Preserving the Sweet Spot - A Rebuttal

[Mark CMG]

This says nothing about the capability of the rules

I think that, in part, it does.

 

[BryonD]

I think that, in part, it does.

Me also.

Fewer != None. BUT, it is fewer.
A level of play that appeals to fewer people pretty much seems a dictionary defintion of outside the "sweet spot".
Nothing in the sweet spot arguement claims that the numbers of player happy and capable of playing outside the sweet spot is "none".

For the record, I myself don't feel very greatly at trouble outside the sweet spot. But I certainly agree it exists and that addressing it is of value.

 

[delericho]

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

The two go together, and feed off one another. Fewer people play at high level, so fewer people buy, so fewer adventures and supplements are produced, so fewer people have an incentive to play at high level, so...

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.

Agreed... mostly. One of the problems I face is that I have limited time to prep a game, and would rather spend that on the tasks of designing worlds, adventures and encounters, and not on the purely mechanical tasks of generating endless stat blocks. And, as the levels go up, the options expand exponentially, the complexity increases at a similar rate, and the time required gets too much. Sure, each step is easy, but working with the whole... not so much.

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."

At this stage, the last thing I need are more new types of monsters, more new prestige classes and, in short, more new crunch. What I need is some way to make better use of what I do have. This could take the form of a "how to" guide giving effective tips and techniques for short-circuiting the decision-making and stat generation tasks or, better yet, a really good PC application for generating stats. Ideally, I want to be able to say, "start with a Succubus, add three levels of X, five levels of Y, and template Z", and have the machine spit out a stat block that is not only mechanically correct, but also not ridiculously weak compared with my PCs.

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

What I would like to see:

1) Extended "Advancement" entries in monster descriptions, describing the best use of the monster (brute, sneak), likely advancement options with suggested feats and skills, and suggestions for prestige classes, again with feat and skill suggestions, but also notes of the important prerequisites.

2) Add a descriptive block in the write-up of every new class and prestige class giving much the same: suggestions for which types of monsters are best matched with the PrC, and perhaps other PrCs that combine well with it, guidance for skills and feats to add, and probably a quick guide to just adding levels of the class to a monster.

3) A book with lots and lots of charts showing the interactions between the existing skills and feats, showing feat chains, skill synergies, and so forth, so that I can scrape together a bonus here and there for my monsters in the same way that some of my players do with their characters, but so I can do it more quickly.

4) Flowcharts showing the quickest route for advancing monsters.

5) Extensive essays on how the game can and should change as it moves to high-level play, removing it from the dungeon and adding extensive political elements/realm management/kingdom development. (Of course, it's entirely possible that this already exists - I think "Power of Faerun" might have covered it.)

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

Because hundreds of DMs now have extensive experience with developing low-level adventures. Because those hundreds of adventures give lots of examples about how it's done. And because low-level play doesn't require the same range of personalised responses that high-level play does: you can generally find a pregen adventure for your low-level party without much difficulty; the same is not true for a high-level party.

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

I really don't need new rules. I also don't need a "how to" guide. But whatever help I can get for high-level play would be a benefit.

 

[Azgulor]

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. Since DMs then favor low and mid levels, the producers of the game produce stuff they would buy... for low and mid level, and the vicious circle starts all over again.

While this may be true for most DMs, it is not for me. What I dislike about high levels are the campaign breaking elements that are introduced to maintain the power curve. Teleport and Raise Dead/Resurrection are probably the worst offenders, but there far from the only ones.

I realize this isn't going to change - ever. The power curve is part-n-parcel of D&D. The PC-Christmas trees adorned with magic items and high-fantasy spells are one style of play. (Which I refer to as Fantasy Super-Hero Action Hour.) I've been playing and GMing RPGs for 20 years. In almost every single case, once the campaign kicks into Fantasy Super-Hero mode, the players, the GM, or both start to lose interest. This Fantasy Super-Hero mode, as I call it, is D&D's own brand of fantasy. You rarely see it in fiction or film. Most players expect power increases in skill, not "NOW WE ARE GODS!".

While D&D will never satisfy this requirement, system tweaks can. Examples include MDT (as in d20 Modern, Conan, etc.) or Wounds/Vitality, Damage Save, etc. Unfortunately, publishers can't write adventures to the tweaks - it diminishes their potential audience.

But let's face it, it's much easier to ramp the power level up by adding things than lowering it by taking them away. If D&D played to the fantasy genre rather than its own Fantasy Super Hero model, high level play wouldn't be an issue. As an example, high-level Conan play or d20 Modern play is a much different experience than high-level D&D, yet both support 20 level characters. It would make more sense to have a supplement that includes the ultra-fantastic rather than baking it into the core.

Azgulor

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

GoT = 4th edition

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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

If you stop at the obvious then you're not adequately reading the market information.

If I were searching for meaning, I wouldn't start with the chicken-and-egg argument: that more people aren't playing high-level games because there isn't adequate support for it, and there isn't adequate support for it because not enough folks are playing it.

I'd read the information in the simplest and most direct way possible: "Sweet Spot" D&D is more popular because it's the better game.

 

[Mark CMG]

If you stop at the obvious then you're not adequately reading the market information.

If I were searching for meaning, I wouldn't start with the chicken-and-egg argument: that more people aren't playing high-level games because there isn't adequate support for it, and there isn't adequate support for it because not enough folks are playing it.

I'd read the information in the simplest and most direct way possible: "Sweet Spot" D&D is more popular because it's the better game.

Ergo, that which leads up to "Sweet Spot" D&D is adequate or as good as "Sweet Spot" D&D or "Sweet Spot" D&D would not be played as much. However, that which leads up to "Sweet Spot" D&D is not better than "Sweet Spot" D&D or fewer would continue beyond and play "Sweet Spot" D&D. Also, that which might follow "Sweet Spot" D&D is inadequate or it would be played as much or more than "Sweet Spot" D&D.

That's why it is nebulously called "Sweet Spot" D&D, no?

 

[blargney the second]

better

Hehehe... you said "better".
[/Beavis&Butthead]

 

[delericho]

I'd read the information in the simplest and most direct way possible: "Sweet Spot" D&D is more popular because it's the better game.

There's another alternative.

The vast majority of campaigns begin at 1st level. Because of the structure of the XP progression, the low levels tend to pass quite quickly, taking people into the 'sweet spot' fairly soon.

Games then run for a while, until ended by a TPK, the successful completion of the campaign, the dissolution of the group, boredom sets in, or whatever. At which point, they probably start again at 1st level.

The consequence of this is that you'll have a significant number of people playing at low-level, a certain number playing at medium level, and a small number playing at high level. Because to get to high level, the campaigns will have progressed through medium and low level, and will have had to avoid TPK, boredom, or real life.

The thing is, this says nothing about the quality of the rules or play experience at high-level. It merely reflects the likely statistical distribution of campaigns, based on a model starting at 1st level and running for a random length of time.

Unless I'm wrong about the majority of campaigns starting at 1st level, of course. But I would be willing to bet that starting levels are skewed heavily towards the lower end of the spectrum.

 

[Hussar]

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

There is a significant difference between a how to guide and new rules. A how to guide would do exactly that - show new DM's how to quickly and easily (as possible) apply the rules to play in higher levels. How to quickly advance monsters, ideas for making stat blocks shorter like the recent David Noonan article, advice for using dice pools, that sort of thing.

But, the game itself is geared to lower level play. PrC's almost universally start at 6th level, meaning they cap out at 16th. It hasn't been until the PHBII that we saw any loving for a higher level fighter. The environmental books deal primarily with "sweet spot" adventuring.

What delericho says is very true. The mechanics and realities of most campaigns mean that they never see beyond low double digits. If the average campaign only lasts between 12-18 months, then you are not going to see 19th level characters in the average campaign.

A how to guide could give advice for starting a campaign at 10th level for example. What kind of adventures work at higher levels? DMG style advice.