Ancalagon
Dusty Dragon
On that one I agree fully. My preferred group size to run as a GM is 3 (but for practical scheduling reason, 4 is better)The more players, the harder the DM's job becomes.
On that one I agree fully. My preferred group size to run as a GM is 3 (but for practical scheduling reason, 4 is better)The more players, the harder the DM's job becomes.
Raises hand; I was a big proponent of E6 right up until I called it quits and looked for another system altogether (my good opinion, D&D, once lost is lost forever. For those who get the literary reference.)I think this is why some folks often call it quits before high level. Why 3E had a popular variant called E6. I for sure prefer what you suggest, though I am far from a pre-Hickman OSR type GM/player. Which is why I think power level is not the right item to put into the old school vs nu skool or generational bucket. It's also a long running D&D problem in that it needs to provide all these experiences, but often has trouble doing them and communicating that.
Sort of. I dont think these modules are intended to be Dungeon Master's digest. Many folks go into them with the wrong expectations. They are not two page dungeons, or training manuals, and they certainly have not done all the work for you and are to be played from cover to cover. They are more of a kit for running a campaign style game that requires investment in time and effort to bring to life.I think that for a long time now there have been a lot of products that were written to sell, not necessarily written to be played. If it so happens that they're being marketed to armchair gamers who just want to read gaming books and imagine what they could do with them, rather than... y'know, ACTUALLY use them, well... that's OK, I guess. There's a market for that. The problem comes when either the publisher or the consumer thinks that a product is meant to be one thing, but is actually meant to be something else.
What it needs is more advice in the DMG to new DM's on how to make things happen behind the scenes. The rule's break when you get high enough. If your going to DM that high you need to become the master of fudged die rolls and the ability to change your entire game on the fly when the players inevitably change the narrative. You can do it but it tends to burn out DM's especially the guys that want everything documented, everything planned and everything determined by the Dice.I think this is why some folks often call it quits before high level. Why 3E had a popular variant called E6. I for sure prefer what you suggest, though I am far from a pre-Hickman OSR type GM/player. Which is why I think power level is not the right item to put into the old school vs nu skool or generational bucket. It's also a long running D&D problem in that it needs to provide all these experiences, but often has trouble doing them and communicating that.
That's why when I invite people to join my game I'm open about what type of game I run. Also why we have session 0s.The problem is when the players want god-like PCs and the DM doesn't.
ok this is a fair point. this is why some of us hate bounded accuracy. If every one is special then no one is special.Raises hand; I was a big proponent of E6 right up until I called it quits and looked for another system altogether (my good opinion, D&D, once lost is lost forever. For those who get the literary reference.)
But there is a difference. In almost every edition of D&D up until 4e, power level was something that CHANGED over time. Low level 3e PCs were heroic compared to their BECMI or AD&D counterparts, but high level PCs were powerful no matter which edition you used, and seemed to operate in an entirely different genre to their low level segments of play. There seems to have been a shift with 4e and 5e towards just embracing the high power and pushing it down to the low levels.
Which is somewhat ironic, as it seems the concept of bounded accuracy implied the opposite; that even high level characters could be challenged by orcs and goblins, etc. But maybe I just misinterpreted the design goal, or maybe it was done poorly. It seems the opposite has come true; low level PCs operate like superheroes.
Perhaps you are feeling the floor raised to come closer to the dropped ceiling approach that BA provides? I think the designers pushed the game's power levels and playstyle to the middle, which can be unsatisfying to fans of low level gritty and same for high level demi-gods style.Raises hand; I was a big proponent of E6 right up until I called it quits and looked for another system altogether (my good opinion, D&D, once lost is lost forever. For those who get the literary reference.)
But there is a difference. In almost every edition of D&D up until 4e, power level was something that CHANGED over time. Low level 3e PCs were heroic compared to their BECMI or AD&D counterparts, but high level PCs were powerful no matter which edition you used, and seemed to operate in an entirely different genre to their low level segments of play. There seems to have been a shift with 4e and 5e towards just embracing the high power and pushing it down to the low levels.
Which is somewhat ironic, as it seems the concept of bounded accuracy implied the opposite; that even high level characters could be challenged by orcs and goblins, etc. But maybe I just misinterpreted the design goal, or maybe it was done poorly. It seems the opposite has come true; low level PCs operate like superheroes.
Could be, given that I always tended to operate and prefer the genre that lower level provided to that which higher level provided.Perhaps you are feeling the floor raised to come closer to the dropped ceiling approach that BA provides? I think the designers pushed the game's power levels and playstyle to the middle, which can be unsatisfying to fans of low level gritty and same for high level demi-gods style.