Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Orius" data-source="post: 8245773" data-attributes="member: 8863">I think there needs to be something of a shift in at least high level D&amp;D.Over the last few years, I've been seeing people repeat how stuff in the game tends to break down after name or 10th level.&nbsp; It's most pronounced with 3e, but I've seen similar arguments with classic D&amp;D, 1e and 2e.&nbsp; Regardless of edition, it seems that at a certain point, nearly always around 10th level, the game has to shift focus if it's not already gradually doing that.&nbsp; The challenges of dungeon and wilderness adventuring stop being serious challenges at that point in the game, and it's futile to keep forcing those challenges to remain in the game.&nbsp;Old school D&amp;D basically shifted the game over to stronghold building and domain management, but that's something that's been on a decline since the days of 2e.&nbsp;&nbsp; I blame the 2e DMG for leaving out that material from the 1e DMG as well as the Expert sets (and perhaps Companion as well), and there's no good excuse here since Zeb Cook both wrote the original Expert set and was the lead designer on 2e.&nbsp; Possibly the focus on more narrative gaming that was all the rage at the time played a part, but I don't really know.&nbsp; Some OSR material has taken a look at this stuff, especially stuff inspired by the old D&amp;D game.However, there is a downside, and that is domain management and such doesn't always really lend itself very well to a full party and tends to be a more individualized thing.&nbsp; You have to set things up to be cooperative, so the fighter is in charge of the soldiers, the cleric runs his own chapel, the wizard's got a personal laboratory up in a tower or down in a dungeon, and the rogue is handling the scouts, spies and such.&nbsp; Even then, not all the players might want to do this, so it fragments things and makes the game harder to run anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Orius, post: 8245773, member: 8863"] I think there needs to be something of a shift in at least high level D&D. Over the last few years, I've been seeing people repeat how stuff in the game tends to break down after name or 10th level. It's most pronounced with 3e, but I've seen similar arguments with classic D&D, 1e and 2e. Regardless of edition, it seems that at a certain point, nearly always around 10th level, the game has to shift focus if it's not already gradually doing that. The challenges of dungeon and wilderness adventuring stop being serious challenges at that point in the game, and it's futile to keep forcing those challenges to remain in the game. Old school D&D basically shifted the game over to stronghold building and domain management, but that's something that's been on a decline since the days of 2e. I blame the 2e DMG for leaving out that material from the 1e DMG as well as the Expert sets (and perhaps Companion as well), and there's no good excuse here since Zeb Cook both wrote the original Expert set and was the lead designer on 2e. Possibly the focus on more narrative gaming that was all the rage at the time played a part, but I don't really know. Some OSR material has taken a look at this stuff, especially stuff inspired by the old D&D game. However, there is a downside, and that is domain management and such doesn't always really lend itself very well to a full party and tends to be a more individualized thing. You have to set things up to be cooperative, so the fighter is in charge of the soldiers, the cleric runs his own chapel, the wizard's got a personal laboratory up in a tower or down in a dungeon, and the rogue is handling the scouts, spies and such. Even then, not all the players might want to do this, so it fragments things and makes the game harder to run anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification