New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 297
  1. - Top - End - #151
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Nov 2012

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

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    ... 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".

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    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?
    Last edited by barna10; 2016-12-07 at 09:37 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #152
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Milo v3 View Post
    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.

  3. - Top - End - #153
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post

    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.

  4. - Top - End - #154
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    NightDweller's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2016

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

    Quote Originally Posted by gtwucla View Post
    Because we are human and being a god is beyond our apprehension.
    Not really, we have written about many gods throughout history.

  5. - Top - End - #155
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by NightDweller View Post
    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.

  6. - Top - End - #156
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2009

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

    For anyone who's seriously interested in seeing how older games handle the transition from rags to rulership you should check out this thread 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".

  7. - Top - End - #157
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

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

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    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.

  8. - Top - End - #158
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Nov 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by thirdkingdom View Post
    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.

  9. - Top - End - #159
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

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

    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.

  10. - Top - End - #160
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2009

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

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    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."

  11. - Top - End - #161
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by thirdkingdom View Post
    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.

  12. - Top - End - #162
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2009

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

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    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 :)

  13. - Top - End - #163
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Nov 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by thirdkingdom
    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.

  14. - Top - End - #164
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by thirdkingdom View Post
    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".

  15. - Top - End - #165
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Right behind you!
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    ?? 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.

  16. - Top - End - #166
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Nov 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CharonsHelper View Post
    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.

  17. - Top - End - #167
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Right behind you!
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by CharonsHelper; 2016-12-10 at 06:18 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #168
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Milo v3's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Gender
    Intersex

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

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    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?
    Spoiler: Old Avatar by Aruius
    Show
    http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q56/Zeritho/Koboldbard.png

  19. - Top - End - #169
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

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

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    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.

  20. - Top - End - #170
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Nov 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CharonsHelper View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Milo v3 View Post
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    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.

  21. - Top - End - #171
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Milo v3's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Gender
    Intersex

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

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Milo v3; 2016-12-10 at 07:58 PM.
    Spoiler: Old Avatar by Aruius
    Show
    http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q56/Zeritho/Koboldbard.png

  22. - Top - End - #172
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Right behind you!
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    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.

  23. - Top - End - #173
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

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

    Spoiler: Minor Points
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    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.

  24. - Top - End - #174
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Milo v3's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Gender
    Intersex

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by Milo v3; 2016-12-10 at 08:51 PM.
    Spoiler: Old Avatar by Aruius
    Show
    http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q56/Zeritho/Koboldbard.png

  25. - Top - End - #175
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

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

    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.

  26. - Top - End - #176
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Nov 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Milo v3 View Post
    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".

    Quote Originally Posted by Milo v3
    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.
    Last edited by barna10; 2016-12-11 at 12:03 AM.

  27. - Top - End - #177
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Right behind you!
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    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!
    Last edited by CharonsHelper; 2016-12-11 at 12:39 AM.

  28. - Top - End - #178
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Milo v3's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Gender
    Intersex

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

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    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....
    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

    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...
    Last edited by Milo v3; 2016-12-11 at 12:30 AM.
    Spoiler: Old Avatar by Aruius
    Show
    http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q56/Zeritho/Koboldbard.png

  29. - Top - End - #179
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    137beth's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2009

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

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    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 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.

  30. - Top - End - #180
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

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

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by barna10 View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •