Opinion: PoL and high tiers do not fit in the long run

[Wyrmshadows]

I find the PoL setting runs counter to my taste - I want civilisations to play in, not a few PoLs. I can always have borderlands, and deep underground ruins, and hiden valleys, and whatever else I need for wilderness adventures, in my world. But I don't want to sacrifice my campaign world for a big darkness full of combat encounters.

QFT


Wyrmshadows

 

[Fenes]

And I think I addressed this earlier in my 5 campaigns post.

In the first campaign, the PC's carve out a nice little empire. However, they will not pacify an entire WORLD. There just isn't enough time for that. They die of old age before they can do that. So, they build a nice empire, say the size of China.

However, even within that empire, there's still PoL. It might be brighter than outside the empire, but, there's still some shady places. So, our second generation goes and deals with the little stuff that got left behind the first time around and secures the empire. Once they move on to Epic levels, they extend the borders of the empire. They now control an entire continent.

Then the 3rd campaign starts. Taking a page from the excellent ideas of Steven Erikson's Malazan series, our empire is now challenged from without. A neighbouring empire of demon worshipping fanatics decends upon our fledgeling empire with a vengeance. The PC's start out by battling first the leading edge of the invaders, then working their way up the food chain, they stop the invasion and push them back. Empire is restored.

Well, there's 3 nice solid campaigns. What else do you want from a setting?

Or, you can go the other way and say that every time your PC's hit those kinds of levels, you go to a new setting. Fantastic too. I'm all for that.

Either way, you're golden.

Pacify an entire world? Probably not in my campaign. But leave a legacy other than "uh, while we battled the demon king, orcs sprang up again and wiped what we saved in the first 20 levels, so I guess it's back to the start for our next campaign"? Why, yes. One of my campaigns ended with a crusade that liberated a region held by evil monsters and evil priests. That had lasting effects, which other campaigns can experience. The current campaign has the heroes consolidate the hold of their nation on a conquered neighbor, install a new trade route through a portal, and make diplomatic alliances, all which has an effect on a campaign I play in located in another region.

That way, the players shape the campaign setting, and form its history. That sort of stuff is something I vastly perfer to some PoL setting.

 

[ruleslawyer]

The idea that once a given party hits 30th level, they will be able to pacify an entire world is one I disagree with.

They may be able to, depending on how big a sandbox the world really is. It's worth keeping in mind how fast-paced the accomplishments of D&D PCs seem to be and how insane the concentration of power in high-level individuals can get. However, I view this as a good thing, because...

If that's the way the campaign plays out, then simply move over to a new campaign world. You killed this setting's Asmodeus? Great. Now try this setting's Boris.

Right. If you're a DM whose players' PCs create a legacy of civilization in your PoL setting, you have two (equally appealing, IMO) options:

1) Change campaign worlds! With all these one-book settings that are coming out, your options should be rich indeed.

2) Play in your no-longer-quite-PoL setting! Having the new PCs explore the world forged by their predecessors seems like a great game.

 

[Zinovia]

I think the primary objective of the PoL idea is to help novice DM's who are daunted at the prospect of mapping out an entire world's worth of cities, countries, political boundaries, etc. This lets people start with a manageable area and grow it as needed. Furthermore it helps explain why there are adventurers at all. Why go out and risk life and limb adventuring if there are king's guardsman riding around protecting the travelers and quelling the invading goblins? The answer in PoL is that there aren't many places that are truly safe. Adventurers are needed and important. D&D is about the PC's first and foremost, so it's important for them to feel heroic and that they are making an important difference in staving off evil.

As for the PC's growing so powerful that they can challenge the might of the gods? That's not something that will ever happen in our campaign. The gods are the *gods*. They trump any mortal no matter how powerful. They don't have stats. They can't be fought. So the PC's will *not* be godlike in their power at level 30; merely very very powerful.

Nothing about PoL or 4E suggests that we can't continue to apply that view. If so, it will be house-ruled. End of problem. PoL is a tool to help newer GM's not be overwhelmed and to rationalize the existence of adventuring groups. It makes the world a bigger and scarier place for the average person, which is just what is wanted in a D&D setting IMnsHO.

The zeroth rule always applies, so why worry about how it might affect your uber-campaign that you've spent years in developing? I don't think it will make the slightest difference. It's a concept, not a campaign setting.

 

[xechnao]

I would rather prefer if core came with only heroic and paragon PoL and epic was published apart as a totally different game setting that did not conect or have any common points with the core world-a different setting specifically made for those that wanted to play dragonball d&d. This way it would not alienate d&d for me since I could certainly not bother.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

I sense an exaggeration of the effect even epic PCs have on a setting. Any setting, any setting with depth anyway, has a diversity of potential allies and enemies for any group of heroes from levels 1-30. There are other good guys in the setting who are exceedingly powerful if there are bad guys of awesome might. A campaign merely focuses on the exploits of a given band of heroes ie. the PCs in the setting. Presumably, this setting assumes that things outside of the PCs are occuring even when the PCs aren't around.

Wars are being waged, princesses are being devoured by dragons, nations are rising and falling, both villians and heroes live and die, babies are being coneived, all without the PCs involvement. The campaign is one set of tales out of countless concurrent tales in a setting.

Epic level PCs can save the whole world like in Dragonlance (which didn't require epic levels) or they can save a nation or empire from falling. They can found a kingdom and be legends without conquering or dominating the whole world.

Any believable setting will already have other heroes and villians extant on the world at the same time as the heroes of the campaign. The campaign may highlight the PC heroes and their exploits, but they aren't the only show in town unless the entire world exists in a state of suspended animation triggered into action only by the coming of the PCs. Setting have legends and histories and one day the PCs will be in those legends and histories (if they live that long). However, whether or not they are the greatest legends the world has ever seen depends on the kinds of events occuring around them (the type of campaign being run) and their actions in the context of those events.

PCs as the stars of the campaign only means they are the most brightly glowing stars in the sky at the time, it doesn't mean that they are the only stars in the sky or that there isn't a far vaster universe around them of which they are a small part.



Wyrmshadows

 

[DandD]

I would rather prefer if core came with only heroic and paragon PoL and epic was published apart as a totally different game setting that did not conect or have any common points with the core world-a different setting specifically made for those that wanted to play dragonball d&d. This way it would not alienate d&d for me since I could certainly not bother.

Then you should stay away from D&D 4th edition, because it has nothing for you.

 

[Hussar]

Definately differing gaming styles.

One camp (the camp I am in) says that high level characters are heroes because of what they have done and receive the benefits of that heroism in ways beyond merely leveling up and collecting more powers. In this style the characters gain titles, lands, alliances, lead cabals/knighthoods/mercenary armies, become prominant within their faiths, etc. In other words they impact the world in believable ways.

In another style of play the PCs accumulate levels so they can assault the next dungeon which just happens to be just right for a band of 23rd level adventurers. This style of gaming makes hero a mechanical descriptor as opposed to the actual impact of the character on the setting. They build nothing and live in a weird episodic world where one thing doesn't actually connect to the next and the setting never really responds to them except by sending them more things to kill. The only goal for a PC in this style of game is achieving the next level and its powers, abilities and feats. IMO, if one plays with minis, this is equivalent to D&D as Monopoly. Hit 30th (or epic) level and you win the game.

In 3e WoTC really demonstrated the latter style with the idea of epic level dungeons and an epic level city (Union) with 20+level town guards LOL. In other words boring, unimaginative, the same ol' stuff but with some flashier effects.



Wyrmshadows

Sigh, took this long for the badwrongfun police to show up.

So, if I have campaigns where the effects of the last campaign do matter (as I showed in multiple posts) but, the end of each campaign doesn't result in godlike PC's, then somehow I'm playing wrong? That my campaigns are nothing but mindless hackfests? There's no middle ground?

Gimme a break.

Pacify an entire world? Probably not in my campaign. But leave a legacy other than "uh, while we battled the demon king, orcs sprang up again and wiped what we saved in the first 20 levels, so I guess it's back to the start for our next campaign"? Why, yes. One of my campaigns ended with a crusade that liberated a region held by evil monsters and evil priests. That had lasting effects, which other campaigns can experience. The current campaign has the heroes consolidate the hold of their nation on a conquered neighbor, install a new trade route through a portal, and make diplomatic alliances, all which has an effect on a campaign I play in located in another region.

That way, the players shape the campaign setting, and form its history. That sort of stuff is something I vastly perfer to some PoL setting.

There's ABSOLUTLEY nothing stopping you from doing PoL in what you said. NOTHING.

You liberate a region held by evil monsters. Well, that's PoL right there. Very clearly PoL. Your current campaign has them establish trade routes - PoL. Diplomatic alliances? What about PoL prevents that? In fact, wouldn't diplomatic alliances be a very great goal for a PoL setting where you can get other points of light to work cooperatively?

Nothing you've said here contradicts in any way a PoL setting. In fact, in a non-PoL setting, there wouldn't be an evil region. After all, you need darkness for PoL. No PoL means no darkness, just light everywhere.

The whole idea of nation states is a very, very modern concept. In the timeframe that D&D is supposed to exist, nation states just didn't exist at all. At best, a nation was what you could control a few days from your city.

PoL doesn't mean that there are no cities. That's not true. There are cities. There may even be metropolis sized cities. What it means is no more modern nation states in your fantasy worlds. Considering that most campaign settings lack trains and instantaneous communication, that makes a great deal of sense.

 

[Zinovia]

To respond on the idea of the legacy left by your high-level PC's, there's no reason you can't start civilizing the world and making it a better place for people to live. The world is a big place, and I don't see that anyone, no matter how powerful, has the ability to totally pacify all evil, right all wrongs, and stop all wars. There should be plenty of room for people to do good works for their entire adventuring career, and yet have more evil to vanquish for subsequent campaigns.

Having the PoL concept doesn't mean that the changes made by your players will all be undone immediately. Maybe the peaceful empire they founded will last a thousand years. So start your new group of level 1's in another blank area on the map, another continent, a chain of islands, deep in an ancient elven woodland.

/shrug It's only as much of a limitation as you let it become. If you already know how to GM campaigns with intricate politics and world-spanning empires, then more power to you. There is nothing in the game that will *require* you to use the PoL setting as far as I know. Just like we don't allow people to kill gods. Talk about screwing up a campaign world forever. I never understood how that can possibly fit into a game without *massively* changing the world forever. The gods should remain separate and inviolate unless you plan for the death of a god as part of an epic event in your campaign. I just don't like the idea that the party of 30th level people wake up one morning and over breakfast decide to kill an evil god. "Pass the toast please, and let's go kill Asmodeus this afternoon.".

 

[xechnao]

Edit: nevermind