Power Ups and How they Effect the Game

[Marimmar]

Players who want Power-Ups just don't realize that no matter how strong their PCs are the DM can and will send in stronger opponents. The only reason for your PC to survive in the DMs world is the DMs goodwill. Another thing is that players often strive to have (be) the strongest, most powerful character in the party.

This only leads to the following conclusions:
1) The challenges are too easy for the CR, puts more work on the DM and possibly rewards undue rewards.
2) A single PC is stronger than the rest of the party, forcing upon the DM the decision to either challenge the strong PC and kill the weak ones or making encounters a cake walk for the strong PC.
3) In a game where DMs change/rotate, inexperienced DMs will be overwhelmed by the party's power. This is bad because the regular DMs will be forced behind the screen more often than they might like.

Just give them 25 point buy, tell them everyone else gets only 15 points to spend and ask them how 10 points above normal ain't heroic.

~Marimmar

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Not on topic, but is the fact that the title of the thread uses "effect" as a verb bugging the snot out of anyone but me?

Yea, it really effects me negatively

 

[Cintra]

My experience with "high-powered" games in this sense is a bit different. Your game is the same type we tend to run; I'm DM right now, and our current campaign as a Gestalt, high-ability-score, extra money game. We don't tend to run into many of the issues you describe, and part of it may be because I give most of the same ramp-ups in abilities to the NPCs and monsters as I do to the PCs. For example, all monsters use the Elite Spread for attributes (occasional NPCs get the even-higher values the PCs use), about 2/3 to 3/4 of max hps instead of average, and sometimes an extra ability. Also, I treat the party as one level lower, and treat all foes as one level lower, for XP-award purposes, which considerably fixes the problem with advancing too quickly.

Although I do still find that the PCs are relatively low on Hit Points compared to most of the challenges they face; and near-death experiences have been a fact of life in every recent session, with one actual character death. (Character levels are currently 5th through 7th)

The reason we play "high-power" isn't because any of us expect it to make the challenges easier - it's because we want the extra flexibility that such characters gain. Higher-level characters by the Rules as Written look too much like one-trick-ponies by comparison; all too often, they seem to specialize in one or two things just to be decent at them - and really can't do anything else. We prefer to have a bunch of characters who each can handle a variety of situations.

However, the next campaign I'm planning will tone down the power level quite a bit. I plan to sell the players on this by offering something in exchange. I'm creating bits of background info (childhood events, relatives, strange possessions, etc.) that will be drawn randomly by the players. (Random selection has proven in the past to be an excellent way to do this - they really get into it.) Most if not all of the random bits will provide roll-playing hooks; very few will actually give special abilities or other advantages to the characters, although there will be a few. (Like a +2 bonus to a couple of skills based on some past experience, or a bit of extra starting money.) I think they'll be intrigued enough by the character-development this provides that they'll be willing to go along with less immediate power (and flexibility) than we've all gotten used to.

 

[shilsen]

Yea, it really effects me negatively

Amateur.

What you should be saying is: Yes, there spelling mistake's really effect me negatively. Its so sad.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Especially in a forum about a game that makes frequent use of "mind-affecting effects", there's really no excuse for not knowing the difference.

Gah! You'd think after 2 years of post-graduate English I could use words properly without looking them up. Too much emphasis on ideas and concepts over punctuation, diction, and grammar at the U.

The reason we play "high-power" isn't because any of us expect it to make the challenges easier - it's because we want the extra flexibility that such characters gain. Higher-level characters by the Rules as Written look too much like one-trick-ponies by comparison; all too often, they seem to specialize in one or two things just to be decent at them - and really can't do anything else. We prefer to have a bunch of characters who each can handle a variety of situations.

This is the only reason I'm hesitant to drop back to baseline. With only 3 players (and sometimes 2) it is good to be flexible.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Amateur.

What you should be saying is: Yes, there spelling mistake's really effect me negatively. Its so sad.

I bow my head in shame and behold your masterful display in awe. Please teach me master.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Players who want Power-Ups just don't realize that no matter how strong their PCs are the DM can and will send in stronger opponents. The only reason for your PC to survive in the DMs world is the DMs goodwill. Another thing is that players often strive to have (be) the strongest, most powerful character in the party.

This player who wants power-ups realizes that no matter how strong his PCs are, the DM can and will send in stronger opponents. That's the whole point! My very strong PC can face challenges many CRs above his level, gain XP faster, and get new abilities sooner. I could care less about treasure (or statistic point-buy); it's XP I crave, and the chance to gain new powers on a regular basis.

I enjoy a high-powered campaign for the simple reason that it gets me more XP, faster. No ifs, ands or buts. It's the difference between gaining a level after 4 sessions or after 3, or, ideally, 2.

As a player, I'm interested in role-playing and gaining new abilities. As a GM, I'm interested in role-playing and providing extremely difficult challenges.

This only leads to the following conclusions:
1) The challenges are too easy for the CR, puts more work on the DM and possibly rewards undue rewards.

Undue? Why are they undue? It changes the game, but it isn't any more or less valid.

It does put (slightly) more work on the GM, but once he becomes accustomed to it, it goes pretty easily.

2) A single PC is stronger than the rest of the party, forcing upon the DM the decision to either challenge the strong PC and kill the weak ones or making encounters a cake walk for the strong PC.

This actually is a problem. Whenever I'm the best character optimizer in a gaming group (be I GM or player), I assist the other players in creating the best possible incarnation of their character concepts, precisely to avoid it.

3) In a game where DMs change/rotate, inexperienced DMs will be overwhelmed by the party's power. This is bad because the regular DMs will be forced behind the screen more often than they might like.

I'd rather not play under inexperienced GMs at all. If there's rotation to be done, the senior GMs need to be willing to help the young'uns learn the ropes, and the young need to respect the wisdom of their elders. If one or both parties can't manage that, I can find another gaming group.

Just give them 25 point buy, tell them everyone else gets only 15 points to spend and ask them how 10 points above normal ain't heroic.

Works for me (although 25 point buy penalizes monks and paladins and gives an inordinate buff to druids). Stats only very peripherally affect the ability to gain XP faster (and as such, the relevant power level). After about 5th level, they're an afterthought.

 

[WizarDru]

I've tried to bring our latest campaigns back down to the baseline but meet player resistance each time.

Basically looking for more points on how a high powered game is not the same as a baseline game just turned up to "11". I won't lower the power uniformly because the game mechanics do not scale uniformly as player power increases (without increasing level/HD).

Could you be a little more specific as to exactly what it is that you're looking for? Advice, suggestions, examples from other games? We've had lots of high-powered discussion threads, from low high-level games up to the Epic discussion happening right now on this forum.

Personally, I think your main problem is that you're giving too much XP, because you're not scaling the encounters by EL factor. If they're sailing through a +4 CR encounter without breaking a sweat, then they shouldn't be pulling down as much x.p. Eventually, this sort of things comes back to them.

Some of the other options aren't as workable if you start giving bonus feats, extra equipment and cheaper skills willy-nilly. High-powered characters are fine, well-equipped characters are fine, but high-powered and well-equipped characters are going to stomp anything they face. Stop giving out candy, and the problem will start to correct itself.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Could you be a little more specific as to exactly what it is that you're looking for? Advice, suggestions, examples from other games? We've had lots of high-powered discussion threads, from low high-level games up to the Epic discussion happening right now on this forum.

Specifically, the ways that high-power games differs from a baseline game mechanically.

The Epic discussion has been most helpful.

Personally, I think your main problem is that you're giving too much XP, because you're not scaling the encounters by EL factor.

MoogleEmpMog and Cintra nailed the two reasons while high-power is appealing for our group. Only 3 players so diversity is nice. At only 2 sessions a month on average (2-4 encounters/session) and a typical campaign life of 1-year (24 sessions), we find the advancement rate suits us.

Our group doesn't have major problems. Just coming to the realization that high powered campaigns are not the same as baseline campaigns taken to 'eleven'.

1. Certain character concepts tend to be less viable (Conjurer for example)
2. Spells are usually more effective as buffs than as direct attacks
3. Encounters attack character weaknesses more often than highlighting character abilities.

What concepts fall by the wayside in high-power games?

Do high-powered games have more buffing than baseline games?

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

This is the only reason I'm hesitant to drop back to baseline. With only 3 players (and sometimes 2) it is good to be flexible.

Flexibility is one thing. Power is something different.

By giving players more powerful items, or ability scores, you more directly make characters more powerful to defeat challenges through brute force to overwhelm something that is tossed at them. This is sort a sort of flexibility, I admit. But you are noticing it isn't perfect, and comes with it's own difficulties.

I don't have any personal experience for what might to do to give flexibility but not power, but... I haven't tried experimenting with it, but one idea might be to go back to the 25 point buy, but use gestalt characters out of Unearthed Arcana. For a campaign where there are so few players, like yours, this might be an option to consider. Gestalt characters could become very powerful, and they are often criticized as such, but it is probable that restricting them to a 25 point buy might rein them in enough to make going back to a baseline campaign mode more doable (and thus easier for you as DM to prepare for). Conjurers could be more viable this way.

Just a thought.


Regards,
Eric Anondson