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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pros and Cons of Epic 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="pemerton" data-source="post: 6284875" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], you make frequent references to various video/computer games. I've not played any of them, but I think I have the general gist of what you are talking about - variations on reskinning in WoW (rats become wolves become dragons, but the play is still just roll to hit, roll to damage, loot it when it's dead), variations on Roads to Rome (perhaps) in Mass Effect (whatever choices you make, you end up in the same place).</p><p></p><p>For some reason you don't believe me that my game is not like that. I don't really know why - I don't think it can be on the basis of reading my play posts. In the post about the baronial dinner party, for instance, <em>no one</em> at the table knew what would happen, or that the players would decide to tell the baron the truth about his advisor and goad the advisor into betraying his true colours, until these actions were discussed and then declared by the players.</p><p></p><p>In the case of the fight with Torog, the email traffic between the Soul Abattoir session and the Torog session (some of which I am party to, some of which the players keep me out of) there were heated discussions about whether to stay and fight, or to run for the party's Planar Dromond that was waiting for them on the Soul Slough. They decided to stay and fight.</p><p></p><p>(The fight even involved a mechanical change - an escalation die for both to hit and damage, in the fiction corresponding to Torog's weakening as he loses the supply of power from the Soul Abattoir, in the metagame to give the players the bonuses they needed to deal with a 34th level being's defences. But that change did not make it epic.)</p><p></p><p>The fact that the DC of social checks has changed is not a contrast to fictional positioning. It is a consequence of fictional positioning - ie he is in a position to ask, or demand, things of NPCs that he hitherto wasn't.</p><p></p><p>For similar reasons, the dwarf fighter/cleric typically receives a +2 circumstance bonus when making Diplomacy checks in situations of civilised negotiations, because of the respect accorded to "Lord Derrik of the Dwarfholme of the East".</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure what the "arbitrariness" comment is doing - it seems an allusion to an excange with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] in the "what's the rush" thread. But in any event, the fact that (say) the duergar in my game didn't trust the chaos drow was not arbitrary. It's because they could tell, from the runes of chaos on his demonskin robes, that he was a threat to their carefully constructed order. (And their fears came true - he opened a demongate that led to their citadel being destroyed.)</p><p></p><p>No I haven't. Describing one as a gorge and the other as a stream isn't a mechanical differentiation. It's purely a difference of flavour.</p><p></p><p>If the DCs for those checks are different, eg because in one case the availability of pitons confers a +2 bonus to Survival, and in the other case casting Icy Terrain to freeze the stream grants a +2, then it is not mere colour.</p><p></p><p>Furthermore, if the outcome changes the fictional positioning, such that new options are or are not available, then it also is not mere colour. This is unlikely to be the case in a simple scenario of traversing an obstacle, because the obstacle will probably not figure in the game again. (Though surprises are always possible!) But it is very common with NPCs. Irritate an NPC in this interaction, and next time that is your starting point. Which straight away changes the way you declare your action (eg you might start with an apology, or a tentative greeting, rather than getting straight to the point). And that different starting point in turn matters to how things unfold.</p><p></p><p>This is why I think changes in resolution mechanics are not that important.</p><p></p><p>This seems to explain some of the "accountancy" dimension to your conception of paragon play: if the PC is experiencing the stress of making the logistics of the army viable, then so must the player.</p><p></p><p>My own very strong preference is for proxy emotions. I don't want my players to feel the fear of death when their PCs' lives are on the line - the proxy is the thrill of gambling combined with the hope for successful choices within the game's combat mechanical framework. And I don't want them to feel the frustrations of rulership. (Most of us have enough bureaucracy in our day jobs.) The proxy, at least in my games, is the cognitive burden of keeping track of an increasingly complex backstory and making decisions that have adequate regard to that complexity.</p><p></p><p>This relates to a post I made in the "What's the rush" thread: I think 4e's tier system is designed for long-term play. Without long term play, there is no contrast achieved via the amplificative effects of paragon paths and epic destinies, so you may as well go the Neverwinter route and do it with heoric numbers. So I would also say that I don't think paragon or epic play in my preferred sense is easy in a short-term game, because it takes time to build up the intricacy of backstory that supports the proxy I have just outlined for the frustrations of rulership.</p><p></p><p>But the fact that the emotions are proxies doesn't mean that they're not different one from the other, nor that they're not the result of engaging the gameworld differently and of growth in the scope and complexity of the story elements.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6284875, member: 42582"] [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], you make frequent references to various video/computer games. I've not played any of them, but I think I have the general gist of what you are talking about - variations on reskinning in WoW (rats become wolves become dragons, but the play is still just roll to hit, roll to damage, loot it when it's dead), variations on Roads to Rome (perhaps) in Mass Effect (whatever choices you make, you end up in the same place). For some reason you don't believe me that my game is not like that. I don't really know why - I don't think it can be on the basis of reading my play posts. In the post about the baronial dinner party, for instance, [I]no one[/I] at the table knew what would happen, or that the players would decide to tell the baron the truth about his advisor and goad the advisor into betraying his true colours, until these actions were discussed and then declared by the players. In the case of the fight with Torog, the email traffic between the Soul Abattoir session and the Torog session (some of which I am party to, some of which the players keep me out of) there were heated discussions about whether to stay and fight, or to run for the party's Planar Dromond that was waiting for them on the Soul Slough. They decided to stay and fight. (The fight even involved a mechanical change - an escalation die for both to hit and damage, in the fiction corresponding to Torog's weakening as he loses the supply of power from the Soul Abattoir, in the metagame to give the players the bonuses they needed to deal with a 34th level being's defences. But that change did not make it epic.) The fact that the DC of social checks has changed is not a contrast to fictional positioning. It is a consequence of fictional positioning - ie he is in a position to ask, or demand, things of NPCs that he hitherto wasn't. For similar reasons, the dwarf fighter/cleric typically receives a +2 circumstance bonus when making Diplomacy checks in situations of civilised negotiations, because of the respect accorded to "Lord Derrik of the Dwarfholme of the East". I'm not sure what the "arbitrariness" comment is doing - it seems an allusion to an excange with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] in the "what's the rush" thread. But in any event, the fact that (say) the duergar in my game didn't trust the chaos drow was not arbitrary. It's because they could tell, from the runes of chaos on his demonskin robes, that he was a threat to their carefully constructed order. (And their fears came true - he opened a demongate that led to their citadel being destroyed.) No I haven't. Describing one as a gorge and the other as a stream isn't a mechanical differentiation. It's purely a difference of flavour. If the DCs for those checks are different, eg because in one case the availability of pitons confers a +2 bonus to Survival, and in the other case casting Icy Terrain to freeze the stream grants a +2, then it is not mere colour. Furthermore, if the outcome changes the fictional positioning, such that new options are or are not available, then it also is not mere colour. This is unlikely to be the case in a simple scenario of traversing an obstacle, because the obstacle will probably not figure in the game again. (Though surprises are always possible!) But it is very common with NPCs. Irritate an NPC in this interaction, and next time that is your starting point. Which straight away changes the way you declare your action (eg you might start with an apology, or a tentative greeting, rather than getting straight to the point). And that different starting point in turn matters to how things unfold. This is why I think changes in resolution mechanics are not that important. This seems to explain some of the "accountancy" dimension to your conception of paragon play: if the PC is experiencing the stress of making the logistics of the army viable, then so must the player. My own very strong preference is for proxy emotions. I don't want my players to feel the fear of death when their PCs' lives are on the line - the proxy is the thrill of gambling combined with the hope for successful choices within the game's combat mechanical framework. And I don't want them to feel the frustrations of rulership. (Most of us have enough bureaucracy in our day jobs.) The proxy, at least in my games, is the cognitive burden of keeping track of an increasingly complex backstory and making decisions that have adequate regard to that complexity. This relates to a post I made in the "What's the rush" thread: I think 4e's tier system is designed for long-term play. Without long term play, there is no contrast achieved via the amplificative effects of paragon paths and epic destinies, so you may as well go the Neverwinter route and do it with heoric numbers. So I would also say that I don't think paragon or epic play in my preferred sense is easy in a short-term game, because it takes time to build up the intricacy of backstory that supports the proxy I have just outlined for the frustrations of rulership. But the fact that the emotions are proxies doesn't mean that they're not different one from the other, nor that they're not the result of engaging the gameworld differently and of growth in the scope and complexity of the story elements. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pros and Cons of Epic Level Play?
Top