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

[xechnao]

Well, our own world remained PoL (at least Europe anyway) for about 1000 years (500 AD to 1500 AD) and numerous other parts of the world for MUCH much longer than that. Heck, North America and Central America were PoL almost to the present day. Certainly within our own grandparents lifetimes.

1000 years is more than enough time methinks for most campaign worlds to tell most of their stories.

The idea that high level PC's will become permanent fixtures in the world is actually not supported. For one, elves had their lifespans chopped significantly. 3e lacks life extension magic a point that was used to great effect in Scarred Lands.

Actually SL sounds a LOT like a PoL setting. Small city states surrounded by extremely dangerous countryside. Life within those citystates is fairly good, but outside of those "points of light", life is very nasty, brutish and short.

Heck, thinking about it longer, there's large amounts of world history that looks an AWFUL lot like this.

For 1000 years we had no power (read technology). As soon as we developed it, PoL was over. D&D inhabitants have more power (read magic) than we do.

 

[Incenjucar]

The whole Light in Pol has only 5 adventurers to rise every generation ?? And how much does the darkness ? 4, 5 or 6?? :\

Only 4-6 adventurers matter at a time.

Every generation will have its chance. If it fails the next generation will have its chance too. Eventually the balance will be tipped. If not a certain force or reason will have to exist for not to.

Having a chance does not guarantee eventual success.

--

Technology can be freely dished out to the masses, magic can't.

Further, Earth is still full of PoL. Ever been to a 3rd World country?

Now, add in Dragons.

 

[pukunui]

The way I see it, the "points of light in a dark world" concept could easily just be viewed as the starting point for a given campaign setting. That doesn't mean the setting has to stay that way throughout the life of an entire 1-30 campaign, nor does it need to then "revert" to PoL when a new campaign in that setting is started. Why not allow the players to help shape and build the world in which their characters adventure? It's a great way to reward them for their efforts and it says to them that their characters' actions really matter. It gets them emotionally invested in the setting.

Granted, some groups may want to "reset" a given setting to PoL with the advent of each new campaign. That's fine. And there are plenty of ways to go about doing that, as other people have already mentioned. However, other groups may find it more rewarding to start new campaigns where old campaigns left off, and if that means that a given setting isn't PoL anymore, that's fine too. As a DM, I'm more inclined towards the latter option. My first 4e campaign setting will most likely be a homebrew, and it will most definitely start out as PoL, but that doesn't mean it will stay that way, and if my group manages to get a campaign going all the way through to level 30 before deciding to start a new campaign, I'd be inclined to allow any changes the group's characters made to the setting to stand, even if that means the world is no longer PoL but is more a Points of Darkness setting ...

If we get bored of it, we can have a world-shattering event bring the PoL back or we can change settings.

Just my thoughts.

 

[xechnao]

Only 4-6 adventurers matter at a time.

And why is that?

Technology can be freely dished out to the masses, magic can't.

Because not everybody can't cast magic missile does not mean that magic does not aid civilization the same way or even more than technology does. Not even myself know how to construct a battery but this does not mean that technology does not influence my life.

Further, Earth is still full of PoL. Ever been to a 3rd World country?

Now, add in Dragons.

3rd World countries are not PoL. 3rd world countries exist due to trasitional points in modern history.

 

[xechnao]

Then, when these groups go to start a new campaign in that world, they are starting it in one that their previous characters have helped to shape. It doesn't have to revert to being PoL. It can stay in whatever form in which they left it after the last campaign ended.

The problem is that eventually we will have no more a good reason for the characters of the new generation to become adventurers.

 

[cougent]

I think a lot of assumption is being made about the PoL setting that we really do not know yet, or that might change with supplement release. That assumption is how "pointy" the points of light will be and how much darkness lies between. The points may be kingdoms, empires, other type nation states that may cover vast areas. the darkness between may simply be the untamed woodland, or the rugged mountains of the east. Just because you don't have a GH or FR style continental map doesn't mean that your on disconnected islands (points) in a sea of darkness.

However, even taking the above assumption and running with it, it is one of the few things about 4E that I like. This way I do not have to shoehorn my campaign world into a GH or FR mold, instead I can insert WotC's points into my world. As for the Paragon and Epic paths, I see this as making those easier not harder. Paragons and Epics can tie those points together into a new kingdom or empire and fill in the darkness between. It only starts as PoL, it does not [and IMNSHO should not] stay PoL forever. The DM and Players should fill in the darkness, especially as paragons and epics.

 

[PeterWeller]

In d&d this is the wrong question. The right question is how long does it take for your heroes to reach level 30. And the answer depends from the rate they can face encounnters. PoL means that they can face them whenever they want. So I guess not so much time.

Does it now? Do you mean that 4E lets heroes face encounters whenever they want? Is this a sideways attack against encounter based resource management? You're not just conveniently forgetting that there are still per day resources that must be regained along with all the other factors that prevent adventurers from non-stop monster killing sprees, are you? Anyways, if you have a problem with 4E's rate of advancement, you can just slow it down.

There's also the fact that the Epic destinies are just that, Destinies. In R&C, they're mentioned as being a means of retiring your character from active play on a satisfying and fulfilling note. This implies that once you fulfill your epic destiny, your character is done and no longer an active participant in the world.

Every generation will have its chance. If it fails the next generation will have its chance too. Eventually the balance will be tipped. If not a certain force or reason will have to exist for not to.

This does not mean that the balance is totally or irrevocably tipped. This reminds me of the opening to Three Kingdoms, which goes something like this, "long united, the empire must divide, and long divided, the empire must unite."

 

[pukunui]

The problem is that eventually we will have no more a good reason for the characters of the new generation to become adventurers.

If that were to ever become the case in a given campaign setting, then it should be pretty clear for all involved that it's time to either find/build a new setting or to have some sort of "world-shattering" event that causes the PoL feel to return to the original setting. It's really not that hard.

That being said, though, I don't really see this ever being a problem. If it is, it will simply be because the group involved has reached the limits of its collective imagination and needs to start over.

Just look at real world history. Granted, no one's ever become an "Epic" hero or anything in real life, but empires have risen and fallen, kings have reigned over peaceful kingdoms only to have them descend into chaos after their deaths, etc etc. There should always be room for improvement. There should always be setbacks. Progress is a slow, back-and-forth thing but in real life it has never reached an end point and most likely never will ...

 

[xechnao]

I think a lot of assumption is being made about the PoL setting that we really do not know yet, or that might change with supplement release. That assumption is how "pointy" the points of light will be and how much darkness lies between. The points may be kingdoms, empires, other type nation states that may cover vast areas. the darkness between may simply be the untamed woodland, or the rugged mountains of the east. Just because you don't have a GH or FR style continental map doesn't mean that your on disconnected islands (points) in a sea of darkness.

However, even taking the above assumption and running with it, it is one of the few things about 4E that I like. This way I do not have to shoehorn my campaign world into a GH or FR mold, instead I can insert WotC's points into my world. As for the Paragon and Epic paths, I see this as making those easier not harder. Paragons and Epics can tie those points together into a new kingdom or empire and fill in the darkness between. It only starts as PoL, it does not [and IMNSHO should not] stay PoL forever. The DM and Players should fill in the darkness, especially as paragons and epics.

I agree about not having a map. I agree about alignment not being interesting enough. But I do not agree taking away alignment as the core of the world without finding a substitute of the alignment cosmology.

 

[Hussar]

And why is that?




Because not everybody can't cast magic missile does not mean that magic does not aid civilization the same way or even more than technology does. Not even myself know how to construct a battery but this does not mean that technology does not influence my life.



3rd World countries are not PoL. 3rd world countries exist due to trasitional points in modern history.

The problem is, you are assuming that magic is widespread and commonplace. There is no reason for this assumption. There's no real reason why it isn't true either. It might be, it might not be.

But, only in the last 100 years have we even remotely become "non PoL". Instant communication and rapid travel have only been with us for a couple of generations. Go back more than 100 years in North America and you have a PoL setting despite the fact that we had technology far and away more advanced than what is assumed by D&D.

Even 3rd world countries are more technologically advanced than any 15th century country.

But, even if the 30th level characters "win" this time, in short order, they will die of old age. Then something comes up that tips the balance the other way. Natural disaster, demonic invasion that isn't stopped in time this time, whatever. Now we're back to PoL.

Also, you are assuming that PoL means the entire world. That each and every part of the world is in the exactly same situation. There's no reason for that assumption. You could have long standing, stable nation states in a PoL setting quite easily. Look at the Roman Empire. Perfect example. Everything outside the Empire is PoL and, even within the Empire, there's still lots of PoL places. Other than the city of Rome and a few other cities, you have an entire continent of PoL.

You assumptions are flawed and unsupportable. You are assuming that whenever you get 30th level characters, they will be able to stabilize an entire world. There's nothing to suggest that. At best, they might be able to stabilize a nation or, even a continent. But, after their death, there's nothing preventing dissolution.