Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4956003" data-attributes="member: 80487">I know it's not. However, OD&amp;D was not designed to provide challenges for characters beyond a point, and AD&amp;D pushed that point back only a bit.That's not to say it couldn't be done; OD&amp;D especially had no explicit level cap, and Warlock and Arduin offer examples of spin-offs built to deal with higher levels. As far as TSR was concerned, though, you were on your own if you brought in characters of 40th, 50th, etc., level.It's normal enough for people past their period as novices to find early levels to lack interest, and Gygax in the DMG suggested starting them with higher-level characters (if they don't already have appropriate ones). The &quot;house rules&quot; and &quot;gamer culture&quot; in some places favor always starting at 1st, though -- even if it's decades ere the basics held novelty, mystery and wonder.It's also normal enough to find the (old) game notably less satisfying past a point in the low teens of levels. Not everyone, of course, chooses to retire characters there (or even in the 20s). A fair number, though, prefer to play mostly in the 4th-13th range.Particular numbers aside, there's the &quot;sweet spot&quot; concept to which 4e designers have referred. They took the radical measure of cutting and stretching stuff to fit hard limits. In the OD&amp;D and 1e AD&amp;D era, the designers just offered advice.There had been a problem early on with &quot;Monty Haul&quot; games in which after a few months the characters had killed and taken the stuff of everything including the gods -- and the players got bored. Just piling up ever bigger numbers didn't rock their boats, and the game was not really designed with that in mind&nbsp; (unlike the WotC-D&amp;D &quot;arms race&quot; maths). That got a lot of attention in the hobby press.The opposite problem of &quot;Scrooge&quot; campaigns was less common (at least in public discussion) and widely viewed as easier to correct gracefully.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 4956003, member: 80487"] I [I]know[/I] it's not. However, OD&D was not designed to provide challenges for characters beyond a point, and AD&D pushed that point back only a bit. That's not to say it couldn't be done; OD&D especially had no explicit level cap, and Warlock and Arduin offer examples of spin-offs built to deal with higher levels. As far as TSR was concerned, though, you were on your own if you brought in characters of 40th, 50th, etc., level. It's normal enough for people past their period as novices to find early levels to lack interest, and Gygax in the DMG suggested starting them with higher-level characters (if they don't already [I]have[/I] appropriate ones). The "house rules" and "gamer culture" in some places favor always starting at 1st, though -- even if it's decades ere the basics held novelty, mystery and wonder. It's also normal enough to find the (old) game notably less satisfying past a point in the low teens of levels. Not everyone, of course, chooses to retire characters there (or even in the 20s). A fair number, though, prefer to play mostly in the 4th-13th range. Particular numbers aside, there's the "sweet spot" concept to which 4e designers have referred. They took the radical measure of cutting and stretching stuff to fit hard limits. In the OD&D and 1e AD&D era, the designers just offered advice. There had been a problem early on with "Monty Haul" games in which after a few months the characters had killed and taken the stuff of everything including the gods -- and the players got bored. Just piling up ever bigger numbers didn't rock their boats, and the game was not really designed with that in mind (unlike the WotC-D&D "arms race" maths). That got a lot of attention in the hobby press. The opposite problem of "Scrooge" campaigns was less common (at least in public discussion) and widely viewed as easier to correct gracefully. [/QUOTE]

Verification