Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Helldritch" data-source="post: 6955438" data-attributes="member: 6855114">It is a matter of fact. My experience showed me that. The only edition that could've was 4th and that was only by a small degree. And even then it was simply a trap.Why can't they? Simple. Almost every play will occur within these levels.1st edition was stuck at around 13. There was the dreaded 4 where players were between level 9 and 12. At these levels, the players were too weak for the big leagues but too strong for the small ones.Second edition was more or less the same. It was not a deep reconstruction of the game itself but it had removed some of the unlogical and unwarranted super powers that some classes represented and gave elves, dwarves and other "good" races a class in which they could shine beside the rogue. The dreaded 4 were still there and stronger than ever. Third edition did do much better. It could've worked out way better and the epic level handbook is a testament to that era. Unfortunately, the smooth level progression was somewhat marred by the fact that almost all campaing were never going over there. The experience required to get to up to these was really big (but not as much as in 1st or 2nd) and again monster design was mainly for the level 1-15. And how many hobgoblin ranger 10th - 15th can you really see in a campaign? At somepoint it was simply not logical. Yes we had epic monsters and yaddi yadda but in the end, most of the stuff used were below the 1-15 usability. (Boy did I like the Athropal...)Fourth edition was almost perfect, too perfect dare I say. Again most campaigns were ending before the 15th level but now it was simply out of boredome. The game itself had stretched the levels up to 30 but in was really only 20 levels that were stretched to be 30. And guess what? The 1-15 limit was simply transformed into the 1 to 20 limit. Most 4ed campaings I saw or made aware of were ending about there. 4ed had its charms but the blandness of the classes was almost unbearable to many so a lot flocked to what was the best close to what had worked so far, Pathfinder a clone of 3.5ed. Don't get me wrong there. 4ed was good for some, bad for others. Classes were all more or less the same and gameplay suffered immensely. None of my players would want to go back to that edition whereas they would go back to 1st or 3.5 in a second. (well it would be a debate but one group had reverted to 1st and the other to 3.5 while we were not testing the various D&D Next modules).5th edition did not do better. It is still stuck at around level 15 and for all the reasons previous editions had. It is building upon 1st edition. It is as simple as that. The higher the players will get, the more and more swingy the game will become and only experience will let a DM not fall in either the pit of way too easy or the dreaded falls of too hard to do so we immediately die and decay before anything can save us.Whether you like it or not all systems that I am aware of have a falling point. White wolf Vampire the masquerade had its limit (never ever let a player have 6 dots in almost any abilities). Palladium is more or less stuck at 10th, Rolemaster was stuck at 20-30 depending on the GM. Starwars (d6) had its limit too. So did Shadow run.  Of all RPGs Call of Cthuluh and Paranoia are strange examples. In Call of Cthuluh you are not expected to live beyond a few dozen sessions and in Paranoia you are not expected to succeed/live beyond one session...All RPG must have a built in limit in which the DM will feel the urge to either build more, over prepare or simply end a campaign and start over. I had a campaign that lasted 3 years with long 6 to 8 hours sessions two times per week in the early '80s and in 84 we switched to advanced D&D. In 86, after a two years iatus from basic D&D we took back the players that were 36th and we played a bit of the immortal set  That is where the basic campaing ended. 2 games in the immortal set were enough to tell us that a good story must have an end. I much prefer a good ending than to remember the death of a good group.</blockquote>

Verification