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

[xechnao]

Campaign ends in stalemate.

If your role in a campaign is to play to win this match (read heroes) but it is destined to end in a stalemate why bother?

So the answer to this IMHO, is that PCs do not even assume this role.

 

[xechnao]

There are also dragons, and yet people still manage to live and die without a dragon getting in on it.

I do not understand what you are saying (it's probably my english). If you would like reword it.

 

[Hussar]

If your role in a campaign is to play to win this match (read heroes) but it is destined to end in a stalemate why bother?

So the answer to this IMHO, is that PCs do not even assume this role.

From my entire post, THAT'S what you choose? Sigh.

Reread what I said. I said stalemate because while they stop the big badness, they do not go and kill it. There's nothing wrong with that. Hell, entire movie franchises are built around that.

So, if I understand you correctly, the ONLY reason to play is if you can become an omnipotent god and control the fate of the entire world?

 

[Charwoman Gene]

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

Yeah. Don't mean crap for any other campaign like yours perhaps, but the default world it presented in a "dark age" after things have fallen apart.

 

[Incenjucar]

I do not understand what you are saying (it's probably my english). If you would like reword it.

It is a big world.

It is a VERY big cosmology.

It is not physically possible for you, as a human being, to use the RAW to do enough in a standard D&D world to change everything forever to the point where adventuring is over and PoL is no longer possible.

You would not live that long if you were an elf.

A 2e elf.

 

[pemerton]

But I thought Eberron as we know it was the most representative setting of D&D. Will magic be totally altered?

If you haven't looked at W&M, I suggest that you do so. It gives a good discussion of what the game desginers mean by PoL as a setting - it is not just a few tropes, but a pretty well developed part of the system, with a lot of features that let it support D&D play (including, I believe, the sort of campaign cycles that you are looking for).

 

[xechnao]

From my entire post, THAT'S what you choose? Sigh.

Reread what I said. I said stalemate because while they stop the big badness, they do not go and kill it. There's nothing wrong with that. ?

No there is nothing wrong. But I do not see anything right either. So my point is why bother? Why assume the role of saviours if they are destined to not succeed and moreover this failure so be it just for the reason of going on with the campaign? What I am saying is that it is like as we have every time to introduce a casual failure to excuse the campaign going on-it's not the best option IMO and certainly not a long term one.

So, if I understand you correctly, the ONLY reason to play is if you can become an omnipotent god and control the fate of the entire world?

In a PoL if you rise to challenge the gods and darkness it seems it is. God of War ends with the conflict among Titans and Gods. Such an ongoing conflict could be an example of an ongoing campaign where you could be picking either side. But if in PoL some races or sides are just light and some races or sides are just darkness it is not viable.

 

[Incenjucar]

But if in PoL some races or sides are just light and some races or sides are just darkness it is not viable.

Not even dragons are all light or darkness by race.

4E is reducing the number of auto-aligned creatures.

 

[xechnao]

Not even dragons are all light or darkness by race.

4E is reducing the number of auto-aligned creatures.

But PCs are light, no? Unless dragons are the rulers and actively maintain the PoL-which I believe is not the case- I do not see how dragons will be interfering as to make it a valid point of yours. At best they can be considered as casual allies or enemies in a PoL setting.

 

[Hussar]

No there isn't nothing wrong. But I do not see anything right either. So my point is why bother? Why assume the role of saviours if they are destined to not succeed and moreover this failure so be it just for the reason of going on with the campaign? What I am saying is that it like as we have every time to introduce a casual failure to excuse the campaign going on-it's not the best option IMO and certainly not a long term one.

Success means protecting your home. Nothing more. It's stopping the slathering hordes, not going into Mount Doom and dropping the One Ring. By stopping the hordes, they ARE the saviours. Why does success equate with completely destroying the other side?

In a PoL if you rise to challenge the gods and darkness it seems it is. God of War ends with the conflict among Titans and Gods. Such an ongoing conflict could be an example of an ongoing campaign where you could be picking either side. But if in PoL some races or sides are just light and some races or sides are just darkness it is not viable.

Note, the line from the designers is that ONE OF the options at 30th level is you MIGHT be able to take on a god. Not replace it. Think Age of Worms where you take on Kyuss at the end. Think Queen of the Demonweb Pits where you get a shot at whacking Lolth at the end.

Heck, think Dragonlance where you get a shot at driving back Takhisis at the end.

Taking on gods has a pretty long tradition in the game.

I would also point you in the direction of the Immortals rules for B/E/C/M/I. There's an example of how to play when your D&D characters actually become gods.