Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 5605585" data-attributes="member: 70709">I should add nuance to my opinion.  If elves are better, they should be better in interesting ways (as you say), and in a way where we still have a valid measuring stick. (Since 3rd edition we've simply called this character level or ECL, which is a nice ideal.)  Even so, should a focused elf and an equally focused human have roughly the same maximum potential?  Is there a maximum potential in the system, or does every PC head off toward the singularity?  What about per unit time (at table vs. in world)?  Just in general, the time scale at which PCs gain levels in most campaigns makes a mockery of NPCs, and I'm not eager to bring those issues into the party.  (If PCs and NPCs are just different, of course, there is no problem.  But that's a conceit I like to utilize with care.)I'm not personally against the idea that an elf can achieve greater heights, as long as those heights are limited.  This suggests a system with diminishing returns, so that 500 extra years working on something intently isn't overwhelmingly more awesome than 50!  I think most systems have a power progression that is at least linear with respect to actual table time, and for the sake of fun I'm mostly glad about that!  Even in early editions' XP tables, where the notion of diminishing returns is clearly seen, the rule is just face more difficult challenges.  This is in keeping with many of the best tropes in fantasy, but it is problematic when considering mechanics and power growth.One of the most naturalistic skill systems I've seen is FATE's skill pyramids, where one can't increase one's power in a skill until there are more skills at one power level below that.  For long-lived elves one could simply require the pyramid to be broader.  And indeed, this would guarantee it takes longer in the character's life to reach the height's of raw power.  The question remains, are issues of culture or mindset enough to justify something like this for every single long-lived creature?  I feel that liches, even really patient ones, might object! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />A second option might be something like E6.  In that case, everyone reaches the same level cap fairly early, but the explosive power growth is arrested and future growth is much more horizontal.  An elf wizard with 500 active years of E6 XP probably has a lot going on, but I don't think Meteor Swarm is on the table.  In some ways this is opposite of FATE, since the explosion of variety probably occurs at the "top" rather than the "bottom".I think the most important thing is that PCs in the same campaign which start equally powered also gain power at more or less the same pace, regardless of race/age considerations.  If this isn't true, the system is introducing a stumbling block at the table.  It is precisely this mechanical principle which raises prima facie verisimilitude considerations, and so we are where we started.In any case, I'm looking forward to seeing what is stewing in your head.  I often find myself nodding in agreement with your posts since I've joined, and I've noticed that in many respects we approach game design with a similar attitude.</blockquote>

Verification