Legends and Lore April 2, 2012

[I'm A Banana]

If I wanted to play exalted, I would play exalted.

Strawman argument is a strawman. D&D characters have been able to do superhuman things since OD&D, and quite frequently have been more than your average Ted right from Level 1. Whether that's because everyone else was "zero level," (1e, 2e), or because the PC's had higher ability scores and better class powers (3e), or because everyone else was effectively minionized if they were anything (4e). The way the game changes in play at various levels in D&D (through access to magic like Teleport or Resurrection, and through things like being awarded a keep) has also been a part of the game since its beginning. Gods have also always been something other than simply a high-level character, from unique mechanical tricks to divine rank to 2e's "Gods are untouchable forces of reality, but here are some avatars."

Tiers codify this, and tiers-as-treasure allows the DM to determine when and if such a change is to take place.

I want to play D&D. An Orc with an axe is a threat to a first level character.

Nothing in this idea takes that away. An Orc could be a Common or Heroic tier threat (I'd probably peg it at Heroic just to keep it scary to town guards). A first level character could be Common or Heroic Tier. They could be viable enemies for each other.

But the thing that brought up the issue was the idea that a king and his soldiers could be a lower tier than a PC, and how making tiers be how one can access magic items means that a PC might have better items than a king, and the king might be unable to get them, because the king is not in the same tier.

They could also be in the same tier and be a viable threat for each other, and then the PC would NOT have a magic item better than the king, since they were in the same tier.

Got it?

All this means for your orc that the Orc is not a threat to an Epic-Tier character. And if you want to play a D&D game where a single orc is not a threat (and plenty of people do), or you want a single orc to eventually not be a threat, you can award a Tier.

This allows the orc to be viable across every level if you want it to be (you never have to stop using a single orc as a viable threat!), but also allows you to never use the orc as a viable threat (it's always too low!), or to use the orc as a viable threat for a while (it's the same tier as the PC's!), only to change that at some point (now it's too low!).

I'm sure the idea has other problems, but this is not one of them.

 

[Quickleaf]

I mean come on... is there anyone here who will actually cop to voting on a poll answer that matched what Mearls' suggested was what their data pointed to... not because it was what they actually felt, but because it's what the poll suggested they vote for? Anyone really want to admit to being a mindless sheep?

Most of the time I am not a mindless sheep, though I do have momenta of weakness

Actually I've felt that several of the polls asked leading questions/ presented leading options, so I just didn't answer those polls. I imagine if there are 100+ folks on the Internet thinking the same thing, that just means less poll data. FWIW.

 

[Hussar]

If the DM lets you be a 3rd level high lord, then he must have rules to deal with this? I personally would start a character out as a noble, and let him slowly get to king (by say 10th level). But if I wanted him to start as a powerful king at 0th level, thats fine.... but I don't think the rules should expect this to actually happen. Let the DM handle his wonky idea.

Hrm... What's your objection to Kamikaze Midget then. If the DM wants to allow a 3rd level king, then why shouldn't there be rules in the system to help him?

OTOH, without said rules, I keep trying to think of the right word for the title of a 3rd level king... I know... Victim. How in the world can he actually do his job? He's got a 3rd level character's saving throws, meaning every caster in the world can dominate him somehow, he's got a 3rd level character's skill set, meaning that every diplomat out there can out maneuver him and he's got a 3rd level character's combat abilities, meaning anything bigger than an ogre can eat him.

As the mechanics stand right now, a low level (1-5) king doesn't work.

 

[Andor]

But the thing that brought up the issue was the idea that a king and his soldiers could be a lower tier than a PC, and how making tiers be how one can access magic items means that a PC might have better items than a king, and the king might be unable to get them, because the king is not in the same tier.

The notion that Farmer Ted the level 1 Heroic Tier Fighter can sneer with impunity at a 3rd level Zero-tier King becasue he is the hero of destiny and he knows it is unacceptable to me.

It does not match my genre expectations, it does not suit me as a narrative device except perhaps as parody, it seems like it would make for a lousy game, and it's completely incomprehensible from a world building point of view.

Exalted is not a strawman argument. It is exactly this scenario. At moment of Exaltation the PCs become infused with supernatural power and are completely beyond the ability of non-exalted characters to deal with. The could sneer with impunity at a village elder. But not the Queen. She is Exalted of course, or she would have been assasinated long ago. So are the regional governers for that matter. And much of the Army.

Because otherwise the whole narrative breaks down. Ted would not go off to fight goblins and level up, he goes and pimpslaps the king off his throne while protected by his shiny aura of narrative immunity and his mighty +1 sword and takes over, and then sends out the army to do his bidding. Why the hell not?

Someone is probably going to say "But they don't know about tiers!" To which the response is "So when the King sends a squad of soldiers to confiscate Teds sword on a (possibly valid) pretext he justs hands it over? Or does he fight the Knights and either die (in which case King gets sword as it turns out) or will Ted discover that he can in fact go toe-to-toe with a dozen normal men and conquer them?" And where does that lead?

A King is a powerful man, or he is King in name only. That power can be direct (he's high level) or indirect (high level people do what he says.) Either way, if the King wants a +1 sword, he's going to get one. And if anyone is going to have Narrative Power it's going to be the King anyway. Arthur was the original hero of destiny. And he had a magic sword. Fancy that.

 

[JamesonCourage]

OTOH, without said rules, I keep trying to think of the right word for the title of a 3rd level king... I know... Victim. How in the world can he actually do his job? He's got a 3rd level character's saving throws, meaning every caster in the world can dominate him somehow, he's got a 3rd level character's skill set, meaning that every diplomat out there can out maneuver him and he's got a 3rd level character's combat abilities, meaning anything bigger than an ogre can eat him.

As the mechanics stand right now, a low level (1-5) king doesn't work.

This isn't strictly broadly or universally true, but has truth to it. You need people loyal enough and powerful enough to protect you from those things. Take the Song of Ice and Fire series (or Game of Thrones first season). You've got a child king, but he's got people like the Hound protecting him. Other major players aren't warriors themselves, but have loyal guardians. A king in D&D would need the same thing.

Now, I'm also okay with the idea of awesome or badass kings. It's got a long, long history in the fantasy genre. I think you can avoid it by having loyal powerful guardians, too. But I'd like the rules to allow both, not force it to be one or the other. As always, play what you like

 

[Andor]

I should clarify that I think the Tiers as Treasure idea has merit, as a concept.

The specific iteration suggested, where a 1st level PC has narrative immunity to the lords of the land, is utterly antithetical to my playstyle and world building preferences however.

Tone down the Heros glittering aura of golden specialness and recall that you don't get to be a powerful figure, in a world full of demons/dragons/wizards/ psionicists/beholders and doppelgangers, unless you are actually a powerful figure and I think you have something to work with.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It does not match my genre expectations, it does not suit me as a narrative device except perhaps as parody, it seems like it would make for a lousy game, and it's completely incomprehensible from a world building point of view.

Genre expectations: Stories are filled to the brimmy-brim-brim with tales of those mere mortal kings can not simply do away with. Best known one I can think of is the friggin' Bible. For more fantasy goodness, The LotR stories had Gandalf (possibly Epic-tier) adventuring alongside Samwise (possibly Commoner-tier).

Narrative Device: Ted has always been a bit more than just a farmer. A bit stronger. Maybe a bit cleverer. Some folks whispered stories about how his momma was once a priestess, and how maybe he ain't his father's child after all, but in a small village, tongues will wag.

Gameplay: Now, a DM can control the point at which the tone of the game switches from "Killing Orcs" to "Killing Dragons" to "Killing Balors" to "Killing Asmodeus," rather than having it imposed on them by the level system.

World-Building: Every normal human in the world is Commoner-tier. There's a few special heroes and villains perhaps that are Heroic Tier. There may have once been a legendary king who was Champion Tier. The gods are Epic Tier.

Help at all?

Someone is probably going to say "But they don't know about tiers!" To which the response is "So when the King sends a squad of soldiers to confiscate Teds sword on a (possibly valid) pretext he justs hands it over? Or does he fight the Knights and either die (in which case King gets sword as it turns out) or will Ted discover that he can in fact go toe-to-toe with a dozen normal men and conquer them?" And where does that lead?

Possibly to Ted trying to figure out why he's so special that he can take on a dozen normal men who are looking for his father's sword. In other words, to a VERY genre-appropriate Adventure!

A King is a powerful man, or he is King in name only. That power can be direct (he's high level) or indirect (high level people do what he says.)

Neither of those have to be true. If nearly everyone in the world is basically Common-tier, all a king needs to be able to do is boss around folks. He's Common-tier, his stewards are, and so are his guards. Stories and histories are filled with kings and emperors who may be invested with a lot of political power who turn out to be normal people, with perhaps a powerful ancestor, or a knack for leadership.

He doesn't need to be above Common Tier, because being more than a normal person isn't required for leadership. He doesn't need to be able to command folks above Common Tier, because there just aren't any. That's the thing about heroes and the like -- not everyone gets to be one.

Arthur was the original hero of destiny. And he had a magic sword. Fancy that.

...and he didn't pull the Sword from the Stone because he was higher level than anyone. He pulled it from the stone because he was destined to be king. He was not a normal person, like the former king. He was something greater.

The specific iteration suggested, where a 1st level PC has narrative immunity to the lords of the land, is utterly antithetical to my playstyle and world building preferences however.

Tone down the Heros glittering aura of golden specialness and recall that you don't get to be a powerful figure, in a world full of demons/dragons/wizards/ psionicists/beholders and doppelgangers, unless you are actually a powerful figure and I think you have something to work with.

So use Common Tier, and don't leave it until you're ready.

That's what it's there for. Heroic Tier isn't the bottom. Having a magic weapon already implies that you're something more than most people will ever be.

And demons, dragons, beholders, dopplegangers, etc., are creatures of legend and myth. They're not common wildlife that people live with. If a dragon shows up to a normal town, it will burn. If a beholder pops up in a typical throne room, everyone dies. They're a different tier of creature. Ted might be able to slay a dragon if he's, say, Heroic Tier. But if he's a common farmer, he's gonna burn like the king will.

It's possible to slide that assumption around -- a world where dragons are common and a militia can fight them off might feature Common-tier dragons, or Hero-tier peasants. Or whatever. The basic concept of tiers (and applying them via DM awards) doesn't invalidate a world where a king can steal something they want. It just lets you as a DM control what kind of world you want in precise terms.

Do you want Ted to be a dragon-slaying hero destined for greatness the moment he's born? Or do you want him to start off as a normal farmer, and then, perhaps at some later date, enable him to slay dragons, as he has gained heroism through his deeds? Or, heck, do you want to take a page from Greek myth and have him strangling serpents in his crib because he's a born godling and he's Epic Tier before he speaks his first word?

A fluid Tiers concept like this enables all these kinds of games and more, just by letting the DM decide when and if to throw that switch.

Which seems to be exactly what a lot of folks are asking for: The ability to determine for themselves when the game changes, rather than hard-coding it to change with level.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Do you want Ted to be a dragon-slaying hero destined for greatness the moment he's born? Or do you want him to start off as a normal farmer, and then, perhaps at some later date, enable him to slay dragons, as he has gained heroism through his deeds? Or, heck, do you want to take a page from Greek myth and have him strangling serpents in his crib because he's a born godling and he's Epic Tier before he speaks his first word?

A fluid Tiers concept like this enables all these kinds of games and more, just by letting the DM decide when and if to throw that switch.

Which seems to be exactly what a lot of folks are asking for: The ability to determine for themselves when the game changes, rather than hard-coding it to change with level.

Wouldn't just moving someone up or down levels accomplish that? Compare an E6 game to starting someone at level 15 in D&D, even though he's had no training.

I'm not 100% on your tier idea, but it doesn't sound appealing to my game style. Couldn't you just accomplish goals by:
1) Starting the PCs at a higher level, or...
2) Capping the world's level, and adjusting it as necessary (E6 world, though PCs can hit level 10; a year later, the PCs level up, and the cap is now 15, though the world is now capped at 12, and big enemies can hit 18).

It seems like this would be easier, and even easy to implement in current editions. I know your tier idea seems related to money, too, but couldn't that just be kept in check via the GM, who controls the setting anyways? Magic items only work on level 6's in the E6 world, or the GM decides that only level 6's can acquire them, because of Fate.

Anyways, it seems like something you can do already, but I didn't read your thread, so I'm not sure what your goal is. I do know that the way I'm talking about wouldn't necessarily step on any toes, though. That is, commoners can wind up with a magic item without being "important" to Fate, for example. As always, play what you like

 

[Balesir]

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]: it seems to me that you want to make levels 2 dimensional, for some reason. Characters will have the same old levels they always had (in D&D), plus some new ones (called, for aesthetic reasons, presumably, "Common", "Heroic", and who-knows what else) that sit orthogonally to the original ones. Why? The original ones perform just this purpose, if you want them to. You can even make the original ones DM gifts, if you want to (though I can't see any good reason, myself). What do you gain by having "levels" twice?

 

[Andor]

And demons, dragons, beholders, dopplegangers, etc., are creatures of legend and myth. They're not common wildlife that people live with.

If you are running a Greek Mythology sort of world with only a handful of specific, named, immortal monsters, then yes.

That's not the norm for D&D, period.

The MM is full of creatures which are exactly that. Creatures. They live, breed and die. They have to maintain viable populations or go extinct. Dinosaurs, ankhegs, bulettes, all the humanoids (including dopplegangers), griffons, unicorns, blink dogs, thri-kreen, grey renders, jellies, otyughs, etc, etc, etc.

No, the average farmer can not deal with most of those. The king can, or they would stop paying him taxes until someone capable of fulfilling the feudal contract of protection from above comes along.

The King probably cannot deal with an angry ancient dragon. That's when he hires epic adventurers.

You are describing a playstyle very divergent from normal D&D and then telling us it's what we've wanted all along. I don't buy it.

As for the Bible, I presume you're describing Moses? As I recall when the Pharoh actually tried to kill him, he ran. He didn't think God would pluck spears out of the air to defend him. Jesus fared less well, when the regional governer decided the hero's time was up. Of course sometime the narrative calls for a heroic sacrifice, and you never do know what's on the next page, do you? I guess maybe Ted should be concerned that he's the guy who dies to show the real hero how corrupt the king is....