Dear Mike & Monte

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Shemeska!

I'm gonna throw my copy of the Planescape box set at you.

*Box bounces off*

You forget I am much too high level, there was nothing in Planescape that could possibly hurt me.

While the planes are full of terrible things and even more terrible environments depending on who/what you are and what plane we're talking about, there's no reason at all to restrict the planes to only players above a certain level. It's more difficult at times and perhaps very selective when you're low level, but I hesitate to go down that road for fear of the whole 'planes as extraplanar dungeons' dynamic creeping into play.

You know my opinions on Planescape (we've had this debate on and off for years).

In and of itself Planescape was a good product, BUT in my opinion it was a BAD idea for D&D as a whole.

Basically what Planescape did was say "Lets get to the kewl stuff right now!" But it did that to the detriment of everything else.

prefer the late 2e handling of that in opening up the planes to PCs of much varied levels. Designing a new edition, I'd hope that would be the case.

I couldn't disagree more strongly.

Each tier of play should be about something NEW.
Each tier of play should should EXPAND the horizons of the game.
Each tier of play should UP THE ANTE.
The contrasts between each tier of play should be pronounced.

If I start off at Level 1 living in Asgard battling demons then where do I go and what do I do for an encore?

There is no sense of progression with Planescape. 1st level characters should be in awe of an audience with the town mayor, not hobnobbing with the gods.

My suggestion is that the more dangerous an area, the later in the game you should encounter it. You should not be going to the Underdark at 1st level, let alone Hell!

In Planescape, Hell was as cosy as the Shire.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey there Aldarc!

I don't think Upper Krust is limiting the planes to upper level characters. I think the general idea, if I am understanding his intent correctly, is simply to divide the environments evenly and that planes are just more convenient to put in the "epic level box." But I would imagine, just like with all the other content distributed amongst the three boxes, that you could honestly use the content and flavor itself for any level.

I'm not suggesting that there would be no overlap between the tiers of play.

But pound-for-pound monsters from more hostile regions should be tougher (and thus higher level) than typical humans.

In addition the regions themselves should be tangible threats to the PCs.

Basic medium sized humanoid from non-hostile earthly region (e.g. human) = Level 1
Basic medium sized humanoid from hostile earthly region (e.g. drow/yuan-ti etc.) = Level 6
Basic medium sized humanoid from planar region (e.g. demon, devil etc.) = Level 11

Hostile Earthly region = +5 Level oppression
Planar region = +10 Level oppression

Drow are dangerous opponents at the worst of times, but fighting drow in the underdark should put you at a further disadvantage. Doubly so when fighting devils in Hell or demons in the Abyss.

So my thoughts are that you could probably encounter drow during the Heroic Tier, but you wouldn't want to go anywhere near their territory until the Paragon Tier.

Same thing with basic demons and devils. You might encounter them at the paragon tier but you wouldn't want to venture anywhere near Hell until the epic tier.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey connorsrpg!

4th Edition made the Planes more accessible at lower levels and I think that is a good thing.

i am completely opposed to this idea of box sets introducing options slowly. Great for newbies maybe, but not people that are very familiar and want to dive right in to all possibilities. Make a proper beginners set, but don't make that the only option for everyone.

People who want to 'dive right in' to the desert will probably die of thirst
People who want to 'dive right in' to the arctic will probably die of hypothermia
People who want to 'dive right in' to spelunking will probably get lost, get trapped and then then die.

PCs who want to 'dive right in' to Hell should just have their character sheets burnt in front of them.

The point is, you need knowledge, training/experience and the proper equipment before even thinking of venturing into hostile environments. Hell should be more (physically AND mentally) hostile than anywhere on Earth.

 

[El Mahdi]

...
Each tier of play should be about something NEW.
Each tier of play should should EXPAND the horizons of the game.
Each tier of play should UP THE ANTE.
The contrasts between each tier of play should be pronounced.
...

I find that the use of "should" when applied to a product that's driven mostly by the creativity of it's customers, with a customer base made up of a plethora of styles and preferences, is usually a bad idea.

The game most definitely could be presented that way, but as with any approach will have it's negatives as well as positives.

However, placing it in the realm of the GM as one possible approach seems to me one much more likely to be recieved successfully and benignly.

 

[Dragonblade]

I don't like the tiered box set approach. Its one reason I refuse to buy or play Dragon Age.

What WotC should do with Essentials is eliminate the redundant material and release everything in in Heroes of Fallen Lands and Forgotten Kingdoms, along with the Rules Compendium in a single hardcover book that you literally call D&D Essentials.

Thats it. Thats all players need to buy. For DMs, you have the Monster Vault and a DMG with all the best content from DMG 1 and 2 along with artifact rules, minion and henchmen rules, the stronghold rules, and 0 level PC rules from Dragon.

The rest of the books are optional. Campaign setting books, magic item books, adventures, DM related monster books like Open Grave and so on.

But I would also borrow from the Paizo model and strongly recommend making a series of APs that form a cornerstone for all your other products.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey El Mahdi!

I find that the use of "should" when applied to a product that's driven mostly by the creativity of it's customers, with a customer base made up of a plethora of styles and preferences, is usually a bad idea.

Surely the tiers should be markedly different, otherwise what would be the attraction of playing them, they would just be the same only with more math.

The game most definitely could be presented that way, but as with any approach will have it's negatives as well as positives.

I'm curious to hear what those negatives are?

However, placing it in the realm of the GM as one possible approach seems to me one much more likely to be recieved successfully and benignly.

If the GM wants to allow Level 30 powers for 1st level characters then thats their prerogative, but it doesn't mean the game should be designed on the basis that 1st level characters should have access to Level 30 powers. Nor should the Basic box contain those Level 30 powers.

 

[El Mahdi]

Surely the tiers should be markedly different, otherwise what would be the attraction of playing them, they would just be the same only with more math.

Editions came and went before 4E without having defined tiers. Tiers are certainly not a necessity.

I think "should be markedly different" isn't accurate.

Could be different? Yes
May be different? Yes

Should be different? Those who don't like the concept or application of tiers would likely disagree.

I'm curious to hear what those negatives are?

To those who don't like tiers, there existence is a negative. To those who do like tiers, it's a positive. This concept is just like any other, and will have positives and negatives in herent to it (based on player preferences). People's preferences are subjective. But the game by necessity, must attract people to play it (and the more, the better). So, those subjective preferences must be considered when designing a game.

I think the game is better served with the concept of tiers (and other concepts), and the associated realms of activities within each, applied as a seperate campaign model (one of many), or as an example to GM's of how they can run a long term campaign or campaigns at varying levels...rather than as a default assumption of which the game's mechanics are built around and specifically support.

If the GM wants to allow Level 30 powers for 1st level characters then thats their prerogative, but it doesn't mean the game should be designed on the basis that 1st level characters should have access to Level 30 powers. Nor should the Basic box contain those Level 30 powers.

Agreed. I just disagree that Level 30 powers should be mechanically required in order to adventure in certain settings, such as among the planes.

I even think that designing Campaign products in this manner is a mistake. It unnecessarily limits the audience that the product may appeal to right from the start.

There are plenty of people that love the concept of adventuring among the planes but don't necessaily like high level play. I feel that making planar adventures a defacto high level setting is a mistake.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm curious to hear what those negatives are?

The general problem with tiers is that they create a form of self-justification that causes rules bloat. In 3e and prior editions, characters simply got more powerful as they leveled. It was clear that there were distinctions between "tiers" but these were implicit and roughly defined. I don't see the need to draw lines between low, mid, and high-level play. The levels themselves do that well enough.

The specific problem is what the tiers are. Starting level 1 as "heroic" actually removes the feel of low-level play as it exists in most of D&D. "Epic" was never included in the core rules before 4e.

In short, tiers take a great deal away from the game, and I'm not sure what they add.

 

[El Mahdi]

In short, tiers take a great deal away from the game, and I'm not sure what they add.

For some, not for all. I think it goes both ways.

For some players, Tiers add a lot to the game. They like the deliniation and the assumptions that go with them. Others don't.

For some, it adds a great deal to the game.

 

[Aldarc]

The general problem with tiers is that they create a form of self-justification that causes rules bloat. In 3e and prior editions, characters simply got more powerful as they leveled. It was clear that there were distinctions between "tiers" but these were implicit and roughly defined. I don't see the need to draw lines between low, mid, and high-level play. The levels themselves do that well enough.

The specific problem is what the tiers are. Starting level 1 as "heroic" actually removes the feel of low-level play as it exists in most of D&D. "Epic" was never included in the core rules before 4e.

In short, tiers take a great deal away from the game, and I'm not sure what they add.

As the boxes are being presented as simply a "starter's guide," I don't really perceive this as a problem for those new to the game. As to what tiers add, I would say that they provide basic guidelines for new DMs and players as to what players are assumed to be capable of handling in the campaign. This may be a complete non-issue, or even something that detracts from the game, for an experienced veteran gamer as yourself, but I can definitely see how this setup could be beneficial for bringing in new DMs and players into the hobby.