Community

That might work. Other games that offer more fluid scaling like GURPS, Deadldands, World of Darkness etc (even when the same value characters are in place) typically recommend reaching a consensus between players and GM before you start a campaign on what kind of scale you want the game to take place on and whether you want it gritty or cinematic. Some character styles simply don't have any place in a gritty, low scale game, even if they're both allowed and buildable under the same rules. The reverse is also true. If the consensus is that you want to play epic-scale, then it works best for everybody to build their characters to suit.

There's never going to be perfect parody between the different styles, so it's probably best to be clear about which one is being used and have everybody involved ready for that.

Jun 24, 2012 -- 11:51PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

I wonder if we need something between down-to-earth & mythic?  There is, for instance, a big difference in power between the 3.5 caster and the 4e caster, yet the 4e casters are in no way 'down to earth.'  Is there an 'utterly broken beyond description' /beyond/ mythic, or an 'Heroic' between down-to-earth and mythic?

Oh, of course. This is just a thought exercise aimed at sussing out where the useful points of reference are. Everything is a sliding scale in practice. My aim is to examine the entrenched notion that low mechanical engagement equals down-to-earth scale characters, and likewise, that mythic scale characters automatically mandate high mechanical engagement. Certainly, many other games can and have successfully decoupled the two axes; can D&D do the same while remaining recognisably D&D?

Jun 25, 2012 -- 12:00AM, Miladoon wrote:

Nice post.  Would you also note that some of us object to the notion of down-to-Earth Wizards.  I find it interesting that a being that can use magic, at any level, would not be considered supernatural.

I think "supernatural" is a matter of perspective. A fighter slaying an army singlehandedly is just as impossible as chucking fireballs, but we don't describe it as "magic". Similarly, a wizard who mostly uses his magic to perform parlour tricks is certainly doing something supernatural, but I wouldn't call it mythic-scale in the sense that the term is being employed in this thread.

Jun 25, 2012 -- 4:12AM, Orzel wrote:

It really boils down to whether one not you are okay seeing this written in the books. "Class A and Class B are more down to earth and thus much weaker than Class C and Class D. If any player wishes to play A or B and another wishes to play C or D, you are recommended to include Module X, Y, or Z in order to boost the strength of the weaker clears or hinder the power of the stronger classes."

I think this requires a bit of unpacking. Certainly, some settings and styles of play will mandate that different types of characters operate on different scales and demand different levels of mechanical engagement, but from a modularity perspective, what should the baseline be?

Does it make sense to have low-mechanical-engagement fighters and high-mechanical-engagement wizards by default? Alternatively, could they both be low-mechanical-engagement by default? The fact that fighters are low-engagement by default, with the option of adding complexity via modules, while wizards have high mechanical engagement baked right into their basic design and can't go any lower isn't bad game design, per se, but it is making some fairly specific assumptions about how the game ought to be played, and I think there's room for disagreement here.

Granted, making low mechanical engagement the default for all classes would require turning spell lists as long as your arm into an optional module, which may be more of a departure from previous editions than one can reasonably expect.

Jun 25, 2012 -- 7:52AM, Maxperson wrote:

It's not impossible at all.  It just can't be balanced as well as you personally like.

To throw my two cents in on the balance issue, I'm largely indifferent to balance as such. It's generally true that any major imbalance in the abilitiy of various classes to contribute to the party's goals tends to lead to boring play, but mathematically rigorous balance doesn't necessarily lead to interesting play. It can certainly do so for specific game subsystems - for example, grid-based tactical combat, in which rigorous mechanical balance tends to expand the tactical landscape by broadening the range of mechanically viable approaches to any given scenario - but there are many kinds of "balance" in the broader picture, only some of which are particularly affected by how the numbers tot up.

Now, if anyone wants to talk about whether low-mechanical-engagement and high-mechanical-engagement classes can be balanced against each other for a particular purpose, that may be a fruitful avenue of discussion.

Jun 25, 2012 -- 7:32PM, Emerikol wrote:

This thread is a pretty clear example of some of the things I hate on these boards.

The OP struck me as reasonable and insightful.

I dispute it's assumptions and implications.

It's assuming that there are classes that are complex and others that are simple, and that they've tended to correllate complexity with power and simplicity with 'down to earth' realism and a lot less power.  That sounds prettymuch dead-on for classic D&D.  What to you think it implied that you wish to dispute?  

But the thread is about building on those false assumptions so have fun.  I think it's all balderdash. 

You can think that, but it the absence of any reasoning, I see no reason to give our opinion any weight or consideration.