I don't get high-level D&D (merged)

[Pielorinho]

Someone suggested that at low levels, mystery adventures involve railroading and handholding. I disagree.

Examples of character actions in my aforementioned first-level mystery, actions I wasn't expecting:

* Rather than give information to the meddling cop, a PC stood up to her, called her bluff, and quoted laws back at her until she backed down.
* Knowing that criminals were trying to scare the PCs off the trail, the PCs took the initiative to find out where the criminals hired their goons, went to that tavern in disguise, and hired themselves out as hit-men against themselves. Eventually they turned on their criminal "bosses," in a very fun scene.
* Once they found out who was behind the crime, the charisma-monkey went to her house to talk, while the party bard hummed an improvised song about treachery and crime in order to intimidate her.
* Because the party didn't act quickly enough, one more victim died; their victory was bittersweet.

It was not the least bit of a problem to set up a non-railroading adventure for them; indeed, the problem was, if anything, a lack of direction for the PCs. There was plenty for them to do, and their actions did have consequences: because of their investigations, a meddling (but intelligent and honest) guard was hired on by one of the better noble houses, and a corrupt and impoverished noble house failed to take over a rival house, and they made valuable allies. (They later completely failed to follow-up with the valuable allies, but the opportunity was there).

The worst thing to do with low-level adventures, IMO, is to throw dozens of goblins, skeletons, and fire beetles at them. Everyone has done that before, and it's lost its charm. There's plenty of cool stories you can tell with plucky newbies .

Daniel

 

[mmadsen]

Style of play...

High Level play in Dungeons & Dragons is very... D&D. It is a style that is unique to itself, it doesn't try to really mirror anything else and is very, very different from low level play. [...] We looked at it too long and too closely and the center could no longer hold. High level play became some kind of unrecognizable monster which in no way mirrored what we generally thought Epic Adventuring should be like.

Well said, A'koss.

Scry-Buff-Teleport, Improved Invisiblity-Fly-Bombard, Easy Resurrections, Lots of Money, Lots of Magic, Lots of Powerful, Intelligent Monsters and just plain Lots of Power... period. [...] Powerful, world renoun characters were a *good thing*, but the D&D style of play became increasingly unidentifyable and unsatisfying. Highly initiative dependent combat, very quick battles, very easy deaths and one hit wonders (Save or Die/Nerfs) didn't help either.

One issue is that high-level D&D characters wield "just plain Lots of Power" -- but another issue is the kind of power they tend to wield: Scry-Buff-Teleport, Improved Invisiblity-Fly-Bombard, Easy Resurrections, Lots of Money, Lots of Magic, etc. There are so many ways to scale power, but the choices the D&D designers made (often inadvertently) don't match what many of us think Epic Adventuring should be like.

 

[Aaron L]

Anything high level characters can do, high level bad guys can counter.

 

[WizarDru]

One issue is that high-level D&D characters wield "just plain Lots of Power" -- but another issue is the kind of power they tend to wield: Scry-Buff-Teleport, Improved Invisiblity-Fly-Bombard, Easy Resurrections, Lots of Money, Lots of Magic, etc. There are so many ways to scale power, but the choices the D&D designers made (often inadvertently) don't match what many of us think Epic Adventuring should be like.

Which begs the question, what DO you think Epic Adventuring should be like?

I can tell you that several things don't work the way you expect. For example, the 'lots of money' clause only works when you build a character from scratch. As often as not, the players have significant upkeep, have been spending their loot the whole way up the chain, and turn most of it around to procure items to allow them to survive the threats they face. Things like the Improved Invisibility-Fly-Bombard tactics are less effective under 3.5, but were not nearly as effective at high levels as you might think, particularly against the high-CR opponents. The same applies with SBT tactics. As for the easy Resurrections...well, you and I have a differing defintion, most likely. My players have been ressurected several times...and I don't think any of them would have defined it as 'easy'. Never mind the requirements for said spells, which are often overlooked in the case of most high level spells.

Now, it's a perfectly vaild argument that you don't like the amount of power PCs are capable of throwing around at that level. You may feel that high-level D&D trivializes some aspects of the fantasy genre that you enjoy, and that it doesn't fit your image of what high-level characters should do. I'm not sure, though, what you would have them do. After all, let's be honest...we're really talking high-level spells and high-level magic items as the most common complaint. I've never really heard anyone complain about the 20th level fighter or 20th level rogue in any but the broadest terms (and usually from someone who feels that sneak-attack is too good). But most of the players I've ever known are more interested in being Aragorn than the town guard of Bree, more interested in being Merlin or Gandalf than a hedge wizard. The powerful characters of a game don't have to be all NPCs.

Ultimately, high-level D&D can support a variety of styles, from Sepulchrave's epic drama to Piratecat's free-wheeling fun to Shark's over-the-top military madness (with my little game somewhere in the middle, there). What it can't support is characters with little personal power, which may or may not be your style.

 

[A'koss]

Originally posted by mmadsen:
There are so many ways to scale power, but the choices the D&D designers made (often inadvertently) don't match what many of us think Epic Adventuring should be like.

Exactly.

From a lot of the posts here you can see that most people who play high level D&D have that "Here's how I've learned to live with it..." and "Embrace the D&Disms..." attitude. But deep down, I wonder how many people feel that this is the style that they really want for their campaign? It took me years and years before I could really take a hard look at it, because changing it to a more cinematic Epic Adventuring style is no small feat (it's more that just a couple o' House Rules) and there is no support for it other than yourself. That said, we've taken the plunge and are in the midst of re-gearing the game top-to-bottom the way we'd like. It's a lot of fun, but it takes a lot of playtesting to get it right...

Cheers!

 

[jasamcarl]

Problem, bub, is that you didn't present these as your "experience". You got up on your pedestal and proclaimed it a universal truth, denouncing anything said otherwise with insinuations of railroading, hand-holding, and power-dming towards those that do otherwise than you. If you had presented them as your experience, I would have simply offered my sympathies for your unfortunate gaming experiences and wished you better luck in the future. However, you didn't.

More insinuations, eh? Gee, this is a productive conversation, isn't it? And, no, I didn't take it as me, directly, at first; I simply tried to indicate that such things are possible without the issues you indicated. However, as before, you refuted such possibilities as universally impossible rather than simply stating that you hadn't had the good fortune of experiencing otherwise.

A: I see no reason to contradict this since I never argued it. However, going with a published source, good ol' Palace of the Silver Princes (B3, was it?) presented a low level (1-3) adventure where the PCs save a kingdom. Forgive me for using archaic references (my 3E adventure knowledge is a little shaky since I stopped buying pre-made adventures nearly 10 years ago), but doesn't the Master of the Desert Nomads series (4-8 or something like that) have the PCs stemming a major invasion of the "known world" of Expert D&D?

So, no, I'm not going to try to prove something that published material already validates.

B: I would never attempt to contradict that, as WotC went through great pains to figure out what would attract the average American (with their 6th Grade Reading Level) to a new edition and, judging on how things have gone, they were right. And, of course, I don't think you would enjoy my game. Your favoritism towards high-powered magic, lack of belief that low-level characters can be influential, and obvious prejudice against anything otherwise is rather clear and I would never consider waisting either your time nor mine in such a futile effort.

Now, to point: You have yet to prove that low powered games are only the purview of railroading power-dms. Although, now, you have admitted that this earlier claim is only the result of your personal (and thus limited) experience, so perhaps you don't need to.

Doped up? That's an interesting statement. What, prey tell, would indicate that I'm "doped up"? Or is this just another insinuation aimed at discrediting my statements without any burden of proof?

Yes, I think it's the later... It's about all I've seen from you with any consistacy.

I'm sorry, I didn't think i needed to clarify that i was speaking from my experience. I suppose gave you a bit too much credit thinking you were mature enough not to need contrary opinions butressed with 'but its only my opinion'; of course it is. That being said, you really haven't countered any of points, and in fact, am making me think that you didn't really understand them in the first place. Citing the existence of old modules isn't really evidence, because many modules are simply railroad aides for lazy, hyper-story driven dms; there is no validation. I'm so disgusted by the other B) reply that i simply won't comment.

The issue with low-level event-based plots isn't one of power-mad dms (though its much easier to manipulate players at those levels without resulting to the type of contrivances that mitigate the consistency this type of anal dm goes for in the first place). Its the fact that any such grand event or mystery almost always neccessitates heavy dm adjudication. Many players, probably yours included, might be fine with that, focusing more on the totally of the story rather than their (the players) actual role in determining the outcome.

The key to high-level play, however, is that it doesn't require as much dm intervention and calls as low-level, both because the crunch heavily implies 'events' that only a dm could call at low levels (the opening of a 'Gate' as an off the cuff example) and because the players have more control over vital descisions such as setting. The DM starts to react as much of the player. The reason this is preferable to players who like control over the 'Choose Your Own adventure" setup of the most lenient low-level DMs is because true creativity comes from working within rules and coming up with something neither ever expected. At high-levels, both DM and player can be surprised by what happens in the end. For lack of a less pretentious word, its a dialectic.

This has nothing to do with a 'Dm vs. Player' argument, though I have a feeling I would hate you as a DM. The cliched High Magic/Fantasy = Immature line has me thinking you are not as well read or imaginative as you think you are if you can't see the creativity possible in these genre conventions.

 

[Piratecat]

The cliched High Magic/Fantasy = Immature line has me thinking you are not as well read or imaginative as you think you are if you can't see the creativity possible in these genre conventions.

Did you somehow miss my warning? My patience is pretty much at an end. Stop the insults - now.

If this is somehow a problem, feel free to email me.

 

[maddman75]

Most DMs I beleive don't have players that will engage in the dialectic. They want to do tonight's adventure. Whatever that is. This is something I've struggled with myself.

It's repeated over and over again. A good DM doesn't railroad. So you try not to railroad. You present a rich tapestry and let the players choose how to approach it. Or not at all. What do you get then?

Nine times out of ten, they sit around the table in silence. Timidly suggest plans to each other. One of them grabs you outside the game and says "Throw us a bone man - what are we supposed to do?"

Supposed to do? I'm not one of those evil railroaders, I'd never go so far as to say what the PCs are supposed to do. But the truth is that's what they want. They just don't know they want it, and they don't want to know they are getting it.

The secret is to railroad them right along, but do it in a way that they never had any idea you are doing any such thing. So you plan, but plan loose. Don't panic if the train jumps the track. Keep it rolling and move the track in the direction the PCs want to go. They'll never notice and think you're brilliant. You can never give PCs free will. They'll have no idea what to do with it. If they wanted to be crafting grand plans and plots, they'd be DMs.

I've not seen any difference in this tendency in either high or low level players.

 

[jasamcarl]

Most DMs I beleive don't have players that will engage in the dialectic. They want to do tonight's adventure. Whatever that is. This is something I've struggled with myself.

It's repeated over and over again. A good DM doesn't railroad. So you try not to railroad. You present a rich tapestry and let the players choose how to approach it. Or not at all. What do you get then?

Nine times out of ten, they sit around the table in silence. Timidly suggest plans to each other. One of them grabs you outside the game and says "Throw us a bone man - what are we supposed to do?"

Supposed to do? I'm not one of those evil railroaders, I'd never go so far as to say what the PCs are supposed to do. But the truth is that's what they want. They just don't know they want it, and they don't want to know they are getting it.

The secret is to railroad them right along, but do it in a way that they never had any idea you are doing any such thing. So you plan, but plan loose. Don't panic if the train jumps the track. Keep it rolling and move the track in the direction the PCs want to go. They'll never notice and think you're brilliant. You can never give PCs free will. They'll have no idea what to do with it. If they wanted to be crafting grand plans and plots, they'd be DMs.

I've not seen any difference in this tendency in either high or low level players.

The difference is that at low-levels it seems much more a requirement than at high, where many high-level spells have obvious 'event' style effects than can play out either in or out of combat. For those who want control, there is more rules support for both dms and pcs at high levels.

 

[WizarDru]

Most DMs I beleive don't have players that will engage in the dialectic. They want to do tonight's adventure. Whatever that is. This is something I've struggled with myself.

You know, I've never, ever had this happen. I've only had one player in 20+ years that I've had that problem with, and he could be dragged (sometimes kicking and screaming) to some plots, if it was related directly to his backstory.