Preserving the Sweet Spot - A Rebuttal

[kaomera]

First of all, I think more high-level content is a great idea. I think it might be better not to go so far in the direction of multiple high-level-only products, but I'm actually kind of disappointed that there aren't more "pre-advanced" versions of monsters being statted up in recent monster books. A "Legends" (ie: levels 10-20) PHII / DMGII-style book would be cool, although I'm not really sure I'd personally give it any priority as a purchase. But there's a lot of recent stuff that I think should do really good things for higher-level play (while still being useful at lower levels), such as the Affiliations rules from PHII, or stuff from the DMGII and/or Powers of Fareun.

One of the biggest problems with higher-level published material is that IMHO higher-level characters require more customized responses. I base this off of experiences with first through tenth level characters, mostly, so perhaps I'm wrong. However, I've found that the more levels the characters get under their belts, and the bigger the gap between skills and abilities the characters have focused on and ones they haven't, the more you have to re-write published adventures. And it can get to be a really tricky balancing act to keep the characters' abilities in mind and make the adventure challenging without taking away from just how awesome those abilities are supposed to be.

When I started my most recent campaign I made a promise to let the players get their characters to "at least 15th level, or die trying". Honestly, I haven't deliberately been trying to block higher-level play. My last game I aimed to try and capture the "high-level feel" at lower levels, and the Eberron game before that I had a plan for going from first through twentieth level. I'm not sure what I was doing wrong, but both games simply broke down before we could really get anywhere. It just seemed that I ended up playing the PCs for the players, who couldn't seem to keep track of their own capabilities and alternated between excessive caution and excessive overconfidence. I think part of the problem may have been that they expected higher levels to be more of a cakewalk, whereas (as has been pointed out) high-level combats can be very, very deadly; and they are much more likely to come to the attention of the powers-that-be (especially if they strut around Sharn making a big deal of "Look at us! We're 14th level!").

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I agree with GlassJaw that this was hardly a rebuttal.

I have had more than enough high level play. I disagree that more is the answer. Better is. And there is only so far you can carry "better" when the framework for high level play is rotted. The CR system for high-level encounters is more flawed than at low levels. Certain spells at high levels are game ruiners. The encyclopedia of buffs that can be added slow the game further. Keeping track of such takes remarkable effort at higher-levels that a casual gamer is turned off by.

There is a good reason why the RPGA's Living Greyhawk campaign forcebly retires PCs once they reach 16th-level, and it is not because people don't want to play their characters anymore. It is because high-level play in 3.x has too many challenges with the rules as is, even when using the pure Core Rules.

 

[scourger]

Wulf Ratbane started a very excellent thread talking about how the "sweet spot" in D&D is between levels 1-10...

Since I can't easily find that thread, I'll chime in here. I absolutely agree that the D&D sweet spot is in the lower levels. I just don't want to do all the calculations necessary to run a game past a certain level. Just accounting for the HPs is work. Add in all the feats, spells & items; and it's just too much. I'm sure it's great for computer RPGs, but I just don't want to work that hard for my play.

I have recently enjoyed running Tour of Darkness for Savage Worlds and am currently running Karak Azgal for Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (with the bad guys' HPs reduced to keep my bookkeeping manageable). It's just easier, and it feels just as epic when the heroes succeed and advance.

I think D&D has got to become simpler to make it more accessible as a tabletop game. Otherwise, it's a low level game. It is for me, anyway.

I find Omega World d20 instructive on these points. It's written and statted for levels 1-10. It is one of the best d20 games I've played and run. There are some other changes that make it a blast to play or run. I guess the author knew what he was doing.

 

[Hussar]

I agree with GlassJaw that this was hardly a rebuttal.

I have had more than enough high level play. I disagree that more is the answer. Better is. And there is only so far you can carry "better" when the framework for high level play is rotted. The CR system for high-level encounters is more flawed than at low levels. Certain spells at high levels are game ruiners. The encyclopedia of buffs that can be added slow the game further. Keeping track of such takes remarkable effort at higher-levels that a casual gamer is turned off by.

There is a good reason why the RPGA's Living Greyhawk campaign forcebly retires PCs once they reach 16th-level, and it is not because people don't want to play their characters anymore. It is because high-level play in 3.x has too many challenges with the rules as is, even when using the pure Core Rules.

And I agree with this whole heartedly.

There are serious issues, particularly for the DM, in high level play. The sheer volume of numbers probably being the prime one. The fact that the higher level stuff is nowhere near as play tested as the lower end stuff is another. Never mind the pre-publishing play testing, I'm also referring to post as well with FAQ and Errata additions to the rules.

How many FAQ questions deal with high level issues? Compared to low level ones? Because, IMO, so many people stop at about 12th level and start again. There's few questions about high level issues because so few people play there.

That's my point.

I want to see products that make people want to DM an 18th level party. Most DM's would rather drink Draino I think, than DM such a game. For any number of reasons. But, the prime reasons, IMO, are:

• An almost complete lack of any resources for high level play
• A great lack of experience with the game at those levels
• Tradition in the game which tends to make "name level" time for retirement

What I would love to see are products geared towards providing advice and examples for high level play. Ok, if we need a spreadsheet to track buffs, then let's see one - I mean a pen and paper blank form for tracking buffs. If die rolling is a huge issue, then start using average dice plus a few like in the recent David Noonan article. Advancing monsters and giving class levels is difficult, so howzabout some villain templates?

Instead of simply burying our heads in the sand and refusing to try to fix the problem, why not push for the problem to get solved?

 

[Quartz]

Can I throw out some suggestions?

If buffs are a problem, do away with them. If damage is a problem, restrict criticals to just multiplying the base damage - no adds like Str or Power Attack - and let enchantments like Keen simply extend the critical range by 1, not double it.

If they're fighting mooks, don't worry about actual HP or AC but simply designate the mooks as 1-hit, 2-hit, etc.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Then again, when things like that were included in a recent MM, half the crowd went up in arms.. Of course, most of the other half thought it was an awesome thing.

A third party could probably make a pretty successful product of simple "advanced" monsters, some by HD (although I'd keep that as a minor part) and some with class levels. For sure, it would be a huge hit as a free PDF, or even a pretty cheap one. And since it would be relatively easy to make, a cheap one would make sense.

No, about three quarters of the 'crowd' hated what was done with MM IV, and the rest were for the most part apathetic. I remember the results of the poll I ran on just that subject....

Adding class levels to old monsters does not a new monster book make. And that is what a Monster Manual is expected to be.

I will agree that a third party book of modified monsters might do fairly well, even MM IV might have done better, had it been called Monstrous Encounters or some such, rather than Monster Manual.

The Auld Grump

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I think that the "sweet spot" is "the sweet spot" because DMs don't get the right support and the right advice to sustain campaigns at high levels.

I think the sweet spot is the sweet spot because the 3e ruleset is designed to accomodate a certain kind of play-- in a nutshell, dungeon delving. It feels "sweet" because the desires of the players are served almost perfectly by the design of the game.

There is almost universal agreement among high level afficionados that their games can no longer be contained by the dungeon. The needs of the players evolve-- but the rules do not evolve with them.

It's no surprise to me that folks who enjoy the "mission statement" of D&D-- the dungeon delve-- find themselves most fulfilled by the 3e rules in the sweet spot.

It's also no surprise to me that folks who enjoy high-level play don't find themselves adequately supported by the 3e rules. 3e just simply isn't very good at that kind of game. You need new rules.

Can you run high level D&D games? Yes. Is it considerably more work? Yes. Are there better rule systems out there for that kind of game? Yes.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Can I throw out some suggestions?

Normally good suggestions, seriously. In my case, however, they're empty. As they were instituted, among many reasons, as a showcase of the rules as written the RPGA's Living campaigns (my primary gaming outlet) use the rules pretty much as written. *shrug*

 

[pogre]

I do not completely agree with Wulf. However, I do agree that the game changes - it becomes a sort of supers game. I enjoy this "half" of the game, but I certainly understand why some do not. I think it helps that I am pretty much a core-only (PHB, DMG, MM1) kind of DM.

If you look at the introduction to one of GG's original A-D&D manuals (either PHB or DMG, I cannot remember which), he states something like - Characters progress from struggling day-to-day, to becoming heroes, to running armies, to leading kingdoms. I think that is kind of cool. But, it does mean leaving the dungeon at some point.

 

[delericho]

No, about three quarters of the 'crowd' hated what was done with MM IV, and the rest were for the most part apathetic. I remember the results of the poll I ran on just that subject....

Adding class levels to old monsters does not a new monster book make. And that is what a Monster Manual is expected to be.

The other big problem with those advanced monsters, from my point of view, was that they tended to be 'easy' additions. I don't need a book to add 4 levels of Ninja to a Drow for me - I can do that myself easily enough.

Of course, those 'easy' additions also represent some of the more useful combinations, whereas I have limited use for a Drow Ninja 4/Soulknife 2/Mindblade of Lolth 5. So, they were damned if they do, damned if they don't.