[D&D Design Discussion] Preserving the "Sweet Spot"

[Mark]

But to the topic, I believe there is a sweet spot that even WotC recognizes. For evidence, the RPGA's Living Greyhawk (which uses the rules pretty much as written) forcibly retires characters once they achieve 16th level. It was once going to be open to 20th levels, then they put in 18th level retirement, then 17th level, and now once 16th level is reached... retired from the campaign.

And combat between 9th level and 15th level is one continuous series of all of the worst problems that have been described through various "high level play nightmare" threads.

That's some very telling data. How is it that you have come by this? Are you a regular RPGA DM? Do you go to many of the big events? Thanks!

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

That wasn't the set up. The set up question you asked was "Picking a lock is neither heroic nor dramatic. Locks should be made obsolete as a dramatic obstacle. Tell me of a legendary story where a lock gets picked?"

I'm not sure if this is what Wulf meant by his reference to Fellowship, but the entrance to the mines of Moria were certainly blocked by a door that took a serious effort to overcome. It wasn't a rogue picking a mechanical lock, but are all locks mechanical devices? Just guessing that was what he referenced.

Bingo.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

That's some very telling data. How is it that you have come by this? Are you a regular RPGA DM? Do you go to many of the big events? Thanks!

I was once a Shield Lands Triad member. I have also authored four LG adventures. I've been playing LG on and off since about 2001.

I used to go the Gencon when it was in Milwaukee, but when it was moved to Indy it was too far for me. I go to the big LG events around my region. I have always wanted to to go Origins, Winter Fantasy, Gencon (Indy and SoCal), but my wife looks down at spending money at such events when I can get my LG gaming done at home just fine and cheaply.

About the forced retirement. The characters are not totally removed from ever being played again. There is supposed to be a "high level" campaign for those retired characters. The work on the high level LG campaign is still being done.

I don't have all of the information for why the forced retirement was put in place, I had left my Triad seat and briefly left the LG scene when the retirements were first being implemented. The biggest reasons were spells; wish, limited wish, miracle, true resurrection, polymorph any object, time stop. Authoring adventures for high level play is extremely problematic when everything needs to be accomplished in a 4 hour time slot. I could go into all the other unique challenges of LG-style play, but the crux of everything is that players and judges don't have the flexibility of "Rule Zero". They play by the book, flaws and all.

 

[Mark CMG]

I was once a Shield Lands Triad member. I have also authored four LG adventures. I've been playing LG on and off since about 2001.

I used to go the Gencon when it was in Milwaukee, but when it was moved to Indy it was too far for me. I go to the big LG events around my region. I have always wanted to to go Origins, Winter Fantasy, Gencon (Indy and SoCal), but my wife looks down at spending money at such events when I can get my LG gaming done at home just fine and cheaply.

About the forced retirement. The characters are not totally removed from ever being played again. There is supposed to be a "high level" campaign for those retired characters. The work on the high level LG campaign is still being done.

I don't have all of the information for why the forced retirement was put in place, I had left my Triad seat and briefly left the LG scene when the retirements were first being implemented. The biggest reasons were spells; wish, limited wish, miracle, true resurrection, polymorph any object, time stop. Authoring adventures for high level play is extremely problematic when everything needs to be accomplished in a 4 hour time slot.

Thanks for the additional information!

I could go into all the other unique challenges of LG-style play, but the crux of everything is that players and judges don't have the flexibility of "Rule Zero". They play by the book, flaws and all.

If you have the chance to post more, I think it would further enlighten the readers of this thread (myself included) to hear any more details you can recall regarding what slows down or mucks up high level play for RPGA LG events (and others, if you are aware of some).

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

If you have the chance to post more, I think it would further enlighten the readers of this thread (myself included) to hear any more details you can recall regarding what slows down or mucks up high level play for RPGA LG events (and others, if you are aware of some).

I think one of the best people to chime about LG and high level play would be Jason Buhlman, now with Paizo Publishing I believe. He was on the Circle as the administrator of the Iuz metaregion. His moniker on ENWorld I seem to remember, appropriately enough, is IuzTheEvil. Or even any of the other Circle members would be good to speak to the matter.

I'll try to come up with some anecdotes, but honestly, everything already noted, especially save or die and travel spells, are what come most to mind... only more amplified in intensity and frequency.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Some of the problems seem to arise from over-specialization on the part of PCs. If certain kinds of caps were imposed, then maybe players would broaden their capacities a little. They would probably be just as powerful over all, but instead of one-trick ponies that are useless outside of their specialty, they would be able to handle a wider arrange of problems.

For instance, limiting the plus on magical items (to +3 base and another +4 in special enhancements, say) would mean more gold to spend on other items. Gamists would be satisfied, since they still get treasure and magic, but they wouldn't be focussed on the +5 weapon, +5 shield, +5 armor or what have you.

If skill ranks were all cross-class after, say, 10 ranks, then (provided that DMs capped the task of various task DCs) characters might broaden their skill base instead of keeping everything maxed out.

If all abilities were capped at, oh, 24 (plus size modifers), then PCs wouldn't have to go crazy with the +6 items and +5 books. Again, they could broaden their capacities.

Some magic items could give fixed benefits; like the way that Gauntlets of Ogre Power gave you an 18 strength. This would be a fine bit of treasure for the fighter whose Str was 16 anyway. A ring of jumping might allow the wearer to function as if he had 10 ranks of jump. Or whatever. If it was priced at 2500 gp (the same as the current +5 ring) then it could be a bargain for many characters who are ok with keeping their abilities within the sweet spot.

A few spells that cause headaches (especially ones that involve a lot of book-keeping) could be removed. It's not like there's not enough spells to fill a spellcaster's repetoire. But you'd have to use caution, or else you'd just be imposing a low-magic game on the players. If you take away teleport you might want to bring a mass phantom steed at the same level, instead. The players get to avoid many of the hassles of traveling across country on horseback, but the problem of teleport can be delayed for a few levels.

Generally I see the solution to the sweet spot is to encourage players to broaden their characters, keeping them in the sweet spot, rather than raising them out of it.

 

[jmucchiello]

That wasn't the set up. The set up question you asked was "Picking a lock is neither heroic nor dramatic. Locks should be made obsolete as a dramatic obstacle. Tell me of a legendary story where a lock gets picked?"

I'm not sure if this is what Wulf meant by his reference to Fellowship, but the entrance to the mines of Moria were certainly blocked by a door that took a serious effort** to overcome. It wasn't a rogue picking a mechanical lock, but are all locks mechanical devices? Just guessing that was what he referenced.

Bingo.

Wait a minute. The setup was that skill checks become meaningless versus static DC. Even a expensive DC40 lock is no match for a high level rogue. No drama. But the Mines of Moria is a lock that cannot be picked. It is totally unaffected by high skill checks. It proves my point. A locked door is not a dramatic obstacle. A magically barred entrance, bypassed by wit (as much as "speak 'friend' and enter is witty), is a dramatic obstacle**. I asked for a legendary story was a lock gets picked. Even Rapunsel, prototypical damsel locked in a tower, just lowers a "rope" to her rescuer.

Lock picking is really dramatic in TV shows because they can cut to the lock. Cut to the side kick. Cut back to the tools. Cut to the person picking the lock. Cut to a timer on the bomb that's about to go off. Cut to the sweat forming on someone's brow. Cut to the sidekick. They can swell the "hey, look, tension!" music. In a RPG, you roll a d20 and announce 36. It is not heroic. It is not dramatic. Perhaps you could use the UA rules for complex skill checks to add tension. Maybe that's what you need to make skill checks more dramatic.

** Serious effort? Speak 'friend' and enter? If genius Gandalf had once read the inscription out loud in Elvish the door would just open. Watch the movie version. Everyone including the audiance is bored by the heroes sitting around trying to solve a stupid puzzle. (But then puzzles vs players is a different thread, right?)

 

[blargney the second]

This thread reminded me of complex skill checks. They can go a long way towards making skill checks interesting, expecially with a little creative DMing.


Edit: *laugh* That's what I get for leaving a thread open for a few hours before replying - someone else says my piece before I do.

 

[Baron Opal]

I don't have all of the information for why the forced retirement was put in place, I had left my Triad seat and briefly left the LG scene when the retirements were first being implemented. The biggest reasons were spells; wish, limited wish, miracle, true resurrection, polymorph any object, time stop. Authoring adventures for high level play is extremely problematic when everything needs to be accomplished in a 4 hour time slot. I could go into all the other unique challenges of LG-style play, but the crux of everything is that players and judges don't have the flexibility of "Rule Zero". They play by the book, flaws and all.

Back in the day I was the original editor of the Living City Extra-planar campaign, as well as authoring the first three adventures. One of the expectations of that campaign was that (IIRC) characters that were being retired around 12th level would have an outlet.* One of the things that was decided was that there would be a level cap of 16th level as well, mainly for the spells mentioned above. Since Wish and Limited Wish were so open ended, and the players of the higher level characters had a certain reputation for cheeziness, it was decided to cap the game at that level regardless so DMs didn't have to worry about it. The rule set was 2e at the time. Also, the adventures for high level characters were eight hours rather than four.

* This was, in fact, the second high level campaign. The underdark campaign recieved such positive feedback that a second campaign was approved.

 

[Hussar]

Just a point about the lockpicking, which I know is not particularly on topic.

I don't really have a problem with DC's scaling with character level. It does make a certain amount of sense. Higher level opponents have higher level resources available to them. That means that they can hire better locksmiths/whatever, to craft locks and traps. Really, I wouldn't expect the traps set in that lich's lair to be of the same or even close to quality as the traps set in that orc's cave.

Yes, it's somewhat wonky that the DC's scale with the players, but, perhaps that's the wrong way to look at it. The DC's don't necessarily scale to the PC's but to the opponents.

Now, if Midburg, the small town, suddenly has DC 55 locks on every door, there had better be a bloody good reason.