Need DM advice or help

[weinerdog]

I didnt see anything about Dragon sex....

 

[weinerdog]

It is very hard to contain high level pc's. your campaign can escalate beyond anyones control. heck just trying to keep 19th level pcs in a swamp is work enough. in all the high level campaigns ive ever seen , there has always had to be some type of insurmountable object that limits the powers of the pc's somewhat. strange stone impervious to teleport or etheriality. magical vortecies that inhibit magic use to a degree. something. it may be hard for the players to accept, but it is ABSOLUTELY necessary. the game has to be challenging, but, with these power limiting factors, it can be done without things getting TOTALLY out of hand.

 

[MoonZar]

I didnt see anything about Dragon sex....

DRAGON SEX ? I think i miss something in your idea, i should read it again sorry hahahahahaha what this all about...

 

[Templeton580]

it may be hard for the players to accept, but it is ABSOLUTELY necessary.

I have to disagree with you. A DM worth his salt, with access to the same ruleset as the players, should be able to challenge the PCs at high levels.

Wasn't it a stated design goal of these new editions to hold up at high levels without resorting to the tactics you've suggested? IMO, those are dirty tricks, and no substitute for creativity and proper planning.

 

[jmucchiello]

strange stone impervious to teleport or etheriality. magical vortecies that inhibit magic use to a degree. something. it may be hard for the players to accept, but it is ABSOLUTELY necessary. the game has to be challenging, but, with these power limiting factors, it can be done without things getting TOTALLY out of hand.

What's the point of playing at high level if you nerf the cool parts of being high level? No, none of the things you mention IME are ABSOLUTELY necessary. My next DM session will have 6 18th level PCs. I'm not disallowing or nerfing anything. And the adventure will take place in a city. I'm not worried about it not being challenging. They can teleport, disjunction, and wish to their heart's content. So can the enemy....

 

[fredramsey]

I'd take the middle ground in this particular argument, but...

In a campaign I played in, our characters had an artifact that allowed us to teleport anywhere in the world, any time we wanted to. Now, granted, it made us take a short stopover on a random plane...

But even with that capability, we were still running scared most of the time. So yes, you shouldn't have to line every dungeon with lead to challenge high level characters.

I have to disagree with you. A DM worth his salt, with access to the same ruleset as the players, should be able to challenge the PCs at high levels.

Wasn't it a stated design goal of these new editions to hold up at high levels without resorting to the tactics you've suggested? IMO, those are dirty tricks, and no substitute for creativity and proper planning.

 

[gizmo33]

You completely contradict yourself here. First you say that the "DM is having super-powerful creatures challenge the PC because he doesn't like the stuff that the PC is doing in the game," but then you say that having a gold dragon show up to find out who's been impersonating gold dragons would be "unfairly biased by the fact that the DM doesn't like what the *player* is doing". There's absolutely no difference between the two.

Yes, I agree, there is no difference between the two statements - and therefore I think I make my save vs. contradiction. The second statement IIRC is a more specific example of the first, and both describe what not to do IMO.

Aren't the DM and the player sitting at a table together, taking on roles in a fantasy game? Playing parts in a fantasy, so to speak? How is it metagaming for one person to take on roles, based on actions taken *in-game* by another person?

Because the hypothetical DM is using his preferences as the DM ("I don't like that I can't challenge this particular PC") rather than a developed sense of what the NPCs actual interests are. Now, a person can rationalize any action after the fact ("well, the gold dragons really would act like such and such") but I recommend, if you're going to be fair as a DM, that you recognize the biases that you have to begin with, and don't try to solve meta-game, rules problems with NPC actions.

My suggestions were meant to spark new storylines, not give the DM an opportunity to use a "mouthpiece" to summarily bust down the PC for what the player is doing. The first half of my post (which you may not have noticed) was attempting to make that clear.

I did read, and thought I understood the first half of your post - I'm sorry if I missed something. The storyline is built around the efforts of a DM to reign in the abilities of his player. While plenty of folks (including yourself) are posting completely plausible storylines, they're premised on the idea that the DMs problem can be fixed by NPCs. IMO the DMs problem is that he has no experience with 19th level characters and/or does not have a campaign world designed for them.

 

[gizmo33]

Wasn't it a stated design goal of these new editions to hold up at high levels without resorting to the tactics you've suggested? IMO, those are dirty tricks, and no substitute for creativity and proper planning.

I completely agree. But if I were a 19th level character that didn't want to get killed in my sleep by teleporting assassins, I'd invent an "anti-teleporting stone". And so I think it's reasonable that high level dungeons would have device and creatures that could counter these abilities. Again though, if you're inventing these devices to counter *just* the tactics of the PCs, then the PCs are going to feel that you're unfairly nerfing their abilities. Ideally, PCs should be using the same anti-teleporting devices.

 

[Templeton580]

While plenty of folks (including yourself) are posting completely plausible storylines, they're premised on the idea that the DMs problem can be fixed by NPCs. IMO the DMs problem is that he has no experience with 19th level characters and/or does not have a campaign world designed for them.

Ah ha! Now I see what you mean, Gizmo.

 

[Templeton580]

I completely agree. But if I were a 19th level character that didn't want to get killed in my sleep by teleporting assassins, I'd invent an "anti-teleporting stone". And so I think it's reasonable that high level dungeons would have device and creatures that could counter these abilities. Again though, if you're inventing these devices to counter *just* the tactics of the PCs, then the PCs are going to feel that you're unfairly nerfing their abilities. Ideally, PCs should be using the same anti-teleporting devices.

Permanent Dimensional Lock. Always a good call.

Once again we're getting into this weird game/metagame dichotomy, and I think we define the terms differently, so take this with a grain of salt.

From an in-game, rules-based perspective, I agree with you that "high level dungeons would have device and creatures that could counter these abilities." The problem starts when the DM uses such devices and creatures as crutches, and just keeps using them because they are "effective."

To boil it down, and use an FR-based example, what I'm saying is: Undermountain is fun, as long as every dungeon isn't Undermountain.