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

[Bendris Noulg]

Nice try Ben. (Btw Hi!)

Try?

Oh, check out the new digs? Looks like the old digs, really, but the material starts going up on Friday.

I would say for me, best way to fix it is indeed to create crafty villians IF you're not using the Scarred Lands. Teleporting magic however in the Scarred lands isn't THAT reliable. (Hey you got arcane heat, doesn't mean that's the end of it!) But that's about the only unreliable thing in magic...in places anyway.

Yeah, mine was that whole ley-line deal, where Teleport "locks in" to the resinance of a line and you can travel to it. In that regard, it rarely brings you exactly where you want to go (unless it's on a line). Teleportation Circle and Gates require junctions (where two or more lines overlap), and there destination must either be extra-planar, located on another ley-line (one-way) or at another junction (two-way). Add in a few spells, feats, and Prestige Classes to permit some individuals to gain control of a line, and it no longer serves as a destination point because the "owner" denies its use. It's even possible to "trap" a line in various ways (from contingency-like effects to bubble-dimension prisons.

Notably, most Wizard Towers (at least, all those with magical effects described in several OGC sources), Monolithic Circles and other structures, Druid Groves, and greater temples are built on ley-lines to take advantage of the natural magical eminations occuring there.

 

[jasamcarl]

That's one way of doing it... Assuming, of course, that you don't mind looking at character/BBEG power as an arms race.

Rather, I find Teleport and many other higher-level functions to be counteractive to role-play. By this I mean that, for me, my group, and many others, part of the game is the interaction of the character with each other and various individuals in the world, exploration of said world, and dwelling under a cloud of mystery that requires some form of resolution. So basically, my group and I change these things not because we're lazy (and I'll be kind enough not to be insulted by that remark) but because they take away the primary reason we play the game to begin with.

Edit: I had a somewhat more in-depth reply, but PC's merging lost it in the other thread.

See, all the 'mystery' you describe is usually just the DM pushing the pcs along to some inevitable plot-point. This is not always the result of a 'power-dm' mindset, but also from the horrible amount of description neccessary on the part of the dm to make both the 'objective' view of the world and the narrative thrust 'click' for the players. Most of the time, under a convoluted low-level storyline, they just look forward to combat and take a detached, barely amused notice, at the dm's 'grand mysteries'. This is the reason i run mostly site-based adventures with my current low-level group.

Higher-level games on the other hand seem to invest them more in the story, because they have to ability to effectivly 'edit' the ineffectual crap that the dm throughs there way by simply skipping over it. At this level, the dm also has many rules-consistent options that he can use the challenge the pcs which they can actually hope to penetrate with their divinations, teleports, etc. It becomes more of shared storytelling experience with a solid rules core, and the 'fantasy' and 'mystery' arises from that thrust and counter thrust. As a Dm, I'm looking forward to it.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I haven't played any high level D&D that I can think of. (Perhaps because of how long it took to level up in previous editions, and I haven't been in any long campaigns of 3rd ed.)

I'd say you actually should give it a try first. Then it would be easier to explain why a lot of us really dig high-level play. There's a certain kind of freedom for both players and DMs when the PCs are high level. Players become more confident about what they can do with their PCs. DMs don't have to worry as much about thumping the PCs too hard. Sure, the DM has a lot more to plan, since he has to keep in mind the capabilities of the PCs, but he can be much more ruthless. Players also have a lot more to keep track of, but they also can set up any number of workable contingency plans with all their abilities and items. In my experience, high-level play becomes more about roleplaying and story than about keeping track of hit points and rations. Plus, there is a certain kind of satisfaction when high-level PCs are challenged, for both the players and the DM, which doesn't really manifest as strongly in low-level play. There is a thrill for the players when they see that even their toughest PC can get thrashed by the Big Bad Guy; they know that they are all that stands between the world and disaster, with no one to save the day. For the DM, I can tell you that watching one's Big Bad Guy(s) go toe-to-toe with the PCs at high levels is one of the true pleasures of DMing.

 

[Kichwas]

It's the mandatory changing nature of the game that bothers me about DnD.

In other games I'll set a power level and the campaign will stick to that, allowing us to have a consistant story.

In DnD it changes the longer you play, you have no choice about the game 4 months later being radically different in scope and nature from the game today. You have to tell a different kind of story then than you do now, and on the other end of the table you have to play a 'different character' then than now (even if the same person).

A change in scope and nature is fine if driven by the developing story, but in DnD it's driven by a external unescapable mandatory artificial mechanic.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

See, all the 'mystery' you describe is usually just the DM pushing the pcs along to some inevitable plot-point. This is not always the result of a 'power-dm' mindset, but also from the horrible amount of description neccessary on the part of the dm to make both the 'objective' view of the world and the narrative thrust 'click' for the players. Most of the time, under a convoluted low-level storyline, they just look forward to combat and take a detached, barely amused notice, at the dm's 'grand mysteries'. This is the reason i run mostly site-based adventures with my current low-level group.

Fortunately, I don't have this issue (either the power-DM mindset, which playing the rules as-written doesn't eliminate when it does occur, nor players that are only interested in battles and treasure). When asked to describe my game, it's often summed up "as grand as Middle Earth, as gritty as Gladiator, and as elusive as X-Files". The response is usually "thank god" followed by tales of horrific D&D games, most of which followed the Core Rules to the letter.

Higher-level games on the other hand seem to invest them more in the story, because they have to ability to effectivly 'edit' the ineffectual crap that the dm throughs there way by simply skipping over it. At this level, the dm also has many rules-consistent options that he can use the challenge the pcs which they can actually hope to penetrate with their divinations, teleports, etc. It becomes more of shared storytelling experience with a solid rules core, and the 'fantasy' and 'mystery' arises from that thrust and counter thrust. As a Dm, I'm looking forward to it.

I'm glad the problems you seem to have had aren't the problems I've had. Our storytelling experience is shared from Level 1; we don't have to wait until high level to be on equal footing at the table.

 

[jasamcarl]

It's the mandatory changing nature of the game that bothers me about DnD.

In other games I'll set a power level and the campaign will stick to that, allowing us to have a consistant story.

In DnD it changes the longer you play, you have no choice about the game 4 months later being radically different in scope and nature from the game today. You have to tell a different kind of story then than you do now, and on the other end of the table you have to play a 'different character' then than now (even if the same person).

A change in scope and nature is fine if driven by the developing story, but in DnD it's driven by a external unescapable mandatory artificial mechanic.

In that case, wouldn't it be possible to simply keep the players at some fixed level, replacing any equipment expended during a fight? I don't see how the game allowing for change over time is more limiting than something with a 'consistent' power level.

 

[jasamcarl]

Fortunately, I don't have this issue (either the power-DM mindset, which playing the rules as-written doesn't eliminate when it does occur, nor players that are only interested in battles and treasure). When asked to describe my game, it's often summed up "as grand as Middle Earth, as gritty as Gladiator, and as elusive as X-Files". The response is usually "thank god" followed by tales of horrific D&D games, most of which followed the Core Rules to the letter.

I'm glad the problems you seem to have had aren't the problems I've had. Our storytelling experience is shared from Level 1; we don't have to wait until high level to be on equal footing at the table.

If that is the extent of you descriptions, i seriously doubt that you and your players are always on the same page once you actually start playing the game.

And read closer. I try to keep my players and I on an equal footing from level 1. I do so by using mostly site-based adventures where the map and opponents are relativly fixed. The cool part of higher-level play is that they can change stuff outside of the dungeon.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

A change in scope and nature is fine if driven by the developing story, but in DnD it's driven by a external unescapable mandatory artificial mechanic.

But that mechanic is story-driven, or should be. It reflects, in concrete game terms, that the PCs have encountered and overcome many challenges, and have learned from those challenges in various ways. I know some have problems with levels and classes, but just about any method of gaming, from class-based to point-based, tries to reflect that the PCs change and grow as they confront challenges. Except for a few fine examples (like Pendragon), RPGs aren't equipped to reflect spiritual, moral, and intellectual growth too well in a manner that is also interesting to play, in a game mechanic sense. In that respect, players seem to prefer to do that without the aid of game mechanics. For stuff that is not easy to roleplay (like fighting prowess or magical ability), showing growth by way of the mechanic you mention is much more preferrable, to me, than for the PCs to remain static ability-wise.

 

[Flyspeck23]

A change in scope and nature is fine if driven by the developing story, but in DnD it's driven by a external unescapable mandatory artificial mechanic.

... and that "artificial mechanic" is the DM, handing out XPs. And thus, if handed right, it's back to the "developing story".

 

[Altalazar]

It's the mandatory changing nature of the game that bothers me about DnD.

In other games I'll set a power level and the campaign will stick to that, allowing us to have a consistant story.

In DnD it changes the longer you play, you have no choice about the game 4 months later being radically different in scope and nature from the game today. You have to tell a different kind of story then than you do now, and on the other end of the table you have to play a 'different character' then than now (even if the same person).

A change in scope and nature is fine if driven by the developing story, but in DnD it's driven by a external unescapable mandatory artificial mechanic.

Well, for one, it will take far longer than 4 months to go from 1st level to near epic - unless you play all the time.

And then, one would hope that things would change over the years of play it takes to get high level - or else the campaign would essentially stagnate.