srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (11/06/84)
Well, I'm going to try and clear up my position on high-level games, in
response to Dave Pare's recent message. I will not resort to calling Mr.
Pare a "Bozo" or telling him that he gets "Massive Minus Points". Not that
I wasn't tempted :-). Just seems like a poor sort of argument. Oh, and I
have played plenty of high-level characters, both as a player and as a DM
(though more often as a DM) and I eventually came around to low-level play.
First of all, the spelling Ghods is an old fanzine trick to avoid confusing
the fictional gods with possible real life entities, thus avoiding offending
people. Particularly useful when your fictional world has a Christian deity
who isn't exactly like the real world one (if there is one).
Secondly, the whole issue of high-level vs. low-level has been discussed in
great (I'm tempted to say excruciating) detail before, in forums like A&E.
Each side has its merits, and each side its faults, and no one "wins" the
argument.
Third, let me explain my comments about fighting Ghods and why that is
munchkinism.
My feeling is that Ghods should be portrayed on a different level from normal
characters. Ghods are SUPERnatural, not natural, and should be portrayed that
way. To assign Ghods hit points and magic spells is to make them mundane,
and that is, I think, a major mistake.
After all, what does it mean to kill a Ghod? The concept simply doesn't
apply. Of course EGG and the other eggheads at TSR got themselves into this
bind and slipped out a back door. They claimed that the Ghods in G,DG & H
were just "avatars" of the real Ghods. But that just begs the question...
Ghods traditionally have great power over the natural plane. Why should they
manifest themselves as an avatar that can be beaten? No reason at all.
Let me slip back to my Flatland analogy. Suppose your FRP universe is
represented on a flat piece of paper, and a particularly tough character as
a tangled mass of lines. A Ghod doesn't have to be *tough* - in game terms -
to wipe out your character. Ghod is three dimensional, and he simply has
to pick up an eraser and "erase" you out of existence. So the question of
conflict never comes up. Ghods, after all, are GHODs!
And sure, this means a GM can ruthlessly crush your pet character anytime
he wants to simply by having a Ghod will it. I don't think that's right,
either. A good GM won't do that so casually, because he'll be roleplaying
the pantheon of Ghods, the Ghod himself and so on. It will only happen if
you really deserve (you destroy his main temple, for instance). If you have
a DM who abuses this privilege, simply quit playing with him. He'll get
the message.
Fourth, getting back to point two, let me approach this argument by saying
what I think is good about low-level play.
1. Low-level play encourages role-playing. Low-level characters have fewer
resources available to them, and are less likely to play as a collection of
powers rather than a real persona. Of course, a good role-player will do
well in either situation, but the low-level game encourages better
role-playing.
2. Low-level characters have more advancement to look forward to. All
denials to the contrary, every game system has a point past which it fails to
work. AD&D craps out around 20th level (witness ED&D, if that has come out),
RQ! is getting Heroquests tacked on, and so on. The closer you play to this
natural limit, the less your characters can advance before things get silly.
3. Low-level games are more "realistic", both in comparison to real life and
in comparison to fantasy. How long does it take to become an expert in
anything in real life? Many, many years. Yet I doubt that most high-level
characters in play have been around for more than 5 years. As someone pointed
out, D&D has only been around 10 years (actually, its been a bit longer - I
played a pre-publication version around 12 years ago). How did they get to
be high-level so quickly? They played in a campaign where treasure troves
were over-inflated. It is hard enough to rationalize dungeons at all, much
less ones that are packed to overflowing with goodies. No doubt this
particular argument is going to get a lot of flak, because everyone has their
own idea of what realistic is. But I think that a comparison between
campaigns and fiction would show low-level campaigns to be much closer to the
fiction ideal.
4. Low-level games are more interesting. Again, in comparison to fantasy
fiction, we see that the "classic" works of fiction all focus on weak
characters, and not on high-level duels. Frodo is the main character in LOTR,
not Gandalf. And remember "Gandalf was a 4th Level MU"? In the Wizard
of Earthsea series, Ged was more interesting as a boy than as a grown man.
Even as a powerful wizard, he didn't overcome his trials by using his magic.
He tried as hard as he could to find his strength from his character, not
from his abilities. Fantasies that feature all-powerful characters are much
more one-dimensional: Conan, Elric, Saturday morning cartoons.
5. Low-level games allow a better continuation of action. If a new character
enters a low-level campaign, he is weaker than the other characters, but not
so much so that he is useless. He can contribute in a meaningful way. A
new character in a high-level campaign usually "walks along" on several runs
until he has gained enough ep to be useful.
6. Low-level games allow the characters a wider selection of game-level
goals. As a low-level character, you can aspire to be anything. If you want
to be a innkeeper, for instance, that is acceptable. In a high-level game,
you are forced to continue adventuring to keep pace with the others.
So, I look forward to hearing what you find good about high-level games. I
hope you ignore criteria that are independent of the game level, such as
creativity of the GM. I'll probably think of other reasons why I like low
level games, which I'll eventually post if this discussion continues.
Scott R. Turner
UCLA Computer Science Department
3531 Boelter Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90024
ARPA: srt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA
UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srtchenr@tilt.FUN (The 1200 baud hacker) (11/08/84)
> First of all, the spelling Ghods is an old fanzine trick to avoid confusing > the fictional gods with possible real life entities, thus avoiding offending > people. Particularly useful when your fictional world has a Christian deity > who isn't exactly like the real world one (if there is one). This is net.games.frp. If somebody gets upset because I spell God God, that's their problem. If you can't stand the heat, move to net.religion:-). > Secondly, the whole issue of high-level vs. low-level has been discussed in > great (I'm tempted to say excruciating) detail before, in forums like A&E. > Each side has its merits, and each side its faults, and no one "wins" the > argument. Agreed. It's having fun that counts. > Third, let me explain my comments about fighting Ghods and why that is > munchkinism. > > My feeling is that Ghods should be portrayed on a different level from normal > characters. Ghods are SUPERnatural, not natural, and should be portrayed that > way. And magic isn't supernatural? Somebody want to tell me what's natural about summoning up a Type V demon to cook breakfast? > To assign Ghods hit points and magic spells is to make them mundane, > and that is, I think, a major mistake. > After all, what does it mean to kill a Ghod? The concept simply doesn't > apply. Of course EGG and the other eggheads at TSR got themselves into this > bind and slipped out a back door. They claimed that the Ghods in G,DG & H > were just "avatars" of the real Ghods. But that just begs the question... > Ghods traditionally have great power over the natural plane. Why should they > manifest themselves as an avatar that can be beaten? No reason at all. Plenty of reasons. Some gods might have more power on the Prime Material Plane (due to say, more worshippers, say) and thus be able to manifest more power. As a matter of fact, since you like citing fiction so much, there is a lot of precedent for defeating avatars of not-so-powerful gods. Being a god doesn't mean that one is all-powerful everywhere, or even on the Prime Material Plane. There should be rules and power limitations even for gods and in most mythos there are. > Let me slip back to my Flatland analogy. Suppose your FRP universe is > represented on a flat piece of paper, and a particularly tough character as > a tangled mass of lines. A Ghod doesn't have to be *tough* - in game terms - > to wipe out your character. Ghod is three dimensional, and he simply has > to pick up an eraser and "erase" you out of existence. So the question of > conflict never comes up. Ghods, after all, are GHODs! Personally, I think this is a lousy analogy and a lousy interpretation. For one thing, it doesn't answer the question of WHY gods would want or even care about being worshipped nor why gods can have a differing amount of apparent power. -- Hey, a deck of cards. Blackjack, anybody? Ray Chen princeton!tilt!chenr
west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (11/09/84)
<>
One thing that can be done in high level campaigns that can't be done in low
level campaigns is playing politics. In every campaign I have played in, we
have pretty well ignored dungeons and hit the political scene fairly quickly.
Unfortunately, if you are low-level, there is a strong limit as to how
successful you can be. If you are too successful, the baddies will get worried
and wipe you out, no saving throw. Basically, if you're low level, you had
better stick to municipal politics, and if you make too much noise there, then
you're going to get the baron (or whatever) to trash you, if you don't follow
what he says, and so on up the ladder. Basically being low-level means that
you MUST temper your successes.
This gets REALLY aggravating. If you see massive injustice, and don't have
ANY means of combatting it, unrest begins to grow.
One thing mentioned in a previous article was that the 'Ghods' (sic) could
trash anyone at any time, and might if someone trashed a temple. Why do these
Ghods not run the whole story? If they are all powerful, then why DON'T they
wipe out anyone bothering any of their worshippers? If they are omnipotent,
why do they let all their followers get trashed by the evils, etc? In the
campaign that I DM, the Gods have NO power to intervene directly, but only
direct mankind to their goals through their clerics (who they talk with on
a fairly regular basis after reasonable (9+) level). I have yet to see a
power group ANYWHERE that wanted something done badly that didn't exercise
their full power to get it. The entire idea of a quest for the church is
silly if the Ghod can do what is necessary any time it wants.
Perhaps I over-react, but I always get a feeling of futility when there is
a group that is fully capable of exterminating me at ANY time, be it high-level
types when I'm low level, or Ghods. The idea that I exist at their sufferance,
and that if I'm too successful, they will destroy me isn't one I particularily
enjoy. At least when one plays a high level campaign, if the nasties burn a
wish or four to locate you, despite the wishes you used to hide yourself, and
they teleport in, you still have some chance (and thus they're not going risk
their lives if there's a significant chance that they'll die). Of course, if
it's do or die, then it's an all out battle, but I don't want to die because
some evil somewhere just decided that someday we might be a menace.
Tom (15th level and counting) West
{ allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!westhawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick) (11/15/84)
>> Let me slip back to my Flatland analogy. Suppose your FRP universe is >> represented on a flat piece of paper, and a particularly tough character as >> a tangled mass of lines. A Ghod doesn't have to be *tough* - in game terms - >> to wipe out your character. Ghod is three dimensional, and he simply has >> to pick up an eraser and "erase" you out of existence. So the question of >> conflict never comes up. Ghods, after all, are GHODs! > >Personally, I think this is a lousy analogy and a lousy interpretation. >For one thing, it doesn't answer the question of WHY gods would want or even >care about being worshipped nor why gods can have a differing amount of >apparent power. Hey, that's easy. Their power is proportional to sin theta, where theta is smallest the angle at which their extra dimension intersects the first two! rick