mr-frog@sdamos.UUCP (Dave Pare) (11/01/84)
: > Game balance consists of more than taking 4th level monsters, multiplying > their hit points by a factor of 10, giving them rings of wizardry and calling > the result 20th level. Indeed it does, indeed it does. Please, sir, credit us with a bit more imagination than that... > Oh, this is a pet peeve of mine. If you play against Ghods in your campaign > then you are farther gone than I thought...long down the road of Munchkinism. Racial epithets!!! Not under my aegis! Oh yes, how come you consistently mis-spell "God"? So, on one hand you are against the idea of making deities more powerful, and on the other hand you say that PC's shouldn't even be able to fight against them. Don't you see even a teensy contradiction there? Look, dude, Gods must exist, right? And since you don't seem to favor running characters over fifth level, then you wouldn't have any idea how rough (in real terms) a deity should be to easily annihilate a given 20th level character. What chenr was saying was that (now *listen* for once) the deities in the book were pushovers. For 20th level characters. He was advocating making them a *lot* more powerful, so that 20th level characters would avoid encounters with the much more powerful deities. Unless you live in the world of Arbitraria, where the DM's Word Is Law and Nobody Knows How the World Works, Gods have specifically delineated powers. Note that doesn't mean that they are well known powers, just that they are arranged logically and not on the spur of the moment to crush hapless characters (one of *my* pet peeves). > At some level, having ultimate power becomes boring, until the DM > throws another pasted-together ultra-powerful monster against you. Wrong! You lose big-time! Perhaps in *your* world, 20th level NPC's (obviously you can't, er, don't DM 20th level PC's) are the cat's meow. In our world that is not the case. There are a number of people who are 20th; player characters and NPC's too. While there aren't lots of them, they exist and challenge free-wheeling PC's who meteor swarm farmhouses. > I don't think it is particularly more fun to choose between 10 > spells than between 3. In fact, it is probably more fun to try and figure > out how to use a small set of spells to best advantage... AHA! So, as I thought, you've never run a high level character! How the hell would you know *anything* about running one then? It's something you must experience; imagination doesn't cut it. High level spells are awesome to behold, and the realization that you could dust a few thousand people with just a few spells is really a power trip. However, just because you have nasty spells against low level scum doesn't mean that you can easily smack the high level types. Creativity also enters here, since new-and-different spells (which attempt to get around protections) are the life blood of a high level spellcaster. My characters alone must have researched over 30 spells, which range in level from second to ninth. > Two, the capabilities of what you run up against are the fiat of the DM, and > they are no more unpredictable at high-level than at low-level. In fact, they > are probably more predictable at high-level, since you can be fairly certain > that they are going to be tough. MASSIVE MINUS POINTS!!! Let's examine what you said again, just to make you look silly. "they are more predictable...since you can be fairly certain that they are going to be tough". That sounds like a waffle if I've ever heard one! They are more predictable because you know they'll be tough, eh? So now if you're tough you'll also be predictable. Even if nobody knows what you've got and what powers you have, they know (by god) that you are tough, so you're now predictable. Verrrrry interesting... Sigh. Since your opposition (which, more likely than not) will probably be other human(oid) types, they'll have spells and abilities and items which are as varying and as different as the PC's. There will be demons, extra-planar creatures, devils, etc. whose abilities will only be hinted at. It's just another level of play; not better, or worse, just different. *I* happen to like it better, since the characters I play at that level I know best of all (since I've had them the longest). Some I've had for eight years now. > It's easy to balance a 20th-level campaign, just look in your handy-dandy > G,DG&H. And then throw in a staff of wizardry. You BOZO! The Gods from there are too pathetic even with a staff of wizardry! And that was not a bona fide suggestion, that was a cheap shot. > That's one of the misleading things about a high-level campaign... I know, you're just *so* experienced in that field... > You get a character up to 30th level and think "hey, I'm hot shit now!" > So you go out and trash a town and the DM turns around and clobbers you > with Wizard X, a 40th level who just happened to be around. You OUGHT to > be able to get away with running wild when you are that powerful! If the DM clobbered you with Wizard X, perhaps Wizard X managed to collect 10,000 GP worth of taxes each month from that city you trashed. Perhaps Wizard X was king of a large area and had a vested interest in keeping his populace safe and protected. Agreed, if the DM just pops up these things to control characters, that's a flagrent violation of the "non-arbitrariness code", but, that sort of thing doesn't happen (or at least doesn't happen twice) in our world or any other world that is reasonably run. > Again, teamwork is independent of level. In fact, it is probably more > necessary in a low-level game where individual characters have fewer escape > routes and less in the way of resurrection resources. Oh, you're probably right. If we're just talking about survival. However, to be successful, teamwork is just as necessary as when you're fourth. > All in all, I don't think you've presented much of an argument for high-level > campaigns. What you've argued for is a set-em-up/knock-em-down campaign, > where every week you can be assured that the DM has thought up some new > monster for you to try and take. That's a fun kind of gaming...but it isn't > the best kind. Oho, so now there is a "best kind" of gaming that everyone should run, huh? Reminds me of one E. Gary Gygax... It's obvious that you have no experience whatsoever in running or running in high level games, yet you sit in judgement of our method of play, and call yours "better". I think that's crass. SAIL HO! Dave Pare