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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 5540015" data-attributes="member: 3820">One of the basic rules of world-building I set for myself is that if a culture exists, it should be interesting and accessible enough that players would enjoy playing characters from, or exploring, that culture. This is probably one of those things that goes against me: the best way to make something expendable is to make sure that nobody is that attached to it (like those throwaway civilizations blown up in comic books, for instance). Of course, for a civilization to justify its existence in the first place, it needs to be sufficiently interesting that players become attached to it...Does that imply tyranny?Maybe, but to go back to that one point I've been stressing, the players' preferences should be considered. Character angst is good. Player angst is a different thing. "But I wanted to go back thereSure, but the Worf effect is still a potential pitfall. When it's done well, it can be effective: but when it's done poorly, the writer's hand becomes more evident. When you have something like a city fall or a civilization be wiped out, I think it's much more effective if it's seen as the natural result of events that have been playing out all along. I've been in games where the GM tried to establish stakes by gestures like this, but it was evident that establishing stakes was the main reason that the destruction happened, and the in-game rationale was added after the fact. It knocked us out of the game rather than drawing us in. So while the tactic can work, it's far from infallible.Exactly. That's what I'm talking about. Epic exploration, or epic culture-founding, don't necessarily need invoked apocalypses. Hm. I'm still not sure I agree with that. If you can have epic combat without cataclysmic destruction, then I think there are more variables at play. That said, I'm suspecting that part of the issue may be the 10-level band of an entire tier: if you're trying to fill it up, and there are fewer themes available to you, it's either be repetitive or use every one of the more limited tools. If epic ran only for 3-5 levels you would run less risk of repetition.That's what I'm worried about. I really don't want epic to blend together into a more generic D&D-style melange, where cultural distinctions and themes are set aside and every setting becomes Planescape or Spelljammer. Variety is one of the things that keeps me coming back to D&D; optimally, I would like every game to be just as distinctly thematic at the climax as it was when the players started out. That's unfortunate, because it loses its cultural distinction: the Italian-style feuding houses and vendettas style of urban play winds up in the same place as the sword-and-sorcery Lankhmar-inspired style of urban play, and the previous 20 levels of visuals and bibliography don't inform it.  Such is my suspicion (although minus the epic NPCs and the "world-shaking"; can't think of a reason to include them if they aren't necessary, and epic NPCs tend to leave an Elminstery taste in some players' mouths). I'd still like to address some of the things that are normally reserved for epic tier: the concepts of epic destinies and the odd "retirements" that they give players are very neat, as are some of the power players like djinn and efreet. But it may simply be a matter of working them into high paragon. If we're not sustaining epic-inspired play over a band of 10 levels, there may be more room for thematic variety.</blockquote>

Verification