Preserving the Sweet Spot - A Rebuttal

[Psion]

I understand. That's an easy sentiment to agree with.

But if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on WOTC making the rules support even more strongly a single, unambiguous design.

Well, I guess I'm braced for the possibility of becoming a "prior edition player."

Hmmm... wonder if Dragonsfoot will actually open their 3e forum again when a 4th edition is published.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Well, I guess I'm braced for the possibility of becoming a "prior edition player."

I remember being very, very resistant to 3e-- hostile, in fact. (Hostile, in fact, to Peter Adkison's face.)

I guess it would be an understatement to say that I was wrong. I am frequently in awe at the skill and expertise with which 3e was (re)designed.

I'm just talking out of my ass, of course, but I could definitely see a 4th edition "Core" that is focused on the "classic" D&D play of levels 1-10; an Advanced ruleset for levels 11-20 with a wholly different playstyle, when the PCs outgrow the (powerful, proven, and popular) dungeons; and then perhaps an Epic ruleset that is focused on even higher level play. (You could play with the levels as I have outlined them a little bit and push the numbers around.)

I think everyone wins in that scenario.

Hmmm... wonder if Dragonsfoot will actually open their 3e forum again when a 4th edition is published.

I'd like to reiterate that I am talking completely out of my ass:

I look at the game now, I think about "the sweet spot," what I like and don't like; I think about growing the player base-- and I mean beyond, "I can't wait to teach my kids D&D..."; I think about some of Monte's insights ("Save or Die" essay sparked a lot in me), I look at the potential rise in Mearls' influence; I think about making the game "widely accessible" and "wildly popular," and of course I think about Hasbro's bottom line.

When I put all that together, I see a vision of 4e that I'm not resistant or hostile to.

For the record, I don't think 4e is going to deviate wildly from 3e in terms of design (it can't, really). And I think it will be Open Content, and that there will be no more free rides on the d20 STL.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Well, I guess I'm braced for the possibility of becoming a "prior edition player."

I start to contemplate the same. If Wizards continues on their course, they'll lose me as a customer within the year. A shame really, since they have some really nice people working there.

 

[Hussar]

The fact remains that the 3e rules don't adequately support what you want to do. In every discussion of high-level play, it's always, "Well, it works just fine if you do this, this, and this..." where "this" is any number of excursions outside the normal rules and framework of the game, and almost universally buttressed by a lot of DMing experience.

Why is it that DMs that run a good high level game are lauded? Because we recognize that it is difficult to do.

Again-- not saying folks can't or shouldn't run high level games. I'm just saying (a) the tools you need to do it aren't in the Core Rulebook toolbox, and (b) high-level play as defined around here deviates from the core "design statement" of 3e.

I think when 4e rolls around, I would expect to see it adhere even more strongly to the dungeon delve. The dungeon delve is D&D's heart; I expect (and hope) to see them play to D&D's strength.

I think "upselling" to high-level play (like the old Basic edition did) is a much better approach. When the core premise of the game changes, you should have the best rules possible to support that new kind of play.

I hope that invoking 4e isn't some kind of Godwin's corrolary.

See, now I do also disagree that D&D doesn't support high level play out of the box. It does quite well. The rules work as well at high levels as they do at lower levels. (Which is good or bad depending on your point of view ) The problem isn't with the mechanics at high levels. There's next to no difference actually between the mechanics - the game uses the same language at low levels as it does at high.

The difference comes in volume. And, I believe you are right in that running high level games is harder than lower level games. That, I think, was my entire point. Why is it more difficult? Because there is almost zero support for high level games.

Six years into 3e and we have seven high level modules from Goodman. Probably a few dozen more from Dungeon. Compared to several hundred modules for lower levels. Campaign settings cater to lower level play - heck Eberron pretty much cuts high level play off at the knees. There is still the lingering perception that high level play is for twinks and munchkins which also tends to turn off people from high level games.

What I'm saying isn't that we need new rulesets for high level play. The rules are fine. What we need are a hundred or so more high level modules, four or five high level monster manuals to balance out the number of under CR 12 with over CR 12, some BattleBox sort of products to take the workload off and possibly a series of "How to" guides for high level games.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

See, now I do also disagree that D&D doesn't support high level play out of the box. It does quite well. The rules work as well at high levels as they do at lower levels. ...

The difference comes in volume. And, I believe you are right in that running high level games is harder than lower level games. That, I think, was my entire point. Why is it more difficult? Because there is almost zero support for high level games.

I think everyone needs to step back and come up with a common definition of what it means for rules to "work", and what it means for there to be "support" for rules. I for one don't think the mere existence of a unified terminology means it "works as well as".

Also, I don't really want to belabor the point, but in where I play most (the RPGA Living campaigns) I have seen more than enough high level play opportunities. Seriously, I've lost count of how much there has been. The large number of high level play hasn't made it any better. Instead, IMO, it has only made it more obvious how certain aspects need to change. The proliferation of immunities among monsters and PCs. Ever worsening poor saving throws (relative to the benchmark of expected DCs) combined with ever increasingly-frequent save-or-die effects.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Why is it more difficult? Because there is almost zero support for high level games.

Six years into 3e and we have seven high level modules from Goodman. Probably a few dozen more from Dungeon. Compared to several hundred modules for lower levels.

Being the raging capitalist that I am, I would tend to see that as market confirmation of what I have been saying.

There is still the lingering perception that high level play is for twinks and munchkins which also tends to turn off people from high level games.

I completely disagree with your perception that that is a factor. Munckinism is rampant through all levels and D&D's problems at high level have nothing to do with them. Not much more to say about that.

What I'm saying isn't that we need new rulesets for high level play. The rules are fine. What we need are a hundred or so more high level modules, four or five high level monster manuals to balance out the number of under CR 12 with over CR 12, some BattleBox sort of products to take the workload off and possibly a series of "How to" guides for high level games.

If, in fact, the rules worked equally well at all levels, and the "language" of the game was consistent at all levels, there would be no need for How To guides.

I could not disagree more that the "lack of crunchy, high-level support" has anything to do with the difficulties in high level play. It is a trivial thing to extrapolate low- and mid- level crunch up into the high levels. The problem is clearly that simply extrapolating the crunch from low to high levels DOES NOT WORK.

I doubt you will find many people here, even supporters of high level play, who would get behind you on that. I could give you all the high level monsters and splatbooks your heart desires and you would STILL not have the support you need for high level play without that elusive "How To Guide."

How To what, exactly? How to make the rules NOT fail you?

Why is it that there are hundreds of low level adventures and not a single "How To" guide for low level play?

"I don't need new rules for high level play. But I do need a How To Guide."

Uhh, ok.

 

[Cor Azer]

I think everyone needs to step back and come up with a common definition of what it means for rules to "work", and what it means for there to be "support" for rules. I for one don't think the mere existence of a unified terminology means it "works as well as".

Also, I don't really want to belabor the point, but in where I play most (the RPGA Living campaigns) I have seen more than enough high level play opportunities. Seriously, I've lost count of how much there has been. The large number of high level play hasn't made it any better. Instead, IMO, it has only made it more obvious how certain aspects need to change. The proliferation of immunities among monsters and PCs. Ever worsening poor saving throws (relative to the benchmark of expected DCs) combined with ever increasingly-frequent save-or-die effects.

I tend to agree with Eric. After all, a bucket of water can work against a forest fire and a campfire alike, but it certainly isn't the best way to battle a forest fire. Now, I admit that the "problem" with high-level D&D play isn't as obvious or extreme as my bucket vs. fire analog, but I do think it holds some water.

That said, I have no real ideas on how to "fix" it, so to speak. I imagine there needs to be a (subtle? or significant?) shift in the design philosophy at those levels, but before that can happen, I think there needs to be a concensus on what the current design philosphy actually is.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Ever worsening poor saving throws (relative to the benchmark of expected DCs) combined with ever increasingly-frequent save-or-die effects.

I can only imagine what you're experiencing here is the breakdown of the d20 system as certain characters-- from "good" saving throw classes, with certain ability scores and magical enhancements-- reach a point where their saving throw is +10 to +20 higher than the "poor" classes.

The larger that gap becomes, the more it invalidates the randomness of the d20, until eventually you have a situation where some characters "always succeed, except on a 1" and some characters "always fail, except on a 20."

That alone is a very serious, hard-coded design "flaw" that must be dealt with for play to be truly extensible to high (eventually, "infinite") levels.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I can only imagine what you're experiencing here is the breakdown of the d20 system as certain characters-- from "good" saving throw classes, with certain ability scores and magical enhancements-- reach a point where their saving throw is +10 to +20 higher than the "poor" classes.

The larger that gap becomes, the more it invalidates the randomness of the d20, until eventually you have a situation where some characters "always succeed, except on a 1" and some characters "always fail, except on a 20."

That alone is a very serious, hard-coded design "flaw" that must be dealt with for play to be truly extensible to high (eventually, "infinite") levels.

True. At high levels the dice roll is often nearly meaningless. That isn't good.

 

[Psion]

Being the raging capitalist that I am, I would tend to see that as market confirmation of what I have been saying.

I see it as market confirmation of what I already knew to be the case: there are fewer people that play high level games.

Fewer != none.

This says nothing about the capability of the rules, just the adventures.

And there are good high level adventures out there.