2nd Edition APS....

[Grankless]

you guys are gonna freak out when you find out about narrative-based roleplaying games!

A common complaint even by d20 players is that people are usually too concerned with roleplay and not paying attention to runes. Your experiences are extremely not universal.

[The Raven Black]

W E Ray wrote:

PFRP Grognard wrote:

At the risk of generalizing, it seems that modern players seem more interested in their latest character build, leaving the "story" in which they are building their PC as secondary to whatever they have in their head. When the two don't meet, it's time to move on to the next one.

.

Rysky wrote:

(That) is NOT a modern phenomenon, it’s been around as long as Dungeons and Dragons has existed.

.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with Rysky, here, as my experience is far more tat of Brother Fen's.

In the 80s and especially in the 90s, gameplay in my various groups, including at game stores with the convention atmosphere, was so much more about the setting, the plot of the adventure, roleplaying and atmosphere -- and far below that was the character build.

Heck, 'character build' wasn't even a thing. It didn't exist. There just weren't Class Level options or variety. They hadn't been invented yet.

A Fighter went from one attack per round to one attack per three rounds after four levels. And five levels later two per round. That was IT. Your Whole character. Casters levelled so slowly, and there were so fewer spells that the game just didn't evolve as an exercise in levelling. And the Thief's 'Skills' would only go up a few percentage points here and there.

ALL the dynamic and creative additions to your PC were given by the DM in Homebrew Boons. All of them. For the entirety of your character's adventuring life. And they were ALL based on the roleplay you did IN that campaign as the story unfolded.

In the 80s it was more haphazard, make-it-up-as-you-go, and inconsistent based on DM whim and character death was more prevalent. In the 90s it was much more about the campaign setting and how one roleplayed his or her character.

....It was the horrible creation and introduction of Feats, and the damning change of the game to work on a battlemat, that ruined all that roleplay fun.

For 20 years now of playing this...

Does Stormwind Fallacy ring any bells ?

Also a better mechanical representation of my characters allows me to better dive into what makes them different from another Fighter for example.

[CorvusMask]

Can I just say it silly that ye are considering 2000s to be part of "modern era" so to speak and not example of "it has always been like that"? ;P

(also wouldn't main reason for lack of builds in 80s be because D&D started out as "roll character, they go to dungeon, they die instantly, roll new one"? :P)

[Grankless]

Yeah, honestly, if the hobby hadn't changed in 40 years, there would probably be some pretty major issues.

I'm also reminded of people who think that you "can't roleplay" in DnD4e, when that game had pretty robust non-combat rules and a crazy amount of roleplaying advice and tips.

[Mathmuse]

W E Ray wrote:

PFRP Grognard wrote:

At the risk of generalizing, it seems that modern players seem more interested in their latest character build, leaving the "story" in which they are building their PC as secondary to whatever they have in their head. When the two don't meet, it's time to move on to the next one.

Rysky wrote:

(That) is NOT a modern phenomenon, it’s been around as long as Dungeons and Dragons has existed.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with Rysky, here, as my experience is far more tat of Brother Fen's.

In the 80s and especially in the 90s, gameplay in my various groups, including at game stores with the convention atmosphere, was so much more about the setting, the plot of the adventure, roleplaying and atmosphere -- and far below that was the character build.

Heck, 'character build' wasn't even a thing. It didn't exist. There just weren't Class Level options or variety. They hadn't been invented yet.

My memory lies halfway inbetween Rysky's and W E Ray's recollections. In my college Dungeons & Dragons games, 1980-1984 AD, roleplaying was incidental. It was a combat game. A quest that involved a little roleplaying was the reason for the combat, but individual personalities and preferences did not matter unless some character was downright disruptive, such as a thief stealing from the party. Yet as W E Ray stated, builds did not really exist either. Some players multiclassed into overpowered combinations, such adding a rogue's backstab/sneak attack to a ranger's two-weapon fighting, but those were not viewed as builds.

For me, builds came with Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition in 2000 AD. Wizards of the Coast had simplified the game to use addition rather than tables and made feats freely available between classes. Number crunching mattered. A character no longer had to dip into ranger class for two-weapon fighting: they could take the Two_weapon Fighting feat instead. The modern idea of a build grew out of analyzing which feats and classes worked together.

W E Ray wrote:

... In the 80s it was more haphazard, make-it-up-as-you-go, and inconsistent based on DM whim and character death was more prevalent. In the 90s it was much more about the campaign setting and how one roleplayed his or her character.

....It was the horrible creation and introduction of Feats, and the damning change of the game to work on a battlemat, that ruined all that roleplay fun.

For 20 years now of playing this game, the characters are just Toons of techno-stats and Feat-Tree munchkins that don't need the campaign setting or story or plot or roleplay at all.

My players have mastered teamwork in combat through roleplaying. They force side quests by caring about the kind of details found in novels but usually left out of the modules. "Now that we saved Longshadow from the Ironfang Legion, how are we going to feed the city? The Ironfangs robbed the surrounding farms."--the side quest to reclaim the stolen food was our last two game sessions.

W E Ray wrote:

One doesn't roleplay a critical meeting with the town sage; no, instead one rolls a Skill check against a bland DC. One doesn't describe his combat maneuver with the greatsword; no, instead one robotically adds up numbers to add to a colorless d20 roll. One doesn't get creative with spell use in the encounter with the monster; no, instead one reads verbatim the rules of the spell from a book and counts squares on an unimaginative grid.

In my memories of a critical meeting with a sage in the early days of D&D the sage told us of trouble that we needed to address elsewhere. We players had nothing to contribute to the discussion.

For contrast, in my current Ironfang Invasion campaign a few months ago, the party went to the tower of the wizard Navah ...

Spoiler for Assault on Longshadow:

to request her help in defending Longshadow. Navah had recently had a horrific experience and was suffering from trauma and delusions. She would have attacked the party if provoked. The party, however, loves investigating with their Perception, Arcana, and Nature checks. They recognized the clues about the horrific event before encountering Navah herself. They approached Navah in a non-threatening manner, making Diplomacy rolls to ensure their words sounded calm. They cleaned up the debris in the tower and persuaded Navah to take a refreshing bath aided by her unseen servant.

I suspect that that was more roleplaying than a typical critical meeting with a sage, and this roleplaying incorporated skills.

W E Ray wrote:

In the 90s especially, one could play this game practically without dice. Just roleplay. For the past 20 years, players don't even need to attempt an investment in the story; they can just about what they're going to add to their character sheet next level -- and then the level after that.

Heck, groups even make game decisions based on Levelling-up! They decide to go into the woods to find a random encounter so they can make 6th Level before going back to the dungeon and fighting the Vampire.

So the party, just roleplaying without combat or dice rolls, goes to an audience with the king. How does anyone in the party notice without how one particular retainer looks over the party carefully before whispering in the king's ear? That is the king's spymaster and he assessed the party with his skills, but the party could just as easily interpret it as an evil advisor poisoning the king's mind. Does the GM tell the signs to all the party members or just to the more social ones? I myself would let the party be active and roll a Society check to interpret the spymaster's actions correctly or falsely.

My players do metagame a little bit and ask that their characters not level up in the middle of a combat that takes multiple game sessions, A level-up would complicate an already complex situation. Thus, if they are close to leveliing up, we prefer a small mission to trigger the level-up first. And then I make the upcoming combat more difficult to compensate.

But the only time they wanted to wait a level before tackling a challenge was in Lords of Rust, the 2nd module in the Iron Gods adventure path. I had hyped up the power of the gang named Lords of Rust too much, because I had described the Lords from the point of view of the low-level locals. The party wanted to avoid clashing with the Lords of Rust in a module where the main plotline was the clash with the Lords of Rust. Instead, they roleplayed making friends with the locals and helping the locals and finding ways to support themselves locally while gradually learning more about the Lords of Rust from second-hand sources. Finally, those filler encounters gave enough xp to level up and they could no longer put off the pressure from the Lords of Rust.

[Errant Mercenary]

W E Ray wrote:

...In the 90s especially, one could play this game practically without dice. Just roleplay. For the past 20 years, players don't even need to attempt an investment in the story; they can just about what they're going to add to their character sheet next level -- and then the level after that.

Heck, groups even make game decisions based on Levelling-up! They decide to go into the woods to find a random encounter so they can make 6th Level before going back to the dungeon and fighting the Vampire.

It sounds to me that you'd better be served with a different, less crunchy system. Pathfinder, and Dnd for many years, have been about being rules heavy and tactical.

Also, that last part, it sounds to me more like 80s dnd than current. The typical next level of the dungeon is too high so we need to go somewhere else to get something/buy something/level up.

I do agree that character death could be more normalised. I remember when I was young my elder friend telling me about how his dwarf fighter had died defending a bridge, with an arrow shot by an orc through his visor! We do play without ressurection at my table: but this is the key. Take out what you dont like.

Dont like the DC skill checks for diplomacy? Roleplay them. This system is as rules heavy as you make it be. However, it is going to be represented in APs as rule heavy, because that is what the product is.

Edit:
Just chiming in with the rest that most combats I've come accross 2e APs have been much better tuned and less of a mess than 1e! Plus points there.

[Davor Firetusk]

First it is worth pointing out that WE Ray never claimed that roll playing automatically excludes role-playing so Stormwind is not relevant. My older experience was largely home games, and my convention and public experience much more recent, but it matches the observations Ray made broadly. The settings in 2E D&D were pretty well detailed. I find that the choice to plant so many potential plot hooks in Paizo setting materials comes at the expense to a certain extent of completing thoughts and ideas. I enjoy the build aspect of characters, but I also recognize that I have changed on the role-playing front over the years and not for the better. I don't trust narrative heavy games not to be DM as God nonsense instead of legitimate story. Paizo adventures are very strong on story compared to a lot of older material, yet I often find the role-playing interactions to be highly truncated, and not based on character motivations.

[Grankless]

Most narrative games are player-driven in my experience. A player using a move in say, Monster of the Week is taking action and making things happen in the fiction. To do it, you do it.

[W E Ray]

Yeah, I should have done a better job reiterating that Brother Fen Did want to avoid generalizations. Of course there was Crunch in the 80s and 90s; of course we can play these days with heavy roleplay and less, um, 'insert-still-pejorative-euphemism-for-Crunch-here.'

And absolutely I agree that the game, overall, IS better now with everything streamlined, an attempt at balance, and more player control. I did not mean to come across as anti-modern gaming, or a 'Too' jaded Grognard (just 'a little' jaded).

But still, I almost wish that, I dunno, more players would do something like, ....play a whole campaign without levelling up even once -- like, decide on 8th Level or something and play the whole game just as that PC. ....Or something else that all the bells and whistles Away from Levelling Up so that the players would have to focus solely on the campaign.

[Deriven Firelion]

I didn't want to play that way back in the 80s and 90s when I first started not leveling up. Even in 2E we wrote up our own stuff to make things more fun.

Roll playing versus role-playing is more a matter of the type of people and group you play with than the game system.

[Logan Harper She/Her]

Removed on off topic comment.

[Kasoh]

W E Ray wrote:

But still, I almost wish that, I dunno, more players would do something like, ....play a whole campaign without levelling up even once -- like, decide on 8th Level or something and play the whole game just as that PC. ....Or something else that all the bells and whistles Away from Levelling Up so that the players would have to focus solely on the campaign.

That sounds like the worst experience ever.

[W E Ray]

Kasoh wrote:

That sounds like the worst experience ever.

.

LOL

.

Ah well.
In the past I've described it more like making a character in a novel -- like if you were building Conan or Driz'zt or Batman or something -- it's not as though Conan is Levelling-Up in all those novels. Or Driz'zt. A new talent or skill occasionally pops up but the thing that develops and grows is character. Personality. Humanity.

Hmm.
How about this, we've all built PCs just for a one-shot adventure when the gaming schedule gets weird for a particular weekend or something. That PC is never going to Level-Up -- and one-shots are fun. It's all about the adventure!

Some players have been very receptive to this idea over the years. Others, you know, more like Kasoh.

[W E Ray]

The Raven Black wrote:

Also a better mechanical representation of my characters allows me to better dive into what makes them different from another Fighter for example.

.

This is why I multi-Class, dipping into several Classes -- just to build something different from anything any of the players have ever seen.

[WWHsmackdown]

W E Ray wrote:

Kasoh wrote:

That sounds like the worst experience ever.

.

LOL

.

Ah well.
In the past I've described it more like making a character in a novel -- like if you were building Conan or Driz'zt or Batman or something -- it's not as though Conan is Levelling-Up in all those novels. Or Driz'zt. A new talent or skill occasionally pops up but the thing that develops and grows is character. Personality. Humanity.

Hmm.
How about this, we've all built PCs just for a one-shot adventure when the gaming schedule gets weird for a particular weekend or something. That PC is never going to Level-Up -- and one-shots are fun. It's all about the adventure!

Some players have been very receptive to this idea over the years. Others, you know, more like Kasoh.

One shots are fine. For something that's a long haul commitment, taking multiple sessions over many months, I'd require advancement of some kind in d&d or pathfinder. Otherwise, I'd want to play a game that wasn't built with advancement in mind. I'd want a narrative system

[The Raven Black]

W E Ray wrote:

Kasoh wrote:

That sounds like the worst experience ever.

.

LOL

.

Ah well.
In the past I've described it more like making a character in a novel -- like if you were building Conan or Driz'zt or Batman or something -- it's not as though Conan is Levelling-Up in all those novels. Or Driz'zt. A new talent or skill occasionally pops up but the thing that develops and grows is character. Personality. Humanity.

Hmm.
How about this, we've all built PCs just for a one-shot adventure when the gaming schedule gets weird for a particular weekend or something. That PC is never going to Level-Up -- and one-shots are fun. It's all about the adventure!

Some players have been very receptive to this idea over the years. Others, you know, more like Kasoh.

Again, leveling up, and even building for it, and developping your PC's personality can happen together. They are in no way opposed.

[Davor Firetusk]

I have yet to plunge into any of it, but Some of the E6 type changes to d20 seem like they support a flatter advancement scheme. Even back in 2E I'd pour over splatbooks and find all the fun kits, so it is clear that I was always intrigued by the build components. And certainly have spent many years gaming with almost no characters getting past early levels made getting to play at higher levels fun and interesting. But the design choice to keep emphasizing a new shiny thing at every level does pull cognitive effort in that direction. To a certain extent builds were already "on-line" at first level back in the day. You could get stuff and get more powerful, but it was a lot less work to figure out. And that pace change does open up different types of stories and settings.

[Yakman]

W E Ray wrote:

Kasoh wrote:

That sounds like the worst experience ever.

.

LOL

.

Ah well.
In the past I've described it more like making a character in a novel -- like if you were building Conan or Driz'zt or Batman or something -- it's not as though Conan is Levelling-Up in all those novels. Or Driz'zt. A new talent or skill occasionally pops up but the thing that develops and grows is character. Personality. Humanity.

Driz'zt and his companions clearly level up...

[The Raven Black]

So do Frodo and his friends.

[W E Ray]

Yakman wrote:

Driz'zt and his companions clearly level up.

.

Hmm, I don't want to start a whole new Thread, but I dunno.

Cattie Brie certainly levels up. But it feels more like from Level 1 to instant Level 10 or something, once in just the turning of a page to a new chapter.

Wulfgar goes from like, a Level 2 or 3 Barbarian to, after the chapter he trains with Driz'zt, to like a 12th Level Fighter in addition to his Barbarian.

Bruener, no, I don't see him Levelling-Up.

And Driz'zt, the only of whom I used as my example -- I don't think so. Maybe a bit in the prequel trilogy. But I think by the time Sojourn begins, he's pretty much the same even all the way to the 1,000 Orcs trilogy.

...In any case, even if my example isn't perfect, you get the point I was making.

.

More importantly, Raven Black's point is ABSOLUTELY important -- roleplay and roll'play do not at all have to be exclusive from each other.

[W E Ray]

The Raven Black wrote:

So do Frodo and his friends.

But not Strider or Legolas or Gimli.

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

RPGs aren't books/comics/movies. The laws that govern the former and entirely different from the "people level up when the author thinks it fits the story best and not everybody has to level up at the same time/rate" setup the latter operate under.

[The Raven Black]

W E Ray wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

So do Frodo and his friends.

But not Strider or Legolas or Gimli.

Which is why they got separated ;-)

[Deriven Firelion]

W E Ray wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

So do Frodo and his friends.

But not Strider or Legolas or Gimli.

Strider was already level 20 as was Legolas. Strider was ancient even for his race and the greatest ranger of his time. Legolas was at least 500 years old.

Gimli might have leveled up. Who can tell with a martial. They keep swinging their weapon.

[Dragonchess Player]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

W E Ray wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

So do Frodo and his friends.

But not Strider or Legolas or Gimli.

Strider was already level 20 as was Legolas. Strider was ancient even for his race and the greatest ranger of his time. Legolas was at least 500 years old.

Gimli might have leveled up. Who can tell with a martial. They keep swinging their weapon.

<sigh>

Please read Calibrating Your Expectations for 3.x D&D regarding how most characters in the Lord of the Rings, as written, do not require more than 4 to 6 levels to do what is described in the novels. See also some PF1 conversions I did for the Fellowship a while back (along with an estimate of how they could have advanced).

The trickiest "conversion" would probably be for Gandalf, because he likely gains at least some of his "magic spells" from being a maiar (outsider, probably with racial HD and special abilities), plus Narya (basically an artifact; possibly the source of his mastery of fire magic) and his staff. In the first thread from 2015, it was speculated that the balrog of Moria could be represented using the PF1 vrock (CR 9) mechanics in a world using a level cap of 6 (maybe 8 for the elves) and still be as "impossible" to kill by anyone except another outsider (which Gandalf was) or possibly one of the most powerful of elves (but not with a good chance of success); so if Gandalf were an outsider with racial HD and 6 levels of sorcerer (totaling CR 9*), a fight against a CR 9 "balrog" (vrock) would be a mostly even match.

The point is that 20th level characters are effectively/almost demigods compared to the "mostly human" depictions of the Fellowship in the Lord of the Rings.

*- to include having higher than normal wealth/more powerful magic items (Narya, his staff, and Glamdring)

[Deriven Firelion]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

W E Ray wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

So do Frodo and his friends.

But not Strider or Legolas or Gimli.

Strider was already level 20 as was Legolas. Strider was ancient even for his race and the greatest ranger of his time. Legolas was at least 500 years old.

Gimli might have leveled up. Who can tell with a martial. They keep swinging their weapon.

<sigh>

Please read Calibrating Your Expectations for 3.x D&D regarding how most characters in the Lord of the Rings, as written, do not require more than 4 to 6 levels to do what is described in the novels. See also some PF1 conversions I did for the Fellowship a while back (along with an estimate of how they could have advanced).

The trickiest "conversion" would probably be for Gandalf, because he likely gains at least some of his "magic spells" from being a maiar (outsider, probably with racial HD and special abilities), plus Narya (basically an artifact; possibly the source of his mastery of fire magic) and his staff. In the first thread from 2015, it was speculated that the balrog of Moria could be represented using the PF1 vrock (CR 9) mechanics in a world using a level cap of 6 (maybe 8 for the elves) and still be as "impossible" to kill by anyone except another outsider (which Gandalf was) or possibly one of the most powerful of elves (but not with a good chance of success); so if Gandalf were an outsider with racial HD and 6 levels of sorcerer (totaling CR 9*), a fight against a CR 9 "balrog" (vrock) would be a mostly even match.

The point is that 20th level characters are effectively/almost demigods compared to the "mostly human" depictions of the Fellowship in the Lord of the Rings.

*- to...

Why would I read that?

In the context of the game world, Aragorn was the highest possible level for whatever class he was and it was indicated as such in the text.

So was Gandalf.

Legolas likely wasn't, but elves are exceedingly powerful in the Lord of the Rings world and long-lived.

Reading someone break down the norms for PF1 or any version of D&D in comparison is a waste of time. The Lord of the Rings world has very different norms, but within those norms if transferred to a level based game then Aragorn and Gandalf are at the very highest spectrum of power within the world.

Legolas and Gimli would both be considered highly skilled warriors near and likely above the middle level of power of the world and probably in the upper echelon having gained more than a few levels during the course of the adventure.

The hobbits started off low level and had the most xp gain if framed within the context of a level based game system.

It's very easy for anyone to see that PF1, 3E, and any version of D&D would not mirror The Lord of the Rings world at all. You would have to design a game system based entirely on their norms including power levels.

So trying to make ludicrous claims that the Aragorn or Gandalf are level 4 to 6 is ridiculous.

Rather if you took them from Lord of the Rings world and norms and put them in a PF1, PF2, or D&D type world, then Aragorn would have the capabilities of level 20 plus ranger and Gandalf would be some angelic wizard/druid of immense power easily on par with nearly any caster to ever exist in a D&D world.

Any analysis of Aragorn and Gandalf should be done with the descriptive text of who they are and not what they did compared to the rules of the game system you are analyzing. Aragorn is the greatest ranger of his age which spans over a thousand years. Gandalf has literally walked the world for centuries as one of the greatest wizards to ever live.

You take the idea of who they are and give them the capabilities of what that means in a given game system. Not take PF1 and pretend that a lvl 20 PF ranger is somehow better than Aragorn. They wouldn't be and never will be. Aragorn is the greatest ranger of his age, period. If he's in Golarion using the PF rules, that means he's a level 20 plus mythic ranger.

[The Raven Black]

Which is interesting seeing how heavily DnD influenced those video games.

Note that some people, like myself, are not at all interested in video RPGs but still enjoy building a character, planning their mechanical evolution in advance and savouring the new abilities and higher power that come with advancement.

[Fumarole]

If the fellowship levels up, it happens here.

[Kasoh]

I feel like this is relevant to the Lord of the Rings discussion:

DM of the Rings.

[Dragonchess Player]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Strider was already level 20 as was Legolas. Strider was ancient even for his race and the greatest ranger of his time. Legolas was at least 500 years old.

Gimli might have leveled up. Who can tell with a martial. They keep swinging their weapon.

<sigh>

Please read Calibrating Your Expectations for 3.x D&D regarding how most characters in the Lord of the Rings, as written, do not require more than 4 to 6 levels to do what is described in the novels.

Why would I read that?

Maybe because you completely missed the entire point of the argument? Literary characters should be modeled in game mechanics only by what abilities are shown, instead of trying to justify "heroic" or "great ability" as 20th level because that is the "maximum" in a game system.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

In the context of the game world, Aragorn was the highest possible level for whatever class he was and it was indicated as such in the text.

So was Gandalf.

And if the "game world" of Middle Earth has a level cap of 6 (such as by using E6), then a 6th level version of Aragorn is the highest possible level. And can still do everything that the novels say he did.

Similarly, the literary Gandalf does not need more than 6 character levels on top of an unknown number of racial HD as an outsider to do what he is described as doing. With a level cap of 6 he is still the "greatest" he can be in Middle Earth.

The entire point, which you either failed to grasp or are just ignoring, is that a level cap in Middle Earth actually reduces the discrepancies between the literary characters and the adaptation to game rules. If the assumption is that people in the novels are mostly within the bounds of or at most slightly more capable than Olympic athletes and other real world equivalents, you no longer have to jump through hoops (such as inflating the "common orcs" to 10th or 15th level) to explain why a 20th level ranger version of Aragorn isn't soloing the the entire orc band encountered in the Chamber of Marbuzal or killing the troll. Or why a 20th level "wizard" (even though he has no spell book) version of Gandalf doesn't just cast greater teleport to take the Fellowship (other than Merry and Pippin) to Mount Doom; or a Maximized freezing sphere on the balrog; or meteor swarm on the Witch King; etc.

Note that this is an argument that goes the other way when people say you can't model the Amber novels with the various flavors of D&D because a "1st level" Prince/Princess of Amber is too weak, instead of just starting an Amber campaign at higher level (6th-10th, depending on how experienced/powerful your tastes are).

TL/DR, treat the rules as a toolkit and not a straitjacket.

[Kasoh]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Maybe because you completely missed the entire point of the argument?

I mean, its a nonsense argument to begin with.

Middle Earth is not Dungeons & Dragons or Pathfinder. There is no correlation between what a character in a novel can do and what a player character can do because a novel character can do anything the author wants them to do and a player character is restricted by the rules of the system.

Its as pointless as asking who can beat Superman. Because the answer depends on whoever is writing it.

What level is Aragorn? He doesn't have levels. If he had levels, there could have been a chance for failure.

[TOZ]

W E Ray wrote:

(but take that as a rhetorical question -- I don't really care about your answer.)

What a perfect summation of everything you say.

[TriOmegaZero]

I must have missed when the fun part was. Maybe before people started calling the APs boring?

[PossibleCabbage]

I think the 2e APs might be starting to hit their stride. Age of Ashes was sort of a mandated "tour of the setting for new players" thing and had balancing issues because it was developed in parallel to the rules. Extinction Curse sort of lost me when it forgot it was about a circus later on. Agents of Edgewatch I don't really want anything to do with. Abomination Vaults isn't really my thing.

But Ruby Phoenix was a great time, and everything I've seen about Strength of Thousands so far is superlative.

[keftiu]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the 2e APs might be starting to hit their stride. Age of Ashes was sort of a mandated "tour of the setting for new players" thing and had balancing issues because it was developed in parallel to the rules. Extinction Curse sort of lost me when it forgot it was about a circus later on. Agents of Edgewatch I don't really want anything to do with. Abomination Vaults isn't really my thing.

But Ruby Phoenix was a great time, and everything I've seen about Strength of Thousands so far is superlative.

Agreed. And all three of this year’s APs are things I’m excited about. Outlaws of Alkenstar especially sounds like a home run.

[W E Ray]

And I'm All In for Blood Lords -- it sounds great!

[Deriven Firelion]

The Raven Black wrote:

Which is interesting seeing how heavily DnD influenced those video games.

Note that some people, like myself, are not at all interested in video RPGs but still enjoy building a character, planning their mechanical evolution in advance and savouring the new abilities and higher power that come with advancement.

My players did too prior to video games.

It was after video games they thought of it as tanks and healers and damage dealers. They never used to asked, "Who's playing the tank? Who's playing the healer?" Stuff like that.

And they used to read a lot more fantasy books. Now they're more interested in new video games coming out.

I'm not much into video games either except fantasy MMORPGs or a good D&D video game like Baldur's Gate.

Everquest and MMORPGs were influenced by D&D. They are more rigid and mathematically built, so the roles tend to be very hardwired into the game. Such roles were never hardwired into D&D. You played whatever wanted early on in D&D and the party was usually able to survive.

[Deriven Firelion]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Strider was already level 20 as was Legolas. Strider was ancient even for his race and the greatest ranger of his time. Legolas was at least 500 years old.

Gimli might have leveled up. Who can tell with a martial. They keep swinging their weapon.

<sigh>

Please read Calibrating Your Expectations for 3.x D&D regarding how most characters in the Lord of the Rings, as written, do not require more than 4 to 6 levels to do what is described in the novels.

Why would I read that?

Maybe because you completely missed the entire point of the argument? Literary characters should be modeled in game mechanics only by what abilities are shown, instead of trying to justify "heroic" or "great ability" as 20th level because that is the "maximum" in a game system.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

In the context of the game world, Aragorn was the highest possible level for whatever class he was and it was indicated as such in the text.

So was Gandalf.

And if the "game world" of Middle Earth has a level cap of 6 (such as by using E6), then a 6th level version of Aragorn is the highest possible level. And can still do everything that the novels say he did.

Similarly, the literary Gandalf does not need more than 6 character levels on top of an unknown number of racial HD as an outsider to do what he is described as doing. With a level cap of 6 he is still the "greatest" he can be in Middle Earth.

The entire point, which you either failed to grasp or are just ignoring, is that a level cap in Middle Earth actually reduces the discrepancies between the literary characters and the adaptation to game rules. If the assumption is that people in the novels are mostly within the bounds of or at most...

I don't agree. Literary characters should be modeled on what they are in the game world, not on what they do in a book with very limited mechanical inferences and transported into a generic high fantasy game that has drawn from numerous literary sources for its abilities and somehow changed into some 4th to 6th level mockery that would not even rate notice in the game world in question when in the literary world they are drawn from they are the greatest heroes of their age.

It's that simple. I have never agreed when I've seen this argument made. I think it's weak argument and misses the entire point of who those characters are and how you would build them if you transferred them to a higher powered system than Lord of the Rings.