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

[xechnao]

But this understanding of the word seems to remove all significance from your argument.

My argument has to do with the longevity of 1st priority threats of epic power. Epic power as something with a potential of drastic destabilization and change.

I don't think the Feywild and the Shadowfell are locked in any sort of epic struggle. That seems like holdover thinking from the old alignment wars. Which is odd since you now seem to be critiquing that dynamic whereas before you were defending it as balanced and viable in the long term.

I'm not trying to pull apart your argument here, it's just that I don't think I understand what you're saying any longer.

No, no. See above I edited my post

 

[Greg K]

Any DM worth his calibre can make rules work, and work for his group. Perhaps the issue isn't the rules, so much as it is the DM in this case.

Wrong. No DM will ever make, the Star Wars: Saga Edition skill system (which the new skill system will be based upon), TOB: B09S maneuver system, or per encounter powers work for me. They will have to completely replace the those mechanics with something else (i.e, 3.x skill ranks and non combined skills, a maneuver system like the Book of Iron Might, and a non per encounter magic or psionics system that works like magic in any of the Elements of Magic Books or psychics from the Psychic's Handbook respectively) for me to enjoy the game. The same goes with many gamers that I personally know.

 

[Xyl]

Wrong. No DM will ever make, the Star Wars: Saga Edition skill system (which the new skill system will be based upon), TOB: B09S maneuver system, or per encounter powers work for me.

If this is true, you are entirely welcome to skip 4e and let the rest of us enjoy our badwrongfun.

Or you could wait and see if you actually like it, rather than just dismissing it out of hand.

Pick whichever works for you.

 

[Greg K]

If this is true, you are entirely welcome to skip 4e and let the rest of us enjoy our badwrongfun.

Try reading what I wrote and the post to which I was responding. I didn't claim it was badwrongfun (althought most of what I have read to date is for myself and my friends,. However if it works for anyone else that is find by me). I did, however, make a comment to someone implying that any DM that cannot make the 4e mechanics work for themselves or for their group was not a good DM.

Or you could wait and see if you actually like it, rather than just dismissing it out of hand.

Pick whichever works for you.

Or how about realizing that I am not dismssng it out of hand, but basing my decision on what I been reading in design journals, play test reports, designer comments, and "preview" products (TOB:Bo9s, Star Wars Saga Edition, and MMV) and, yet, I still realize that there may still be bits worth stealing.

And, if you don't like what I write in response to someone dismissing a DM as a bad DM if they cannot make the 4e mechanics work for players with certain playstyle preference, ignore my posts.

 

[Xyl]

And, if you don't like what I write in response to someone dismissing a DM as a bad DM if they cannot make the 4e mechanics work for players with certain playstyle preference, ignore my posts.

The elements of your post I quoted are not playstyle. They are mechanics. Dismissing those mechanics before you ever try them makes me wonder if you believe that Wizards of the Coast is entirely incompetent.

 

[PeterWeller]

Sounds like a player problem to me.

 

[Hussar]

Points of Light is easy to define.

Imagine a map of your campaign world. Color in all the parts which are civilized, where some power keeps monsters in check, in white. Color in the lawless, monster and bandit-infested areas in black. What does your map look like?

If it looks like a bunch of white splotches - some as small as a village, some as large as an empire - surrounded by a sea of black, that's Points of Light.

If it looks like a bunch of black splotches in a sea of white, that's Points of Darkness.

It's perfectly possible to run a campaign in either sort of world. Points of Light worlds are easier to build piecemeal, because you can sketch out just one point to start with - such as a village - and surround it with "here there be monsters", without worrying about what is in the areas the players haven't explored.

As for the long run? It doesn't matter. What matters is that your campaign world is points of light now, while you're building it. If the campaign finishes, and you've now got a Points of Darkness world, you can still run a new campaign in it - after all, you've already got everything mapped out!

In other words, it's not that all campaign worlds will be Points of Light now and forever. It's just that it's easier to start in a campaign in a world that is currently Points of Light, and so that's the default assumption for new campaigns.

QFT

 

[Greg K]

The elements of your post I quoted are not playstyle. They are mechanics. Dismissing those mechanics before you ever try them makes me wonder if you believe that Wizards of the Coast is entirely incompetent.

Regarding mechanics. Mechanics often favor specific playstyles. There are several threads in this forum regarding that. I'll be happy to point you to those threads if you are not familiar with gamism, narrativism and simulation. Second, I am familiar with the mechanics, I have already posted the sources that served as playtests and I will gladly provide links to the design journals and designer comments where they state their design philosophy that went into the 4e mechanics. Granted they might not work exactly the same, but they are supposed to be close enough that you could be pretty much playing 4e now according to WOTC.

As for competency, it can affect mechanics. That said, I believe WOTC has very competent designers (even if I agree with publisher and former WOTC employee, Chris Pramas, that WOTC does not always bring out the best of them). With the exception of a few WOTC products, I just tend to prefer DND mechanics and products that the designers have done for companies other than WOTC prior to joining or after leaving WOTC or just material that they have placed on their websites. The Book of Iron Might, which I think is far superior to TOB:Bo9S is by Mike Mearls, the lead designer of 4e. I also happen to like much of his work prior to BOIM.

Why my tendency to prefer non-WOTC? The playstyle of the mechanics. Let me demsonstrate using BOIM and TOB: Bo9s. BOIM lends itself to simulationist, because its maneuvers are based on the premise that in combat fancy maneuvers are a gamble. They carry risks for payoffs. The bigger the reward, the bigger the risk involved. Its the risks of using maneuvers (e.g., sacrafice accuracy (to hit penalty), losing Dex bonus to AC, suffering an immediate attack from the opponent that can ruin the maneuver or combinations of penalties) that discourage players from repeatedly using the same maneuver.

TOB is much more gamist using per encounter mechanic which makes no sense from a simulationist perspective, because you should be able to repeatedly attempt a non-supernatural maneuver even if and when its not the wisest choice to do so.

 

[Irda Ranger]

PoL and paragon or epic tiers do not fit in the long run.

I expect someone has already addressed some of these points (I don't have time to read all 6 pages right now), but I'll toss these in the ring for comment and catch up when time permits.

PoL as an idea is very fitting for a low or dark fantasy gritty setting.

D&D is not low or gritty fantasy. It's "Heroic" right out of the gate, and City Guards have Grypon Riders. PoL is a description of a world that can exist in high fantasy.

If people were to be able to become so powerful PoL would simply not remain PoL anymore.

PoL (as WotC describes it) is a point on a cycle where darkness encroaches upon lightly connected or disconnected points of light. But they admit there are times of Empire where its more a "PoD" setting. So, in one sense you're right: 30th level heroes can drive back the darkness. But there are two counter-trends.

1. Bad guys can be 30th level too. Exhibit 1: Orcus.
2. 30th level persons don't stick around forever. Even if they're effectively immortal they probably advance to a higher plane, leaving this one behind. That allows for darkness to rise again.

Simply, if d&d characters can rise and match gods who are the shapers and rulers of the PoL world reconquering the world is just a matter of time.

And the reverse is true. See above. It's a cycle.

It is true though that alignment was boring and it did not make much sense in respect to reality. But it could explain the on-going exsistance of powering levels in a system of conflict.

You don't need to be "Evil" (with the capital 'E') to allow an empire to collapse through mis-management or lack of skill or resources (or plague, or invasion, etc. etc.). And even without Alignment playing as prominent a role as before, this does not mean that people are suddenly nicer. Some of them are still bay guys.

So I guess in 4e each campaign will have to reset to a point somehow. I think we will have to miss PCs' legacy building from one campaign to the next as points that remained.

I disagree. Even without having "the cycle of Empire" play out its course, just because the PCs bring peace and prosperity to one swath of land doesn't mean that the next kingdom over doesn't need saving. Moreover, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance; maybe the second campaign takes place inside the kingdom founded by the first campaign.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Its just too complicated IMHO.

Well, but doesn't that just make it a question of taste rather than viability?


Also, I'm still not understanding your use of the term 1st priority threats. Tying it to epic level threats is helpful, but I don't understand what epic level threats are supposed to be responsible for in terms of social development.

Particularly since, from my understanding of epic level threats, no culture is capable of developing a counter to them. Epic level PCs might be able to take out a god, but any god is capable of taking apart a culture. They just have inherent disincentives against doing so given their own interests.