Why must numbers go up?

[Hussar]

I agree, this however does not require inflated numbers.

How do you gain granularity without inflating the numbers?

If you look at 1e, the numbers don't inflate. By about 20th level, a PC can take on small armies by himself and expect to win. The challenges changed into pretty much freeform RP (or at least gaming that was very, very minimally supported) because the mechanics of the game simply couldn't provide any real challenges.

Until, of course, you started either inflating the monster numbers (see Isle of the Ape) or massively scaling back the PC's (see Queen of the Demonweb Pits).

So, how do you provide challenges to higher level characters without turning them into lower level characters?

 

[pemerton]

I agree, this however does not require inflated numbers.

Agreed. That's why I said earlier that I think the point of inflated numbers in 4e is to support "the story of D&D" - starting with kobolds and working up to demon lords. If the numbers didn't go up, the story wouldn't be enforced in the same way.

Is it a good thing to enforce the story like this? It doesn't bother me - between 1990 and 2009 I played very little D&D, so am not sick of it yet. I guess, from WoTC's point of view, it both (i) reinforces what they want to reinforce about their IP, and (ii) increases sales of new Monster Manuals to ensure replay value.

 

[pemerton]

It is still a scaled challenge designed to keep hitting ever increasing target numbers as bonuses pile up to a level that make the d20 roll look like a paltry side dish next to the bonus.

The relevance of the d20 roll doesn't change as the numbers go up, as long as bonuses and DCs grow at more-or-less the same rate. (I think you agree with this.)

The only thing that changes then really is the complexity of the challenge (monster level)

<snip>

All of these numbers going up,changing tactics and so forth does not offer a change to the basic play dynamic or anything truly new.

Your complaint seems to be that the mechanics don't change at higher levels. This is true, but true not only of post-AD&D D&D but of most fantasy RPGs that I know (RM, RQ, HQ, The Dying Earth).

The mechanics staying the same doesn't - in my experience - stop the story, and hence the play experience, being very different. This seems particularly so for skill challenges, where what is at stake, and hence what the PCs are doing to achieve success, is very different in different contexts and at different levels (Martial Power 2 has some hints of this in its discussion of different PC goals and how they might play out over different tiers of the campaign).

Flavor, tactics, and plot details are all elements that can be present without the addition of measured scaling.

Agreed. The point of the scaling, in my view, is to drive the story in a certain direction (ie the "kobolds to Orcus" progression).

The window dressing changes but you are still just monster hunting and skill fighting for 30 levels. This is the major thing I plan on changing for my campaign.

I'm not sure who "you" is here. What you say seems to be true of WoTC's approach to module design, but I'm one of the many who think that high level WoTC modules, while having some good ideas, are pretty poorly executed.

I know from my own GMing experience that it is possible to play a game which is not "just monster hunting and skill fighting for 30 levels" in any pejorative sense - the story, the stakes, the concerns of the PCs, and so on all change dramatically with the evolution of the campaign and the growth of the PCs into the gameworld - but the mechanics don't change. In fact, it's never occured to me that it would be necessary to change the mechanics in order to change the context, stakes and scope of play.

 

[Wiseblood]

How do you gain granularity without inflating the numbers?

If you look at 1e, the numbers don't inflate. By about 20th level, a PC can take on small armies by himself and expect to win. The challenges changed into pretty much freeform RP (or at least gaming that was very, very minimally supported) because the mechanics of the game simply couldn't provide any real challenges.

Until, of course, you started either inflating the monster numbers (see Isle of the Ape) or massively scaling back the PC's (see Queen of the Demonweb Pits).

So, how do you provide challenges to higher level characters without turning them into lower level characters?

I do not understand what you mean by granularity.



Higher level characters have more options. They have more feats more powers and substantially more wealth. With classifications that define the power of creatures like minion, elite and solo in addition to standard foes plus their role as combatants gives a tremendous amount of flexibility. Math beyond a 5th level character is unneccesary. It would provide for foes far weaker and foes far stronger than the PC's(1st level and 10th level respectively). You would only need to decide what power level a given monster would represent. Characters would still have levels and level based powers. Just the math would involve smaller numbers.

 

[ExploderWizard]

How do you gain granularity without inflating the numbers?

If you look at 1e, the numbers don't inflate. By about 20th level, a PC can take on small armies by himself and expect to win. The challenges changed into pretty much freeform RP (or at least gaming that was very, very minimally supported) because the mechanics of the game simply couldn't provide any real challenges.

Until, of course, you started either inflating the monster numbers (see Isle of the Ape) or massively scaling back the PC's (see Queen of the Demonweb Pits).

So, how do you provide challenges to higher level characters without turning them into lower level characters?

The answer is very simple. The character is just some notes on a sheet. The one to appreciate a challenge is the player. Players are not challenged by a system simply by increasing numbers. Challenging the players requires new dynamics and approaches to problem solving.

By the time adventurers reach "name" level they have proved themselves capable of heroic deeds and thier ability to work well as a team. Continuing to do the exact same things with bigger numbers can get stale after a while. Constructing fortifications, managing followers, clearing land and taking responsibility for the safety and prosperity of a populace present players with new types of concerns involving more responsibility as persons of importance in the game world. There is nothing better for getting the players to care about the setting than having them own chunks of it.

This doesn't mean that it becomes time to put the sword above the mantlepiece and just play administrators. There is plenty of room in the game for adventures of the more traditional sort to take place alongside the new challenges of responsibility. A prime example of this done well is CM1 Test of the Warlords. The players get to claim land, build and manage dominions, deal with political intrigue, lead armies into battle, and still have to go out personally and kick some epic monster ass.

Not everyone needs or wants these changes in the campaign but the option and support for them are nice to have.

 

[Fifth Element]

The answer is very simple. The character is just some notes on a sheet. The one to appreciate a challenge is the player. Players are not challenged by a system simply by increasing numbers. Challenging the players requires new dynamics and approaches to problem solving.

So you're looking for rules support for certain other things, as I take it.

I think you're missing something about new challenges, though. Although, once you get in combat, it might appear to be just the same thing with bigger numbers, you have to get to the combat first.

At 1st level, if you're going to clear out a cave of kobold bandits, that pretty much involves "we go to the kobold cave" in terms of challenge. The challenge is in the fight, not in getting there.

At 30th level, if you're ultimately going to kill Orcus, you can't just say "we go to Orcus' cave". There's much more to the potential challenge than just the ultimate fight.

 

[ExploderWizard]

At 30th level, if you're ultimately going to kill Orcus, you can't just say "we go to Orcus' cave". There's much more to the potential challenge than just the ultimate fight.

One could say the same about ultimately killing the kobold king. You can't just say "we go to the king's chamber". There are challenges along the way to nearly any major achievement of any given level. It is still just a matter of scale.

I presume you mean skill challenges when referring to "getting to the combat"? These I have addressed already and also do not challenge the player.

 

[Fifth Element]

One could say the same about ultimately killing the kobold king. You can't just say "we go to the king's chamber". There are challenges along the way to nearly any major achievement of any given level. It is still just a matter of scale.

If you're going to be that abstract about it, then your suggestions for different challenges are simply a matter of scale as well.

Which is to say, I don't think you're understanding me. If you really think that locating a particular room from amongst a small number of rooms, the location of which is known, is remotely the same thing as tracking down Orcus, I'd say you're gravely mistaken.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If you're going to be that abstract about it, then your suggestions for different challenges are simply a matter of scale as well.

How so? There are no DC's involved in resolving social/political issues. The scale does change and the stakes do become more important and the resolutions for these problems must come from the player, not the dice.

Which is to say, I don't think you're understanding me. If you really think that locating a particular room from amongst a small number of rooms, the location of which is known, is remotely the same thing as tracking down Orcus, I'd say you're gravely mistaken.

I think I understand. For the kobolds the task may be as simple as tracking them to thier cave and exploring it.For Orcus, the players would have to possibly win dozens of skill challenges and/or combats of increasing difficulty just to have a chance of tracking him down, correct?

 

[Hussar]

I do not understand what you mean by granularity.



Higher level characters have more options. They have more feats more powers and substantially more wealth. With classifications that define the power of creatures like minion, elite and solo in addition to standard foes plus their role as combatants gives a tremendous amount of flexibility. Math beyond a 5th level character is unneccesary. It would provide for foes far weaker and foes far stronger than the PC's(1st level and 10th level respectively). You would only need to decide what power level a given monster would represent. Characters would still have levels and level based powers. Just the math would involve smaller numbers.

But, if you have a smaller range of numbers, there has to be a maximum ceiling that is smaller than with a larger range of numbers. That's pretty much obvious.

So, if you only have a range of 1 to 5 (to pick a range) then you can only have 5 possilble target numbers. If you have a range of 1 to infinite, you can have infinite target numbers.

The presumption here is that all encounters, whether combat or not, will always be exactly the right level for the party. That's simply not true. Once you reach a particular level, you need a range of options from about -5 to +5 of that level. You could go further, but, it's not really necessary.

Unless you start having one level be exactly the same, bonus number wise, as the last level, you have to spread out the numbers. So long as you have levels, and you want to have each level actually be different from the level before it, you have to increase the numbers.

If you force the game into a particular band of numbers, then you have to "squash" the levels in between those numbers.

Exploder Wizard. I like the idea. I would personally go for it. There is a flip side to this though. If the DM is thinking "After you adventure, we're going to shift the campaign into kingdom building" and the players aren't on the same page, there is a danger of bait and switch. So long as everyone knows beforehand, then groovy.

However, I wonder if D&D is really a good medium for this. I'd much rather move over to a system like Reign if "Kingdom Building" is going to be the new campaign. Aren't you basically ending one campaign and starting a new one, just with familiar characters? D&D's economic system (regardless of edition) would make this sort of campaign very difficult to run I would think.