Preserving the Sweet Spot - A Rebuttal

[Barak]

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.

 

[Greg K]

I prefer the 1-12 levels. Higher levels seemed more like superheroes to me and, for that experience, I'll just run Mutants and Masterminds

 

[GlassJaw]

Rebuttal? Why does it require a rebutall at all? A rebuttal implies a debate. Where's the debate here? Oh right, high-level play is better than low-level play.

Essentially, that's what these discussions always come down to. Even though it's not explicitly stated, the overtones of these discussions are always "my game is better than your game". The AP thread has the same thing. Heck, there was one post that suggested that the reason some people that don't like high-level play is because they don't understand it and they need to learn. Give me a break.

So I will be explicit:

High-level play sucks. In my opinion, it's for munchkins and twinks who are more concerned with math than a cinematic game.

Is that true? Of course not. But it illustrates my point. It doesn't matter what I think. Play the game the way you want.

If I recall, Wulf's thread was about preserving the sweet spot for those who defined the sweet spot as mid-level play and wanted to extend that gameplay experience.

I also don't think the thread started out with a statement damning high-level game and those that play it.

A rebuttal? No. This is not a rebuttal. This is a sermon to convince those that don't like high-level play that yours is the one true way.

 

[Hussar]

No other d20 game, from Mutants and Masterminds, to Arcana Evolved, to Grim Tales, gives me this much detail in character ability to keep track of.

And, that, right there I think is the big kicker. We love D&D because it allows us to tweak, customize, apply touch up, detail, and whatever our character's to a degree that is astonishing. But, for the poor DM, it's a bloody jungle.

As I said, a few Uber Monster Manuals would go a long way to fixing this problem. Being able to open a book, and use the creature on the page is a HUGE help.

Ok, I think we've actually found a topic that everyone pretty much agrees with. Can I get a

Hell Ya!

 

[the Jester]

I've been bitching about the lack of high-CR monsters for a couple of years now. Yeah, I have quite a library of advanced bad guys after running an epic game for the last while, but really, each of them can only be used once since they're all individualized.

I really need to get a look at Legends of Avednu or whatever that epic monster book is called; I hate to buy it sight unseen, but it sounds like it's got a lot of useful stuff in it.

 

[Shade]

I really need to get a look at Legends of Avednu or whatever that epic monster book is called; I hate to buy it sight unseen, but it sounds like it's got a lot of useful stuff in it.

Like its nonepic predecessor, it is a high-quality, imaginative collection. I highly recommend it.

 

[Gold Roger]

Rebuttal? Why does it require a rebutall at all? A rebuttal implies a debate. Where's the debate here? Oh right, high-level play is better than low-level play.

Essentially, that's what these discussions always come down to. Even though it's not explicitly stated, the overtones of these discussions are always "my game is better than your game". The AP thread has the same thing. Heck, there was one post that suggested that the reason some people that don't like high-level play is because they don't understand it and they need to learn. Give me a break.

So I will be explicit:

High-level play sucks. In my opinion, it's for munchkins and twinks who are more concerned with math than a cinematic game.

Is that true? Of course not. But it illustrates my point. It doesn't matter what I think. Play the game the way you want.

If I recall, Wulf's thread was about preserving the sweet spot for those who defined the sweet spot as mid-level play and wanted to extend that gameplay experience.

I also don't think the thread started out with a statement damning high-level game and those that play it.

A rebuttal? No. This is not a rebuttal. This is a sermon to convince those that don't like high-level play that yours is the one true way.

You do realize that a lot of the people agreeing with Hussar here are indeed not fans of high level gaming themselfs?

Is the idea that better support for high level play might show some people that see their "sweet spot" at lower level that high level gaming can be feasible, if done right?

Maybe putting "rebuttal" into the title was a bad move by Hussar. Actually, I'm pretty sure it was. But please don't just jump to conclusions based on a title. Don't start accusations based on a slight you yourself have admited wasn't outspoken.

Please be a bit more considerate, I prefer it when the threads I'm reading with interest remain pleasant to read.


PS: My one high level experience was quite horrible, so I'm obviously far from telling you your way of playing the game is wrong.

 

[Barak]

I've been bitching about the lack of high-CR monsters for a couple of years now. Yeah, I have quite a library of advanced bad guys after running an epic game for the last while, but really, each of them can only be used once since they're all individualized.

I assume you're refering to classed advanced "bad guys" here, since HD advanced monsters are obviously no more individualized than their non-advanced counterparts.

And that by itself is something to discuss. Are low-level "opponents" consisting more of monsters than high-level, in which we find more humanoids, obviously with class levels (with the exception of dragons)? If it's true, why? Why can't higher level PCs fight beholders, the same way mid-levels PCs did? Why can't mid-levels PCs fight advanced dire wolves, the same way low-level PCs did?

As for humanoids.. Is a 10th level orc fighter that more individualized than the basic orc? Does he -need- to be? Of course, in this case you run into the problem of "where do all those high-level orcs -come- from, anyway?" But that is something that need worked out -anywa- at higher level. If it's fine for PCs to run into a Pit Fiend at level 19, why did they never meet one before?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

All the people asking for more high level adventures ARE supporting Goodman Games, yes?

They have seven adventures above level 12, including an epic module.

I see a lot of people in threads on ENWorld asking for more content they're already not buying anyway.

 

[Lanefan]

All the people asking for more high level adventures ARE supporting Goodman Games, yes?

They have seven adventures above level 12, including an epic module.

I see a lot of people in threads on ENWorld asking for more content they're already not buying anyway.

But are they any good? (I ask, having never read or played them) There could be ten thousand high-level adventure modules out there, but if none of 'em are any good, there's still a lack of useable resources.

Lanefan