Making Things Different

[Dausuul]

Interesting, and it feels vaguely BECMI-ish for some reason. I don't have my books, but wasn't there some sort of "destiny" mechanic in BECMI, perhaps at Companion level? I recall one could become a "paragon" of one's class. I also recall the "polymath", a destiny for jack-of-all-trades types. All that might just be vague misremembered recollection, but perhaps this notion of Polymath notion might make a nice counterpoint to your Nonpareil.

The mechanics you're talking about are the Paths to Immortality. You find them in the Master Set; they're the forerunner to 4E's Epic Destinies. The paragon paths I was thinking of are more in the Companion line.

As a Paragon, your goal is to establish yourself as the supreme master of your craft; among other things, you have to find, challenge, and defeat all rivals within a defined radius.

As a Polymath, your goal is to become a master of every skill. You have to reincarnate as a member of each class in turn, starting at 1st level, and level yourself all the way up to 36 in every single one.

There was also the Dynast, which requires you to found a dynasty and maintain it over centuries (time travel was a requirement IIRC). I don't remember offhand what the last path to immortality was, will have to check when I get home. Something about achieving some great heroic deed, I think.

I think these are good to look at as inspirations for a third-tier campaign, but they suffer from some major problems--chiefly the fact that they're about as unsuited to party play as you can possibly imagine. The Paragon is off battling rivals and shouting about how there can be only one, the Dynast is bopping around time like a medieval Doctor Who, and the Polymath is busy killing goblins and dreaming of name level for the third time. Kind of hard to get the three of them into one gang...

 

[samursus]

Interesting discussion, and one that struck a chord with me. BECMI was my edition of choice until 4e, and even thought we never quite made it into Companion, I remember devouring the concepts as a DM. Instead of replacing the "dungeon crawl" from lower levels, it merely gave the players a sub-game (in kingdom/domain management and rules) AND supplied a different context in which slay baddies.

In particular I remember the module Test of the Warlords in which the party was given a domain to run in a frontier, competing against other colonizing agents.

I also remember Red Arrow, Black Shield in which the players went from country to country trying to create an expeditionary army in order to fight the Master of the Desert Nomads who was blitzkrieging the continent. In between diplomacy and travel there were dungeons, quests and some mass combat...all leading to a final battle where the players had to take out the BBEG mano a mano. To me, this was the perfect epic adventure.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I forgot one other thing. High-level PCs need a reputation that can work both for and against them.

They might be able to just walk right in to see the King thanks to the reputation, but when they walk into the seedy bar to gather some information, they attract too much attention to get much that is useful.

They might end up with the fantasy world equivalent of the paparazzi following them about.

If they do something that goes against their reputation, it will have an impact. As noble heroes, if they let an innocent person get killed some might become unwilling to help them or even turn against them. As ruthless warriors if they show mercy, some might challenge them as becoming soft.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Alas, I've never experienced or read the Immortals set from the BECMI continuum. Apparently, I really need to see if I can pick it up somewhere...

 

[Mark]

I discuss something similar in my Kingmaker article -

MF WARS: Kingmaker from Avalon Hill (1976 edition)

 

[Dice4Hire]

After some more thought, I believe 4E does in fact have some guidance to offer on the subject. The paragon path could be re-purposed to serve this function; instead of 4E's paragon paths, you'd have something like this:

• Monarch: The Monarch is a war-leader and ruler of a dominion. You gain a small army of followers, which grows as you gain levels, and can establish a domain.
• Guildmaster: The Guildmaster has a network of contacts, agents, and spies. You can send and receive secret messages across your network, have your minions carry out dirty deeds, and establish safehouses and hidden bases in enemy territory.
• Harbinger: The Harbinger is leader of a religious or spiritual movement. You can recruit groups of followers on a temporary basis, even outside your home territory, and you find support and allies wherever you go from those sympathetic to your cause.
• Nonpareil: The Nonpareil is a respected, admired, and feared master of some deadly art--be it magic, warfare, or assassination. Nonpareils do not have large groups of followers, but they can acquire a few highly skilled apprentices who wish to learn from a true master.

While there are obvious parallels here to the traditional D&D classes (monarch = fighter, guildmaster = rogue, harbinger = cleric, nonpareil = wizard), any class could take any paragon path.

Still thinking about epic destinies...

I like it, but would tend to do it 1-15-normal, 16-25 ruling a place and 26+ epic ending.

For 4E rules, that is.

 

[ggroy]

Basically, in his post, Mouseferatu argues that high-level D&D should have the potential to be different, not just a retread of low-level D&D with higher numbers and deadlier powers.

The phenomenon of "always fighting orcs" regardless of level, seems to be common in just about every edition of D&D/AD&D.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The phenomenon of "always fighting orcs" regardless of level, seems to be common in just about every edition of D&D/AD&D.

Indeed. As I said in the column, it's something that no edition has gotten right yet, IMO; my complaint is not edition-specific.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The phenomenon of "always fighting orcs" regardless of level, seems to be common in just about every edition of D&D/AD&D.

I may be reading that a bit literally, but that has not been my predominant experience.

Every GM has been different, of course, but most games, certain foes tend to be "left behind." Sure, you might encounter an orcish horde...but they'll be chaff before the scythe of a high level party...and they KNOW it, so they're more likely to cut and run.

...Much like the floor cleared between Gandalf and the Balrog in the Mines of Moria.

Hell, some DMs include those orcish hordes only as backdrops; "You see the horde before you...but you scatter them with barely any effort."

Instead, the GMs tend more towards foes that are more challenging at the individual level.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I may be reading that a bit literally, but that has not been my predominant experience.

I think you are. That is, while I can't be sure, I think Ggroy was referring to the same thing I referred to in the column: The fact that, regardless of level, the basic experience surrounding fighting--how, when, why--remains the same.