Castles of Crystal, Wars of Genocide!

[jgbrowning]

ECM, ECCM, ECCCM,
It´s the same when you bring a new technology/tactic unchecked on the battlefield.
The tank in WWI the Tank Korps, Stukas in WWII, the swiss mercenaries, soon copied from the german landsknechts, countrerd by the reitres the black bands or riders Pistoliers or pistoldevils.
The longbow was countered with the plate armour.

Yep, thats pretty much what i'm saying. Each new development comes up and it rules for a little bit and then its countered. To me, however magic on the scale that we're talking about at epic level (or infact plain D&D at 4th level or so) has a greater distructive power than almost all historical technological developments.

If an army has one tank (say WWI) and you don't, you still have a few ways of overcoming the tank because the tank is also limited by the same technology that created it. A squad with only light weapons wont be able to hurt the tank (although one of the better ways was to set pit traps-- here's an example of a "primative" maneauver besting superior tech, there's lots of others) but at the same time the infantry have much more mobility which allows them to negate some of the tanks effectiveness by staying away from it.

When one gets to big magic, you kinda have to view it as big tech. Imagine that you've developed force fields. These force fields keep out all damage, but when they're breached, you're pretty much dead because the amount of firepower your countermeasures are countering is tremendous. When those coutermeasures are overcome or bypassed, your dead.

If your magic defenses fail under a big magic scenerio, you are just like the guys behind the force field when it fails: dead.

And i think with magic, unlike technology, those instances of failure would be much more common. It doesn't take nearly as much time and resources to create (and implement and disperse) a new spell as it does to create a new technology. Magic is more like a block set that you use to build what you want as opposed to technology being like whenyou have to find the right block set before you can even hope to build what you want. Magic would rapidly modify itself to counter counter-measures faster than we can in reality.

And the consequences of not having magical countermeasures is much greater than the consequences of not having your own tank. *and not having your own tank sucks*


joe b.

 

[solous]

Welcome Solous!

Well, to answer your questions, I would say the following:

SHARK [/B]

Thanks a lot for the detailed answer Shark. Well, it definitely seems as you have put a lot of thought into this.

*Do your players have a chance of taking the role of head of country/emperor/whatnot ?
If so, it must be a VERY enticing experience...
*Since there isn't a website (really a shame
Is there any available documents serving the same purpose ?
*Given the level of details you seem to pay to the military thing, I am a little surprised that you run with the mongoose system. I'm really curious about the customized parts ?

One again, quite a fascinating world, and what's more with a solid/consistent system of rules...
Any chances of you planning to publish it ?

 

[sword-dancer]

@jgbrowning

I´ve misread your post.

 

[mmadsen]

It has occured to me that many people are apprehensive about epic level play. I don't really see why there is so much trepidation, for it seems to flow naturally from the rules.

To get back to the original topic, I think there are a few reasons why people might be apprehensive about epic-level play:

1. The rules break down at high levels. Actually, they don't seem to break down, but older versions certainly did -- and people remember that.
2. They have no experience playing at epic levels. It takes a long time to get a party up to epic levels (if you don't skip past any levels), and the game definitely changes by the time you get there. People are apprehensive because Epic D&D is a different game they don't quite know how to play.
3. The campaign loses logical continuity. If the campaign wasn't designed from the get-go for epic levels, then its history stops making sense once we introduce epic elements. "Hey, where were all these 30th-level Wizards the last time the Chaos Lords attacked? Why were we saving the world?"
4. The consequences of epic magic (or even high-level magic) are impossible to predict. The more magical the game becomes, the harder it is to understand anything. Ask Aristotle what the world would look like with nuclear weapons and networked computers. Right, he'd have no frickin' clue.
5. How do you stock a dungeon for four 30th-level guys?

That's a start.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Solous wrote:
____________________________________________________
Quote:

"Thanks a lot for the detailed answer Shark. Well, it definitely seems as you have put a lot of thought into this.

*Do your players have a chance of taking the role of head of country/emperor/whatnot ?
If so, it must be a VERY enticing experience...
*Since there isn't a website (really a shame
Is there any available documents serving the same purpose ?
*Given the level of details you seem to pay to the military thing, I am a little surprised that you run with the mongoose system. I'm really curious about the customized parts ?

One again, quite a fascinating world, and what's more with a solid/consistent system of rules...
Any chances of you planning to publish it ?"
____________________________________________________
End Quote.

Good to see you Solous!

Well, player characters do indeed have opportunities to either ascend to the thrones of existing nations on occassion, or they can set out into the wilderness and create their own kingdom.

For example, in past campaigns I have had a player that worked their way up through courageous service to the Vallorean Empire and was rewarded with a sizeable barony on the wild frontier. That particular campaign has been ended, but the player character's barony is still there, now a vital part of the overall campaign setting. Though the player's character is now deceased, the player's descendents rule the barony. The player who played the original founding character plays in new campaigns of mine, but still likes to hear about the descendants of her other player character, and what's going on. Fun stuff!

I have several players in the current campaign that have plans to either gain land by reward, or to step out and found their own independent kingdoms.

I have one player character who has married the Crown Prince of the Vallorean Empire, and is still grappling with the reality that when her husband's father dies or retires, that she will be the next Empress and High Queen of the Vallorean Empire, an empire of over 200 million people, and the largest, most powerful empire in the West. Needless to say, she is both thrilled and apprehensive about the prospect at the same time.

I have numerous articles that I have contributed here that discuss my own philosophy, as well as many aspects of my campaign world. Use the Search function, and they should be fairly easy to find. In addition, there are a few things I believe of mine that you might find of interest in EN-World's Archive section.

I am in discussions with Mongoose Publishing to publish my campaign world, as well as other possibilities and avenues to publish aspects of my campaign world. I am also employed with Natural 20 Press to publish several adventures that closely resemble my campaign world, as well as other projects.

Solous, I'm glad that you have such an interest in my campaign world! If you ask around here a bit, you will find many other fans that have been inspired by my world, as well as my contributions here for several years now. As you mentioned, my approach is not embraced by every gamer, but you will find, I think, a good number of people that agree that my approach is inspiring, epic, and quite realistic and logical, one that integrates epic magic and epic campaigning into a vast world in an enjoyable, consistent manner.

Feel free to ask additional questions, as you desire.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[jgbrowning]

Re: Re: Castles of Crystal, Wars of Genocide!

Ask Aristotle what the world would look like with nuclear weapons and networked computers. Right, he'd have no frickin' clue.

HEHEHE that made me bust out laugh! You may want to use it as a sig. its damn funny...

joe b.

 

[reapersaurus]

but you will find, I think, a good number of people that agree that my approach is inspiring, epic, and quite realistic and logical, one that integrates epic magic and epic campaigning into a vast world in an enjoyable, consistent manner.

you're kidding me.

inspiring, HELL YEEAAAHH!
Epic, you bet your damn tootsies!

but realistic?
consistent?

I guess you aren't comprehending what we've been saying, SHARK.
I don't doubt you've read it, but you haven't understood the points we're making left and right.

Basically, unless I go back and quote-reply to that boggling post of yours to me, I'll summarize the problem with your world like this:

You make up whatever you want to diminish the effectiveness of mages, and increase the effectiveness of fighter-types.
Further, your world is quite clearly NOT a 3E D&D world.
This was proven by your long post, talking about magics that are not supported by 3E.

Now, if you simply say to me that your world is all custom, and doesn't use the 3E D&D rules, than I will say "Damn Good Job, my man! Wonderful creative use of inspired imagination, and more power to you and your valiant crew to keep the spirit of Heroism alive!"

Seriously, I now realize that the only problem I have with your world is that you have billed it that it follows 3E rules.
If you admit that Vallorea could not exist with the 3E rules as written (even if you grant classes tons of extra feats and skills), than I will never comment on your world's unbelievability and internal inconsistencies again.

What say you?

 

[seasong]

reapersaurus: I didn't see anything described by SHARK that wasn't easily, easily possible with the epic magic rules therein.

Beyond even that minor quibble, however, your post seems to be saying that custom magic items equals not D&D 3e, which I can't quite understand. DMG, p.178, "In the same way that you can invent new spells and monsters for your campaign, you can invent new magic items. In the same way that a PC spellcaster can research a new spell, a PC may be able to invent a new kind of magic item. And just as you have to be careful about new spells, you need to be careful iwth new magic items."

Take that along with the Epic Level Handbook (wherein, I remind, all spells are invented, and are even given a mechanical system for doing so), and SHARK's world is good, solid D&D 3e.

I disagree with SHARK on a number of key points in his world design philosophy (for one, his economics ), but I haven't seen anything that doesn't look like D&D to me.

 

[jgbrowning]

Seriously, I now realize that the only problem I have with your world is that you have billed it that it follows 3E rules.
If you admit that Vallorea could not exist with the 3E rules as written (even if you grant classes tons of extra feats and skills), than I will never comment on your world's unbelievability and internal inconsistencies again.

What say you?

Well, my take on this is: How about you just never comment on his world's unbelievability without making your non-commenting dependant upon his "admiting" it a public forum?

His viewpoint has its merits. So does mine. So does yours. I'm not here however to beligerantly try and force anyone to agree with my take on the situation. I am not here to make people feel uncomfortable. I am definitily not here to point out (what i perceive as flaws) in a persons basic campaign assumption and make them say they're wrong in a public forum.

What i am here for is a good exchange of ideas. Hopefully all my posts have done is provide more grist for sharks grind mill. Hopefully i've given him some new ideas/concepts to use in his world however he likes. Because he, andhis players, seem to be having a blast and i'd love to help others have more fun.

There are several very good responses to the questions you and i have raised concerning his world. He could say "Yes magic does counter magic the way you've described, but right now valoria is in an "ancient" (think roman) period where the changing use of magic is not as rapid as we modern's would expect. After a few more centuries the mindset behind magic will evolve a bit and it will eventually lead to reduced army-size and a greater focus on wizards. Until then, this is the way it works."

Thats a bang-on, uber consistant reply. And its very logical and realistic. And hell, he may not have thought of it (he might have, we don't know) and he may decide to take my idea and run with it. Great! I'd love it to think that i've helped more people have fun.

I guess what im trying to say is: try not to be so confrontational in your posts. Your a quick, smart guy. I know you don't want to waste time phrasing what you want to say in a less beligerant manner. I'm just saying it would probably be in your best interest to do so because, (At least from my life experience**I used to be a beligerant as they come**) when you stop posting like that you actually tend to enjoy yourself and others more.

Now, if you think i'm a putz, thats your opinion. This is just my opinion and all i'm trying to do is be as civil as possible. I understand that much of your post was praise for his world and the efforts he's put into it to make it more enjoyable for his players. But don't let a bit of, and im not trying to be inflamatory here just saying what i think, "publicly admit that you're wrong and then I'll leave you alone" enter into the equation. Its belittling to you and to him. And to me for that manner, as i'd prefer to not have my posts associated with that attitude.

joe b.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

LOL! Reapersaurus, what have you been smoking? You must be smoking something real wild, because you didn't seem to comprehend very much of the post that I wrote in response to you. I think, truth be told, it doesn't really matter what I say, because you have this particular dislike for me, and seem to always have, so I suppose your particularly acidic comments don't really surprise me.

I notice that you didn't bother to respond to Dragonblade, who is actually a player in my campaign world. His comments are quite instructive. In real action, his character had plenty of spells, powerful magic items, and so on, but what you can't seem to see or are willing to accept, is that a wizard, regardless of their level and power, when facing thousands and thousands of well-equipped, well-trained opponents, just isn't nearly as dominating as you would like to think. It has been proven in the battlefields of play in my campaign. There are dozens of things happening all at once; numerous decisions that a wizard character must make; people are dying all around the wizard; the wizard doesn't have the time, or perfect knowledge, or the serene, perfect clarity of mind to do everything, be everywhere, and solve a wide range of problems all at the same time. The wizard just doesn't. The enemies facing the wizard are not stupid, but in fact are cooperating, and using every skill and tool at their advantage to bring down the wizard, and carry on into the wizard's companions that are beyond him. Some of the creatures may die, but the wizard will pay the price, and potentially a fatal one, for every round that he is exposed to the enemy. When dealing with armies in the thousands, and tens of thousands, who also have their own wizards, the effect of a single wizard, or even a small group, just isn't that significant.

That reality is simply an outgrowth from not so much as any restrictions that I put on wizards, or magic per se, so much as a function of how I deploy military forces in battle. Now, certainly, as Joe Browning points out, he likes to take a different tack on some of his assumptions than I do. That's fine, and I even like some of his ideas. That difference in assumptions doesn't make me, or him, wrong, or unrealistic, or inconsistent. Your claims to the contrary are, however, quite wrong. As Joe Browning pointed out, your post is also abrasive, and needlessly so.

Essentially I make different assumptions on various forces abilities to respond to wizards on the field of battle.

That's it.

I assume and have seen in practice, that such organized responses are quite effective.

If you haven't experienced this, or just refuse to let the forces operate in such a manner, that's fine. But don't then try and insult or belittle myself, my campaign, the people who play in my campaign, or the friends and fans here that happen to like my approaches in building and running a campaign. Get it?

Others as well, who may not even agree with the assumptions that I make, to the degree that I make them, probably don't appreciate such an abrasive attitude from you Reapersaurus.

I tried to be light in my earlier post, really I did, but it seems that you just want to turn up the heat even more by making such outlandish demands, like I, or my campaign, is on trial or something. Get a grip Reapersaurus. There are other people in this thread, even if some of us, like Joe Browning or Seasong, may disagree on some points, who would like to have a good discussion without such unneccessary, abrasive histrionics.

You are more than welcome to participate in the discussion, Reapersaurus, but you really should learn the difference between appreciating and noting different styles, and tastes, as opposed to making obnoxious, abrasive judgments of a different person's tastes and styles in approaching the game. There's a huge lesson there for you, as you obviously have low scores in your diplomacy skill.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK