All D20 Is Broken
- Thread starter Timeron Malachi
- Start date
Crothian
First Post
Timeron Malachi said:
Wow, I hate when no one tells me these things. In last nights session I ran not one, but two fights that went longer then 5 rounds. The characters are higher then 7th level, and we are still having fun. The game is still challenging for them, combat works great, magic is not over powerful, in other words nothing is broken. We must be doing something wrong, damn that DM!! :\
BroccoliRage
First Post
Timeron Malachi said:
solution: convert to 1e. or even 2e. the challenges never stop.
the AD&D inquisition is near at hand...qapla...
MoogleEmpMog
First Post
While I agree the op probably has Regeneration 5/fire among his Special Qualities, I do think he makes the genesis of a valid commentary on the d20 system, at least as embodied in D&D.
D&D, unlike the vast majority of non-RPG games, and even probably a plurality of RPGs, produces wildly varying 'experiences' as you level. Some players have the most fun at 1-5, some (perhaps most, judging from commentary and polls I've seen) at 5-12, some at high levels, a few at Epic levels, and arguably just as few at every level from start to finish. The key thing being that the experience differs considerably - the DMG even acknowledges it, without ever seriously questioning whether it's a "good thing."
Your typical console RPG goes roughly 50 levels and 50 hours; the gameplay experience doesn't change immensely between level 10 and level 40. Your character grows considerably stronger, takes on tougher monsters and bigger threats, the storyline advances, you gain new abilities - but the essence of the game rarely changes. At level 5 you had Fire, at level 20 you had Fira, at level 35, Firaga, at level 50, Flare - an increase in damage or scope or utility, but still part of the same ability tree. New abilities expand your tactical options, perhaps give you more mobility on the world map, perhaps open up new plot threads or missions, but they don't radically revamp the feel of the game. Combats typically last the same number of rounds and are decided in the same way - tactical in some games, simplistic in others, but largely the same across all levels. Leveling can be much faster because a 15th level character can often defeat a 20th level character. In fact, with exceptional luck or tactical skill (assuming the game is sufficiently random or tactically complex), a 1st level character could defeat a 50th level character, because they're both operating in a similar sphere of play.
That sphere of play, perhaps unsurprisingly, is closest to the popular mid levels in D&D: enough abilities to be interesting but none so powerful they turn many combats into one-hit-kills. Increased mobility to give the player options, but not instant transportation to take away wilderness adventures/encounters. Enough hp and spells to last through a fair few fights without fearing a random crit, but not so many danger doesn't loom large.
I wonder if a P&P RPG wouldn't be more entertaining if it captured that same spirit of expanding power and options within the most popular style of play, rather than simply accepting that every 3-5 levels would bring an entirely different style.
D&D, unlike the vast majority of non-RPG games, and even probably a plurality of RPGs, produces wildly varying 'experiences' as you level. Some players have the most fun at 1-5, some (perhaps most, judging from commentary and polls I've seen) at 5-12, some at high levels, a few at Epic levels, and arguably just as few at every level from start to finish. The key thing being that the experience differs considerably - the DMG even acknowledges it, without ever seriously questioning whether it's a "good thing."
Your typical console RPG goes roughly 50 levels and 50 hours; the gameplay experience doesn't change immensely between level 10 and level 40. Your character grows considerably stronger, takes on tougher monsters and bigger threats, the storyline advances, you gain new abilities - but the essence of the game rarely changes. At level 5 you had Fire, at level 20 you had Fira, at level 35, Firaga, at level 50, Flare - an increase in damage or scope or utility, but still part of the same ability tree. New abilities expand your tactical options, perhaps give you more mobility on the world map, perhaps open up new plot threads or missions, but they don't radically revamp the feel of the game. Combats typically last the same number of rounds and are decided in the same way - tactical in some games, simplistic in others, but largely the same across all levels. Leveling can be much faster because a 15th level character can often defeat a 20th level character. In fact, with exceptional luck or tactical skill (assuming the game is sufficiently random or tactically complex), a 1st level character could defeat a 50th level character, because they're both operating in a similar sphere of play.
That sphere of play, perhaps unsurprisingly, is closest to the popular mid levels in D&D: enough abilities to be interesting but none so powerful they turn many combats into one-hit-kills. Increased mobility to give the player options, but not instant transportation to take away wilderness adventures/encounters. Enough hp and spells to last through a fair few fights without fearing a random crit, but not so many danger doesn't loom large.
I wonder if a P&P RPG wouldn't be more entertaining if it captured that same spirit of expanding power and options within the most popular style of play, rather than simply accepting that every 3-5 levels would bring an entirely different style.
Crothian
First Post
MoogleEmpMog said:
This is a strength of the game. It has versatility, the game changes and the characters change quite a bit as the campaign goes on. Of course doing this and having a successful campaign span the many levels is much harder then running other RPGs that are not like this. Maybe that is where tyhese problems are coming from. Third edition is not the basic game.
Odhanan
Adventurer
It did seem like it for me at some point, but:
point #1 - You know you aren't forced to put opponents of absolutely equal CR to the PCs in the game session, right? Varying CRs makes for more variety in your gaming experience.
point #2 - An opponent of CR equal to four PC's average ECL is expected to last 2 rounds or so. See Dungeoncraft column in Dungeon magazine, written by Monte Cook, part 3 of the "Wing it" articles, where he breaks down the system (don't remember the exact number of the issue though).
point #3 - d20 encounters of CR equal to the party level are less and less challenging for the PCs, but the system also assumes you've got three, four, even more encounters of varying Encounter Levels before the party has a chance to rest. This makes for a very tough encounter when the 10th level party, after encounters EL 8, 12 and 11 arrive in the bad guy's hideout with a resulting EL 14+ encounter. Ouch.
In the end, I think that your theory about the broken-ness of the d20 system is not so much a criticism of the system itself as a symptom of the way your group plays the game that isn't challenging enough. There are ways to keep the game interesting, and you can find them. Sheers!
Last edited:
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Not silent, just with a REALLY GOOD Move Silently Check. Like, +20 Hundred. With a cherry on top.
Similar Threads
