Making Things Different

[KidSnide]

I was looking at EvilBob's comment on Mouseferatu's blog, and it occurred to me that there is a fair amount of potential level differentiation even within traditional adventuring.

In 3.x, there were several points at which standard adventuring changed a lot. Both the point at which "everyone can fly" and the point at which "scry-buff-teleport" became reasonable tactics are key points at which the nature of the game changes a great deal. I think the 4e designers were correct in identifying these as not-entirely-functional changes to the game, but - as a consequence of removing them - the game tiers became less distinctive.

At all tiers of play, small unit tactics (i.e. "standard" combat) is an important part of the game. It's everything else that changes by tier. It seems to me that there should be a giant list of appropriate challenges for D&D, in which certain types of challenges are impossible, appropriate or trivial depending on the tier. The current design philosophy suggests that (almost) every style of challenge should have a heroic, paragon and epic version. This thread has made me think this may be a mistake.(*)

-KS

(*) Of course, it's OK for a clever GM to make a epic version of a heroic challenge (or visa versa). It's just that such a challenge should be the exception. An epic cliff should be a cute semi-self-referential design element, not a standard part of the game.

 

[arthurhoneyhill]

Something that I think would be really interesting is to get involved in politics, as @Morrus; has suggested. I've seen a lot of games take place in a pseudo-renaissance setting. So many Venice look-alikes... But the intruige of a political system such as that has so much room for fun. Or the social setting of the Wheel of Time. (Cairhein anyone?) Even if the PC's are not just Kings and Queens, but merely lobbyists or advisors, there is so much to be done.

You must argue with other people, and everyone has their own agenda. I would love to play a game like that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The potential trap with politics in RPGs is this: in all probability, only a few players will be involved/engaged with this plotline.

In this is is like solo-side adventures, dekkers in Shadowrun, and shopping trips in almost any RPG.

This isn't a failure on the part of the players or the system, and its not even a "roleplayer vs roll-player thing"- its just a fact. Whether by player demeanor & playstyle or by virtue of the PC's actual nature, you're probably not going to be able to involve everyone in machiavellian machinations.

Now, whether this is actually a PROBLEM is another issue. Your hack & slashers or those playing apolitical PCs may welcome a snack break. Or if the politics becomes a major RP arc, they may be able (and willing) to take a break from gaming to take care of real world issues.

OTOH, they may see the politics as simply boring.

The only way to know is to know your players & their PCs.

 

[pemerton]

Adding to what Dannyalcatraz said: at least with my players, the politics always becomes more interesting to them when it involves gods, demons, wizards, cultists etc politicking over magical power and metaphysical fundamentals, than when it involves courtiers, bureaucrats etc politiciking over tax policy and law reform.