Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3871092" data-attributes="member: 30001">I am.  I got into this originally because I felt that the Epic Level Handbook (3.0 version that I have) overstated the relevance of Epic level adventuring to literature.  They grouped Conan, Odysseus, Gilgamesh, and Cu Chulainn all as epic level characters even though I'd say I would only consider the last two to be in the running.  And the reasoning in the intro suggested that all these characters were being classed as "epic" because of name recognition.  IMO not the most sound basis, and it does a disservice to trying to avoid power creep.  IMO DnD is a heroic adventuring game, but unfortunately IMO it seems like there is a trend to view 10th level as ordinary. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Depends what you mean by dumb - it could be Conan that's being dumb by not realizing that since he's beat 20 man-eating apes in the past, that maybe he's got a good chance at 21.  Kidding aside, I agree with what you're saying here.  It's what I was trying to say when I said that authors of novels can "manipulate the perception of risk" in ways that a game cannot.  A player sees his stats in front of him and assesses risk in a much more repeatable and rational way than an authors descriptions.True, so take the Aragorn example.  If I were going to "stat" Aragorn, I'd want his player to make the same decisions about who and how to fight, using his metagame information, as the character made in the novels.  I want him to run from the approximate number of orcs that Aragorn does, etc.  As such I agree with you when you make the case for the 10-13 range.I did that to my players one time.  DMs just can't get away with what an author like Tolkien does.  I said "you see a group of cultists standing around".  The players said "we attack".  Then I set out 20 miniatures for the enemy.  The players said "a 'group' means 20!?!?"  They were not amused at my literary license.  That's reasonable if you must define Gandalf in terms of game statistics, but so much of Gandalf's character shouts "DM fiat" to me.  In fact, it seems to me based on Tolkien's overall philosophy - the role that an angel/messanger/mentor type figure plays in a more monotheistic culture.  As such IMO I think Gandalf really escapes description if one can only use the more mechanistic approach of the game of DnD.  IMO Gandalf is an example of the limitations that an RPG has as a literature simulator.Yea, but that was when Glorfindel was an ODnD character, and balrogs were pushovers!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />  Was he really reborn with all his power?  I thought that the earlier ages were essentially more heroic than the third age.  Otherwise that's a good comparison though.  And also the implication IMO in the "Glorfindel and Aragorn together couldn't stand against all 9" would be that Aragorn and Glorfindel were roughly equivent.Normal from the perspective of what you've read, I suppose.  My peculiar reading list doesn't shed light much on the workings of magic suitable for a game system, so I'm not really committed to any particular design - except that I've gotten used to Vancian and often find the statements in support of a change to somewhat overstate the ubiquitousness (word?) of the "fatigue" based system. My source was Geoffrey of Monmouth, and my "700" was a rough estimate because I vaguely remember reading it and thinking "wow, that sounds like DnD"  (always on the lookout for when something that isn't DnD sounds like it)Turns out that the passage in question describes Arthur as having killed 470 men in one fight.  He goes berserk before killing them - it's not "over the course of the siege" as you say.  So I guess Arthur is a high level barbarian.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />   Your description of Badon as a siege perhaps stems from writings about Arthur that try to put historically accurate context to the legends (or maybe it's there?)  In any case, the tough thing about Arthur, as you can see from this example, is that there's many different versions.  A berskering Arthur, more appropriate to Welsh legends, I think is strange to the "Courtly Love" versions of Arthur (though I'm not an expert).  Aragorn, being described by a single author within a single culture, is much easier to get a consistent picture of.</blockquote>

Verification