[EPIC LEVEL HANDBOOK] I'm scared

[Psion]

Well there is a difference between borrowing from generic mythology and a specific literary source. D&D, of course, has always borrowed from Tolkien, but it is interesting if WoTC now feels they can borrow extensively from Lovecraft (perhaps via their closer association with Chaosium).

There is a "worm that walks" in CoC d20 (though it's not identical -- for one, it wasn't a template), which they were under license to produce. That said, you can't copyright ideas, and I feel that Lovecraft, like Tolkein, is just as valid an underpinning to fantasy as mythology is. The difference to me is primarily legalistic.

 

[tjasamcarl]

Silly and Irrational..

Psion, while i often agree with you, here you are being well...silly and irrational.

Lets first take your argument conscerning 'number inflation' in the ELH, namely that it is bland and/or munchkin. In point of fact, this type of rules consistency is what actually supports balance. The difference in gameplay that comes with a change from low/mid to high and even to Epic is not because of the addition of arbitrary new rules subsystems that are meant to add flavor, but instead through the intricate balance that arises from a combination of factors, most notably the scope of magic and the nature of the monsters being fought. This IMO is one of the game's strengths, that is keeps the same basic mechanics, with the ease of gauging power that implies, while offering wildly divergent experiences. Its noteworthy that your reviewed the monster and character creation rules seperatly, betraying a fallacious notion of what constitutes both balance and gameplay. You usually don't make this mistake, but then again, your past bias was not so overt.

And then you go on to talk about the virtues of a 'safety blanket' while then deriding the book for being 'more of the same'. Again you make the same mistake as outlined above. This is subtle, but its the fact that conventional monsters to not offer the same challenge to epic characters as they did to non-epic WHICH CHANGES THE FLAVORE OF THE GAME. I'm sorry if that was not spelled out to you, but RELATIVE, INGAME EFFECTIVNESS has always been what seperates a low-level and high-level character, especially in a game which is largly defined by combat. If this does not come through in a game, it is the fault of the dm, because clearly the tools are provided...

I'm glad the ELH didn't spend a great deal of time on the social/economic/dramatic/etc. implication of epic power, for these are ARE SPECIFIC TO EACH INDIVIDUAL CAMPAIGN. This is an extreme casel, but a dm could say, for whatever reason, that an epic antimagic field continuously walled in a party. Then a dungeon crawl would be more than possible. The place where the GAME of dnd comes into its own, combat, is what needs to be balanced, and from what i've seen, the ELH provides that is spades, regardless of how bland EPIC WEAPON FOCUS might seem to some. The feat is not there to be stare, at, but to be played.

Its ironic that all these rp titans that complain about the lack of narrative flourish in this the ELH and dnd in general are precicly those who tend to metagame the rules to the greatest degree. Much like the debates over FR's spellfire, the GAME and its fundemental are being lost to those who rant and rave, often disingenuously, and probably for status. That or they simply want their view of how a game should be played reinforced in the book adnauseum. It is the fact that dnd and Wizards has decided to appeal to that facet of the game that everyone needs, i.e. the mechanics, which largly explains its success....

jeez.....

 

[Psion]

Re: Silly and Irrational..

Psion, while i often agree with you, here you are being well...silly and irrational.

And you are being insulting and reactionary.

Do you care to quote sections you disagree with when attempting to rebutt them, because you don't seem to be rebutting anything I am saying here.

Lets first take your argument conscerning 'number inflation' in the ELH, namely that it is bland and/or munchkin. In point of fact, this type of rules consistency is what actually supports balance.

Sure it does. That doesn't make it "not bland." It's a tool, just like the PHB is a tool. But we are experienced with weaving stories around the level of power presented in the PHB... we, the GMs, breathe life into the games. We have a bit more of a challenge when it comes to the ELH, because we don't have that experience to lean on. We pretty much have to figure out what works and what doesn't from scratch.

The difference in gameplay that comes with a change from low/mid to high and even to Epic is not because of the addition of arbitrary new rules subsystems that are meant to add flavor, but instead through the intricate balance that arises from a combination of factors, most notably the scope of magic and the nature of the monsters being fought.

Okay... I don't see how we differ here.

Its noteworthy that your reviewed the monster and character creation rules seperatly, betraying a fallacious notion of what constitutes both balance and gameplay. You usually don't make this mistake, but then again, your past bias was not so overt.

My fallacious notion? That's rather insulting. Do you care to tell me in what way it is flawed.

I am assuming that you are referring to my analysis of the respective character and monster sections of the ELH. Those sections were written by two different people and have entirely different purposes, and each bears scrutiny for potential weaknesses and shortfalls. And FYI (since you seem to be missing this point) I wasn't deriding either section.

So again, just how is my analysis flawed? I'm waiting? You'll have to do better than such a vague unsupported assertion.

And then you go on to talk about the virtues of a 'safety blanket' while then deriding the book for being 'more of the same'.

Oooh. A statement that I can atucally trace back to what I said. Now we're cooking.

Again you make the same mistake as outlined above. This is subtle, but its the fact that conventional monsters to not offer the same challenge to epic characters as they did to non-epic WHICH CHANGES THE FLAVORE OF THE GAME. I'm sorry if that was not spelled out to you, but RELATIVE, INGAME EFFECTIVNESS

Caps? What's with the attitude? Plus mispelling along with the caps--it sounds like you are getting a little worked up. You might just want to settle down and reread my post... I'm not assailing the book in the way you think I am.

has always been what seperates a low-level and high-level character, especially in a game which is largly defined by combat. If this does not come through in a game, it is the fault of the dm, because clearly the tools are provided...

Well despite the fact I traced it back, I am really unsure what you are trying to say here. It sounds like you think I am blasting ELH because you aren't challenged by the same creatures.

That is not what I am saying at all. Reread my post. I really don't have a problem with the nature of the creatures in the ELH. The ELH extends this with more appropriate threats, and I don't have a problem with that (in fact, I have praised the monster section of the book multiple times in this thread, so if that is what you think, you really aren't paying attention.)

I am saying that the fact that we are in unfamiliar territory makes the ELH seems more "soulless" than the core books, when really it is not. I am making a statement about the challenges inherent to using this book for experienced GMs, and following it up with a statement on how it can be useful.

So, I'll just stop here, let you reread my post from the angle it was written instead of reading a bash into it -- that's not my style, and if you think it is, then you don't know my style as you imply you do. Once you are done with that, and get the jist of what I am really trying to say, then we'll talk.

I await your response.

 

[ForceUser@Home]

REBUTTAL: Souless rules

I prefer "souless" rules!

Give me rules, stats, numbers, charts, tables, maps, lists, and advice. Let me choose the tone, the feel, the adventures. I don't want fluff about the incontinece of dwarves and the mating rituals of elves! Those are your dwarves, not mine! Those are your elves, not mine! I just want rules! Data! WOTC isn't the DM; I'm the DM! Thank you!

The ELH is solid. I think it's fantastic. Tons of crunchy bits, no fluff. It gives rules, then advice, then examples of play. PERFECT. Perfect.

 

[shadow]

Don't misunderstand me, I fully understand the need for higher scores. But that should have been an incidental, not the focus. The book spends way too much time on the numbers, and not enough on how an epic campaign should look, feel, and behave differently than a regular one. Sure, they devote a few chapters to that, but they're insufficient. One basically talks about epic character motivations--and how they're not all that different from regular character motivations. And the other, the one that's supposed to be on epic settings, is crammed full of sample organizations and an entire epic-level city. That, basically, is useless. Don't give me silly organizations and a city. Give me techniques. Tell me how best to modify a campaign setting to make it feel epic. Tell me how epic level characters interact with kings and lesser heroes. Give me tools to build my own epic setting, don't try to shove yours down my throat.

Actually I'm glad that the book focuses on "crunchy bits" rather than useless advice on how to role-play effectively. I say useless because I seriously doubt any two epic level campaigns will have the same tone. For example an epic level game could be as simple as a one shot adventure where characters fight powerful monsters and show off their bad@$$ powers to a complex deep story that pits mortals against the gods. Rather than spending entire chapters on role-playing information that may or may not apply to a certain DM's game, the authors (thankfully IMHO) chose to focus mainly on the "cruchy bits" that can be added to the game.
Nothing gets to me more than role-playing game books that don't have any "crunchy bits". The fact is I buy RPG books for the GAME aspect, not the socia-political demographics of a fantasy world. Don't get me wrong, I do like to see some occassional world/adventure building advice. However, I've gotten burned one too many times buying RPG books that have no crunchy bits, but rather read like a watered down textbook.

But I was like WTH for feats like Vorpal Strike. A monk cutting people's heads off with his hands. Friggin Stupid.

Actually I think this was a really cool feat. Of course I see this feat as being inspired by the Mortal Kombat video games, but what's wrong with that. Besides it really does have an epic feel to it.

 

[Psion]

Actually I'm glad that the book focuses on "crunchy bits" rather than useless advice on how to role-play effectively.

Who talked about role-playing effectively? That's a basic skill a bit beyond the scope of this book. What he asked for -- and I would agree we need -- was advice on structuring campaigns using these rules to maximize the impact of using these rules. To be fair, they did do that a little. But I agree with him that the organizations and cities were a bit less than useful, and would have been the first on the chopping block if I was editing this book.

I say useless because I seriously doubt any two epic level campaigns will have the same tone.

Not that different. Many standard D&D games benefit from the same techniques when it comes to characterization, setting up challenges, and so forth. There is no reason epic games are necessarily more divergant.

 

[Piratecat]

I'm pretty sure we can discuss this without getting defensive or insulting, please.

 

[WintermuteBlu]

Re: Re: ELH--Perspective, Please!

Essentially, yeah. But if you are a regular member of this board, you probably understand what I do: in D&D, it is very often the DM vice the designer who breathes life into a game, we don't need a designer holding our hand to do it. You don't beleive me, drop by the story hour forum and just look at some of the fantasastic vistas that many DMs have created without a designer telling us what stories we want to tell.

Which was precisely my point! Use the ELH as a toolbox, not as, say Oriental Adventures (which is part expansion and part settingl).

But in a way, I think we feel the absence of soul here more. Why? In part because even us veteran DMs aren't used to it. This is pretty much virgin territory, at least for those who aren't genuinely power gaming in the teenage powerplay vein. In 2e, forays into double digits were rare because once you were 13th level or so, balors and great wyrm dragons could be grappled with. Few campaigns survived much longer than that for me, or for that matter, any group I knew of. I never had a PC who could cast a 7th level spell in a game that wasn't a teenage munchkin-fest. And even then, it was pretty rare.

But 3e comes along, and it's a bit more balanced. My players are 16th level. I have a PC sorcerer in my game who not only can cast 7th level spells, but can now cast 8th. Despite this, a trio of Gelugons is more than a sufficient challenge for 16th level characters, no need pit fiend and balors. Great Wyrm dragons? Fuggitaboudit!

Now consider this, and we take the plunge into 21st level characters, and where 9th level spells can be cast with relative impunity, that nice new security blanket that let us open up the throttles a little is gone. It is all very dizzying. And scary.

Scary? It's just an advanced level of play though. I mean, when you think about it, we've expanded the horizons of potentiality here, not done anything worthy of tectonic calamity. The rules are a logical expansion. Yes, most may never use them simply because games peter out before 21st level arrives but maybe that should be a challenge to us DM's, though. For those of you, like myself, that have been playing D&D since Blackmoor, Gods, Demigods & Heroes and the like, there's always been this finite limit. Our DM-style, therefore, conformed to it. We saved our massive, earth-altering adventures for levels 15 and up (culminating in 20th level).

Now we've got to think about it a little more. We don't have that ceiling. It never really should have existed in the first place but now it's gone. We're going to have to retool our efforts.

That's what's needed. A new way of DMing; one based less on the notion that a campaign naturally ends at 20th level with one that assumes the skies (literally) are the limits.

Especially because of that "M" word. You know that term is going to follow this book wherever it goes. People who couldn't resist making a "smackdown" with the old feats, prestige classes, et al., will have a field day with this book. There is lots to be scared of here. We are in the realm of characters with diviniation and trasportation abilities that make the game totally alien to anything that came before. Running a cohesive, substantial, challenging game in this environment will be hard. Making "smack-down" optimized characters will be easy.

But Psion, you know they would do this, anyway. 3e, to be blunt, is rife with potential for Monty Haul. So what? A good DM puts a stop to that. For me, 3e is about potential. It's modular. It's making logical additions to rules and integrating them into a whole. Even the one rule I vehemently disagree with WotC about--the default rule that states Psionics Is Like Magick--makes sense from the perspective they're designing their games.

So yeah, folks will kvetch. But, consider the source. If they didn't like 3e anyway, does it really matter if they don't like yet another piece of the game?

Maybe I misunderstood your point but are you saying that because there will be some (loud) critics that we should then fear the creation of rules that would rile those who disagree with them?

Please elaborate.

Anyways, I think the ELH is really ambitious in one sense: it tries to eliminate the idea of a level cap. It tries to blow the field wide open. It's hard not to be scared of the power abuse potential.

The entire system is rife with potential. The whole notion of "monster's-as-pc's" was unheard of in 1e and was absent in 2e until the Complete Book of Humanoids. There was a distinct bias towards humanity.

Now?

There's a slight bias towards humanity. And you can play a friggin' half-fiend half-dragon sorcerer/assassin/blackguard and still be legal! The whole concept of the Fight Club on WotC's page makes the curmudgeons' cringe, I would think.

 

[tjasamcarl]

Psion...

You labled character creation as 'kewl new powerz' more than once, but then noted that the monsters have potential. That is where i believed you drew an arbitrary distinction. Your analysis failed to demonstrate how one could draw such a distinction in quality in play. The very fact that you you labeled what were reasonable extrapolations of previous mechanics such as EPIC Feats as nothing more than 'kewl new powerz' and bemoaned the fact that somebody, somewhere would play the game with the the pure intent of min/max using Epic Rules brought an inflammatory, irrational air to your arguments.

And i would ask you to please bring out a specific example of how Epic Level play is so drastically different from non-epic that comprehensive dms advise is a must. As i mentioned, the shift is only as jolting as the dm makes it; if he is a 'realist' worldbuilder, then maybe, but that is hardly everyone. Many games tend to focus on player 'tactical' actions, i.e. combat and item hunts, as well as make contrived assumptions such as a kingdom could be surrounded by a teleportation block, making all those new transportation option meaningless. There was never any stated intent to appeal to either extreme, but instead to tailor the material to the common ground of all, i.e. combat and other immediate challenges.

As to this argument that the book is souless, i would dismiss it by saying the consequences of epic levels comes by through simply by playing with the rules, not simply staring at them as if they possess their own aesthetic (which is why that notion that the character gen is not 'creative' really irks me). This is where my point about the relative power between differently leveled characters comes in. The use by the dm of say multiple pit fiends would be enough to communicate to the players just how far they have come..

Anywho, i'm glad you've stated that such an argument is the result of limited perspective, not any tangible ingame effect. Otherwise i would think this argument hopeless...

 

[tjasamcarl]

In conclusion...

I wish you would have tackled the book on its own terms, instead of waxing philosophic. And no, what i and others mean by differences in tone are the 'meta' realities of a particular campaign world, not the rules heavy challenges of traps/combat/etc. Tone is also effected by the way players and dms describe the effect of actions, which DOES very seriously from dm to dm. Just look at the different interpretations of hps...