Derulbaskul
Adventurer
Celebrim said:
Um, that's probably because you can't spell.
Cheers
NPP
PS: Lighten up; it's only a game....
Most ridiculous thing about Epic Rules
- Thread starter Crothian
- Start date
Um, that's probably because you can't spell.
Cheers
NPP
PS: Lighten up; it's only a game....
I'm fascinated by Epic Level campaigns, but I'm slightly more skeptical about ever playing them...
I suppose all of us have the fascination with the extreme. I am a high-level gamer (well, usually DM, but never mind). I enjoy interacting (or watching my players interact with) potent characters. Not normally kill them, but marshall forces, manipulate factions, pull strings and engage in the kind of intrigues impossible at low-level. A high-level campaign should be more than a hackmatch, it should be a battle of wits between the 'good' and the 'bad'- perhaps half of that finding out which is which. Epic-levels extend the scope. Powerful artifacts needing to be retrieved and destroyed. Double-edged swords abound. Each major action of the PCs has a massive effect on the lives of millions. The denouement to my last campaign was the battle over an artifact which would grant its wielder godhood, in a godless world (i.e. supreme power). The enemy leader's first gamibt was:
'Stand down. If you fight- and lose, I shall kill half the population of this world. How many score thousand innocents will have shed blood for your arrogance, in daring to fight me. You may prevail, but the odds are against you: and what price those odds are. If you stand down, I shall spare them.'
That: the major decisions that players have to make, is what makes EL campaigns enjoyable, not 'I hack Thor into little pieces'.
But what makes it potentially unplayable? The d20 system. The d20 system has only a given range. When the modifier get larger than the around 20, the d20 system breaks down. The randomness fades. This need not be a problem. For intrigue-based campaigns, this is hardly ever a problem (although someone with Bluff+100 may throw this.) Combat becomes more infrequent. The fact that no one can save against the 100 Int wizard with Ultimate Spell Focus should fade. Otherwise, I fear greatly. After all, look at the Epic Level Spells. DC 500? So a Spellcraft of +499 is guaranteed, but +479 is impossible- I see little real difference between the two, but the d20 system imposes a huge difference. ELC can work: if the d20 fades into the background, if combat is restricted to denouements and climaxes and the scope (worlds) becomes truly epic. A 50th level dungeon hack just wouldn't do it.
I suppose all of us have the fascination with the extreme. I am a high-level gamer (well, usually DM, but never mind). I enjoy interacting (or watching my players interact with) potent characters. Not normally kill them, but marshall forces, manipulate factions, pull strings and engage in the kind of intrigues impossible at low-level. A high-level campaign should be more than a hackmatch, it should be a battle of wits between the 'good' and the 'bad'- perhaps half of that finding out which is which. Epic-levels extend the scope. Powerful artifacts needing to be retrieved and destroyed. Double-edged swords abound. Each major action of the PCs has a massive effect on the lives of millions. The denouement to my last campaign was the battle over an artifact which would grant its wielder godhood, in a godless world (i.e. supreme power). The enemy leader's first gamibt was:
'Stand down. If you fight- and lose, I shall kill half the population of this world. How many score thousand innocents will have shed blood for your arrogance, in daring to fight me. You may prevail, but the odds are against you: and what price those odds are. If you stand down, I shall spare them.'
That: the major decisions that players have to make, is what makes EL campaigns enjoyable, not 'I hack Thor into little pieces'.
But what makes it potentially unplayable? The d20 system. The d20 system has only a given range. When the modifier get larger than the around 20, the d20 system breaks down. The randomness fades. This need not be a problem. For intrigue-based campaigns, this is hardly ever a problem (although someone with Bluff+100 may throw this.) Combat becomes more infrequent. The fact that no one can save against the 100 Int wizard with Ultimate Spell Focus should fade. Otherwise, I fear greatly. After all, look at the Epic Level Spells. DC 500? So a Spellcraft of +499 is guaranteed, but +479 is impossible- I see little real difference between the two, but the d20 system imposes a huge difference. ELC can work: if the d20 fades into the background, if combat is restricted to denouements and climaxes and the scope (worlds) becomes truly epic. A 50th level dungeon hack just wouldn't do it.
Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
The fact that it is needed at all to play over 20th level. The core rules should have had all the info needed to take the game over that point.
James McMurray
First Post
They do, if you don't mind the inherent imbalance that comes with simply extrapolating the tables from there. For instance, what do you do against a 48th level wizard who can cast Time Stop or any other 9th level spell 30+ times per day? Or a 48th level fighter with 9 iterative attacks?
Celebrim
Legend
"Frankly, this annoys me, Celebrim."
Ha!
Let me guess, your that latest type of gamer with a sense of superiority: the 'I've matured to the point that I've become tolerent gamer'.
Ha!
I guess it was only a matter of time. After all, tolerence has become the ultimate virtue of our society.
I don't buy it for a second.
Let me get something out of the way. I had read Monte's essay weeks ago when he first posted it. I have the greatest respect for Monte or any other published arthur, especially one as prolific and influential as he. I consider Monte perhaps the best dungeon crafter in the business since Tracy Hickman. I'm sure that he is a fantastic DM, better and more enjoyable than I, and I would be honored to sit at his table.
But that doesn't mean that upon reading Monte's essay I had this sudden life changing conversion as a light came on in my mind. It wasn't like this was something I hadn't considered before, and while I agreed with alot of it, I didn't agree with alot of it as well.
First of all, if the young gamers were playing "The Orcs Are Threatening the Town", I'd seen them as a flourishing group. At thirteen, I was playing 'The Orcs Are Threatening the Town' too. My early adventures often consisted of rooms of monsters with treasure and some simple story as to why the PC's had to go kill the monsters and/or get the treasure. No matter how sophisticated my story telling has gotten since then, I keep returning to those basic 'Orc and Pie' elements.
But lets note a couple of things. One, as a young player I was fighting Orcs. Secondly, the character I was playing had a relatively simple array of abilities, and although heroic was clearly not capable of anything. I'd occasionally run out of hit points, and have to run from Orcs. It took many encounters with Orcs to build up my array of abilities, and over the course of these encounters I began to master the rules and develop more sophisticated notions of role play, dungeon design, problem solving, etc.
So, I find Monte's whole premise flawed, because it assumes this is everyone's starting point. The problem is, it isn't. Alot of people seem to miss the whole idea of story, miss that their character should imply characterization, miss that RPG's aren't competitive games, miss that it is fun to play a character of every level, miss essentially everything that could take them along a path to any sort of more sophisticated play of any sort (whether my sort, your sort, or his sort). These players cheat whenever they can, try to use the rules/emotions/threats/sophistry to overturn DM rulings, are satisfied only when thier character can defeat things without challenge, and when faced with a challenge resort to cheating/whining/etc. in order to overcome the challenge rather than thoughtful play. They think that a character is better than another when they've bought the latest supplements and figured out a way to eek a few more attack and AC bonuses, and aren't afraid to say so. I can't honestly believe that Monte is perfectly happy with these sorts of players at his table. I think Monte lives in a happy world where everyone is basically a mature gamer.
I don't.
I live in a world where it seems about half of all gamers of any age are nearly autistic and would be perfectly happy all night long rolling a die and announcing how much damage they did, if it was far more than what ever they were fighting was doing to them. As long as it makes them happy, it's ok, right?
I live in a world where a group of gamers who are 20+ have no problems overcoming encounters so long as I restrict them to 'You see a monster with a pie.' But the minute I make them a little bit more complex, like hiding either the monster or the pie, or making them choose a door to find a monster or a pie, or talk the monster into sharing the pie, they fall apart. Here are people with like 10 years of experience rolling dice, and almost no experience doing anything like dungeon crawling or role playing.
I do my best to help players grow beyond that into strong, mature gamers. I do so because it is good for the hobby, and because other people took the time to help me mature when I was a young gamer. I've probably brought 20 people into the hobby in my years as a DM. If taking the time to game, and laugh, and joke with people six years your junior (heck, more like 15 when I do it now) is lording my maturity over people, then we need more gamers willing to do it. Because, in my experience, thirteen year old kids have the time of thier lives when an older DM takes the time to run them on a more experienced sort of story. I know I did. I was in awe. This was so much better than what I had imagined and what I was doing, and I wanted to take my play to the same level.
For all his pretence of saying that everyone's way of playing is equally good, Monte doesn't believe it and neither do you. If he did, Monte would believe that the work of a munchkin was equally worthy of publishing as the work of anyone else, and would be the sort of thing he himself would want to buy. But the fact is, that Monte believes that there are things like creativity, characterization, originality, believablity, play balance, thought provoking challenges, world building, backstory, mythos and mythic references, theme, plot, atmosphere, and so forth which improve game play and that these things are difficult to master but improve the hobby when they are done well. And I've even arrogant enough to suggest that you probably do to.
Finally, if hack-and-slash is what RPG's are all about, then the hobby is dead and we all need to move to the computer, because the CRPG's have had us beat in shear hack-and-slash goodness for years now.
Ha!
Let me guess, your that latest type of gamer with a sense of superiority: the 'I've matured to the point that I've become tolerent gamer'.
Ha!
I guess it was only a matter of time. After all, tolerence has become the ultimate virtue of our society.
I don't buy it for a second.
Let me get something out of the way. I had read Monte's essay weeks ago when he first posted it. I have the greatest respect for Monte or any other published arthur, especially one as prolific and influential as he. I consider Monte perhaps the best dungeon crafter in the business since Tracy Hickman. I'm sure that he is a fantastic DM, better and more enjoyable than I, and I would be honored to sit at his table.
But that doesn't mean that upon reading Monte's essay I had this sudden life changing conversion as a light came on in my mind. It wasn't like this was something I hadn't considered before, and while I agreed with alot of it, I didn't agree with alot of it as well.
First of all, if the young gamers were playing "The Orcs Are Threatening the Town", I'd seen them as a flourishing group. At thirteen, I was playing 'The Orcs Are Threatening the Town' too. My early adventures often consisted of rooms of monsters with treasure and some simple story as to why the PC's had to go kill the monsters and/or get the treasure. No matter how sophisticated my story telling has gotten since then, I keep returning to those basic 'Orc and Pie' elements.
But lets note a couple of things. One, as a young player I was fighting Orcs. Secondly, the character I was playing had a relatively simple array of abilities, and although heroic was clearly not capable of anything. I'd occasionally run out of hit points, and have to run from Orcs. It took many encounters with Orcs to build up my array of abilities, and over the course of these encounters I began to master the rules and develop more sophisticated notions of role play, dungeon design, problem solving, etc.
So, I find Monte's whole premise flawed, because it assumes this is everyone's starting point. The problem is, it isn't. Alot of people seem to miss the whole idea of story, miss that their character should imply characterization, miss that RPG's aren't competitive games, miss that it is fun to play a character of every level, miss essentially everything that could take them along a path to any sort of more sophisticated play of any sort (whether my sort, your sort, or his sort). These players cheat whenever they can, try to use the rules/emotions/threats/sophistry to overturn DM rulings, are satisfied only when thier character can defeat things without challenge, and when faced with a challenge resort to cheating/whining/etc. in order to overcome the challenge rather than thoughtful play. They think that a character is better than another when they've bought the latest supplements and figured out a way to eek a few more attack and AC bonuses, and aren't afraid to say so. I can't honestly believe that Monte is perfectly happy with these sorts of players at his table. I think Monte lives in a happy world where everyone is basically a mature gamer.
I don't.
I live in a world where it seems about half of all gamers of any age are nearly autistic and would be perfectly happy all night long rolling a die and announcing how much damage they did, if it was far more than what ever they were fighting was doing to them. As long as it makes them happy, it's ok, right?
I live in a world where a group of gamers who are 20+ have no problems overcoming encounters so long as I restrict them to 'You see a monster with a pie.' But the minute I make them a little bit more complex, like hiding either the monster or the pie, or making them choose a door to find a monster or a pie, or talk the monster into sharing the pie, they fall apart. Here are people with like 10 years of experience rolling dice, and almost no experience doing anything like dungeon crawling or role playing.
I do my best to help players grow beyond that into strong, mature gamers. I do so because it is good for the hobby, and because other people took the time to help me mature when I was a young gamer. I've probably brought 20 people into the hobby in my years as a DM. If taking the time to game, and laugh, and joke with people six years your junior (heck, more like 15 when I do it now) is lording my maturity over people, then we need more gamers willing to do it. Because, in my experience, thirteen year old kids have the time of thier lives when an older DM takes the time to run them on a more experienced sort of story. I know I did. I was in awe. This was so much better than what I had imagined and what I was doing, and I wanted to take my play to the same level.
For all his pretence of saying that everyone's way of playing is equally good, Monte doesn't believe it and neither do you. If he did, Monte would believe that the work of a munchkin was equally worthy of publishing as the work of anyone else, and would be the sort of thing he himself would want to buy. But the fact is, that Monte believes that there are things like creativity, characterization, originality, believablity, play balance, thought provoking challenges, world building, backstory, mythos and mythic references, theme, plot, atmosphere, and so forth which improve game play and that these things are difficult to master but improve the hobby when they are done well. And I've even arrogant enough to suggest that you probably do to.
Finally, if hack-and-slash is what RPG's are all about, then the hobby is dead and we all need to move to the computer, because the CRPG's have had us beat in shear hack-and-slash goodness for years now.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
It could just be because I'm tired, but that entire post sounded something like "Blah, Blah, Blah, I kill babies, blah, blah, blah."
I could be mistaken.
Oh, and on second reading, it sounds like "Blah blah blah, I can tell people how to enjoy games and how they're wrong playing them because I'm superior because I enjoy different games, blah blah blah."
Once again, I could be mistaken.
I could be mistaken.
Oh, and on second reading, it sounds like "Blah blah blah, I can tell people how to enjoy games and how they're wrong playing them because I'm superior because I enjoy different games, blah blah blah."
Once again, I could be mistaken.
Celebrim said:
That's great. But, some of us want to fight something other then Orcs. Some of us Want to be a little more powerful then Joe Average, and be superheros, Be revered in the game world. And fighting orcs at level one isn't going to get that.
And you seem to be under the assumption that every munchkin is so. No. Some people want their character to have some bang. To be good at their speciality. Yes, there is a difference between Survival of the Fitist and having squeezed every bonus possible. I want my wizard to have a high DC for spells, because his spells are what he survives by. Otherwise, what good is he in combat, if he can't cast the spells that's needed, be they buffs, damage, or whatnot. Or, even in non-combatant areas, high DCs are good. Charm the orc chieftain into *not* sacrificing the townfolk's children.
And I live in a world where people try to protect the sanctity of life by ending others. I live in a world where people follow religions that say killing is wrong, yet they do it in the name of that very religion. Even if this Bothers me, I'm not preaching and educating because some people just don't want to be educated.
I understand where you're coming from. I played in a group that the DM was the worst munchkkin I've encountered, and I felt useless because I was reduced to buffing up the party, sitting back, and letting them hack. My character was a halfling transmuter, the whole purpose was that he cut enemies down to size. Ray of Enfeeb, Blindness/Deafness, Bestow Curse, Poly Other, etc. But, the only two times I successfully got through something's spell resistance or saves, and polymorphed it, the DM had some NPC change it back. As a player, he created the most broken characters alive.
But, I still like the guy, I still liked the players, I didn't begrudge them. They had a good time, even if it wasn't my kind of game. That's how they want to play, and I don't think hammering or standing on a high horse is going to help that. They're going to play their characters how they see fit. You can lead a group to some more 'sophisticated' play, but you can't make them involve themselves.
Not to slam Monte, but have you Seen some of the spells he's created? Some of them Are munchkinbait. That doesn't take away from the sheer ability and the good stuff that he's turned out, but still, it shows he's giving some of that. And, yes, some of Monte's stuff is hack and slash. RttToEE is a big combat fest. Sure, it has plot, and a decent one, but the biggest things in the whole book Are dungeons. Even if they are well done dungeons, with dynamics and whatnot. I love what Monte does, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that some of the stuff he does isn't pure 'sophisticated'.
No, but Hack and Slash is part of the hobby. Otherwise, you wouldn't have cannonfodder, you wouldn't have dungeons, you'd have something like Hero, or Amber, in place of D&D.
Maybe I just have a really good RP-centric group. Maybe I've just not played long enough. But sometimes, I do hunger just to get back into the Hack'n'Slash stuff. I have never DMed a pure Dungeon, I have never ran through one like the Forge of Fury. Te only one I did, the DM threw dragons at us like Orcs. So, I Do hunger for the Dungeon, I Do hunger for hack and slash, because I know little else.
Does that make me a munchkin? Unsophisticated?
Not every munchkin is a whiney, powerhungry jerk who looks for nothing more then to get everything he can. And, sometimes, being a Munchkin can save your character.
Right now, my party is Underpowerful for their level, because they Didn't build their characters for utter power. But, they're enjoying their characters, and the plots and whatnot that happens. Does that mean that they're any less then someone who has the most bang for their character dollar?
Celebrim
Legend
Xarlen: I agree with pretty much everything you said, and I don't see how what you said is mutually exclusive of what I said or disproves it in any way. In fact, if anything, alot of your replies sound reflexive like I've been preclassified as something.
And alot of times it sounds to me like you are just arguing with me over the definition of munchkin.
You want to play high level characters? Great. Me too (even if high level is a term relative to the campaign). But I'm just pointing out that high level characters and monsters require a greater grasp of the rules to run by the rules, if only because you have more abilities/spells/etc. to worry about. Adventures to challenge high levels are harder to design because players have so many ways to short cut challenges. I'm merely suggesting that its easier to learn how to run if you spend a sufficient time walking (and maybe even crawling first).
At the heart, I think the place you are misunderstanding me is that you are assuming that I think well done hack-and-slash (alla Monte Cook) isn't a sophisticated and valid way to play.
And alot of times it sounds to me like you are just arguing with me over the definition of munchkin.
You want to play high level characters? Great. Me too (even if high level is a term relative to the campaign). But I'm just pointing out that high level characters and monsters require a greater grasp of the rules to run by the rules, if only because you have more abilities/spells/etc. to worry about. Adventures to challenge high levels are harder to design because players have so many ways to short cut challenges. I'm merely suggesting that its easier to learn how to run if you spend a sufficient time walking (and maybe even crawling first).
At the heart, I think the place you are misunderstanding me is that you are assuming that I think well done hack-and-slash (alla Monte Cook) isn't a sophisticated and valid way to play.
Celebrim said:
That's exactly what I got from what you said, because of what you said.
That your way of playing is best, and munchkins are wrong.
I was under the impression you were completely discouraging high level play. That high level monsters can't fit in the world with Joe Average. That high level play is circumvented by these enormosu powers. No, they just need to be taken into consideration.
You just need to adapt your style a little. You'll not find a 24th level dungeon. If you do, it should be pretty dang rare. Something Tomb of Horrors-esque.
