Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
L&L: The Challenges of High Level Play
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5825206" data-attributes="member: 22424"><p>For the first time, I don't just get a feeling of "Meh" from Legends & Lore - Monte is absolutely and fundamentally wrong, IMO. From the top....</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually, I've never heard this said about 1st or 2nd Edition, and barely ever about 4e.</p><p></p><p>There are a couple of reasons for this:</p><p></p><p>In 1st and 2nd Edition, the maths of the game fundamentally changes at 'name' level - most characters stop gaining many hit points, non-spellcasters have more or less topped out in power, and monster ACs have maxed out at -10. It's only the spellcasters who continue to see big boosts in power, and while this leads to a "spellcasters rule!" mentality, they're rare enough that I haven't seen this translate into "the game breaks". (Although, maybe it should have.)</p><p></p><p>In 4e the designers, to their immense credit, went through the game and "fixed the math". And they genuinely did a good job of it. So, aside from the errata that they had to apply and then re-apply, the game holds up surprisingly well. In fact, quite different from "the game breaks", the great criticism of 4e is that there is too little difference - at 1st level you fight Orcs and at 30th you fight Orcus, but you're doing fundamentally the same stuff each time. (And, yes, that's an exaggeration. I just like the Orcs/Orcus parallel.)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>He's right that the game changes.</p><p></p><p>But, in 3e at least, he's wrong to assert that the game doesn't break. The problem is that 3e starts off as a hugely complex game (even Core Rules only), and with every supplement you add, and every level you go up, that complexity increases hugely. After a while, you get to a "sweet spot", where characters are nicely robust, where they have plenty of options, but where the complexity isn't overwhelming.</p><p></p><p>But then, scant few levels later, the complexity <em>really</em> starts to bite. Polymorph kills you, summoned monsters can mean the Druids turn alone takes an hour, and woe betide you if someone drops a <em>greater dispel</em>!</p><p></p><p>At the same time, the game purposefully negates the hard-won survivability of the characters as save-or-die effects proliferate. And so we get so-called "rocket tag", in which the spellcasters bounce magical effects back and forwards and the only real consideration is "who fails a save first?"</p><p></p><p>And, of course, if it is your PC who dies, you're out of action for hours while the rest of the party completes the encounter, and then you return through the revolving door of death. Madness, on both counts.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope, wrong. I <em>like</em> high level play. It's just that it's easier to do in Savage Worlds or Exalted than D&D. 4e was a step forward in this regard, but it loses me for other regards. With 3e, having done high-level once, I'll not be doing it again... and that's my current edition of choice.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes. Gosh, I wish the 4e designers had considered that... /sarcasm</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>NO. This is absolutely and completely wrong.</p><p></p><p>For a first-time player, the model of "start simple, then increase complexity" is a good thing. Fair enough.</p><p></p><p>But...</p><p></p><p>A given player only plays that first campaign <em>once</em>, and most of us don't want to then revert back to "Dwarf Fighter" as the full extent of our customisation the second and subsequent time we play. Additionally, most of us reach of point at which the level of complexity is right for us, and don't want to go beyond that point.</p><p></p><p>So, what that <em>actually</em> suggests is that the core game should be a nice, simple introduction to the game, with minimal complexity at the start, gradually increasing to a moderate level <em>and then staying at that level for the rest of the level range</em>. Then, add supplements that add complexity (but <em>not</em> power) at those low levels, and further supplements that allow groups to increase the level of complexity <em>across the level range</em> up to their preferred level (and no further).</p><p></p><p>Remember that it is trivial for a supplement to <em>add</em> complexity; it is nigh-impossible for one to remove it. So, keep the core to the minimum complexity you require to make the game work.</p><p></p><p>It's almost as if what's needed is some sort of, I don't know, modular system...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="delericho, post: 5825206, member: 22424"] For the first time, I don't just get a feeling of "Meh" from Legends & Lore - Monte is absolutely and fundamentally wrong, IMO. From the top.... Actually, I've never heard this said about 1st or 2nd Edition, and barely ever about 4e. There are a couple of reasons for this: In 1st and 2nd Edition, the maths of the game fundamentally changes at 'name' level - most characters stop gaining many hit points, non-spellcasters have more or less topped out in power, and monster ACs have maxed out at -10. It's only the spellcasters who continue to see big boosts in power, and while this leads to a "spellcasters rule!" mentality, they're rare enough that I haven't seen this translate into "the game breaks". (Although, maybe it should have.) In 4e the designers, to their immense credit, went through the game and "fixed the math". And they genuinely did a good job of it. So, aside from the errata that they had to apply and then re-apply, the game holds up surprisingly well. In fact, quite different from "the game breaks", the great criticism of 4e is that there is too little difference - at 1st level you fight Orcs and at 30th you fight Orcus, but you're doing fundamentally the same stuff each time. (And, yes, that's an exaggeration. I just like the Orcs/Orcus parallel.) He's right that the game changes. But, in 3e at least, he's wrong to assert that the game doesn't break. The problem is that 3e starts off as a hugely complex game (even Core Rules only), and with every supplement you add, and every level you go up, that complexity increases hugely. After a while, you get to a "sweet spot", where characters are nicely robust, where they have plenty of options, but where the complexity isn't overwhelming. But then, scant few levels later, the complexity [i]really[/i] starts to bite. Polymorph kills you, summoned monsters can mean the Druids turn alone takes an hour, and woe betide you if someone drops a [i]greater dispel[/i]! At the same time, the game purposefully negates the hard-won survivability of the characters as save-or-die effects proliferate. And so we get so-called "rocket tag", in which the spellcasters bounce magical effects back and forwards and the only real consideration is "who fails a save first?" And, of course, if it is your PC who dies, you're out of action for hours while the rest of the party completes the encounter, and then you return through the revolving door of death. Madness, on both counts. Agreed. Nope, wrong. I [i]like[/i] high level play. It's just that it's easier to do in Savage Worlds or Exalted than D&D. 4e was a step forward in this regard, but it loses me for other regards. With 3e, having done high-level once, I'll not be doing it again... and that's my current edition of choice. Yes. Gosh, I wish the 4e designers had considered that... /sarcasm NO. This is absolutely and completely wrong. For a first-time player, the model of "start simple, then increase complexity" is a good thing. Fair enough. But... A given player only plays that first campaign [i]once[/i], and most of us don't want to then revert back to "Dwarf Fighter" as the full extent of our customisation the second and subsequent time we play. Additionally, most of us reach of point at which the level of complexity is right for us, and don't want to go beyond that point. So, what that [i]actually[/i] suggests is that the core game should be a nice, simple introduction to the game, with minimal complexity at the start, gradually increasing to a moderate level [i]and then staying at that level for the rest of the level range[/i]. Then, add supplements that add complexity (but [i]not[/i] power) at those low levels, and further supplements that allow groups to increase the level of complexity [i]across the level range[/i] up to their preferred level (and no further). Remember that it is trivial for a supplement to [i]add[/i] complexity; it is nigh-impossible for one to remove it. So, keep the core to the minimum complexity you require to make the game work. It's almost as if what's needed is some sort of, I don't know, modular system... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
L&L: The Challenges of High Level Play
Top