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: 5826631" data-attributes="member: 22424"><p>When the statement is as absolute as "In every single edition, when you start talking about high-level play, someone invariably says that the game breaks down after about 12th level," responding that you haven't seen it put forward about several editions would seem to be a perfectly good counter-argument.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Fair enough, poor wording on my part. "Argument", or "shorthand", or "conclusion" would seem more appropriate.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh, I've heard "spellcasters rule", but until now I've not seen someone declare that to be an unequivocable statement of brokeness. I guess the people I've been hearing it from consider it to be a feature rather than a bug, or consider it a valid tradeoff for their weakness at low levels, or just really like playing spellcasters. Or, indeed, just haven't played much beyond "name" level.</p><p></p><p>But this is actually largely irrelevant. You'll note that in my post I agree with some of the statements Monte makes in his article. So it should be obvious that my statement that he's "absolutely and fundamentally wrong" doesn't necessarily refer to every single statement he makes, but rather some important part of his article.</p><p></p><p>Which is what I address later in my post, with my response to his point that, "What I am really getting at here is that the level of the game affects the complexity both of the story and the mechanics," where again I repeat "absolutely and completely wrong".</p><p></p><p>And, yes, I stand by my argument there. If complexity is tied to level, and people enjoy a particular amount of complexity, then you get a situation where they can be playing a character they enjoy in a campaign they enjoy, only to find that they have to stop playing, because the increasing complexity makes the game cease to be fun for them. That really can't be a good idea. And neither is it a good idea for experienced players to be stuck with "dwarf fighter" as their character, when they'd prefer something more nuanced, simply because the campaign starts at level 1.</p><p></p><p>Complexity should be tied to <em>player</em> experience and preference, not locked in to <em>character</em> experience any more than it absolutely must.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="delericho, post: 5826631, member: 22424"] When the statement is as absolute as "In every single edition, when you start talking about high-level play, someone invariably says that the game breaks down after about 12th level," responding that you haven't seen it put forward about several editions would seem to be a perfectly good counter-argument. Fair enough, poor wording on my part. "Argument", or "shorthand", or "conclusion" would seem more appropriate. Oh, I've heard "spellcasters rule", but until now I've not seen someone declare that to be an unequivocable statement of brokeness. I guess the people I've been hearing it from consider it to be a feature rather than a bug, or consider it a valid tradeoff for their weakness at low levels, or just really like playing spellcasters. Or, indeed, just haven't played much beyond "name" level. But this is actually largely irrelevant. You'll note that in my post I agree with some of the statements Monte makes in his article. So it should be obvious that my statement that he's "absolutely and fundamentally wrong" doesn't necessarily refer to every single statement he makes, but rather some important part of his article. Which is what I address later in my post, with my response to his point that, "What I am really getting at here is that the level of the game affects the complexity both of the story and the mechanics," where again I repeat "absolutely and completely wrong". And, yes, I stand by my argument there. If complexity is tied to level, and people enjoy a particular amount of complexity, then you get a situation where they can be playing a character they enjoy in a campaign they enjoy, only to find that they have to stop playing, because the increasing complexity makes the game cease to be fun for them. That really can't be a good idea. And neither is it a good idea for experienced players to be stuck with "dwarf fighter" as their character, when they'd prefer something more nuanced, simply because the campaign starts at level 1. Complexity should be tied to [i]player[/i] experience and preference, not locked in to [i]character[/i] experience any more than it absolutely must. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
L&L: The Challenges of High Level Play
Top