I would certainly ideally like to run campaigns that go on for long enough to cover a wide range of the zero-to-legend span
Yeah. I would in theory, but I've more naturally gravitated to intermediate lengths. Fortunately those are a lot more practical given my time availability :)
I am unconvinced 3.5 actually works in the last quarter or so of that range. Then again, I am not aware of anything that really does that better.
Yeah, 3.5e high levels are definitely a bit rough, but I don't know what you'd do instead. I can't think of any games I've heard of that even attempt something in that space. And it's naturally hard to have anything which (a) ties into the same mechanics used at lower levels and also (b) gives a feel of properly mythic characters, the archmages and warrior-kings.
I think part of the problem is that some people's idea of that level of attainment is normal humans who are just absolutely world class, but living in the same genre of film as they did at 1st level. And others is, obviously you can achieve superhuman hercules munchausen like feats of wuxia at that point, there's no point quibbling with what's realistic. And other people imagine something else, e.g. that you're literally demi-gods or otherwise have some specific world-buidling process behind being so awesome. And DnD tries to straddle all of those, which means you can end up without a clear idea of what you're imagining when, e.g. someone shrugs off a cannon-ball to the face. Is it "just a graze"? Are they unbelievably lucky and good at dodging? Or does it literally just bounce off?
So you have to make sure everyone's playing with the same interpretation in their head or it won't make sense. And you constantly run into questions like, "ok, NOW are we stretching the analogy of what hit points 'are'" and "so I'm the best wizard in the world but I can do this specific list of things, where's the, you know, original research?"
no subject
Date: 2019-01-28 04:12 pm (UTC)Yeah. I would in theory, but I've more naturally gravitated to intermediate lengths. Fortunately those are a lot more practical given my time availability :)
I am unconvinced 3.5 actually works in the last quarter or so of that range. Then again, I am not aware of anything that really does that better.
Yeah, 3.5e high levels are definitely a bit rough, but I don't know what you'd do instead. I can't think of any games I've heard of that even attempt something in that space. And it's naturally hard to have anything which (a) ties into the same mechanics used at lower levels and also (b) gives a feel of properly mythic characters, the archmages and warrior-kings.
I think part of the problem is that some people's idea of that level of attainment is normal humans who are just absolutely world class, but living in the same genre of film as they did at 1st level. And others is, obviously you can achieve superhuman hercules munchausen like feats of wuxia at that point, there's no point quibbling with what's realistic. And other people imagine something else, e.g. that you're literally demi-gods or otherwise have some specific world-buidling process behind being so awesome. And DnD tries to straddle all of those, which means you can end up without a clear idea of what you're imagining when, e.g. someone shrugs off a cannon-ball to the face. Is it "just a graze"? Are they unbelievably lucky and good at dodging? Or does it literally just bounce off?
So you have to make sure everyone's playing with the same interpretation in their head or it won't make sense. And you constantly run into questions like, "ok, NOW are we stretching the analogy of what hit points 'are'" and "so I'm the best wizard in the world but I can do this specific list of things, where's the, you know, original research?"