The Changing Game

One of the stated design goals of 4E was to make the game play "the same" at 1st level as it does at 30th level. Obviously, the details differ and things get more Epic, but overall it seems as though this goal was achieved (I haven't played that high of level yet, so I can only assess the rules as written).

However, one of my favorite aspects of earlier editions -- particularly BECM and AD&D, but still to a lesser extend 3E -- was that the game did change throughout the life cycle of a campaign and an individual character.

At low levels, the PCs had to work hard just to survive. Dungeon delving was dangerous business with death lurking around every corner. Life was procedural and cautious, lest one fell victim to some monster or death trap. After a few levels, however, things changed. The characters became more confident in their abilities and could survive longer, go farther and dig deeper. they could escape the dungeon and spread out into the wilderness, seeking adventure where it may be, regardless of how many miles they had to traverse to get there. Certainly, danger still lurked, but mid level characters met it head on. And while dungeons till served as core adventure locales, they shared space with towns and exterior ruins and wilderness. The world got bigger for them. Once the low high levels were reached, the game changed again. Followers came to serve the PCs and fortresses could be built. Level adavancement slowed, making the killing of monsters and taking of stuff secondary to interacting with the world. With newfound power (sometimes personal, sometimes political -- a dvision almost universally drawn down the line between "mundane" and "mystical") and responsibility, characters could engage and change the world. Moreover, the threats faced by these characters were often those of high intelligence as well as great destructive power -- it was no longer an issue of simply slaughtering monsters, but of facing down real evil. At even higher levels, characters often retired. Those that didn't, though, could wage open war (the Companion war machine rules), seek immortality, traverse the planes and even face down gods. While we don't know much about his early days, the progression hews close to the career of Beowulf -- adventurous youth, hero, ruler and finally meeting his destiny against the greatest of all foes.

This changing game, I believe, kept interest alive in a way an "unchanging" one cannot. One can only delve so many dungeons and face so many personal, equally powerful opponents in combat. I can think of no heroes in our tales and myths that ended just as they began, with only the scale of their destructive power having increased.

I am eager to run 4E and see how it plays out. But I am hopeful that when I do, the time it takes to advance though the Heroic and into the Paragon tiers resources like the DMG II and others will help change the game to keep it viable outside the limited realm of dungeon crawls and tactical combats.

On one hand, I think you're right. PCs face challenging encounters throughout their careers in 4E.

On the other hand, I think you're wrong. The nature of the Tiers suggests that, as you advance in levels, you affect the world in different ways.

The PCs in my game are only 7th level, so it's hard to say. But they are interested in developing strongholds, and the PHB & DMG suggest that they should be.

LostSoul said:

The PCs in my game are only 7th level, so it's hard to say. But they are interested in developing strongholds, and the PHB & DMG suggest that they should be.

Click to expand...

Yet there is no support in the Core for such activity, because, again, the design of the game is built around it being the "same" game from 1 to 30, varying only in scale and backdrop. Delving into a kobold infested rat hole to save a village and going into the Abyss to save a world are the same thing; establishing a small temple and then a theocracy and finally ruling the world under divine right (as an example for a cleric or paladin) is a different thing entirely, especially when the system (or at least the products) support such play mechanically. It becomes a part of the game, as opposed to something we, as users, tack onto the game because it seems like a good idea. it becomes a meaningful play choice and systemically encourages the breadth of play of which rpgs are capable.

Moreover, it isn't merely that the above is not included, but that what is included is all geared toward the same goal, regardless of level. Whether one thinks that high octane action adventure is a desirable goal for D&D core design is not really an issue; what is an issue is that it is the only design (as compared to previous editions which made some effort, even in the core, to systemize the "Heroic Journey").

Followers came to serve the PCs and fortresses could be built. Level adavancement slowed, making the killing of monsters and taking of stuff secondary to interacting with the world. With newfound power (sometimes personal, sometimes political -- a dvision almost universally drawn down the line between "mundane" and "mystical") and responsibility, characters could engage and change the world. Moreover, the threats faced by these characters were often those of high intelligence as well as great destructive power -- it was no longer an issue of simply slaughtering monsters, but of facing down real evil. At even higher levels, characters often retired. Those that didn't, though, could wage open war (the Companion war machine rules), seek immortality, traverse the planes and even face down gods. While we don't know much about his early days, the progression hews close to the career of Beowulf -- adventurous youth, hero, ruler and finally meeting his destiny against the greatest of all foes.

Click to expand...

I think you've got a real point here (and you usually do) because real heroism is ultimately not about personal power, but the use of personal power for the good of others. In earlier versions of the game this attitude was just assumed, that is it was written up as if to assume that heroism was a progressive state of "evolving behavior," moving from personal concerns to societal and world concerns.

Later versions of the game stressed "evolutionary societal and cultural heroism" far less than the aspect of "ever increasing personal power."

It's a tendency that should move back in the other direction as a design philosophy and working assumption. That is to say heroism should have a goal and objective other than a mere tactical and personal one. It should also have an evolving, strategic one.

Reynard said:

Yet there is no support in the Core for such activity, because, again, the design of the game is built around it being the "same" game from 1 to 30, varying only in scale and backdrop. Delving into a kobold infested rat hole to save a village and going into the Abyss to save a world are the same thing; establishing a small temple and then a theocracy and finally ruling the world under divine right (as an example for a cleric or paladin) is a different thing entirely, especially when the system (or at least the products) support such play mechanically. It becomes a part of the game, as opposed to something we, as users, tack onto the game because it seems like a good idea. it becomes a meaningful play choice and systemically encourages the breadth of play of which rpgs are capable.

Click to expand...

I disagree that going into a kobold-infested rat hole and the Abyss are the same thing. Mechanically, for that level, it's the same; but if those PCs went into the rat-hole later on, they'd clean up.

I think that something like Skill Challenges goes a long way to covering the "I am a King" things, if players are interested. It gives a nice framework for political maneuvering, one that's very different from previous editions. (Better or not depends on your point of view.)

The reason why I say that is because I've played some Burning Wheel & Empires, and those games have a (superior) sub-system like Skill Challenges. The nature of this mechanic lends itself to political play. I feel, though I haven't seen it in practice, that Skill Challenges will make political play much easier for the group to deal with.


@ Jack7: You really should try out Sorcerer.

LostSoul said:

On the other hand, I think you're wrong. The nature of the Tiers suggests that, as you advance in levels, you affect the world in different ways.

Click to expand...

This.

The game does change significantly as the PCs advance through the tiers. The PCs in my current campaign are 13th level now and their interaction with the world is much different than it was when they were 3rd level. They've gone from saving villages from evil bands of goblins, to thwarting plots to overthrow major religions and conquer kingdoms. In doing so, they've built up alliances, gained enemies and become a major force in the campaign world. If the idea of building a fortress and attracting followers appealed to any of them, I would have no problem (and plenty of support from the core books) making that happen in the context of normal campaign events.

By the Epic tier, I envision them moving through the multiverse and being instrumental in the welfare of entire planes of existence. I honestly don't see how there could be MORE variance between the game at low levels and the game at high levels. As LostSoul points out, the basics of running combats remain essentially the same (which is a godsend) but the consequences of the PCs actions and their role in the world has changed tremendously as the game has gone on.

Ourph said:

The game does change significantly as the PCs advance through the tiers.

Click to expand...

As stated, the scale of events and the backdrop of play of course changes with tier. However, there's no actual systemic change in the way the game functions at higher levels as opposed to lower levels. I am thinking here of the changes brought on by "Name Level" in AD&D, which ultimately amounted to a slowing down of the acquisition of personal power (levels) and the increasing of extrapersonal power and responsibilities (followers; building fortresses or guilds or schools; etc...)

If the idea of building a fortress and attracting followers appealed to any of them, I would have no problem (and plenty of support from the core books) making that happen in the context of normal campaign events.

Click to expand...

What actual mechanical support do you get from the system in the core for gaining followers, building fortresses, ruling dominions or waging war?

but the consequences of the PCs actions and their role in the world has changed tremendously as the game has gone on.

Click to expand...

But this is a function of how you play the game, not a function of the game itself. The game plays the same and therefore *is* the same.

Again, I hold out some hope: both AD&D 2E and 3E put out books on castle building and attempts to cover the ruling and warring of nations (which I mean to include bard schools, wizards' colleges, temples and thieves' guilds, of course). On the other hand, this element was much downplayed in 3.5, especially near the end in the 4E "model" years, so it is possible that it won't be considered worth the effort -- especially since the primary driving force for such play, the changing game, has been ironned out of the core system.

We shall have to see.

One of the stated design goals of 4E was to make the game play "the same" at 1st level as it does at 30th level.

Click to expand...

As far as I know, this was never stated and you are just twisting the words of the developers in order to make a point. They stated that they want to expand the "sweet spot" but this hardly means that the game is the same at every level. On the contrary, both the PHB and the DMG state that the game is very different at different tiers, even if they do not provide rules for castle building and whatnot (such rules, in my opinion, don't belong in the core books in the first place).

In my experience, the only thing that is roughly "the same" is the balance and the ease of combat flow throughout the levels.

I monitored the pre- and post-release information about 4E pretty closely, but maybe I missed something, so I will be grateful if you point me to the design goal you are quoting.

BlizzardB: WOTC stated that a design goal was to make certain combat matters "the same" throughout the whole game. For example, at level 7 in 3e, you can get hit a few times in battle and still survive, so fights involve trading blows back and forth with the enemy for a few rounds. At level 1 in 3e, you can get hit once in battle and then you're in critical danger. The designers felt that this made the first few levels a sort of "false advertising" for the "real" way the game played. They pointed out how new players are often turned off by level 1 gameplay, and experienced players often skip to levels 3 or 4 to start their campaigns in an effort to avoid this style of play. The discussion where this was mentioned was in context of 4e's front loaded hit points.

These statements have since been seized upon by, well, basically everyone who wants to claim that 4e is less versatile in any particular way, even if it was not the way being discussed by WOTC.

Reynard is mostly correct when he says that WOTC wanted to avoid this

At low levels, the PCs had to work hard just to survive. Dungeon delving was dangerous business with death lurking around every corner. Life was procedural and cautious, lest one fell victim to some monster or death trap. After a few levels, however, things changed.

Click to expand...

I say mostly, because its not like the risk of death goes away at higher levels. But yes, WOTC did intentionally demolish the "procedural" aspect of gameplay that you get when a spear trap that does 1d6+1 damage could easily kill off your character.

He's kind of out on a limb, though, when he starts talking about certain other matters.

For example, when he talks about the nature of the threats the PCs face changing as they advance in level- that's still in the game.

Or when he talks about mechanical support in the core rules for obtaining strongholds. Other than the Leadership feat, that's been out of the game for a very long time. There's been some good non core rules for it, but it doesn't make much sense to claim that this is something new in 4e. Matters like strongholds tend to be relegated to the land of Plot, rather than Mechanics.

Other than the Leadership feat, that's been out of the game for a very long time. There's been some good non core rules for it, but it doesn't make much sense to claim that this is something new in 4e. Matters like strongholds tend to be relegated to the land of Plot, rather than Mechanics.

Click to expand...

I think CF, that this is exactly what Reynard meant, by saying this:

I am thinking here of the changes brought on by "Name Level" in AD&D, which ultimately amounted to a slowing down of the acquisition of personal power (levels) and the increasing of extrapersonal power and responsibilities (followers; building fortresses or guilds or schools; etc...)

Click to expand...

and this:

On the other hand, this element was much downplayed in 3.5, especially near the end in the 4E "model" years, so it is possible that it won't be considered worth the effort -- especially since the primary driving force for such play, the changing game, has been ironned out of the core system.

Click to expand...

That recent editions of the game, 4E being the most recent, have moved more or less steadily away from the idea of strategic character development in relation to the larger world. He's lamenting the loss. It doesn't mean it has to remain this way, just that it has thus far. That recent versions of the game, 3E and 4E for instance, are less strategically and socially conscious than earlier versions and that more emphasis has been placed on personal power development than other forms of power development. Like social, political, leadership functions, and so forth. That his real point with the post was not so much changing game, per se - as a mechanical idea of game, as it was actually there is now less character change in relation to game progression as that played out in the milieu. It was a sort of poetic play on terms.

I don't wanna put words in his mouth though so I'll like him answer it, but it strikes me this was his real intent in posting this.

But as for me, I've been working on this very issue for the Great Conjunction contest. I've been working on the idea of, as characters progress in level, of there being corresponding and obvious social, political, and leadership opportunities that come with an advance in status of capability, heroism, and reputation. That is directly binding level progression with at least opportunities for power assumption and use outside of "class power." How does that strike you as a potential solution to the problem Reynard?

I think one of the real problems with this whole issue is class. When the game says class, it doesn't really mean class at all (warrior, knight, nobility, Duke, King, peasant, merchant, priest), it means something far more limited and more situationally-precise, it means profession, or as the old term used to be, vocation. But the original versions of the game more or less implied the larger social and cultural context of "real-class" as it also related to profession. (That the idea of larger duties were at least mechanically implied in earlier game versions.) That is as one became professionally heroic and developed personally one also developed and should take on social duties, not just personal and party duties.

But over time it has become more or less all about the individual and his "class," and far less about larger responsibilities. And it's hard to be really heroic when all you're doing is tending your own field.