The Next Level
I'm 15th level. . . now what?
I was 15 once, and I used to play D&D with the mindset of a 15 year old. I spent one afternoon making a dozen guys who would be my vanguard when I finally got around to invading the Lower Planes. In those days, I was always looking to the future. . . to the day when my characters would be tackling the likes of Orcus, Moloch, and Tiamat.
Of course, that's pretty hard to do when you're a first level guy. Thus I spent a lot of time just trying to get to the next level. This wasn't power gaming, per se. It was, I admit, a bit of a bad logic. My friends and I were operating under the poor assumption that high level gaming could only be fun if you were a bazillion leveled warrior and you set out to conquer as many dark powers as you could.
As the case often is, we got a little burned out somewhere along 9th level. In most rule sets, it becomes harder to advance after a certain point. You either need more XP or it costs more points to buy skills, etc. A lot of people give up on the quest.
Others skirt the issue and simply make high-level characters from the onset. There are even modules that encourage this. I own a few modules for high level characters, A Paladin in Hell and The Throne of Bloodstone, and both suggest one simply make a high-level character and dive into the game.
I've tried that approach and I've found it lacking.
Making a 15th level guy without working for those levels tends to demure the raw spirit of the character. A 15th level guy should have some sort of back-story. A history. When one makes a 15th level guy and explains his back-story involves a couple of wars and a period of service for the Merchant House of Amketch. . . it generally falls flat. It's not that the back-story is uninteresting. But, without having actually played the character for years and without having actually established the character's legacy, it becomes difficult for a player to convincingly incorporate the historic aspect of the character.
This is generally no fault of the player. I've seen players of various levels of skill attempt to bring life to a freshly created, high-level character. It just usually doesn't work very well. . . and that may be okay if you're only interested in hacking a dungeon.
I'm more interested in stories and building character history. In my experience I've found players tend to play better when they're working with a character they've built from the ground up. Not only do they establish a better feel for the character, the motivations, and the nuances, they also have a vested interest in making sure the character survives and moves on to the next level. If I made a 15th level barbarian today, it wouldn't matter to me so much if the GM killed him off in a game 3 weeks from now. Sure, I lost a 15th level guy, but it's not like I spent a lot of time developing him.
Character development, I think, is an essential part of gaming. And when we're talking about games in the vein of D&D, we're also talking about "going up a level".
So, I prefer the long-road approach to character development. I like to start at first level and work for my XP. I like to find the gold on my own. If I use a +3 dagger, it's because I found it in a cave on my 4th adventure. When I talk about fighting in the Goblin Wars of Southmark, I'm not talking about a contrived back-story to make my character interesting . . .I'm actually talking about an interesting scenario my character took part in. And when I reach 15th level, you can believe it. It doesn't feel cheap, manufactured, or accelerated. The character walks into the bar with the stride of one who has done business and knows how to handle himself.
But, that brings us back to my childhood problem. Getting to next level takes time and effort. And it's often hard to get to 15th level without becoming a power-gamer. In a setting like D&D, a 15th level character often has 250,000 gold deposited in some sort of bank (maybe in Leomund's Secret Chest). He has a +5 battle axe hanging over the mantle. He has a +15 adjustment to his armor class because of his magical armor and because he's read 3 tomes of dexterity over the years. He has gauntlets of swimming and climbing, so there are few places where he can't go. And, last year, he and his buds got together and slew Pazuzu, so now they all time-share the first layer of the Abyss.
Playing the same character in the same universe over a long period of time often exposes glitches within a game. While the example above is fictitious, it does show it may be pointless to keep striving for the next level. If characters become as powerful as demi-gods, what foes are left for them to fight? A party could set out to kill Orcus and succeed. Do they then set out to kill Tiamat? At what point does that become redundant? And how interesting is a character who is essentially an evil god slayer?
I've heard it said from more than one source that continuing a game into those echelons is boring and time consuming. I've heard one player state he'd rather play games at the 7th level or so. And, to his point, a high majority of published modules are tailored towards mid-level characters. The implication being that playing at low levels is too limiting and that playing at high levels is either too redundant or too boring.
So, is there a point in continuing to strive for the next level? Shouldn't the wizard just hang up his hat after a point?
I don't think so. There's too much fun to be had by taking your character to the next level.
I've been running a continuous D&D campaign for about 8 years now. By this point, most of the players have characters who are pretty high in level. Any of them are pretty powerful by themselves. When marshaled together, they have the ability to literally level cities of evil-doers . . .and they have.
It may sound like power-gaming, but it's not. We, as a group, agree to certain "house rules" that keep the game and characters fresh and unpredictable.
First, we agree there's no status quo. This may not sound important, but it is. High level characters tend to establish themselves in one locale; this mentality is encouraged by old D&D products, suggesting high-level characters should operate out of a tower or a manse or some such. But when you agree there is no home base, it becomes more difficult to become complacent and attached to a status quo. In their day, my players have owned a ship, presided over their own fortress, and had a bar that could have been thought of as "home base". They've also lost access to all of them.
There has also been at least 3 points in the story line where all of their possessions have been taken from them. This is important for two reasons. One, my players have learned not to get too attached to their possessions; this has a side benefit of planting the subtext of the character being more important than his inventory. Additionally, it keeps the players from amassing tons of magical items that make them super-powerful. Not long ago a 13th level wizard was forced to confront a situation with only his physical skills and mental wits – he didn't even have a spell book for a short period of time!
Having arch-villains is another house rule. This sounds simple, but it's more important than one might think. Most monster books have pretty high level villains waiting in the wings. Demons, devils, dragons, giants. . . any one of these could make for a great arch-villain. My logic is if they're in the monster book, they were meant to be used.
I've found that's its best to have more than one arch-rival. Moloch might make for a great villain, but you don't want your players to face him every time they hit the trail. I've also found it's best if the villains come from a variety of backgrounds and have a variety of powers. Moloch is a villain in my campaign, but so is Romani, a sea pirate. Ironically, my players have managed to foil Moloch more than once, but they have yet to get the upper hand on Romani, a "simple" sea pirate. Moloch serves to terrorize my players, but Romani serves to humble them. When Moloch bites the head off of their satyr companion, it gives the player's added motive to put Moloch down, once and for all. But when Romani outwits them yet again, it reminds them they, too, can be beaten by lower leveled foes.
Another aspect of the villain house rule is that they stay alive for as long as they're useful. There are lots of plot threads left to be explored between my players and Moloch. But, we killed off Guthrie, a captain-of-the-guard, when he literally outlived his usefulness.
A third house rule, a recent one in development, is that the focus shifts from player to player. I prefer to view my players as an ensemble cast. It shouldn't be about The Rune Reader and His Amazing Friends. It was recently revealed to my cast of players that each of their father-figures bears a hidden past and we have plans to explore those past lives. By shifting the focus from one player to the next over a period of time, you accomplish two things. One, obviously, is you keep the focus shifting, which keeps things from growing stagnant. For example, the father of one player seems to have journeyed into hell in his youth. Why did he do that and what did he accomplish? More importantly, what impact will that have on the son? Does this open up a new wave of powerful foes to content with (see how this kind of incorporates the first two house rules)? You also help ensure each player is important by giving them a shot in the spotlight. Not only does this make the character more important, but it creates a common bond between the players as well. It helps the group continue to move forward because they're interested in the fate of their pal in addition to the fate of their own character.
I could keep going on, but hopefully you get the idea. The gist of it is that you have to adjust the style of your game to accommodate for an increase of player level. You don't approach a 6th grade spelling test in the same manner you approach writing your master's thesis – well, some folks do, but that's not the point. The house rules above are things my group has done to keep the game fresh and on the move. Other groups may have to adjust these rules – some might not want to give up their well earned manse so easily. . . and that's okay. The point is you can continue to have fun playing at higher levels, but you will likely have to make some changes in order to be successful. I see no harm in that, for stagnation is usually a precursor to death.
I'm an advocate of high level gaming. It took me some time to figure out how to do it without falling into some of the typical pitfalls; in fact, it took me longer than it should have to figure it out. . . but it was worth the effort. While I enjoy playing at lower levels, playing at higher levels gives me and my players the chance to play some of the games I'd dreamt of when I was younger. Maybe we're not defeating one plane of the Abyss after another, but we are tackling new challenges and having fun along the way.
- Login to post comments
Thanks for writing. You echo quite a few sentiments of the "older" group I'm with. Storylines are the hardest part, but if done well, reap the most rewards.
But that's just my $0.02 worth
Excellent article. I am also learning to DM higher level characters. I usually give up around 9-12 level. But I would like to push beyond!
Awesome article as allways Mr. Githyanki.
I think it's pretty obvious that you're a very talented DM if you've kept a group together and interested for such a long period of time.
I allways tend to gor for a story focused game where the campaign, villians and setting ara ll clearly written out ahead of time. I find if I try to run any kind of open ended game with villians and plots yet to be developed the whole thing grows stale very quickly.
Here's another topic for long-term game storylines: politics. Once a group starts to get powerful, there are political ramifications to their actions. If they help some duke by doing a quest or service, how does that affect the surrounding fiefdoms? The group may be a catalyst to a war or the means to broker a truce.
And there are internal politics, too. Sure, the group may have done that favor for the duke, but was it really the duke's idea, or his advisor(s)? Lots of intrigue in courts!
I use these types of ideas for world-shaking events that aren't necessarily the "save the world from utter destruction by demon hordes" type of games.
Power isn't always the best magical items... sometimes it is the friends in higher places that you have (or those friends' enemies?)
But again, just my $0.02 worth.
Timer...
I agree. I try to inject political struggles in the mix as well and maybe should have touched on that more in the article.
In generic terms...I like putting my players in a conflicting situation...and that's fun at any level.
For example...a while back...the group was fighting a city of undead...and then found out that an old ally had been captured. They were faced with a choice...did they leave to go save their friend...or end the menace of the undead-city? The situtation was more complicated than just that...but you get the idea.
The players also have a few allies that are questionable...and that has gotten them in trouble more than once. But then...it's also saved their hides, here and there.
Keeping things like this in the mix can keep the game going for a lonnnnnnnnnnnnng time.
I think creativity...not the rules...is the only real bottleneck for on-going games.
And, Eater...thanks, as always, for the kind words.
Yeah...high levels seem to take the focus off of the game, one way or another.
I've had one GM who simply showered the group with XP so that we'd level up at least once per session. This kind of presents the exact opposite effect as to what you're talking about: the niftiness of new powers is far, far less. I had one character, for instance, that got to 19th level in druid and prestige classes, and who never cast a 7th level spell. Why? Because the character jumped from sixth to eighth level spells directly, and so always had something "just a little better" in store.
That's just stupid. It certainly cuts down on the drag for not advancing, but when a character advances, it needs to be /felt/.
Of course, the D&D core rules don't make this all that simple. To be frank, most classes have a lot of levels where they're pretty much the same as the last level. "So you finally leveled up, huh? What'd it get you?" "Uh, +1 to my will saves..." Of course, having started roleplaying with WoD, I can't help but have major issues with a level based system.
So what's advancement all about? It's part character development, and part adding stuff to gameplay. Level one characters tend to get repetitive after a few sessions, but when a character strives and gets better, that's interesting. Finally getting to cast a fireball, that's cool. Every character should (IMHO) have a real, tangible change happen fairly often, to avoid growing stagnant. What evades lots of players and DM's though is the fact that advancement isn't the only way of doing this.
Losing one's items...great way of shaking up the game, making a character /really/ stop and take stock. A new villan, perhaps an Iago character, who turns the "good guys" into "bad guys" in the eyes of the law. A dungeon crawl in a mystery game, or vice versa. Anything that makes a player get out of his rut and look at his character differently.
Of course, the DM should be let common sense reign supreme...it'd sure shake things up to make a Malkavian vampire suddenly become sane, but something like that hurts the game (and character concept) more than it helps.
Again, just my ramblings on the subject.
Only twice, have I sucessfully put the group into a position where they had to work with their main nemisis in order to complete whatever it was they were doing. Of course, there was something in it for their nemisis, too (why else would he/she bother?).
Kinda like the storyline behind the second Xmen movie, where they had to work with Magneto, but he had alterior motivation.
Just more of my $0.02 worth.
Good comments, Iridilate.
As for losing items, we have taken a different approach. We make up certificates for them (like I saw at conventions several years ago) and most items have a set number of charges on them. Once they're used up, the item is useless.
Unless, of course, the player wants to have it re-charged, which could be a scenario in itself.
I like the villan who turns the good guys into bad guys idea; it kinda goes along with my previous comments on politics. It's a little difficult for a party to do their job when you have someone giving them bad publicity. =)
But, that's just my $0.02 worth.
"In most rule sets, it becomes harder to advance after a certain point. You either need more XP or it costs more points to buy skills, etc. A lot of people give up on the quest."
At the risk of treading a beaten path, I think this scenario almost solely occurs with old-style (i.e. level-based) systems, which, while still popular, are in no way as common as you seem to contend. Not only that - I'll even dispute that all level-based systems would have the "I'm a high-level Jedi, so now it'll take me half a lifetime to learn the basics on fixing an engine" problem that we see in d20 (or some d20 games; not having played them all, I'm a bit leery about issuing a blanket statement).
The troubles stem, I suspect, largely from the idea that characters shouldn't *learn* anything through the course of the game so much as advance in the direction of their stereotype, *evolve* into more (combat-)capable adventurers.
The notion that anything you learn later should be more difficult than what you learned before is, at least to my mind, the root of the problem. It does give you the character level as a handy indicator of how far along your character is on the way to godhood. Trouble is, if you aren't interested in working towards godhood, you're in a bit of a pickle. Because advancement of this nature is built into the game's very roots, and barring a total redesign, it's not about to go away.
So I guess I am a firm advocate of skill-based games, or level-based games where you don't start out as a total wimp and end as the lord of Creation. At least if you, as the author of this article seems inclined, want to play a long while without having the characters become so über that nothing can successfully challenge them (which is bad) or that identification with the characters becomes impossible (which is worse).
It's a bit parenthetical, but it's one of my pet peeves.
"Making a 15th level guy without working for those levels tends to demure the raw spirit of the character. A 15th level guy should have some sort of back-story. A history. When one makes a 15th level guy and explains his back-story involves a couple of wars and a period of service for the Merchant House of Amketch. . . it generally falls flat. It's not that the back-story is uninteresting. But, without having actually played the character for years and without having actually established the character's legacy, it becomes difficult for a player to convincingly incorporate the historic aspect of the character."
Now this, I strongly dispute. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say this speaks a bit of gaming system myopia. If I can create a newly risen vampire in V:tM, why should I have a problem with a Level [gazillion] D&D character? The D&D character is immensely skilled? The vamp is too. The D&D char can deal with mooks easily? So can the vamp. The D&D char crammed full of supernatural mojo? That's Vampire: The Masquerade in a nutshell. So why is there a problem with starting with a powerful D&D character?
I think the answer is unfamiliarity, really. That and the old, ugly balance thinking rearing its head. After all, you're _supposed_ to start play as a level 1 character, right? That is, if you're playing the game as it was _intended_. Anything else would be cheating, kinda like starting monopoly with your player owning several hotels already... right?
Or maybe the apprehension stems from the aforementioned fact that further developing a high-level character, stats-wise, becomes quite hard in D&D. So if you start with a 15th level character, it's gonna be set in stone for quite a while. That's no fun. Note that I don't dislike _slow_ advancement - it's complete stasis that just leeches the fun from the game.
"It doesn't feel cheap, manufactured, or accelerated. The character walks into the bar with the stride of one who has done business and knows how to handle himself."
While I partially understand what the author is coming from, I don't quite agree here either. Starting play as an experienced character, simulating the worldly attitude and assurance that comes with having faced hardships and prevailed - it may be a challenge to roleplay, but not a great one. I'd personally find it much more difficult to play a coward or a misogynist, to name a few instances. Because the former doesn't require me to do more than imagine I've done stuff, while the latter has me fighting with my own instincts, ethics and will to succeed.
"But, that brings us back to my childhood problem. Getting to next level takes time and effort. And it's often hard to get to 15th level without becoming a power-gamer. In a setting like D&D, a 15th level character often has 250,000 gold deposited in some sort of bank (maybe in Leomund's Secret Chest). He has a +5 battle axe hanging over the mantle. He has a +15 adjustment to his armor class because of his magical armor and because he's read 3 tomes of dexterity over the years. He has gauntlets of swimming and climbing, so there are few places where he can't go."
I agree that this is a problem. And my suggestion on how to deal with this is a fairly simple affair that seems to run contrary to D&D convention. It goes as follows: strangle the access to meaningless magical stuff. Crush the tendency to have magical gadgets be equivalents to the modern cell-phone, cigarette lighter and photocopier. Remove the excessive and obsessive gold and silver piece economy that would never work in any real society devoid of Swiss banks and World Trade Centers. Because, let's face it, this is one sacred cow that's been due for slaughter for a long time.
Instead, when you deliver the goods, make it _count_. Make the rewards truly noteworthy. Let the magical swords be rare and therefore valued, instead of mere trinkets. And then, I suspect, your players will be a lot more impressed when they finally get their hands on the good stuff. It doesn't have to be apocalyptically powerful or do very much, either - usually it's enough that it isn't trivialized. Even if they don't exactly know what a particular item does, they should be fairly sure that that softly glowing axe is something out of the ordinary, something unique and cool.
Cause why shouldn't it be? After all, it's magical.
Dispute away!
I can't think of a rules set that handles skills well. That's not too surprising tho...cause skills in real life don't always follow solid logic.
Take two guys and try to teach them a programming language. One gets it...one doesn't...but they're equally intelligent.
Gaming rules try to apply logic to learning skills. Most rules would agree that programming is an intelligence based skill. So...two guys with an Int of 13 would learn the skill the same way, right? In a game...maybe...but not in real life.
We could throw modifiers into the mix to account for this...but then we run the risk of getting over-burdened with too many numbers and fudge factors.
No two people learn the same thing the exact same way -- making a rule set that adjusts for this would be difficult at best. All we can do, really, is use the rule set that piques our fancy.
And, rules aside, I think anybody...people or PC's...get to a point where they can only advance so much. Thus...I don't think the rules are wrong to suggest that it's more difficult to get to 10th level than it was to get to 9th level.
He sez:
I think the answer is unfamiliarity, really. That and the old, ugly balance thinking rearing its head. After all, you're _supposed_ to start play as a level 1 character, right? That is, if you're playing the game as it was _intended_. Anything else would be cheating, kinda like starting monopoly with your player owning several hotels already... right?
I sez...
Sorta. I'm not against the notion of starting a character at level 10, or whatever.
But...9 times out of 10...in my experience...the player who started playing his character at level one...from the ground up...has a better feel for his guy than the player who started playing his guy at level 7 (or whatever). I was talking more about good characterization than skill sets...and that might not have been clear.
It also seems to me that players have more love for the character that they've developed from the ground up...and, therefore, are more inclined to play better with such characters.
This may just be a matter of preference -- I'd rather play a guy that I've worked on for months / years than a guy a made 10 minutes ago.
"I can't think of a rules set that handles skills well. That's not too surprising tho...cause skills in real life don't always follow solid logic. // Take two guys and try to teach them a programming language. One gets it...one doesn't...but they're equally intelligent."
This is probably because you haven't played systems that break the D&D mold. In a favourite system of mine, Eon, advancement is made by rolls, sidestepping this problem and all problems with Levels. This is by no means unique to this system.
"Gaming rules try to apply logic to learning skills. Most rules would agree that programming is an intelligence based skill. So...two guys with an Int of 13 would learn the skill the same way, right? In a game...maybe...but not in real life."
In GURPS, perhaps. Things are hardly done the same in other games. In Eon, for example, specific skills can be harder or easier to learn. A character I saw was absolutely deadly in battle partially because he just picked up swordsmanship quicker, and hence had an easier time learning how to get better.
"We could throw modifiers into the mix to account for this...but then we run the risk of getting over-burdened with too many numbers and fudge factors."
Only if we _have_ to take the path you mentioned. Understand me when I say I get your problem. I've just seen it solved. Besides, if you're bothered because some characters should learn skills easier than others (a very specific and minor problem to my mind, and easily addressible), how is it that you're able to accept the almost completely abstrac level of combat seen in D&D? Said combat system requires truly massive levels of GM interpretation before it makes sense. But I'm straying from the point, and will leave the subject be.
"No two people learn the same thing the exact same way -- making a rule set that adjusts for this would be difficult at best. All we can do, really, is use the rule set that piques our fancy."
I agree. I have to say, though, that no two warriors attack the same way either. In fact, if you take this to its logical conclusion, you'll find a high degree of difference in everything anyone ever does. And that this problem applies to the rules of every RPG in equal measure.
That is the problem with RPGs, really. The real world can never be simulated concretely by the rules. Some things are always abstracted - the choice of which part to abstract is made by the designers.
"And, rules aside, I think anybody...people or PC's...get to a point where they can only advance so much. Thus...I don't think the rules are wrong to suggest that it's more difficult to get to 10th level than it was to get to 9th level."
Then that's where we disagree. No matter how good an athlete I ever get, it won't massively affect my ability to learn how to play cards. I won't progress toward a state of unchanging stasis just because I'm good at what I do. Certainly I may reach stasis at a skill I've mastered, that is true; eventually you reach a dead end where you can't become better at what you do. However, that this afterwards automatically would lead to me learning other things slower is just absurd to me.
"But...9 times out of 10...in my experience...the player who started playing his character at level one...from the ground up...has a better feel for his guy than the player who started playing his guy at level 7 (or whatever). I was talking more about good characterization than skill sets...and that might not have been clear."
It's just that I'm no D&D player. Hence, I don't necessarily define "from the ground up" as beginning at level 1. I define "from the ground up" as being a beginning character.
"It also seems to me that players have more love for the character that they've developed from the ground up...and, therefore, are more inclined to play better with such characters."
See above. I think we just have different mindsets.
"This may just be a matter of preference -- I'd rather play a guy that I've worked on for months / years than a guy a made 10 minutes ago."
This is a sentiment I can understand perfectly. And I agree. It always takes time to slip under the skin of a character and properly inhabit him or her. It's always fun to write your own history. I just dispute the idea that it has to be linked in any shape or form to the level of the character.
But I like trying new things, test new facets of my role playing. Despite this, I've played one of my characters, Thizara, for around two years now real time. She was enormous fun even at the beginning, and while a lot of things have happened to her, she still lives very much in the now. And she's just as fun to play now as she was then.
"This is probably because you haven't played systems that break the D&D mold. In a favourite system of mine, Eon, advancement is made by rolls, sidestepping this problem and all problems with Levels. This is by no means unique to this system."
I've played a variety of games...level based, point based, whatever. I haven't played Eon...but I'll stick with my guns in saying that most rule sets have their pitfalls regarding advancement. We may have to agree to disagree here.
But we're getting side-tracked. This wasn't meant to be an article written to gripe about the rules...rather, an ecouragement to continue to pursue the next level. That and to avoid short-cuts...'cause it's my honest belief that short-cuts also short-change the game.
It's my belief that advancing to 15th level is more fun than starting at 15th level. Some may disagree...and that's their right. I'm just here to encourage folks to endure the long road...'cause in my experiences, it seems to be the route that yields the best results.
"I've played a variety of games...level based, point based, whatever. I haven't played Eon...but I'll stick with my guns in saying that most rule sets have their pitfalls regarding advancement. We may have to agree to disagree here."
Allright, didn't mean to presume anything about your experiences. I guess different people have different favourites.
"But we're getting side-tracked. This wasn't meant to be an article written to gripe about the rules...rather, an ecouragement to continue to pursue the next level. That and to avoid short-cuts...'cause it's my honest belief that short-cuts also short-change the game."
I get your point, I do. I just feel that there are differences in how much "life" there is to a game in that regard - how long it will take before a character begins to advance past a point of no return. But I'll keep quiet about that.
"It's my belief that advancing to 15th level is more fun than starting at 15th level. Some may disagree...and that's their right. I'm just here to encourage folks to endure the long road...'cause in my experiences, it seems to be the route that yields the best results."
I have to say that, despite my beef with some of your points, the times I've played d20 (Star Wars d20), starting with a level 8 Jedi _did_ feel the way you described it - artificial. So I guess I agree.
There is something to be said for lengthy progressions. My Ranger (2nd Ed D&D) just made 11th level... and I started that PC in 1988! Granted, there was a 10 or so year hiatus as the DM went military and moved out of state, but now that he's returned, we all dusted off the old character sheets, broke out the PC's favorite dice, and resumed the game.
I agree with Rogue... it is better to have "earned" the levels/skills. It is a more fulfilling experience.
But that's just my $0.02 worth.
The thing that's not being considered when comparing, say, starting as a 15th-level D&D character as opposed to a beginning World of Darkness vampire, is your base-line measurement.
A starting vampire may be powerful compared to a human, but he's still just a starting vampire. Amongst his peers, he's got room to grow by leaps and bounds.
A 15th-level D&D character, on the other hand, has already left the base-line character (1st-level adventurer) so far in the distance it ain't funny. His room for growth compared to how far he's already assumed to have come is microscopic. I mean, two fifteenth-level characters could probably trash one twentieth-level character, but one fifteenth level character could probably trash 15 first-level characters, even with one arm tied behind his back.
Another fine example of the base-line in action is the old Pendragon game (or similar Arthurian fantasy). The starting characters are knights by default -- elite, privileged warriors, equipped with the preciously rare metal armor and war horse, trained all their lives to be among the best of the best. But while all this might over-awe the peasantry, to the PCs peers it's just business as usual. Compared to most knights, the PCs start out green, poor, and bumbling, and they have to constantly fight to prove themselves.
Context is everything, and if the PCs feel like they're sitting on top of the world with nowhere to go, they're rubbing elbows with the wrong people. Doesn't matter what your game system is. Change the base-line, and suddenly everything becomes fresh and new.
My current DND "campaign" has been going on since late 1998. The longest running character (they only one to have "survived" since 1998) just passed 16th level -- a wizard. Under our strange DND house rules...this means that he can finally cast 8th level spells...it's been a long time coming.
There's also a kensai (oriental sword-guy for the unwashed) who just reached 11th level -- he can now finally do the famed whirlwind attack...something this player has been wanting to do for years now.
While the road may have been long...these guys are approaching their new powers with the giddiness of a school-girl (no...they're not actually school-girls). And I can't help but think that they cherish these new abilities more because...as Old Timer says...it is better to have earned them.
Giacomo
I like and agree with what you say about baselines...wish I'd said something more along those lines in the article.
I'm curious to know how Eon handles the differences in skill improvement between characters with equal attributes. After all, it would be unfair to simply award one character easier skill improvement for no particular reason. I'm guessing that Eon uses either something like GURPS advantages which can be taken at the cost of foregoing something else, or else it uses something like classes, allowing (in fact requiring) every character to have some skill or field that they naturally excel in.
FWIW, GURPS 4th has expanded talents quite a bit. Now there are more talents (and GMs and players are encouraged to invent their own), they provide other benefits in addition to skill bonuses (including faster study), and the skills they cover are grouped more by theme than by field. While the rules strongly recommend against martial talents for balance reasons, if one ignores that recommendation they could easily create someone who's naturally a gifted swordsman.
Man, I haven't heard anyone mention Pendragon for quite some time. That dredges up some good memories. I always started my PCs out as squires, to even further emphasize the powers at a knight's command. Gave them a good feeling before they began the descent into poverty that suddenly being responsible for all your own bills will do to a guy.
The humbling experience of being the Glass Joe of your campaign world provides perspective on the powers a character commands at later levels. For example, if you never were in the position that doing 3 hit points of damage was a good day's work, then shooting lasers out of your magic gauntlets doesn't mean nearly as much.
Thanks. :-)
It's a lot easier to come back and contribute to a discussion than to initiate it, of course. Been enjoying the thought provoking stuff you've been putting out.
Loved that game, despite it's huge achilles' heels with the bright red bullseyes painted on them. (The house rules my wife and I developed to shore up the weaknesses could have filled a book in themselves.)
You remember Pendragon's "Blood & Lust" adventure anthology, by any chance?
"I'm curious to know how Eon handles the differences in skill improvement between characters with equal attributes. After all, it would be unfair to simply award one character easier skill improvement for no particular reason. I'm guessing that Eon uses either something like GURPS advantages which can be taken at the cost of foregoing something else, or else it uses something like classes, allowing (in fact requiring) every character to have some skill or field that they naturally excel in."
Well, neither, actually, though leaning more toward the first. I'll try to explain comprehensively, something I was never good at. :)
First and foremost, every die notation I'm gonna give here is preceeded by In, as in In4D6. This stands for Infinite, which means that every six is removed and rerolled with two dice and so on. This means that (1) you can always fail at a roll and (2) damage is potentially fatal. You can never be completely, 100%, certain of anything.
That said. There are professions in Eon, but they are glorified guidelines more than anything else. They require you to make three rolls against (usually) three ability scores. If you succeed with one score, you had a poor career. Two, and you had a decent career. Three, and you had a successful career. This gives you different amounts of points to spend on skills, and people who can be expected to face battle get varying degrees of battle experience (which is a skill that can't be bought normally - it affects initiative as well as, slightly, resistance to shock). Skill points buy skills, obviously - basic skills are calculated from ability scores and begin at 5 to 10. Advanced skills (like Pottery, for example), have to be learned from the ground up.
Anyway, to make it interesting, you get to roll seven times on a table, which gives you differing amounts of either physical abilities, mental abilities, occurences, mystical abilities, birth, possessions, drawbacks, or contacts. All of these are their own tables. If you want to make a character according to an already-thought out plan, it is recommended that you pick manually.
Anyway, among the various results are "lättlärd", which can be interpreted as having a talent for something. This means that you begin as usual with it, but instead of raising your skill by rolling In3D6 above your current skill level, you roll In4D6. That's not everything, though, as there is another result which gives you free experience points at a certain skill or skills at character creation. Both can occur at the same result. Or you can get a, uh, "distalent" for something, which gives you a skill advancement roll at In2D6 and/or a skill limit. Other skills lets your skill rolls in game be rolled at reduced difficulty... there are a number of ways this is used.
Take the drawback "Dyslectic" as an example. "The character is untalented when it comes to reading and writing (all these advancement rolls are made with In2D6 instead of In3D6)."
Usually, most people that apply themselves will learn. Some people are just not able to, however, and will have a difficult time, despite having the required intelligence.
That's.. odd. Inventive, though, I'll give it that.
Personally I don't think I would like it. After a few years of D&D I got tired of chargen systems that give out attributes, abilities, and resources randomly (even though being handed a bunch of randomly generated stats and forces to make sense of them can provide a good deal of creative inspiration).
True, you could just choose your own values and results, but one is given to wonder why the system wasn't just set up that way in the first place.
"Personally I don't think I would like it. After a few years of D&D I got tired of chargen systems that give out attributes, abilities, and resources randomly (even though being handed a bunch of randomly generated stats and forces to make sense of them can provide a good deal of creative inspiration)."
I'd be a liar if I said that sentiment hasn't been echoed by others. Still, I feel it works, because the structure of the system allows you to easily invalidate results that aren't interesting, fun or consistent.
"True, you could just choose your own values and results, but one is given to wonder why the system wasn't just set up that way in the first place."
That I can answer. The system is made to be the easiest to use for rank beginners. It essentially creates a rich, unique character from scratch. As you gain gaming experience, you can strip away randomness by a variety of alternate rules given. At the end of that curve, the results aren't completely static, but you still get much more control.
High level games... I especially have issues DMing them. All my players are all item-savvy and go psycho everytime I attempt to rid them of their items. Its getting a bit meticulous... I'm about ready to call it quits or force everyone to make low level characters. Power gaming, well, just isn't my style to DM.
I have little experience with long lasting campaigns. I have played d&d for about 12 years now, but no campaign lasted for more than a few months, i recently after a long break from roleplaying started up a new campaign witch i have good hopes for lasting quite a while. The players all started out level 1 and now have reached 3th level. As an experiment though whe have decided that the next session whe get rid of the character sheets and rules and with the knowledge of their characters abilitys just roleplay diceless. I dont know if it,l work out. but without the rules i can just progress them in a logical way, They probably will never know they have a +20 or so attack roll but they will certainly notice theyve grown as a fighter.
Id like to hear from any who have tried playing diceless before.
Aye, verily.
I have taken a similar approach to what you're talking about.
Check out the article I wrote called What's My Armor Class.
Available at http://www.gamegrene.com/node/348.
Yes, a disconnect between what YOU want out of a game, and what the players want, can be very frustrating.
Rogue Githyanki wrote:
"I could keep going on, but hopefully you get the idea. The gist of it is that you have to adjust the style of your game to accommodate for an increase of player level. You don't approach a 6th grade spelling test in the same manner you approach writing your master's thesis – well, some folks do, but that's not the point. The house rules above are things my group has done to keep the game fresh and on the move. Other groups may have to adjust these rules – some might not want to give up their well earned manse so easily. . . and that's okay. The point is you can continue to have fun playing at higher levels, but you will likely have to make some changes in order to be successful. I see no harm in that, for stagnation is usually a precursor to death."
I agree completely with your sentiments and it sounds like you have some excellent advice to keep a game going. I would like to add a few that I have learned along the way. My longest running campaign stretches back to around 1985. The group is mostly the same although a few players have left (sadly)and we have gained a few over the years. Of the original cast of characters only one remains -- as character fatalaties are inevitable. This is a 15/13 level Cleric/Monk (that's right -- he used the dual class option to put his monk training behind him and follow the path of Elodara - The Goddess of Cold and purity). It was quite an event when he gained back his monk abilities at 14th level Cleric. In the party is a 16/13 level Fighter/thief, a 16th level Cleric of Viser - the God of Night Magic and Wisdom, a 15/13 level Ranger/Cleric of Helani - Goddess of Love and Beauty, and 13/13 level Ranger/Magic User. They recently lost their 16th/9th level Magic User/Fighter.
One of the greatest "tricks" I use to keep the campaign going is to allow the storyline to telescope. At low levels they were concerned with staying alive, building allies, and developped some favoured enemies. Among these enemies were rival schools, an order of wizards from another country, a mysterious cult, and of course a good smattering of Orcs, Goblins, and the ilk.
As they approached the middle levels they learned more of the story and developped animosity for the head of the order of Wizards in the other country and that the cult and the wizards were working against each other. This was the backdrop for adventure -- they were not foolish enough to move against Myros (pronounced Myrosh). As they were moving out of the intermediary ranks they learned that this advesary was part demon and part elder-race.
The story of the elder races involved them at the next level of detail as they learned of the seven ancient races and the one race that betrayed them all to rise to superiority over the world (long long ago in a forgotten time). This race was overthrown but a few still remain (like Myros) who seek to recapture power. The mysterious cult has ties to another one of these beings and the plot thickens.
As they hit their current status (14+ level) they discovered a strange magical gem that lead them to a city buried under the ice in a far off land. The heat from a volcano carved natural tunnels through the city (which was of course infested with Ice Dragons, White trolls, etc) where they discovered the remains of an ancient city and ties to the society that foiled the reign of the Moradil (ancient race). Last year they followed clues and discovered on of these ancient ones masquerading as a minor noble poppingjay. They defeated him at the cost of a 15th level Bard. They have lots of avenues of adventure because aside from following the major plot of the story the continue to make political allies, have falling outs with the kingdom where they came from, gather followers, and seek treasure for their enterprises.
In the end the particulars of the story are not important. They need flexibility to find their own adventure and a story that can grow. What they learned 19 years ago is still applicable today as they learned the structure of organizations that still exists -- what customs are around and what different people fear. One of the biggest problems with ongoing campaigns is that often what the characters have learned becomes obsolete, the villains all die, and new ones appear out of nowhere. Characters should develop prejudice over time -- they have lost friends to a certain Orc tribe, been wounded in battle by Ettins, been thwarted by a cunning Pirate (RG - he sounds fun), seen the evil done by a particular foe over and over again. They can then have these prejudices tested or inverted as they learn about why things happened. Incidentally, some NPC's wear black because they are in mourning and have a dour disposition for the same reason (that was lesson 1 for my playing group 19 years ago).
To achieve consistency and originality is a tricky thing, but if you can telescope the story at vital points you open up entirely new avenues of adventure allowing the players to re-visit familiar places and people with a fresh perspective. These are essentially paradigm shifts, especially when they encounter a brand new set of abilities that they have no defence for, it forces them to look through the eyes of a novice again until they develop a defence and regain their well deserved "swagger". By 15th level they have earned some swagger -- don't try to take that from them. Let them enjoy it, especially more because they know that there are lots of things nastier just around the corner. BTW -- I think the players have agreed that they might take a run at Myros when they all reach 20th level, but they aren't sure.
Sounds cool!
In brief, my campaign has roots that go back to 1989...but the current group didn't take over until late 1998. All the pre 1998 PC's are now NPC's.
The current group's biggest conflict was this...let a super powerful villain destroy the universe...or, stop the super-villain at the cost of letting his lackies run amok. They chose the later option...and have since been trying to clean up the aftermath of their "good deed" and, at times, are finding that their good-deed isn't always appreciated. Some kingdoms had rather been wiped out rather than deal with the aftermath.