Geoff Watson
First Post
silentspace said:
That's because SHARK loves Marines, and thinks they are the pinnacle of humanity, and so makes all the Marine-like soldiers in his games totally uber.
Geoff.
When does Verisimilitude break down?
- Thread starter silentspace
- Start date
That's because SHARK loves Marines, and thinks they are the pinnacle of humanity, and so makes all the Marine-like soldiers in his games totally uber.
Geoff.
Desdichado
Hero
While I don't doubt that SHARK does indeed love all things Marine, I fail to see the casuality you're implying there, Geoff.
Dragonblade
Adventurer
The problem with epic level and high level gaming is that the default world assumption is for the vast majority of NPCs to be first level.
This causes severe problems when trying to maintain any sort of internal consistency or logic in a campaign world. If everyone is first level except the PCs, then what's to stop the PCs from taking over everything? Or whats to stop all the powerful monsters roaming around from taking over everything?
Furthermore, why would veteran soldiers and green recruits alike be 1st level? Especially, since all the training and feats that a veteran soldier would likely have cannot be attained unless you make them a fighter and add some levels. The same thing can be argued for blacksmiths, sages, merchants, you name it. Why should some 10th level PC wizard, who hasn't ever really used a sword, have a higher BAB than the captain of the town guard or be a better blacksmith than the town blacksmith? Having the entire world be low level just doesn't make sense.
In order to add verisimilitude and internal logic to world, you can't limit NPCs to being low-level members of NPC classes. SHARK made his average Vallorean legionaire 8th level because thats what level they had to be to have all the feats and skills he believed a highly trained and experience soldier should have. Then taking this logic and running with it, he applied this notion to the rest of his world. The result is a big world with lots of powerful people in it.
What some might term "Uber". However, his world is logical and consistent. And you can play PCs of any experience level and the game doesn't break down. There is never a point where the PCs become unstoppable demigods just because they are high level. His world also allows you to use the default magic level of D&D without problems. You don't have to worry about magic items that you give the PCs because you are afraid of unbalancing the game.
Personally, I like that. I like knowing that even though some powerful fighter might be armed in +5 Full Plate carrying a +5 Vorpal sword, if he gets out of line or breaks the law, the town guard is strong enough to put him down.
In standard D&D, if some 20th level fighter walks into a bar in some rural town, he'd easily be able to annihilate everyone there and wouldn't get a scratch on him. Thats because default D&D assumes that everyone in the bar is a 1st level commoner. But in SHARK's world, there would be a 13th level commoner (field hand) in one corner of the bar, a 15th level expert in another (experienced blacksmith) etc. And even the big bad fighter is going to go down when 10 10-20th level commoners and experts jump him. And that far more closely matches the real world, IMO.
This causes severe problems when trying to maintain any sort of internal consistency or logic in a campaign world. If everyone is first level except the PCs, then what's to stop the PCs from taking over everything? Or whats to stop all the powerful monsters roaming around from taking over everything?
Furthermore, why would veteran soldiers and green recruits alike be 1st level? Especially, since all the training and feats that a veteran soldier would likely have cannot be attained unless you make them a fighter and add some levels. The same thing can be argued for blacksmiths, sages, merchants, you name it. Why should some 10th level PC wizard, who hasn't ever really used a sword, have a higher BAB than the captain of the town guard or be a better blacksmith than the town blacksmith? Having the entire world be low level just doesn't make sense.
In order to add verisimilitude and internal logic to world, you can't limit NPCs to being low-level members of NPC classes. SHARK made his average Vallorean legionaire 8th level because thats what level they had to be to have all the feats and skills he believed a highly trained and experience soldier should have. Then taking this logic and running with it, he applied this notion to the rest of his world. The result is a big world with lots of powerful people in it.
What some might term "Uber". However, his world is logical and consistent. And you can play PCs of any experience level and the game doesn't break down. There is never a point where the PCs become unstoppable demigods just because they are high level. His world also allows you to use the default magic level of D&D without problems. You don't have to worry about magic items that you give the PCs because you are afraid of unbalancing the game.
Personally, I like that. I like knowing that even though some powerful fighter might be armed in +5 Full Plate carrying a +5 Vorpal sword, if he gets out of line or breaks the law, the town guard is strong enough to put him down.
In standard D&D, if some 20th level fighter walks into a bar in some rural town, he'd easily be able to annihilate everyone there and wouldn't get a scratch on him. Thats because default D&D assumes that everyone in the bar is a 1st level commoner. But in SHARK's world, there would be a 13th level commoner (field hand) in one corner of the bar, a 15th level expert in another (experienced blacksmith) etc. And even the big bad fighter is going to go down when 10 10-20th level commoners and experts jump him. And that far more closely matches the real world, IMO.
Last edited:
Desdichado
Hero
Well, nothing about levels really matches the real world, IMO. What SHARK's world does is match the rules of D&D, not the real world. The rules are what cause the mismatch with the real world.Dragonblade said:
And the percieved paradox is that settings are sorta "real world" but with rules that are incongruous with a real world feel. Hence my statement earlier that you either need to change the assumptions of the campaign setting (like SHARK), or change the rules.
Dragonblade
Adventurer
By real world what I meant was that even a Navy SEAL would get his ass handed to him if he got jumped by 20 guys in a bar. In standard D&D assumptions that situation is unlikely considering the experienced PC is so much more powerful than even a small army of low level NPCs. SHARK's world better reflects this sort of verisimilitude than a D&D game based on the assumptions of the DMG.
Hammerhead
Explorer
Of course, who says a Navy Seal is necessarily high level? What if they're relatively low to mid level, but still higher than almost any other soldier? And of course, a Navy Seal would hand twenty people their asses in most fights.
I like the fact that the PCs are the movers and the shakers at higher levels, that they can destroy the largest armies with decent preparation. I mean, if a lot of people in the world are strong enough to smash the PCs into tiny bits, who really needs them anyway? With that 12th level commoner around, why would the PCs need to save the village from marauding orcs? While high level PCs should by no means be the only ones with such power, they should be part of a select group. Making everyone high level also invalidates PC advancement. (All right! We're now 8th level! Now we're an even match for those marines!) Besides, do you know how many people you'd have to kill to reach 8th level? Can you see an entire corps doing that?
In addition, these comparisons to the real world are foolish. In the real world, I cannot cast spells. There are no giants, no dragons, or beholders. If I get hit with a sword, even if it doesn't kill me, I'm going to be messed up.
I prefer the opposite view, building my world to match the internal framework of the world (i.e. D&D rules).
I like the fact that the PCs are the movers and the shakers at higher levels, that they can destroy the largest armies with decent preparation. I mean, if a lot of people in the world are strong enough to smash the PCs into tiny bits, who really needs them anyway? With that 12th level commoner around, why would the PCs need to save the village from marauding orcs? While high level PCs should by no means be the only ones with such power, they should be part of a select group. Making everyone high level also invalidates PC advancement. (All right! We're now 8th level! Now we're an even match for those marines!) Besides, do you know how many people you'd have to kill to reach 8th level? Can you see an entire corps doing that?
In addition, these comparisons to the real world are foolish. In the real world, I cannot cast spells. There are no giants, no dragons, or beholders. If I get hit with a sword, even if it doesn't kill me, I'm going to be messed up.
I prefer the opposite view, building my world to match the internal framework of the world (i.e. D&D rules).
Sometimes it does not matter what level you are to question it. One game session, our DM set up an ambush situation at the inn we were at. He had it so one of us would be coming out of the outside privy and be attacked by a couple of people, he rolled randomly to see what PC it would be. Turns out it was me, I play a dwarf with a CON of 20. I told him that with a CON of 20, I would not need to go to the privy. 
BluWolf
Explorer
A danderous crickety cart path that vermissitty is.
So many places it can jump the path. Mechanics, obviously. Thin setting, yes. GM leaning on the cliche' cane, too often. Players not willin to tote their share o' the responsibility, absolutley.
I think the point it starts to break down the most often is in the group dynamics. When a group doesn't take the time to sort of fell each toehr out for hopes and expectations of play you kind of sell each other short.
If everyone sort of agrees up front what they are looking for and takes the time to occasionally do a health check on how that is going it improves the over all experience a great deal.
I like lower level campaigns with dramatic themes and moral dilemmas.
I just suck at GMing or even playing in a higher level campaign. The other GM in my old group lived for it.
So many places it can jump the path. Mechanics, obviously. Thin setting, yes. GM leaning on the cliche' cane, too often. Players not willin to tote their share o' the responsibility, absolutley.
I think the point it starts to break down the most often is in the group dynamics. When a group doesn't take the time to sort of fell each toehr out for hopes and expectations of play you kind of sell each other short.
If everyone sort of agrees up front what they are looking for and takes the time to occasionally do a health check on how that is going it improves the over all experience a great deal.
I like lower level campaigns with dramatic themes and moral dilemmas.
I just suck at GMing or even playing in a higher level campaign. The other GM in my old group lived for it.
Dragonblade said:
Zhang Ziyi's character in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon got jumped by 20 guys in a restaurant, and she handed them their collective asses. Clearly she is more ninja than any navy SEAL.
In the recent wuxia flick Hero, a couple of uber-twink swordsmen massacre 3,000 of the king's guardsmen in the prelude to a big showdown.
This sort of thing isn't limited to Asian fantasy either. In FOTR, Aragorn takes on dozens of orcs single-handed in the fight at Rauros, and later in TTT, he and Gimli fight another huge horde at the gates of Helm's Deep.
In silver age comics, superheroes (and villains) can often level entire city blocks when they fight, but they still work within the framework of society.
Basically, D&D tries to emulate this aspect of cinematic fantasy, where individual heroes can often take on hordes of mooks and come out on top. It may not be realistic, but it's a genre convention that nearly everybody is familiar with. Whatever you may think about hit points, few other systems are as good for facilitating epic violence. In fact, hit points are so good for this that they often show up in genres other than fantasy, especially in computer games. Fallout had hit points (although it gave the player the option of circumventing them via called shots); so did Jagged Alliance; so do many FPS's.
Of course, if you _don't_ want epic violence in your game, then hit points won't be to your taste. But that probably says more about what you want in your game, than about hit points.
As for why these 20th level characters don't trash every town they come across: they just don't. In fiction, powerful characters often still have a social and cultural framework within which they operate, even if there's noone with a big stick watching over them. Aragorn might have been able to take on everyone in Theoden's hall, but that's not what he's about. The flying swordsmen in Chinese wuxia stories can take on gangs of mooks, but they aren't interested in becoming tyrants: that's for the bad guys. In this sense, high-level D&D is best thought of as an extremely flexible medium for spinning tales of heroic fiction -- storytelling -- rather than an exercise in simulating reality.
Basically if you want to play a complete sociopath because you have uber-powers, then sure, there may be little standing in your way (except similarly high-level villains). However, nothing's forcing you to be a sociopath, and in fact, you'll have far fewer headaches if you don't try.