The Changing Game

[Jack7]

By the way, I just thought of a good modern analogy of what I was trying to say earlier.

Modern versions of the game are more directed at this philosophy, "my professional career is ultimately all about me and my character. It's about me as an individual and my career advancement." I strive to advance and do things and gain powers because that helps me.

Earlier versions of the age at least implied this philosophy, "my vocation is to a large extent ultimately or eventually about my service to my organization or people and my larger duties." (This was far less evident, obviously, in Thieves and Assassins for instance, but for most other "classes" it was pretty much evident from their level-names: Lord, Paladin, Ranger Lord, Hero, Champion, Patriarch, High Priest, Arch Druid, Arch Mage and so forth. As you progressed in levels you took on "responsibility titles.")

One is "career is about me," the other is, "career is more about others."

I think both concerns are valid to a degree, but I do see the gradual erasure of the "it's about more than me" idea over time. You cannot really become powerful if you do not benefit in some way from your own actions and choices, which sometimes includes seeking your own best interests, then again you can't ever really become truly heroic if all you ever do is seek your own narrow, personal gain.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Jack7 is onto something neat. It's absolutely true that older versions of the game wanted to have your character seated on a throne. 3e and 4e seem to say that the heart of the game is "kill things and take their stuff," and 4e, especially, is very focused on characters doing exactly that and little else.

I'd like to see the idea return, but I think the popular wisdom is that people don't really want to change that much -- that 3e and 4e are right for abandoning this heroic arc because players want to keep killing things and taking their stuff, they don't want to run SimKingdom.

Not sure of the veracity of that, but it seems to be the prevailing wind.

 

[Cadfan]

I think Jack7 is really, really overselling things with this social consciousness theorem.

I think that the shift away from "fighters grow up to become barons and have castles!" way of thinking has a lot more to do with people not wanting the rules to dictate plot, and with the profusion of settings. I mean, you could probably shoehorn "fighters grow up to be barons and have castles!" and the like into Athas, but it wouldn't be easy.

Epic destinies sort of bring that back, but with two major differences: first, there are several epic destinies available to each class, with more on the way, adding a bit more choice so that your level 1 decision to be a rogue doesn't give you a single mandatory plot effect at a particular level, and second, while each epic destiny has a lot of plot detail in it, the plot detail mostly doesn't have mechanical effect.

 

[Ourph]

As stated, the scale of events and the backdrop of play of course changes with tier. However, there's no actual systemic change in the way the game functions at higher levels as opposed to lower levels. <snip> the increasing of extrapersonal power and responsibilities (followers; building fortresses or guilds or schools; etc...)

If by "systemic change" you mean the underlined part above, this is exactly what is happening as the PCs advance through the tiers.

What actual mechanical support do you get from the system in the core for gaining followers, building fortresses, ruling dominions or waging war?

As LostSoul points out, skill challenges are a great way to have the PCs work through the process of gaining followers and alliances, negotiating a land grant or ruling a dominion. The ease of building NPCs makes coming up with balanced NPC allies that contribute but don't overshadow the PCs really easy. Minions make large-scale battles challenging, yet easy to run.

But this is a function of how you play the game, not a function of the game itself.

This statement makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm playing a totally RAW campaign except for a few tweaks to the way Action Points work and some additional Rituals the players have researched as we've gone along. I'm playing the exact same game that every other person playing 4e is playing, but my experience isn't a function of the game? If you're pointing out that I'm not playing the game as a robotic string of combat encounters with no imagination or forethought put into the campaign world, the impact the PCs actions might have on it or the outside-of-combat aspects of roleplaying and NPC interactions then I guess you would be technically correct. But I fail to see how that's significant since being "the same at every level" would be the least of the problems with such a game. It would be a boring, tedious grind with no actual resemblance to any RPG campagin I've ever participated in or heard of. Rules on attracting followers or the cost of building a castle wouldn't improve my game if I were the kind of DM that would run such a campaign in the first place.

I would suggest actually playing or running the game through a couple of tiers before making judgements on this issue. My DMing skills are certainly nothing to write home about. If, as you suggest, I'm doing something that is making the game feel different as the PCs progress through the tiers I can't imagine any DM will have a problem doing exactly the same thing in their own game.

If you're really worried about being able to make the higher tiers feel different in play, I would recommend thoroughly reading the DMG. It has tons of useful advice and guidelines about how to do just that. Even a completely new DM should be able to read through the challenges and rewards chapters of the DMG and come away with a strong grasp of how to create a campaign where heroic, paragon and epic tiers feel significantly different to the players. I know from your other posts, Reynard, that you've been playing and DMing for years, so I very much doubt you would have any problems incorporating that advice into your 4e game.

 

[Reynard]

If by "systemic change" you mean the underlined part above, this is exactly what is happening as the PCs advance through the tiers.

What happens is that PCs gain greater powers and more options, which impacts the number of choices they have in regards to combat and adventuring. What does not happen, however, is the PCs gaining, as they did in BECM and AD&D and to a (much) lesser extend 3E, a wholly different set of options that change the gameplay from "adventuring" to "ruling". In addition, unlike BECM and AD&D (3E kicked this one out completely) there's no sudden change in how the characters increase in power -- the rate and what they get for it -- that motivates a change in the game (the law of diminishing returns on killing things and taking their stuff).

If one looks at the DMG on pg 146, "Tiers of Play" it becomes readily apparent what the design intent was. Although it starts with the sentence, "As characters grow in power, game play changes," it goes on to describe a situation in which game play does not fundamentally change, other than scale and scope. Each tier description discusses the scale at which the characters operate, the scope of the importance of their actions and, most tellingly, the kinds of dungeons they go into, monsters they fight and treasures they win.

As to whether an individual group of players can agree on a home brewed system of granting title and waging war, for example, is irrelevent to the discussion of whether this kind of character arc is supported or intended by the game. Using skill challenges as a method of simulating these kinds of activities is all well and good, and would make for a rather interesting subsystem indeed, there's no evidence to suggest that to be the intended use of the skill challenge system.

Just to clarify, by "changing game" I do not mean a change in scope or scale. I mean a change in the goals of play, supported by changes in the game system itself attached to character level and advancement. And also to clarify, I am not in any way "bashing" 4E. A highly focused design in often a much better design, at least in support of that focused play style.And, providing a consisten experience throughout the level spread encourages players to play -- players that want whatever it is the game provides in play can get it from the moment they start to the time they reach their Epic Destiny's. These are good design choices; they strengthen the product.

But that's not to say I don't miss that arc of development inherent in the game I grew up on (particularly BECM).

 

[Cadfan]

I can see enjoying an arc of development and changing goals over the course of a character's career.

I just can't see hard coding that into the game rules as a good idea. Because right now I can make a campaign where the PCs start off as weak adventure seekers and eventually grow to rule a kingdom, and from there begin to deal with existential threats to their nation or even their world. But I can also run other kinds of games with an ease that would not be available to me if these things were hard coded into the rules.

 

[Ourph]

What happens is that PCs gain greater powers and more options, which impacts the number of choices they have in regards to combat and adventuring. What does not happen, however, is the PCs gaining, as they did in BECM and AD&D and to a (much) lesser extend 3E, a wholly different set of options that change the gameplay from "adventuring" to "ruling".

If what you're saying is that the rulebooks don't state "at X level, the DM should have Y number of followers join the PC's cause" then, again, you are technically correct. The rulebooks don't tell the DM, you have to play the game exactly this way, with this character arc and these character goals at these specific levels. They allow for a lot more creativity and DM customization than that. What they do is lay out several possibilities, one of which is exactly the kind of goal and perspective shift that you're describing and give the DM advice and tools on how to make that happen. As I pointed out above, the DMG devotes several chapters to non-combat challenges, non-monetary rewards and campaign/world building all of which are chock-ful of suggestions and ideas for the DM to incorporate those things into their campaign in different ways as the PCs advance in tier, including leadership of groups, ownership of land and even political influence. The PHB also has some good advice in the parts dedicated to Paragon and Epic tier advancement. As I noted in my last post, even a DM completely new to gaming couldn't read through the DMG and not come away with a clear understanding that higher levels can be about more than just increasingly powerful combat options and more hit points if they want them to be.

As to whether an individual group of players can agree on a home brewed system of granting title and waging war, for example, is irrelevent to the discussion of whether this kind of character arc is supported or intended by the game. Using skill challenges as a method of simulating these kinds of activities is all well and good, and would make for a rather interesting subsystem indeed, there's no evidence to suggest that to be the intended use of the skill challenge system.

I'm not sure where "homebrew" comes into it. As I said above, I'm playing a game that's completely RAW except for a few tweaks to Action Points and some player-researched Rituals. The things I'm doing with skill challenges and non-monetary rewards are exactly the kinds of things suggested and encouraged by the DMG. Most of my skill challenges are taken straight from the DMG with changes in subject matter and flavor to match the situation at hand. I find it very strange that someone would suggest the things I'm doing in my campaign aren't "supported or intended" when 99% of what I'm doing is taken directly from suggestions and mechanics present in one of the three core books.

Just to clarify, by "changing game" I do not mean a change in scope or scale. I mean a change in the goals of play, supported by changes in the game system itself attached to character level and advancement.

I think I'm clear on what you are saying and the delineation you're making between more powerful opponents in more unusual environments and an actual change in the PC's goals and place in the world. My reply is still that, in my experience, the game supports and encourages exactly that kind of change in gameplay as the PCs advance through the tiers. In fact, I expect the change to be even more profound as the PCs get into Epic Tier and start getting into things like the Demigod epic destiny. How could anyone expect more of a change in character goals and perspective than going from 1) A Cleric of a religion, trying to advance the goals of his faith in heroic tier; to 2) The earthly leader of that religion in paragon tier; to 3) founding a religion of your own with you as the deity in Epic tier? In fact, that's exactly the kind of campaign we used to play using the BECMI rules back in the 80s, with Epic tier (as far as I can see) being almost identical to the process of becoming an Immortal in BECMI.

And also to clarify, I am not in any way "bashing" 4E. A highly focused design in often a much better design, at least in support of that focused play style. And, providing a consistent experience throughout the level spread encourages players to play -- players that want whatever it is the game provides in play can get it from the moment they start to the time they reach their Epic Destiny's. These are good design choices; they strengthen the product.

But that's not to say I don't miss that arc of development inherent in the game I grew up on (particularly BECM).

I think the good news is that you'll be able to have both if you want!

The basic mechanics of combat don't change drastically as the PCs advance through the tiers (although I'm finding that running higher level opponents results in combats that are a lot more fun for me as the DM because I've got a lot of cool options to pick from). But the outside-of-combat aspects can change dramatically if you want them to and the rules give the DM lots of support to make that happen. I really think if you are planning on running a game and you're worried about this, a good look at the DMG chapters 5-8 (plus, of course, being familiar with chapter 10: DM's Toolbox) will do a lot to assuage your fears. As I noted before, as a DM with so many years of experience I'm positive you won't have any problems incorporating the advice from the DMG into your game and using the tools it provides to run the game exactly as you are describing.

 

[Reynard]

I can see enjoying an arc of development and changing goals over the course of a character's career.

I just can't see hard coding that into the game rules as a good idea. Because right now I can make a campaign where the PCs start off as weak adventure seekers and eventually grow to rule a kingdom, and from there begin to deal with existential threats to their nation or even their world. But I can also run other kinds of games with an ease that would not be available to me if these things were hard coded into the rules.

I think it is in general easier to ignore elements than it is to add them. I certainly don't advocate creating a system which requires players to spend their "Combat Effectiveness" resources on their "Rulership Effectiveness" or their "Running a Guild Effectiveness". This was one of 3E's problems: PC creation offered a great number of options to support a great number of playstyles, but since they all came from the same pool of character development resources, a great deal of power disparity appeared very quickly in a "mixed" party. Rather, I think modular subsystems are the way to go with this kind of thing and, again, I hope to see the DMG 2 include it (after all, what else is it going to have besides more traps and revised Skill Challenge rules?).

The reason I would have liked to have seen those elements included in the Core is simply one of preference: I think D&D, while not a "universal" game, has always supported a wide variety of possible playstyles within the broad genre of "fantasy adventure" and including these somewhat disparate, even contradictory elements is clear indication to the reader that the game still is just that.

Again, it's unfortunate that these things aren't in the core, but with regular "Core" additions, there is plenty of room for growth. I just hope the PHB, DMG and MM 2's aren't just more defenders, brutes and traps.

 

[Cadfan]

Rather, I think modular subsystems are the way to go with this kind of thing and, again, I hope to see the DMG 2 include it (after all, what else is it going to have besides more traps and revised Skill Challenge rules?).

The DMG would be a decent place for this sort of thing. Next to all the other plot advice and guidelines.

NOT mucking up the actual character classes.

Although owning and operating a castle probably has enough material in it to justify an entire book.

 

[Jack7]

It's absolutely true that older versions of the game wanted to have your character seated on a throne.

Or at least into a good Baronage.

No. I haven't really thought of it in those exact terms before KM, but it does seem to me, and apparently you and Reynard and others that earlier versions of the game were Bishop, Knight, and King-makers. And that later versions of the game have become progressively more like walking Rook-makers.