|
12 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 1:42AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Aug 20, 2007
|
Now, there has been a lot of good constructive discussion around here about D&D, it's rules, and what makes a good game or not.
Some things are a matter of taste, others I shake my head at the denial of some people and how nostalgia "blocks" them completely in a set of mind that it's impossible to shake...
That's a bit annoying, but hey, we are all a bit guilty of it sometimes... however, an argument that keeps popping up and bugs the hell out of me is the following:
- Someone points out that, for example, high-level spellcasters used to be insanely overpowered
- Someone says: "Meh, my group and I never played past level X (usually 10-ish) so I don't see this as a problem...
Can anybody spot the problem here? Is like me saying:
- Well, my car explodes in a ball of fire if I drive faster than 100 Km/h, but I never do that, so I don't care...
This makes no sense, the fact that you don't use something past a point does not give the fact that it's broken any less weight!
Also... am I the only one that thinks that this is a product of the defects of the game, rather than the other way around? That people got used to stop playing around level 10 cause the game was utterly broken and then just got used to it?
For me, as a consumer, this feels like being duped, why does my RPG have 20 detailed levels (with spells, feats, powers or whateverhaveyou) if 10 of those are unusable? Why did you sell me, and worse, charged me, for half a game??
All levels of play should be balanced and well designed, so it's easy for the GM to keep the game going and fun for eveyone (yes, it's still the responsability of the GM to keep the game fun, but it's the responsability of the game designers to make the GMs work easier and more fun too!). And if this seems impossible with the devised ruleset... wouldn't it make more sense to just drop those unusable levels?
Phew... just had to get that out of my system.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 1:44AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
Better out than in.
It is a perplexing attitude.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 1:58AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Dec 29, 2007
|
Perplexing indeed..... Also... am I the only one that thinks that this is a product of the defects of the game, rather than the other way around? That people got used to stop playing around level 10 cause the game was utterly broken and then just got used to it?
Personally, we always played from level 1 to level TPK and I never felt that way. That said, I still have a soft spot for levels 11-15ish in 3.x. I don't know why, but they always felt the best to me.
I think the real "problem" is that playtesting at higher levels is far more complicated than at lower levels, and once the player base get's their grubby little paws on a game system they will find the major discrepancies far faster than the limited number of in-house playtesters will. This is doubly true when you start adding even more options in the form of splatbook material into the mix. That said, I'd still rather have that "problem" than be railroaded through making high level choices.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 3:10AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2008
|
That people often never play those high level ranges is more of a symptom of how bad high level play was designed in previous editions (especially 2e and 3.X). 4E did a better job at that.
We played numerous high level games pre 4E and they all turned out to be horribly unbalanced in favor of casters (taking away a lot of the fun for non casters) and a real pain for the DM to design adventures that kept the party challanged.
If you publish a game from level 1 to 20/30, it is your job as a game designer that the game is as good and as enjoyable at every level!
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 3:28AM
#5
|
|
|
I agree with you. If the game says it's playable from level 1 to 20, it should be playable from level 1 to 20. This makes no sense, the fact that you don't use something past a point does not give the fact that it's broken any less weight!
Absolutely. And this goes the other way around. It's not because something is broken above level 10 that it's broken before level 10.
You're talking about vancian magic aren't you? 
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 3:32AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
That people often never play those high level ranges is more of a symptom of how bad high level play was designed in previous editions (especially 2e and 3.X). 4E did a better job at that.
We played numerous high level games pre 4E and they all turned out to be horribly unbalanced in favor of casters (taking away a lot of the fun for non casters) and a real pain for the DM to design adventures that kept the party challanged.
If you publish a game from level 1 to 20/30, it is your job as a game designer that the game is as good and as enjoyable at every level!
QFT.
Always promised Epic Play. Always get an unbalnced or incomplete mess.
I have an Epic adventure just waiting to be played. Tried and failed 3 times.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 4:49AM
#7
|
|
|
I have had no problem of playing high level games, I have had groups who worked well together and tried not to attempt to use things they saw as broken (the locate city bomb, which if I think, could be done at lv7~9) or try to heavily exploit loopholes from dm (or player) oversights. I had no problems with higher levels, considering we played mortal adventurers who happened to do deeds that got them called heroes.
Adhearing to the rules of the forum, I am trying not to start the flame wars that certian others are trying by calling people like me a 'grognard' for wanting the older version of several things, (basic rules cyclopedia Weapon mastery, as up to the 3.5 version's psionics that where done right, and the versitilaty of the spells per day in 3.5 as well). and find that people are wanting restrictions on higher level things because of the 'we never played at higher level because everything becomes broken then' argument gets annoying. I had no problems with 3.5 until I read 2 books that basically broke the game (tome of magic and tome of battle) which have routinly been banned from games I played.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 5:06AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
I had no problems with 3.5 until I read 2 books that basically broke the game (tome of magic and tome of battle) which have routinly been banned from games I played.
Casters are fine... but you can't handle the Tome of Battle classes.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 5:09AM
#9
|
|
|
I guess now we need a separate thread for, "'We're not cheating little optimizers' as an argument."
And yeah, wow, pretty sure the Player's Handbook has more broken stuff than ToB.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 5:10AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jan 30, 2012
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />This makes no sense, the fact that you don't use something past a point does not give the fact that it's broken any less weight!
To you.
I don't agree with the sentiment either but I don't try to proclaim my way as the only way. Whomever made that statement...it is not broken to them. That doesn't change because you view it differently.
|
|
|
