| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back when I first started playing D&D, which was mostly done during clan rituals where we served brontosaurus burgers, I used to care a whole lot about leveling my characters up. In fact leveling up was a driving force behind my desire to play the game. I was always looking for some new spell level, or ability or magic item to add to my characters' repertoire.
Nowadays I find that I don't actually care that much about leveling up. It's nice when it happens, and I enjoy the process of picking new feats, spells, abilities, etc. but I have a number of characters I would be fine playing at their current level if they never leveled up again.
I wonder if I am unique in this regard. There are times when we reach a new level and I find myself saying "Dang! I haven't fully explored all the synergies of the stuff I just gained with our LAST level, now I have to add more to it?"
When I was playing 4e I was constantly feeling like my character was leveling up far too easily and quickly and that I was retiring powers that I had barely used. (4e has the concept of limited level-based powers so when you reach, say, level 14, to gain a new power you have to retire an older, lower level, one to make room for the new one.)
In general I feel I need about half a dozen sessions at least at any one level for me to feel like I've mastered the new capabilities and am ready to move on. In some cases even that's not enough.
I've also found that some levels are particularly comfortable to play and that moving up a level changes the party dynamic enough that I sometimes feel that the party has actually lost effectiveness as new, mostly untested and untried, abilities become the favorite tactic of a character whose previous tactics were reliable and predictable.
In general I guess I feel that my characters level up too fast for my taste. Of course holding my character back is not an option since he/she would rapidly become useless in a party of much higher level characters, but I'm sort of wondering if anyone else feels that they are sometimes rushed into the process of learning a new level before they really had a chance to appreciate their previous level.
I am there with you. I find that I look forward to leveling to a certain point. Like, I have this idea of a character and certain abilities provide a nice framework for the idea I have, so I look forward to that point. Once I hit that point, I am feeling pretty good.
An example: I was goofing off and wanted to make Iron Man and actually made a concept that I would like to try sometime. For it to be near what I wanted the character is going to have to be at least 5th level, but once I get there....I am good to go. (I was using the Summoner and to get the flight option, I have to wait to 5th level)
For me it's not about mastering my capabilities it's about the roleplaying. I find if I'm leveling up too fast it's because we in combat constantly leaving little time to roleplay ones character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that for me, it depends on how many levels it takes for my build to begin to resemble my intended concept.
I generally have a solid thematic idea, though not necessarily a set-in-stone roleplaying direction, when I begin to play a character.
While I have a blast in implementing and/or refining my chosen roleplaying concept right from the get-go, I find that at times I am chomping at the bit when I feel like it will jusssst take another level or two to get my build concept firing on all cylinders.
It is at those times, when I just don't quite have the feats to turn my barbarian into the feral archer concept I had built up in Herolab, or my Tetori Monk just doesn't yet have enough grappley stuff to get fully grappley, that I begin to want to level rather than just play my character.
Old Gamer here too. I'm more of a roleplayer than a leveler. I see the fun and the anticipation of "getting that next level", especially when you're wanting to complete/test a particular build concept, or just enjoy a new rack of spells.
With maturity, lots of gamers start to want to create those moments in gaming that are memorable between friends. "Remember that time when...?" and that's why we still game at the tabletop.
As a GM, I like to encourage and provide opportunities for PCs to speak up and act the part of their characters whenever possible. Unique NPCs and such help players break out of the "waiting for the next battle" mentality.
I like leveling up, but I am a builder by nature. When I used to play video games I would like to see how the character improved. This was for RPG's and sports games, when I was in Franchise mode.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My experience with D&D was opposite from Adamantine Dragon.
When I was first invited to play a game, I knew absolutely nothing. I had not read a single rulebook and didn't even have an interest in the fantasy genre at that point. When i arrived at the GM's home, he handed me three characters he had prepared and asked "What would you like the play? I have a fighter, magic user, and cleric...". After a few moments of 'deer in the headlights', he hand waved it and said that we could figure it out when we started playing.
We played the first few sessions with me being completely clueless about the rules. That naivety gave me some of the most wonderful and vivid memories of the stories that took place...and I didn't worry one iota about levels.
These days, with so many options with skills, feats, abilities, yada, yada, it feels like players are more concerned with building the most synergistic character and leveling than weaving a good story...then again, I am old school...back in the day when we didn't have skills, feats, and archetypes. It was when magic users were called magic users, and rogues were called thieves, and there were only ten spells to choose from for each level...AND WE LIKED IT THAT WAY!!! :)
I am now throwing my hat into GMing for PFS from time to time and I am sad to see that the emphasis on character building, leveling, etc is even more dominant there. I guess that is to be expected give the structure. I am hoping that once I am well acclimated to the rules and GMing, I can put together a home game where the story be the dominant focus with the rules just being a supportive role far, far in the background.
When I was playing 4e I was constantly feeling like my character was leveling up far too easily and quickly and that I was retiring powers that I had barely used. (4e has the concept of limited level-based powers so when you reach, say, level 14, to gain a new power you have to retire an older, lower level, one to make room for the new one.)In general I feel I need about half a dozen sessions at least at any one level for me to feel like I've mastered the new capabilities and am ready to move on. In some cases even that's not enough.
This was my experience several times with 4th edition, but not all. One time 5th level lasted one session and I didn't even get to use my new daily power. On another occasion when we leveled up at the end of a "chapter" it took 11 or 12 sessions and that was forever.
I still like leveling up, even though the choices make me a bit neurotic.
I'd say it depends on how happy I am with the character. I can't stand to use builds that take a while to feel the way I want. I enjoy the feeling of growth, and sometimes it feels too fast and sometimes not fast enough. I always try to create a character I can enjoy roleplaying before anything else, so I can always feel like I enjoy the character even when he feels mechanically a little behind. Its not about the leveling or progress to me really. Those are nice things to have, and there are ways to have that outside of mechanics. I just want to sit down and enjoy a game with some friends.
That said, I usually have a plan ahead and enjoy new abilities. I enjoy having a plan for every level so I can always say "This is going to be righteous, can't wait!" and have something to look forward to, and something to have. That's always helped me stay content.
My experience with D&D was opposite from Adamantine Dragon.
When I was first invited to play a game, I knew absolutely nothing. I had not read a single rulebook and didn't even have an interest in the fantasy genre at that point. When i arrived at the GM's home, he handed me three characters he had prepared and asked "What would you like the play? I have a fighter, magic user, and cleric...". After a few moments of 'deer in the headlights', he hand waved it and said that we could figure it out when we started playing.
We played the first few sessions with me being completely clueless about the rules. That naivety gave me some of the most wonderful and vivid memories of the stories that took place...and I didn't worry one iota about levels.
These days, with so many options with skills, feats, abilities, yada, yada, it feels like players are more concerned with building the most synergistic character and leveling than weaving a good story...then again, I am old school...back in the day when we didn't have skills, feats, and archetypes. It was when magic users were called magic users, and rogues were called thieves, and there were only ten spells to choose from for each level...AND WE LIKED IT THAT WAY!!! :)
I am now throwing my hat into GMing for PFS from time to time and I am sad to see that the emphasis on character building, leveling, etc is even more dominant there. I guess that is to be expected give the structure. I am hoping that once I am well acclimated to the rules and GMing, I can put together a home game where the story be the dominant focus with the rules just being a supportive role far, far in the background.
I agree. It seems that the players at our game only concern themselves with the new feat, higher skills, more hp, and the new special they just received. I like to use the slow XP progression, but I get vetoed every time we start a new campaign---which usually is around 9-12 level! I enjoy the building of the character, but I really like to enjoy the path of progression too. There is only 2 of us that would want to do this....out of 5....
I like leveling, but I also like playing around with stuff I've already got for a while too.
I'd say that while Adamantine likes to have at LEAST 6 sessions on a single level, I like about at MOST 6 or 7 sessions without leveling.
I like leveling, but I also like playing around with stuff I've already got for a while too.
I'd say that while Adamantine likes to have at LEAST 6 sessions on a single level, I like about at MOST 6 or 7 sessions without leveling.
Pretty much this. I like leveling, though not too frequently. I also like adhoc leveling so I never noticed 4e leveling too fast or anything. It pretty much depends on the DM anyway.
The first time I played 4e, we did level ups every session to test out more of the system. It was fun in its own way, though I wouldn't do it normally.
What the OP said, but exactly oposite.
I've played all sorts of games including D&D from first to now. I have played Amber (no xp there), Champions (very little xp) Paranoia (no xp, just clones), GURPS, BESM, ....and lots of others. I love leveling. I love getting new powers, I love getting new skills, I love the whole progression. You know, the game has that XP progression table. Or even just have the GM hand it out ....when ever.
Enjoy the non leveling :)
Im with you all the way
I like it when i level but its not the be all and end all role playing the character is the most fun for me .
Which may be why i enjoy being a DM more these days as that more role playing still
I also find that i get the most fun out of playing characters of levels 6 to 10 powerful enough to get into trouble but not always powerful enough to get out of it when
I totally agree with this... It is all about playing the game.
I think people building characters out pregame is really well in a word silly and makes absolutely no sense to me.
Granted I can see where the excitement could be. But what you started at level 1, then totally on how you played the experiences you had you chose to level up and improve on the skills you actually used.
I was in a game and I was a Fighter, and I was like hmm I want to go wizard, so during the game I actively showed interest and put skill points where I used appropriate skills after failing at them. I feel the character gets so much more depth than starting out as a Cavalier and spontaneously combusting into a Druid or Bard... And never even acting like what. I feel the game is being done a disservice and not being played to its greater potential.
Reading these forums, it is like looking at an MMO forum. It really just does not make sense at least in my opinion.
Think about it you start your character on a Path say Fighter, not knowing what you are going to run into or what could happen. Your group or a Friend in the group is slaughtered by a Gnoll... You actively track him down and avenge your friend. Bam 1 level of Ranger.
You didnt know what was going to happen but now your character is like the ones in the books we read.
Just my thoughts, and I feel everyone is entitled to their play style to have fun. I do not judge players and I am a DM. I let them do what they want. But I would love to see more depth available and possibly some rules for granting things to players based on the experiences they have... Great example is how they are doing the mythic levels.
I know that when I preplan a character, it is setting goals that they want to achieve and I RP those goals. I am kind of making this Gunslinger/Inquistor multiclass. I started in Gunslinger, but to simulate the monster lore that I will eventually pick up; my gunslinger is a bit of a naturalist and is always taking samples of stuff they encounter. He gets into religous debates with the party Paladin, all of it.
I will also say that my plan is more of an outline and I am open to change as the campaign and my fellow players develop. I find it helps me in cutting down on the Paradox of Choice and making sure I hold to a theme for the character (Good RP).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, my name is Dave, and I am a level-holic.
I don't think there's a dichotomy here.
Playing the character and leveling up should be hand-in-hand.
Anyone who lives a life of danger and exploration (like an adventurer) shouldn't just be content in their abilities, resting on laurels and saying "I'm awesome enough. No need to train or improve or strive."
That said, I always pre-build by characters up to 20, but I also keep changing it up based on how the game goes... specifically I think like the PC - what new skills or tricks would they feel they need?
Further, I'm pushing for a slight alteration to the level system:
Assume all characters are constantly trying to improve. The fighter is practicing a new maneuver (feat) until she perfects it. The Sorcerer meditates to find deeper recess of hidden power. The Cleric makes offerings and communes with his deity, trying to build a closer relationship with his god.
Then, in the middle of a battle, something clicks. The Fighter manages to pull off her new risky move. The Cleric feels the presence of his god and unleashes new power.
The mechanics of this works thus:
Everyone pre-selects what choices they make BEFORE they level up. They can pick early and stick to it (played out by practice, or focusing on a goal during prayer/meditation) or they pick the session before.
The GM assigns XP after each XP-worthy action (default is defeating an enemy), and if a PC levels up after killing goblin #4 out of #8, they suddenly "power up" in mid combat. The wizard reaches an epiphany about a spell he's been researching for the last month and suddenly casts it, for example.
I find this makes for some fun cinematic RP, and when a character is near a level up, they player gets excited about the chance to take the spotlight with their new reveal.
|
Just putting it out there, I have a group where some players just leveled and are asking if they leveled after one session.
There is such a thing as leveling too fast, but leveling shows growth. I am currently doing level points in my campaign now rather than XP. Of course, we will see how this works as I just started.
This brings up another subject that intrigues me. The whole concept of pre-planned characters and how that works in a role-played context.
I admit that I have never pre-planned my characters more than a level or two in advance. Partly that's because I really am not interested in theory-crafting and I find playing off the characters' personality, motivations and personal goals to be much more fun and interesting than pursuing any mechanical objectives. Also I tend to view my characters as clay that is being molded as they go, and who react to their experiences to guide their own future.
Also, since I don't tend to multi-class much, most of my characters tend to be single-class anyway, so all the options leveling brings tend to be within that class (with exceptions, I have had some characters suddenly decide to pursue the abilities associated with another class).
That's a taste thing though, and there are some limitations or exceptions to that approach. I might know, for example, that a character will pursue a certain feat tree, or a certain school of magic. But that's about as far as I pre-plan things.
This brings up another subject that intrigues me. The whole concept of pre-planned characters and how that works in a role-played context.
Well, let me start by saying that my current group's games rarely last past level 10 or so. Part of the reason for that is that we rarely use pre-planned adventures and so the GM's inspiration runs dry after a single book, instead of running on to a decatology. We're having some luck now with one of the APs, but the GM is still having attention span issues.
That alone would make pre-planning a character pointless. Why talk about what he's going to do at level 14 when he's not going to see level 8?
There's also a lot to be said for openness to new experiences. One key thing that I like about levelling up is levelling up as a group as you learn how to work with each other. If it turns out, for example, that to have the druid grapple the enemy caster is a Good Idea (as it usually is), maybe the other players should start to think of ways they can make the druid more effective at grappling. Maybe, for example, the sorcerer can grab some crafting feats and start turning out items for the party as a whole, instead of going for new forms of metamagic? On the other hand, if the druid can't or won't grapple, maybe we need other ways of caster control, and maybe the fighter needs to invest in some reach weapons (and the sorcerer needs to learn Enlarge BSF).
My point, though, is that this isn't the sort of think you can theorycraft alone in your own armchair.
Having said that, the big issue that I run into is that most people have a character concept in mind, and it's usually not a character they can build at first level. No one really fantasizes about being a wizard whose most potent spell is Sleep. I want my summoner to be able to summon demons, not just dire rats.
I suspect that what most people do in practice is sketch out a character in their head, and try to figure out how to build it at some abstractly high level. I can build my sword-swinging wizard as a multiclass fighter/wizard, as a magus, or simply as a wizard who spent a feat on sword proficiency. But I've got a specific character in mind that I want to play, and I'm probably going to want to level as quickly as I can until my level 1 n00b turns into that person, at which point I can back off and play the character that I wanted to play for as long as the campaign lasts.
Anyone here played the old Knights of the Old Republic? (It's been re-released for iPad, and it rocks, btw. Strong recommendation.) That was a game, for example, that if you wanted to be a powerful Jedi, you had to pre-plan and not burn your levels at the start. If you wanted to be a skilled mundane with some Jedi abilities, that worked to, and it made the lower levels a lot more fun. But you needed to think about who you wanted to be at the end of the game in order to play through the beginning. Same principle.
To my mind, all level based systems can fall victim to this sort of flaw. Its not something that tends to occur in ,say, BRP, which doesnt use character levels.
That doesnt make pathfinder a bad system (far from it) and there are also advantages to a level system - assessing threat levels of the encounters, for example - but i do think that there are also a few inherrent problems with a class/level approach that have to br worked around at times, and this can be one of them.
Ymmv of course.
To my mind, all level based systems can fall victim to this sort of flaw. Its not something that tends to occur in ,say, BRP, which doesnt use character levels.
I think it's endemic to RPGs, level-based, point-based, whatever.
Games are designed for a given power level, sometimes by the game system itself, sometimes by the game master. If the character I want to play is a cross between D'Artagnan and Inigo Montoya, the best swordsman not only in the regiment, but on the continent, I'm not going to be fully happy until I've mastered the sword. If I want to play Robin Hood, I'm going to want to be able to win archery tournaments and hit swords out of people's hands. If I want to play Batman, playing Robin won't satisfy me.
I understand that the narrative conventions may demand some training montages. Luke Skywalker had to learn to use the Force,... but we didn't waste time teaching Leia to shoot blasters. There's still the issue that, as in so many things, the game master and the players have to see eye to eye about the power level.
The downside there, of course, is that unless everybody pictured a character of roughly similar power level, letting everybody play "the level you picture your character at" brings issues of game balance into play (that is, in Pathfinder-style RPGs that encourage teamwork and encounters with appropriately-leveled threats: it's not a problem in certain other systems.)
Sometimes it's not even clear what the power level of a given person is. Witness all the debates about "Aragorn was only 5th level!" and such. Everyone wants to play Gandalf, and few people can actually list four spells that Gandalf cast. (And no one has any clear idea how they worked, game-mechanically. The flaming pine cones he threw at the wolves? Were they 1d4 damage or 3d6?)
ETA: and, of course, the other issue is what everyone else is like. If I want to be "the best swordsman in the regiment," then I need (at least in Pathfinder) to be at or near the highest level fighter in the regiment. But since I don't know who else is in the regiment, that might be 3rd level, or it might be 18th. If I want to be the wisest sage in the entire Forgotten Realms.... I forget, how high a level do I have to be to beat Elminister? But I could probably be the wisest sage in Tolkien's Shire with two levels of expert.
Kudos to Paizo, by the way, for coming up with archetypes as a way to fit more of those exclusive concepts in right from Level 1 rather than forcing people to explain that they were duelists for seven levels before actually showing any signs of being one... The archetype rules couldn't provide for all possibilities, of course, but they certainly seem to have helped.
Agreed. I played AD&D for something like fifteen years and never ONCE played a bard. The idea that it took fifteen levels before I could properly tune a lute never really, er, rang true with me. The Eldrich Knight or Duelist prestige classes weren't much better. Paizo's done a very nice job with bringing a lot of concepts to accessible levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason I plan my characters is for a few reasons.
First and foremost is because I USED to level my characters level by level, but that resulted a few times in a fairly lackluster character in relation to the rest of the group. I don't have a fixation on having "the best character" but I like to feel I'm pulling my eight, which generally doesn't happen when I'm spontaneously choosing level up stuff.
Second is when I see a nice Feat chain and realize I needed to have taken Dodge and Mobility earlier on, it makes me a sad panda.
Third is because it saves time in the long run. I plan out to 10, which is when even the more complex builds start to come together. Looking up all this stuff in about an hour and putting it together (even when it's subject to change, which is often) takes less time over all than spending that 15 minutes leveling each level.
Forth is because I like focus in a character. Related to the first. I kinda have Options ADD when I don't plan the character out, and that ends up with an unfocused character, both in RP and mechanics (they're tied so closely sometimes). If my Monk is supposed to be a Jujitsu Master but his Feats are all over the place with Skill Focus: Intimidate because I used it once and such-like, I end up with a very unfocused character. Unfocused characters are usually ineffective, and in my eyes, broken RP-wise too, since they aren't what they say they are.
And fifth is because I've come to find I REALLY enjoy building characters, even when I likely won't get to use them any time soon. =)
As a DM, I often try to balance the leveling/combat aspect and the roleplaying aspect of the game. If my players start at level 1 and some of them are unexperienced, they'll probably have two warm-up fights before getting into a linear ("railroad", if you want) story arc towards level 3. They'll reach that level in 6 to 7 sessions (but we're talking 8 hours sessions). Then, once they're level 3 and can take a bit of a beating, I usually level them up once every 6 to 8 sessions. If I see them getting bored of their current powers, I throw in there a couple of random encounters to quicken the XP gain; on the other hand, if they're struggling to find a synergy with their new abilities, I slow the progression. If you're the DM, I suppose it's part of your job to manipulate the rhythm of the sessions, balancing the various aspects of the game. As a player, I love getting to a particular build I've thought of, and I understand the frustration of playing a character that gets its chance to shine later at mid to high levels (I currently have a girl playing a druid in my campaign that has chosen to focus on her Wild Shape and has been getting feats for it since 1st level, but at the moment she's 3rd level and almost useless in combat as she's not able to wild shape yet). If all the players are experienced and know how to build a PC of a level higher than 1st, I think it would be reasonable to allow beginning the adventure at a level everyone's OK with. This decision has to be made before the DM starts planning the story, of course.
I hate leveling, but only from the standpoint that I hate 'earning my build'.
We're running a ROTRL campaign and man do I wish it were written with challenging a party of 17th level characters the entire way through instead of being a way to get from level 1-20 in the span of 6 books...
When I hear the phrase 'epic level campaign' Thats what I think it should look like, and I'd love an entire adventure path where you started at 17 and didn't gain 3 levels over the course of 6 books...
2e modules were kind of like that... 'this module for players level 5-7' or somesuch thing.
'This adventuer path for characters level 17-20' would get me grinning ear to ear.
Instead I have this horrible looming feeling that by the time my character gets to those halcyon 9th level spells and i'll consider my character to really have 'arrived'.. Poof. Adventure path is over. Roll new characters and start over. I'm worried I wont really have time to enjoy the character as I like him long enough before changing adventure paths makes all that leveling moot.
I could play the 17th level version of my character for YEARS and never need another level and never get bored. Having to play the 1-7th level version of a millon characters a millon times is the thing about gaming that wears me down. I don't want a spoon fed, measured, metric sense of 'accomplishment'... I want 'adventure'
The most memorable moments in my gaming history were not the ones where I only had 3 hit points and a dagger and my wits, facing off against the goblin tribe...
I gotta tell you guys who want to play "the best swordsman on the continent" that you may as well not play in my games, because the "best swordsman on the continent" is almost certainly going to be your nemesis. Eventually, at the very, very, very end of your epic campaign you might meet and beat that nemesis, and THEN you might be "the best swordsman on the continent".
But then I'll be packing up my books and getting ready for the next campaign.
I hate leveling, but only from the standpoint that I hate 'earning my build'.
We're running a ROTRL campaign and man do I wish it were written with challenging a party of 17th level characters the entire way through instead of being a way to get from level 1-20 in the span of 6 books...
When I hear the phrase 'epic level campaign' Thats what I think it should look like, and I'd love an entire adventure path where you started at 17 and didn't gain 3 levels over the course of 6 books...
2e modules were kind of like that... 'this module for players level 5-7' or somesuch thing.
'This adventuer path for characters level 17-20' would get me grinning ear to ear.
Instead I have this horrible looming feeling that by the time my character gets to those halcyon 9th level spells and i'll consider my character to really have 'arrived'.. Poof. Adventure path is over. Roll new characters and start over. I'm worried I wont really have time to enjoy the character as I like him long enough before changing adventure paths makes all that leveling moot.
I agree. The capstone abilities are a joke -- what, I get the ability just in time for the credits to roll?
I have this horrible looming feeling that by the time my character gets to those halcyon 9th level spells and i'll consider my character to really have 'arrived'.. Poof. Adventure path is over. Roll new characters and start over. I'm worried I wont really have time to enjoy the character as I like him long enough before changing adventure paths makes all that leveling moot.
But then I'll be packing up my books and getting ready for the next campaign.
Yeah... Like that.
I gotta tell you guys who want to play "the best swordsman on the continent" that you may as well not play in my games, because the "best swordsman on the continent" is almost certainly going to be your nemesis.
That seems unnecessarily hostile. Being the best swordsman on the continent doesn't have to be a goal, it can be a mere attribute. Heck, I actually knew "the best swordsman in the regiment" once. Literally. He was based out of Ft. Belvoir, VA, or someplace near there, and had been a very good fencer in college, as well as an active member of the Society for Creative Anachronism. The fact that this regiment was, IIRC, an armored cavalry regiment meant that there was little more significance to being a good sword fighter than to being a good chess player, and the number of times he was teased about bringing a sword to a tank battle was probably uncomfortably high.
But being absolutely awesome at something can be a very interesting character hook that at the same time doesn't overpower the character. There's no reason that the best <something> in the world needs to be an NPC. Frankly, I find an endless parade of everyman heroes to be monotonous and boring.
The old grognard version of this showdown is like this...
The first analogy we always use is like hitting the gym. If you don't use a muscle you lose it. If keeping a game fun and interesting and challenging is hard for you, its because you don't do it enough.
I used to run Rifts campaigns. When a single party member can bring invulnerability and intangibility and a 70 strength and particlebeams from his hands an infinite number of times per day... (we're talking about a game where munchkin is the rule, not the exception) it literally forces you to find ways to make the game interesting and fun in different ways. It teaches you to challenge every level of power, or at least it challenges you to learn how to keep the game interesting in the face of such power. And thats a skill that I STRONGLY feel pathfinder doesnt teach.
Thats where we come to the other grognard version of this showdown.
If you want to get better at playing chess, but every time your opponent sees that the game isnt going his way--he folds, then you never get to develop your endgame.
You might know the top 200 published opening sequences like the back of your hand and you'll be able to play them over and over and over again. But you'll never get to play against Magnus Carlsen because by the time the game moves outside of the scope of the top 200 openings, your game falls apart. The point where the game truly gets interesting is the point where you put the pieces away? In higher level play, its actually disrespectful to your opponent if you quit playing the second the game starts not going your way. The point where you resign is the point where both players admit clearly that one or the other of them is clearly no longer up to the task of keeping the game interesting, which for a lot of pathfinder gms seems to happen pretty early.
The point where a gamer's or a gm's mettle is truly tested is the point where we just reset the board and start over? Its such crap.
I'm not saying it has to be 17th level all the time. 2e modules were written with a very narrow range. 'This module written for players level 5-7....'
I'm in an ROTRL path right now and I cant help feeling like I'd like it so much better if it were 'this adventure path is for characters level 17-20'... I'd be grinning ear to ear.
I can't help but feel like pathfinder has turned chess into checkers, and that most gms have lost their 'mettle'... And that's not saying new players have a lack of competence. Some lack the 'motivation'. Some lack the time. Some lack the focus 'its just too much work'... I lack none of that. I want my game to feel like a chess game against Magnus Carlsen, where you don't reset the board just as the game gets good. I hate that most of the time anymore just at the point where you really have a chance to show what separates you from the herd, its time to reset the board.
If the transition from 2e has suffered at all.... This is the way it has suffererd the most. IMHO.
We're all pretty happy so far with 'learning how the pieces work, and how to combine different tactics that work well together'... How to 'optimize' your use of the pieces and 'optimize' your strategy... But there's no endgame here. Once you've got your tools and your strategy, thats usually when the gm makes you roll up a new dude so you can do it all again.
Sure the game will be plently of fun for people who like to play checkers or play the same standard openings time and time and time again... But there's not many Magnus Carlsens here. And not many gms anyway who are interested in trying to become one. E6 or e12 will help you get 'better' at it.. Because once the carrot of chasing a new level goes away it forces you to think about the other ways to keep the players challenged and motivated... But every limit you set on the players also limits yourself, your own skill, and your own growth. You won't be 'capable' of keeping an e17 fun and interesting because you have no experience doing so. I'll still keep playing. I'll still be hanging out on the weekends with my friends, Exploring, adventuring, fighting.... I'll still have fun. The game can still be fun. But to me its a game of checkers then. Not a game of chess. For me that will always be 'less' fun.
|
Vincent and Orfamy, you guys should try to get hold of Age of Worms. My group made it to level 20 and still had five sessions of play until the ap was over. And that was when we still played 6 hour sessions.
Additionally, all the APs have sections for extending the campaign beyond the finish point. Unfortunately the GM has to do all the work here.
Also, if you can get hold of Dungeon mags, nearly all of them in the. Final 2 years had high level scenarios to run, including two epic level ones I remember. That may extend the game for you a bit.
As to levelling, I am a bit of both. I actually play to find out the plot and just have fun with my mates. I enjoy whatever character I'm playing, but there comes a point where levelling up needs to happen for me as well.
I never pre plan my characters. They tend to evolve organically with the campaign. I do look at feats ahead of time when a situation pops up I may need to tackle in future though. I also never multiclass. It seems abhorrent to me, which I can't explain. I certainly struggle to accept the multitude of multiclass adopted racial monster characters I see on the build threads. To me they're all about power with very little soul to them. Pure opinion though.
Cheers
Exactly... Its not that I don't think a whole adventure path that spanned 6 books where the level range stayed in the 5-7 wouldn't be very cool. The fun for me is definitely not the 'artificial thrill of progress' provided by leveling or fast leveling. I could happily spend a year at a level if the game is interesting and challenging. Conversely in the back of my mind though I always remember that if I never get to put level 17 to good use, whats the point of having it. If its an npc only level I'll freely admit that pushes my buttons.
I feel like those levels were written to be played, and I feel like I play them far less often than i'd like to. I spend far too much time stabbing goblins in the face. The most memorable parts of my history in gaming have never been the parts where I had 20 hit points and was surrounded by goblins with nothing but a dagger and my wits. Those memories are the ones that feel like checkers. I have one kind of piece and a half dozen strategies/options.
And I've taken each of those half dozen paths a half dozen hundred times. And just when I get to say 'King Me!' the other half of the table says they've gotta run, good game. See you next week, and puts away the pieces. Sure we had fun... Spent some time together. Hung out. Thats, you know... 70% of why I play... The other 30% though? I feel... Unfulfilled.... Unsatisfied...
I DEMAND THE SATISFACTION!
Back when I first started playing D&D, which was mostly done during clan rituals where we served brontosaurus burgers. . .
I agree with every word you wrote, and frequently feel the same way.
Vincent, et. al.: I think part of the difficulty is that published adventures can't assume anything about the PCs that will be taking part - their capabilities, intentions, or alignments. This isn't a problem at lower levels, as long as you assume that all PCs (a) lack any high level powers, (b) share a craving for money and power, and (c) are team players. Once you really get into the big leagues, though, it's almost impossible for a game designer to design a one-size-fits-all 'hook' (other than 'save the world') and take all possible character powers into account (a group who all have +30 to Stealth will have one approach; a group with a cleric who memorized etherealness a different one; and a group that rules the local kingdom will have a third).
Sadly, this means that the GM designing high-level stuff for his home campaign has so few 'examples' in front of him to work with him that he'll often either assume that solutions don't exist, or decide that working around the problems is too much trouble when he could just start a new, lower-level campaign and be back on familiar ground. A few resources do exist to guide GMs in this, but most of them have been out of print for years (the old Basic D&D 'Masters' box, or 2nd Edition's High-Level Campaining spring to mind.)
I like where you're going with this... The good news is pathfinder did significantly reel in the 'splatbook' nature of 3.0/3.5 so there are a lot less kinds of pieces on the board... I do think that at least in an adventure path, 6 books is more than enough scope to be able to fit in a challenge against every skill and every build. And only having a party of 4 might mean you have a solid group capable of handling nearly every scenario... Until your resources are drained and you come upon the one encounter thats designed to challenge a 17th level master summoner (the horde!). In fact to a certain extent it's actually easier NOT to write with an expectation of what the players will be... Just be mindful to challenge every possible build... Even easier as a gm because you don't have to challenge the crud you already know your players never play. Now you just know what class they've chosen, you get plenty of levels to figure out the direction they're going, so knowing their strengths and weaknesses should be double easy.
It would be a marvelous irony if the reason GM's threw in the towel at higher level campaigns is that 'challenging their players' has become 'too easy' because by then the builds and tactics are so predictable that it's become checkers instead of chess for the GM... I never HEAR the complaint presented that way, but it hillariously seems like a possibility... Even perhaps a likely possibility. Despite the ostensibly infinite combination of spells and feats and skills and builds, the GM invariably finds himself being challenged by the same silly combination time and time and time again... I'll call this one... Plausible!
I would disagree that the only plothook for a band of 17th level people has to be 'saving the world' all the time. Thats a pretty tiny box to be trapped in with an infinite variety of options available. In order not to ruin the playability of all the adventure paths I haven't played or ran yet, I don't know what each of their plots is... But are all of the adventure paths published designed to go from 1-20 with the goal being to 'save the world?' If thats the case then I have a bone to pick with the publishers. Or with players who can only be 'interested in following a plot' if that plot is 'I have to do it or else everybody dies'