step in making the character you eventually wanted to play, with a sweet spot where you were exactly that, after you'd labored through levels of building and before you grew either crazy powerful or ineffective for your level.

For me, this is one of the main reasons I've decided to stick with the older versions of the game the older I get; I simply don't have the time to devote to the mini-game. I can roll up and create a B/X character in less than 5 minutes, by hand, with all her gear and everything.

[MeeposFire]

I disagree, though it can certainly seem like it.

One of my complaints about 3.x and 4e (though it's somewhat lesser in 4e) is "Character creation as an ongoing, winnable mini-game."

In AD&D, I made a character. I might draw on a huge array of options, making a grey elf bladesinger and using Skills and Powers, Spells and Magic, and the Complete Book of Elves in coordination. But once I made the character, he was more or less mechanically "finished"... he would grow and develop, he would learn new spells and get access to new spell levels, but he'd still primarily be describable as a "grey elf bladesinger". Aside from story events, my character at 1st level would look like my character at 20th level.

In 3.x, however, character creation is an ongoing, mechanical process. My character at 1st level and my character at 20th level won't necessarily look anything alike... because I started as a rogue to get more skill points, but then when Wizard so I could have access to this spell, so I'd qualify for this prestige class that gave me entirely different powers. How I am described at 1st level and 20th level might be very different.

And then we get to traps. It was possible to make a bad character in AD&D, but you had to work at it a little bit. If your thief had Dexterity as one of his best stats, chances are he'd be a decent thief. If your wizard had a decent intelligence, chances are he'd be a decent wizard. Unless you actively tried to screw everything up (clumsy thief who likes to jump into combat is a good example), you would have trouble making a mechanically bad character. 3.x, however, is rife with traps... feat choices that won't help you much in the long run, insufficient planning so you can't get a useful prestige class, even core races that don't set out to be what they want to be. It is easier in 3.x to make a mechanically unsatisfying character, and poor choices early on can effectively doom you into a spiral of ineffectiveness. And you have to do it again at every level.

Now, this isn't to say AD&D is without flaws; 1st edition initiative is famously incomprehensible, and Players Option and the Complete Books were never designed to go together, among other things. But, your 1st level character was who you wanted to play, not a step in making the character you eventually wanted to play, with a sweet spot where you were exactly that, after you'd labored through levels of building and before you grew either crazy powerful or ineffective for your level.

Yes it is part of the problem and the fun of both 3e and 4e that it your access to choice can really make creating a character pretty fun but it leaves you with the ability to really screw yourself over. 3e is particularly bad about this because of how the whole system is designed (multiclassing prestige or not for instance can be a source for a lot of cool and awesome abilities but can also make your character really poor). 4e gets around this to an extent in that its floor is a bit higher (much more so if you use the later classes like from the essentials line) and its ceiling is lower too (once again slightly even more true with the later classes like the essentials line). 5e is also more friendly about this than either of those two.


In the earlier editions there is that to an extent though only if allowed (which is true in all editions to an extent but is REALLY true in the oldest editions). In RulesCyclopedia type games you can do it via things like weapon mastery (I have seen opinions all over on this one though I cannot say I have played with that rule yet). In AD&D, especially 2e, you get this through weapon and non-weapon proficiencies. If you dig around enough there are a bunch of really powerful and useful proficiencies for your character to take. I actually recommend that you allow them too since they really help classes like the fighter in the later game (heck it is why for the most part I think intelligence is actually the best stat to have high for a fighter in many occasions due to how nice getting bonus prof are). 2e only has the options line though that is all over the place in quality in terms of balance. I would say some of it is a good idea but a lot of it needs an additional look and some changes before being used.

[CharonsHelper]

And then we get to traps. ...

I think that's pretty much an inherent drawback of having significant customization. As you create more & more options, you will inevitably create some option combinations which are at the very least sub-par and may be picked by those with minimal system mastery.

It's just something that you have to deal with. If you want a game which is really heavy on customization, you're going to have to be a bit more careful when using that customization so that you don't trip on any trap options. If you want to avoid the risk, stick to a system with limited customization. Neither are the "right" way to go - just a matter of taste.

[LibraryOgre]

I think that's pretty much an inherent drawback of having significant customization. As you create more & more options, you will inevitably create some option combinations which are at the very least sub-par and may be picked by those with minimal system mastery.


Perhaps, but not necessarily. Consider, for example, Spells and Magic's create-a-class options for mages and clerics (and, to a lesser extent, Skills and Powers for all classes). While you could create suboptimal characters in several ways, they'd still mostly do what you set out to have them do. In 3.x, it's very easy to pick choices that may seem useful, but really fail at their intent (like Great Cleave, or Skill Focus).

[CharonsHelper]

Perhaps, but not necessarily. Consider, for example, Spells and Magic's create-a-class options for mages and clerics (and, to a lesser extent, Skills and Powers for all classes). While you could create suboptimal characters in several ways, they'd still mostly do what you set out to have them do. In 3.x, it's very easy to pick choices that may seem useful, but really fail at their intent (like Great Cleave, or Skill Focus).


Oh - 3.x could definitely trim down some of the options such as those two to lessen the trap options (Though arguably those are both viable in niche builds; I know that in Pathfinder my bard took Skill Focus to combine with his primary Perform skill & Versatile Performance, and Great Cleave could be very useful on a reach build if their DM likes to use mooks). I'm certainly not going to argue that 3.x is the perfect system.

But there are some which could only be done away with by limiting customization. A caster who decides that he wants to fight melee by going Eldrich Knight or Dragon Disciple is choosing a trap option if they don't already have solid physical stats. A rogue attempting combat maneuvers will inherently be sub-par, but that doesn't mean that Improved Trip should be trimmed from the system. Etc.

[Jay R]

In a stereotypical, over-simplifed way, here's the difference.

In original D&D through 2e, you built a basic character, and he would be pretty close to the basic character anybody else built. Oh, spell choices would be different, you could pick up different proficiencies, etc., but your 5th level wizard was throwing the same fireball as somebody else's. Character design was basic, and you try to optimize with clever play.

Much of that clever play, of course, was the player's cleverness, not the character's, so there was a move to get rid of it, and substitute die-rolling. You roll for diplomacy, instead of trying to fast-talk your way through. You solve the puzzle yourself rather than rolling against its rating. Similarly, Challenge Rating means that you should be able to simply attack any encounter (or rather, more than in early D&D) straight up, and many players play that way.

The result is that in 3.5e, you try to optimize in character design, and play is more basic.

Again, this is an over-simplistic description of both. Some 2e builds are better than others (but not as much as in 3.5e), and clever play does affect the game in 3.5e (though not as much as the meta-gaming in earlier versions).

So, in a stereotypical, over-simplistic, unfair-to-both-approaches way: in early D&D, character design is more basic and play is where you optimize, and in 3.5e, character design is where you optimize and play is more basic.

[CharonsHelper]

Stuff I pretty much agree with.

I'll add that part of the clever play in 2nd edition is totally subjective and up to your DM's judgement. 3.x is more defined and therefore less subjective. (Not inherently good or bad either way - just different.)

[Quickblade]

I think some of the problem is with the thread title. It states as a fact that almost all early editions of D&D fell apart at high levels, then asks why this happens?
I disagree with this premise (played BECMI and retired with a 10th lv Elf Attack Rank K) so it becomes more of a defense against someone's opinion rather than a debate.
Now if you asked " Do you think early editions of D&D fall apart at high level" it might be better able to be discussed.
I'm not trying to criticise at all.

[Jay R]

I'll add that part of the clever play in 2nd edition is totally subjective and up to your DM's judgement. 3.x is more defined and therefore less subjective. (Not inherently good or bad either way - just different.)

Oh, agreed. And that always meant that part of intelligent tactics was (and still is, in modern games) learning how the DM runs the game.

There's a legal maxim: Any lawyer knows the law. A good lawyer knows the exceptions. A great lawyer knows the judge.

Similarly, any player knows the core rules. A good player knows the supplements. A great player knows the DM.

[Morty]

I disagree, though it can certainly seem like it.

One of my complaints about 3.x and 4e (though it's somewhat lesser in 4e) is "Character creation as an ongoing, winnable mini-game."

In AD&D, I made a character. I might draw on a huge array of options, making a grey elf bladesinger and using Skills and Powers, Spells and Magic, and the Complete Book of Elves in coordination. But once I made the character, he was more or less mechanically "finished"... he would grow and develop, he would learn new spells and get access to new spell levels, but he'd still primarily be describable as a "grey elf bladesinger". Aside from story events, my character at 1st level would look like my character at 20th level.

In 3.x, however, character creation is an ongoing, mechanical process. My character at 1st level and my character at 20th level won't necessarily look anything alike... because I started as a rogue to get more skill points, but then when Wizard so I could have access to this spell, so I'd qualify for this prestige class that gave me entirely different powers. How I am described at 1st level and 20th level might be very different.

And then we get to traps. It was possible to make a bad character in AD&D, but you had to work at it a little bit. If your thief had Dexterity as one of his best stats, chances are he'd be a decent thief. If your wizard had a decent intelligence, chances are he'd be a decent wizard. Unless you actively tried to screw everything up (clumsy thief who likes to jump into combat is a good example), you would have trouble making a mechanically bad character. 3.x, however, is rife with traps... feat choices that won't help you much in the long run, insufficient planning so you can't get a useful prestige class, even core races that don't set out to be what they want to be. It is easier in 3.x to make a mechanically unsatisfying character, and poor choices early on can effectively doom you into a spiral of ineffectiveness. And you have to do it again at every level.

Now, this isn't to say AD&D is without flaws; 1st edition initiative is famously incomprehensible, and Players Option and the Complete Books were never designed to go together, among other things. But, your 1st level character was who you wanted to play, not a step in making the character you eventually wanted to play, with a sweet spot where you were exactly that, after you'd labored through levels of building and before you grew either crazy powerful or ineffective for your level.

This is true, which is why I play neither 3.x nor 4e.

[Jay R]

One of my complaints about 3.x and 4e (though it's somewhat lesser in 4e) is "Character creation as an ongoing, winnable mini-game."

I mostly agree. Let me start by bringing up the slight disagreement.

It's not winnable. They game is never over because of character creation. It is, however, an ongoing losable mini-game.

But that's just semantics. I agree with your real point.

In fact, I'll go further. This is both the biggest problem with, and the biggest strength of, 3.x.

In 3.x, it's possible to come to the table with a character who is completely out-classed, and many people have done it. I suspect that this is one of the reasons that old gamers are less concerned with balance. In older games, I could never wind up with a Fighter was was completely out-classed by another Fighter of the same level, or a wizard who was useless because of another same-level wizard in the party.

Having said that, I find that I enjoy the ongoing losable mini-game of character creation. It's as challenging as the original ongoing losable mini-game of meeting some threats you needed to run from, or the ongoing losable mini-game of trying to come up with a convincing argument yourself, rather than rolling to see how convincing your character is.

It can never replace older D&D for those of us who love it. But I also recognize that older D&D can never replace the intriguing ongoing losable game of character creation brought in with the "third" edition.

[LibraryOgre]

It's not winnable. They game is never over because of character creation. It is, however, an ongoing losable mini-game.

...

Having said that, I find that I enjoy the ongoing losable mini-game of character creation. It's as challenging as the original ongoing losable mini-game of meeting some threats you needed to run from, or the ongoing losable mini-game of trying to come up with a convincing argument yourself, rather than rolling to see how convincing your character is.


Much better way to say it, indeed; a losable mini-game, not a winnable one.

For myself, I don't enjoy it. I find it frustrating, balancing character concept and mechanical effectiveness, and the narrow period of the game... which I may never reach... where I'm the character I wanted to play in the first place, just makes 3.x annoying to play.

[2D8HP]

Since this thread has taken a turn towards comparing editions I thought I'd through my two coppers in.
Take what I say with a mountain of salt since most hours that I've spent playing D&D were from 1979 to 1983, with most of the rest of the time after 2014 with other less-fun-for-me RPG's in between, and my memory of the old days is pretty dim (strangely though I remember early D&D rules much better than the rules of games I've played more recently. Odd that).

In new D&D more time is spent building your PC's skills, powers etc.

In old D&D that time was instead spent budgeting and deciding on equipment.

The ten foot poles, iron spikes, flasks of oil etc. and how we used them seemed to have much bigger influence on whether our PC's survived than did our PC's abilities.

Then as now time was spent looking at our character sheets for ways out of a jam, but back then it was mostly our inventory that we looked at.

I was terrible at it, and my "kick in the door" style of play ment that I seldom had a PC that survived more than two sessions.

But I loved it anyway.

I'm actually playing and loving a game of 5e D&D that with just a few house rules feels a lot like old D&D.

The game is still there trapped underneath, and you don't have to remove many layers at all to uncover it.

[MeeposFire]

Much better way to say it, indeed; a losable mini-game, not a winnable one.

For myself, I don't enjoy it. I find it frustrating, balancing character concept and mechanical effectiveness, and the narrow period of the game... which I may never reach... where I'm the character I wanted to play in the first place, just makes 3.x annoying to play.

For me what makes it frustrating is when you have to really know the system to get into very basic level of competence. For example to make a weapon user that is reasonably effective when forced to move 10 feet or more requires way too much work and system knowledge for something that really should be the default (thankfully in every other edition of D&D that is not a problem).

[kyoryu]

For me what makes it frustrating is when you have to really know the system to get into very basic level of competence. For example to make a weapon user that is reasonably effective when forced to move 10 feet or more requires way too much work and system knowledge for something that really should be the default (thankfully in every other edition of D&D that is not a problem).

The thing that frustrates me with 3.x, specifically, is that making a reasonably effective character requires you in many cases to make seemingly illogical choices.

In 4e or GURPS or most systems, if you just make reasonably logical choices, you'll end up with a reasonably effective character. Yeah, optimization works from there, but just generally doing reasonable choices will result in at least a moderately effective character, and it's rarely necessary to do illogical things to increase effectiveness. Not necessarily so in 3.x.

[MeeposFire]

The thing that frustrates me with 3.x, specifically, is that making a reasonably effective character requires you in many cases to make seemingly illogical choices.

In 4e or GURPS or most systems, if you just make reasonably logical choices, you'll end up with a reasonably effective character. Yeah, optimization works from there, but just generally doing reasonable choices will result in at least a moderately effective character, and it's rarely necessary to do illogical things to increase effectiveness. Not necessarily so in 3.x.

What I see as a more common problem is that things are just not as effective as you think they should be even if logical. For instance considering how much investment and how it sounds grabbing all the two weapon fighting feats should be great but in the end it isn't due to things that are not going to be obvious. In two weapon fightings case it gets really screwed over by the full attack rules which is not something that is obvious to a player (especially new ones). If a two weapon fighter could get all his attacks almost every single round he would actually be alright as far as fighters go but in reality he will not get close to that and two weapon fighters get punished even more than others from that. Also take the rogue in general where sneak attack starts of being a tactical risk to get a decent reward (which works alright) but at the end of the game becomes a risk for often no reward because there are so many ways to make yourself immune to sneak attack and that is not written in the description of the class. I think 4e and 5e have it better where getting SA is made easy enough that you should get it almost every turn and they based its effectiveness on that idea.

[kyoryu]

For instance considering how much investment and how it sounds grabbing all the two weapon fighting feats should be great but in the end it isn't due to things that are not going to be obvious.

This is actually a good example.

"I want to be a fighter that does a lot of damage! Getting rid of a shield in favor of a weapons seems like that would be the way to do it! Oh, look how many feats this costs to do effectively - surely in exchange for this level of specialization I'll be a whirling blender of death!"

Except it doesn't work that way. The obvious, logical thing to do is actually incredibly ineffective.

[RazorChain]

Again, it depends of which editions you're talking about. 0e and 1e, and B/X, are certainly not four-color supers. I can't speak to 2e or 3e -- BECMI certainly turns into that in the higher levels/Immortal level set, or, at least, it can.

I don't have any experience with 4e (I've at least *played* 2e and 3.x before), but from what I hear it is perhaps the most internally consistent version across the levels.



No but the power inflation distorts the game so much and I almost never experience that in other games, and I'm one of those who thinks it stupid that suddenly all the bad guys are now scaling with your level. I haven't any experience past 3rd edition so can't speak for those

[2D8HP]

Since the majority of us don't have enough experience with all the different "editions" of D&D (much more than five!), I wish there was some "which D&D is right for you" quiz similar to the pop-psychology quizzes in "men's" and "women's" magazines.

[Cluedrew]

To 2D8HP: Do we want to make a thread for that?

I'm sure we could. Pick out the strong & weak points of each edition, convert the comparisons into questions and then have an answer key which converts you answer into an approximate score for each system.

[Jay R]

Since the majority of us don't have enough experience with all the different "editions" of D&D (much more than five!), I wish there was some "which D&D is right for you" quiz similar to the pop-psychology quizzes in "men's" and "women's" magazines.

More often than not, the answer is, "The first version you played".

I suspect that's mostly because that version shapes your expectations, but also partly because each version is aimed at the current potential gamers at that time.

[2D8HP]

To 2D8HP: Do we want to make a thread for that?

I'm sure we could. Pick out the strong & weak points of each edition, convert the comparisons into questions and then have an answer key which converts you answer into an approximate score for each system.That sounds pretty good, but wouldn't we have to already have impressions of each version of D&D already (not to mention other games)?

I myself have really only experienced play with '77 Basic, 0e with supplements, 1e AD&D, "5e" D&D, read a lot of 3e (no real table time past character creation though), and have had only brief glances at '81 B/X, RC, 2e AD&D, 3.5 and 4e, and I expect that most of us have different but still partial lists.

But... if anyone else thinks it's a good idea, yeah let's do that thread!



More often than not, the answer is, "The first version you played.....So.. that's why when I DM I can only remember 48 pages of rules (1977 "Basic"), but when I'm a player I expect the DM to remember material scattered over several books (the "LBB's", plus Greyhawk, plus Blackmoor, plus the Arduin Grimoires, etc...).

That.... actually kind of makes sense, but I still believe the type of adventure (explore and loot the Dungeon vs. defeat the BBEG) matters more than whether you roll percentile dice or a D20 to see if your Thief successfully picks a lock, but yeah a certain flavor is craved even if the chemical ingredients aren't exactly the same.

[Cluedrew]

To 2D8HP: Well I have "impressions" on most of the big systems, actual experience with quite a few less. Hopefully we can get enough support in from other people to fill it in though. We could branch out to other systems... but although I think this is worth trying I don't know if it will work so I'm not sure if "the role-playing game that is right for you" is a good idea. If nothing else, limiting it to editions of D&D will remove the question of which systems to include.

We would probably need more than just two people to put that together. You need* multiple people's opinions to make that come together.

* Rather, I think you should have.

[kyoryu]

More often than not, the answer is, "The first version you played".

I suspect that's mostly because that version shapes your expectations, but also partly because each version is aimed at the current potential gamers at that time.

Add in a measure of "and if you didn't like the current version at the time that you started playing, you wouldn't have continued" and I think you've got the recipe down.

[Yora]

Well, I started with 3rd edition and stuck with it for 10 years because I didn't know any better. Now I think it's just awful and the opposite of what I always wanted out of RPGs.

[2D8HP]

Well, I started with 3rd edition and stuck with it for 10 years because I didn't know any better. Now I think it's just awful and the opposite of what I always wanted out of RPGs.
Well minus some reading time that's 10 years more experience than me so please contribute your wisdom to the:

Making a quiz! Which D&D is right for you? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?509619-Making-a-quiz!-Which-D-amp-D-is-right-for-you) thread.

Thanks!

:smile: