Has D&D become less about the adventure?
- Thread starter Emirikol
- Start date
Raven Crowking
First Post
satori01 said:
Clearly, then, the adventure is not being lost to...leveling?!?!
Odhanan
Adventurer
I think a part of the reasoning is missing here. If it meant "because you have rules that frame more the high-level end of the scale, you can more easily have adventures for high level characters where rules can be helpful rather than wing it. Ergo, it's easier to have epic adventures, so it's easier to get the feeling of "adventure" than ever before" then it's an understandable standpoint.
A standpoint that may be discussed/argued at length, and it sort of would drift toward a Sense of Wonder thread I bet, but that's understandable.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Odhanan said:I think a part of the reasoning is missing here. If it meant "because you have rules that frame more the high-level end of the scale, you can more easily have adventures for high level characters where rules can be helpful rather than wing it. Ergo, it's easier to have epic adventures, so it's easier to get the feeling of "adventure" than ever before" then it's an understandable standpoint.
A standpoint that may be discussed/argued at length, and it sort of would drift toward a Sense of Wonder thread I bet, but that's understandable.
To be honest, I think that part of the problem I have with the game is that it has lost some sense of "mortal beings exploring the unknown". Part of this is that, in 3.X, PCs rapidly cease to be "mortal beings" in any meaningful sense of the word. Another part is that, with lengthly combat times and even lengthlier prep times, "exploring the unknown" sort of goes out the window.
There is a reason, I think, for the appeal of running an arena-style D&D 3.X campaign. In previous editions, this would get old fast -- the combat engine wasn't varied enough, and the game was more about poking about in Places Angels Feared to Tread, at least IME. To me, 1e was about pushing back the boundaries of exploration. 2e was about character definition (with its kits and Player's Option books, I'd say it pushed farther in this direction than 3e...perhaps too far). 3.X is far more combat focused.
To match my personal tastes, I've toned the classes back down to mortal status....although, at the same time, I added some races that are not mortal (call me a study in paradox!) I think that they are still equal to the standard 3.5 classes in power level, but different in the nature of their powers. A lot of this is, admittedly, "feel". Slowing level progression while removing Ye Olde Magick Item Shoppe was another major factor in restoring the "mortals" part of the equation.
The exploration part, I think, is hurt only by the slow pace of combat in the current ruleset and by the length of time it takes to stat things out.
In 1e, I could write a 40-encounter-area adventure over the course of an evening. In 2e, I could write a 20-encounter-area adventure over the course of an evening. In 3e, depending upon level, I'd be lucky to write 10 encounters an evening.
Conversely, in 1e, my PCs went through 20+ encounters a session. In 2e, 10+ encounters a session, in 3e, about 3-6 encounters per session. Speeding up combat, and speeding up scenario creation, are therefore two of my biggest "on the plate" goals for this summer.
RC
EDIT: OTOH, just for the record, I don't buy the idea that "epic adventures" and "high-level play" go hand-in-hand. I believe that it is quite possible to have epic adventures at any level! This is, of course, sort of my point...that you have to have a whole whack of superpowers to become embroiled in an important, continent-spanning storyline is anathema to my way of thinking.
I wouldn't put any of the main characters in the comic League of Extraordinary Gentlemen above 6th level in the first volume, yet that adventure took them to Africa, France, and Britain, and put them in direct conflict with the criminal masterminds of pulp fiction. And, when you look at it, Quatermain and Mina have no special powers at all.
Conversely, some movies and fiction that seem very "high level" in terms of what the characters can do fall flat on the "epic adventure" scale, at least IMHO. This was also true, btw, of some of the 1e and 2e higher level modules. Yeah, you needed Kewl Powerz to defeat the High Muckity Muck, but so what? Epic adventures have more to do with spanning vast areas, and doing things that truly affect the world, than with what powers get you there.
Indiana Jones can ride a zepplin in search of the Holy Grail without needing to be able to fly himself. (And trying to reproduce the feel of those movies is yet another demonstration of how the action point mechanic is more important than levels for epic adventures!)
RC
Last edited:
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
Quartermain is only 6th-level? Surely you jest. He's a high level human with no special abilities.
Raven Crowking
First Post
(Psi)SeveredHead said:
Quatermain as he appears in Vol 1 of the comic? Yeah, I'd say about 6th. You have to remember that Rider used slower level progressions than the standard, and that Alan Moore apparently took that into account. Very little of what Quatermain does is actually all that remarkable. It is mostly clever playing, and taking advantage of opportunities, on the part of his player.
Of course, I'd put Kirk and Spock at about 6th level at the beginning of the 5-year-mission, so that may just be me.
Conan or Tarzan are high-level humans with few or no special abilities!
Raven Crowking said:
As to the issue of prep times, you might want to look at a thread Eric Noah started on "Winging It" : http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=166310
I am now branching off into a question of apples and oranges...
The question is, how much of that is because the rules require it, and how much is because you're using tools and options that simply weren't available in previous editions? I have no problem statting up encounters in any edition if I just stick to the monsters or NPCs as they are statted in the books. Nice and quick, even in 3e. It is when you start going for more specific implementations and customization that things get hairy - but most of that involves flexibility that didn't exist before.
Yes, if you try to use the system to do more than you could before, doing so will take longer. No surprise there.
Similarly, I am becoming rather convinced that when folks compare the editions, they tend to compare what they played in the past, to what is written today, and that's not a fair comparison. In the past most folks quickly (often as unstated agreements) house-ruled out or ignored many things that were quite complicated in the book.
Yes, but as I recall, they don't actually do much in the first volume. They did so little, in fact, that I found I enjoyed the movie more.
But Indy *tells* us he knows how to fly! He just hasn't learned how to land yet.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
Raven Crowking said:Quatermain as he appears in Vol 1 of the comic? Yeah, I'd say about 6th. You have to remember that Rider used slower level progressions than the standard, and that Alan Moore apparently took that into account. Very little of what Quatermain does is actually all that remarkable. It is mostly clever playing, and taking advantage of opportunities, on the part of his player.
I was actually thinking of Quartermain before he joined the League. He seemed pretty heroic then ^^
Of course, I'd put Kirk and Spock at about 6th level at the beginning of the 5-year-mission, so that may just be me.
I'd agree with this one, actually. I think Kirk would be Smart 1 or 2/Charismatic 4/Strong 1 or 2. Military gives him Pilot
Conan or Tarzan are high-level humans with few or no special abilities!
Yes. Tarzan is just ... uber. (Wasn't he supposed to talk to animals? I guess he just has LOTS of Handle Animal.)
Raven Crowking
First Post
(Psi)SeveredHead said:I'd agree with this one, actually. I think Kirk would be Smart 1 or 2/Charismatic 4/Strong 1 or 2. Military gives him Pilot
Exactly. And yet, he was having all kinds of adventures.
IMC, you could actually create a Tarzan-like character....Under those (house) rules, Tarzan in most of the books would seem to be about...6th level.
Of course, my house rules are specifically designed to allow for more epic scope at lower levels, and slower progression to higher levels. I have also de-coupled the absolute "ability = level" mechanic to allow PCs to gain extra abilities by expending time instead of by killing things & taking their stuff.In normal D&D, some of the things Tarzan does would be available only to Epic characters.
RC
Raven Crowking
First Post
Umbran said:
SHUDDER.
In LOEG the Movie, the main characters are simply misunderstood. In LOEG the comic, they are mostly monsters who just happen to be on our side.
The reflection "Good show, Hyde!" moment was enough to make me blanche! LOEG was not about redemption!
Other silliness:
* Moriary cannot afford henchmen; he has to go on-site himself.
* The Invisible Man can walk around in sub-arctic temperatures naked for days with no permanent (or temporary) damage.
* You can figure out how to engineer the Nautilus by taking 2 photos inside.
* You can gain any benefit by a slide with cell samples of the Invisible Man. What exactly are you going to be looking at?
* The Invisible Man can get burned in one scene, and is fine the next.
Etc., etc., etc.
RC
