| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
 Posted - 21 Jan 2014 : 21:43:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Here we go - I was looking for some map references in an old Elminster's Ecologies booklet (on Thar) and remembered that I had wanted to post the descriptions of the narrators as ideal examples for our iconics. Rather then do them all, here's just the one from Thar:
quote:
Talyssa Strongbow is a ranger who has traveled extensively throughout the Forgotten Realms. A sailor on the Moonsea, an adventurer in the Reaching Woods and the Forest of Wyrms, and a mercenary scout who fought against the hordes of Dragonspear, she has most recently made her living as a guide in the Great Gray Land of Thar. Talyssa is a flinty, somewhat grim woman who nonetheless shows deep human feelings when she is of a mind.
Thats the kind of simple write-up for a low-lev 'adveturer type' I think we are looking for here. Too bad some of you are against porting them over to 5eFR - they are just what we need. 
That's the type.
Well, porting them over is ... weird since it's well over a century since these NPCs were first described. Most characters, even many demihumans, would be well past their prime.
Fortunately, it's not like new NPCs can't be created. I don't see why we HAVE to port over people, especially given the century jump. |
 |
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2014 : 22:12:09
|
And again: there are simple write ups like these all throughout the 4E Realms.
But more to the point: the well of great Realms NPCs does not dry up.The advance of time in the setting is no barrier to creating great NPCs. On the contrary, it's precisely because time advances that we get more NPCs of the Realms.
That, and it's not like you can't swap out an old name for a new one and tweak the write up. There are lots of ways to do this. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2014 : 22:24:18
|
I don't mean epic as level 20, 25, 30, or whatever. I mean epic as in movers and shakers of the world, the planes, and that whole thing. What level that means really varies a lot. I don't see what's the deal there. I think most people who have a negative impression from the movers and shakers of the Realms do so because of presentation, especially in novels, and because of them being featured pretty much everywhere, not because of their 30th caster level, +33 base attack, or impressive skill bonuses and spell selections. Most NPC character sheets aren't even built for power, most players could match them with far less levels on their pockets. They're built to provide a simulation of the character's abilities within the scope of the game, and of course, with different editions the numbers change.
Point: The problem with Elminster's character sheet in the 3e FRCS isn't that he was 35th level. It's that it was there in the first place, and right in the first few pages, when it probably should be in a splatbook or article. |
Never sleep under the jackfruit tree.
Tales of Moonsea - A Neverwinter Nights 2 Persistent World. Check out our website at http://www.talesofmoonsea.com and our video trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am304WqOAAo&feature=youtu.be, as well as our thread here at Candlekeep: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12955
My campaign thread: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16447 |
Edited by - Mapolq on 21 Jan 2014 22:25:13 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36996 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2014 : 23:48:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
I don't mean epic as level 20, 25, 30, or whatever. I mean epic as in movers and shakers of the world, the planes, and that whole thing. What level that means really varies a lot. I don't see what's the deal there. I think most people who have a negative impression from the movers and shakers of the Realms do so because of presentation, especially in novels, and because of them being featured pretty much everywhere, not because of their 30th caster level, +33 base attack, or impressive skill bonuses and spell selections. Most NPC character sheets aren't even built for power, most players could match them with far less levels on their pockets. They're built to provide a simulation of the character's abilities within the scope of the game, and of course, with different editions the numbers change.
Point: The problem with Elminster's character sheet in the 3e FRCS isn't that he was 35th level. It's that it was there in the first place, and right in the first few pages, when it probably should be in a splatbook or article.
The issue for a lot of people is that they look and see some 20+ level wizard, with a reputation for popping around everywhere and fixing things, and they think, "Okay, what can my 3rd-level warrior do that this guy can't? He could wave one hand and take care of this issue, so why doesn't he do it?"
Or to use a comic book analogy: why is a fireman in Metropolis going to risk his life running into a burning building when Superman can come by and do it quicker, without any risk?
That's why we need the emphasis on the lower-level characters. It's fine having the epic guys in the background, but keep the spotlight on the lower-level folks to show that they can affect the setting, as well. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1885 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2014 : 23:50:24
|
quote:
That, and it's not like you can't swap out an old name for a new one and tweak the write up. There are lots of ways to do this.
I was going to say this. All that needs to be done is change the name of a given NPC, maybe change the locations they were written for, and it's done.
I'll give an example. In the OGB, there was a character named Hawkstone. He was your typical ranger of the North. Change his name, drop him in the Dales, and you have a 'new' NPC. Easy. Sometimes less work is more valuable in the long run. Let the powers that be spend their time fixing the setting's inconsistencies I say. The Iconics are not a difficult job methinks. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1885 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2014 : 23:54:00
|
quote:
The issue for a lot of people is that they look and see some 20+ level wizard, with a reputation for popping around everywhere and fixing things, and they think, "Okay, what can my 3rd-level warrior do that this guy can't? He could wave one hand and take care of this issue, so why doesn't he do it?"
Or to use a comic book analogy: why is a fireman in Metropolis going to risk his life running into a burning building when Superman can come by and do it quicker, without any risk?
Because Superman and his buddy Elminster can't be everywhere at once, and the average player should know that. The firefighter you mentioned isn't going to wait on a hero who may be busy elsewhere, he/she is gonna step up and handle business. That said, I want the emphasis to return to the 'boots on the ground' adventurers like we had in the OGB days. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 00:06:44
|
That's precisely my point, the scope of the game is generally 1-20. By opening it up to 30+, and focusing on the characters who are at that level, it creates a skewed perception that the Realms stretches from 1-30, even when the material and consistency of rules for the latter third are not well supported or even abandoned in some respects. The Realms then operates on this awkward other wavelength compared to most comparable settings (settings that don't lack movers and shakers, but give them more relevant level 20ish stats compared to level 30ish).
Look at it this way. In a game with Level 20 considered peak, a Level 15 character (75% of max) is considered a high level character and is often the level of major rulers, organization leaders, regional champion, etc.
In the Realms with numerous Level 30 characters, Level 15 is 50% of that, meaning a Level 15 character feels like a Level 10 character in other settings. To get characters who feel like Level 15 characters in other settings, Realms characters have to be Level 22 - 23, already well outside the maximum level most groups play. Thus the perception the Realms is full of these massively powerful characters who act as much lower level folk because they fill that archetype using a skewed scale.
The Realms, via one edition or another, upmanship or not, has accrued a great number of NPCs designed around this expanded maximum. It goes beyond novel portrayals and affects game sourcebooks. The NPC levels change each edition, but in general they get higher with each edition.
I get the Big Fish concept, but it's still silly when it trickles down to double digit levels for mundane positions. It's fun as a joke once in a while, but it's unfortunate if it becomes a trope the setting is labeled with.
|
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 00:10:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
quote:
The issue for a lot of people is that they look and see some 20+ level wizard, with a reputation for popping around everywhere and fixing things, and they think, "Okay, what can my 3rd-level warrior do that this guy can't? He could wave one hand and take care of this issue, so why doesn't he do it?"
Or to use a comic book analogy: why is a fireman in Metropolis going to risk his life running into a burning building when Superman can come by and do it quicker, without any risk?
Because Superman and his buddy Elminster can't be everywhere at once, and the average player should know that. The firefighter you mentioned isn't going to wait on a hero who may be busy elsewhere, he/she is gonna step up and handle business. That said, I want the emphasis to return to the 'boots on the ground' adventurers like we had in the OGB days.
That's the thing, Elminster wasn't Superman in older editions. He was the Stan Lee cameo in every Marvel movie who gives the audience a wink and steps out of the action so the heroes can do their thing. |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1885 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 00:18:34
|
Just a question then: How do you put a peak to a character? I mean, if level 20 is the peak, are we then saying that a person can no longer learn and grow in their field of expertise? I know it's off topic but I actually prefer point-based systems (like GURPS) from an intuitive standpoint. At least then one is capable of improving a character without actually becoming more powerful (it is possible in GURPS for two people to have 500 point characters and one be vastly superior to the other in terms of raw power).
Now, if there were a mechanism to improve a character without 'leveling' available in DnD would this solve the problem? |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36996 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 00:29:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
quote:
The issue for a lot of people is that they look and see some 20+ level wizard, with a reputation for popping around everywhere and fixing things, and they think, "Okay, what can my 3rd-level warrior do that this guy can't? He could wave one hand and take care of this issue, so why doesn't he do it?"
Or to use a comic book analogy: why is a fireman in Metropolis going to risk his life running into a burning building when Superman can come by and do it quicker, without any risk?
Because Superman and his buddy Elminster can't be everywhere at once, and the average player should know that. The firefighter you mentioned isn't going to wait on a hero who may be busy elsewhere, he/she is gonna step up and handle business. That said, I want the emphasis to return to the 'boots on the ground' adventurers like we had in the OGB days.
I know that. You know that. The brand new fan, who isn't familiar with the setting but keeps seeing Elminster on the cover of everything? He doesn't know that, and seeing Elminster on everything is going to make him thing that El is everywhere.
But if he sees Bahb the Fighter on one book, Tahm the Thief on the next, and Lor'a the Mage on the third, then he's not going to expect one guy to be everywhere. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 02:28:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
Just a question then: How do you put a peak to a character? I mean, if level 20 is the peak, are we then saying that a person can no longer learn and grow in their field of expertise? I know it's off topic but I actually prefer point-based systems (like GURPS) from an intuitive standpoint. At least then one is capable of improving a character without actually becoming more powerful (it is possible in GURPS for two people to have 500 point characters and one be vastly superior to the other in terms of raw power).
Granted other systems have their own advantages (and disadvantages).
For the d20 system, I meant peak as in game design peak, kind of a soft level cap.
In other settings, they don't assume the Epic Level Handbook exists. They assume Level 20 is just about as mighty as any mortal (or even demimortal) character can reach. Beyond that it gets fuzzy but is mostly the domain of proxies and demipowers.
There may be exceptions, but for the most part, everyone keeps to it.
With such a standard, many of the Level 30 Realms NPCs would be under level 30, most would be closer to 20.
Heresy! some might say. Well, it's not. Who decided Level 30 was an appropriate level to put them in. What defines why learning slowed around Level 30 - 35 where few characters reach past. In that case why not put Elminster at Level 40 or Level 50, why not Level 100. Why is that so much more appropriate than Level 20?
You see, it's all about how the designers define the scale of the system. Most settings don't go beyond 20. The Core Game (indeed, most of the game) is designed up to Level 20. At the 20 - 30 range we have end game monsters, Great Wyrm dragons, the Tarrasque, divine servants, fiend lords, elder evils, etc.
Most of the game is designed around this 1-20 scale, yet we have the Chosen and others who are on the scale of power as (or easily surpass) ancient beings like Orcus, Pazuzu, Baphomet, Demogorgon, or Realms-specific things like Dendar and Kezef. These are world-ending, cosmology-changing beings.
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
Now, if there were a mechanism to improve a character without 'leveling' available in DnD would this solve the problem?
The E6 modification caps levels at 6 (HP, Spells, Saves, etc.), then characters just gain feats or skills slowly to gradually improve, but the character 'chassis' (their raw numbers) remains rather mortal compared to a regular d20/D&D based game.
The Epic feel of play is provided in Pathfinder with Mythic Adventures rules. This is not solely advancement above and beyond Level 20, but rather a parallel advancement building on Levels 1-20. |
|
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 02:36:16
|
Dark Wizard: But what does 15th level feel like? There's been so many editions already, and changes in the scale within the same editions as well. How can we have a skewed scale when there's about twenty different scales to consider?
I suppose what you're getting at is that they shouldn't go "PCs can reach level 20 at most, but this guy is level 31". Yes, really, they shouldn't do that. But they can go "PCs usually advance up until level 20, but we have extended the scale to beter represent these characters... if you want to feature higher levels in your play, here's a set of rules for PCs and NPCs alike." Then make the rules as simple or complex as needed.
I don't get this "I can never be as powerful as them" sentiment. Sure you can. These very NPCs are living proof one can get to such heights of power in the setting. Of course, it'd take a character lots of work. But not for the players, they can just get together with the DM and say "hey, how about we run a game where we're all level 30?". And if they think it's fun, they make the characters and play. I guess it's just important to tell new players/DMs you don't have to start your games with level 1 characters, just that it's probably easier to do so when you're getting to know the game. But you're free to play as the Chosen of Mystra if you want, or the Twisted Rune, or similarly powerful people of your own devising.
Just to be clear again, I agree with the other point: the high-powered characters (well, some in particular) have been taking too much page count and art budget. I just think the character level in their latest spreadsheet has very little to do with that. |
Never sleep under the jackfruit tree.
Tales of Moonsea - A Neverwinter Nights 2 Persistent World. Check out our website at http://www.talesofmoonsea.com and our video trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am304WqOAAo&feature=youtu.be, as well as our thread here at Candlekeep: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12955
My campaign thread: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16447 |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 04:07:38
|
Mapolq: I've already explained the relative scale as it pertains to the d20/3E/PF system. As the current most popular version of the game (via PF) and one of the most supported (technically supported by WotC even in the modern Post-4E Sundering era) for a total of about 13 to 14 years, it is one of the longest running editions in one form or another.
I've already detailed the conversion issues from AD&D. In older editions, there weren't as many customization options, so higher levels became one of the few methods to do so.
The 1-20 scale is not all that different from the AD&D versions of the game, from which current editions of D&D are descended (OD&D support ended with the Rules Cyclopedia, now about twenty years since its last new publication, and since FR was published officially under AD&D 1E, that's the scale we're using).
This does not change in 4E all that much. Heroic and Champion tier is better supported than Epic tier. As far as I've seen, 5E is back at 20.
The changing scales within an edition is the problem. In early 3E they gave us Epic Handbook NPCs, then in 3.5E we get barely epic Elder Evils. Meanwhile, many of the nastiest monsters in the Monster Manual top out around CR 20-25-30. The tone of these creatures are as world ending threats, yet we have Level 30 and CR 35 people hanging around in a demi-mortal capacity (despite Chosen rules, they're not as restricted by the Laws-That-Be as true divine servants and proxies). The big name NPCs could eat these critters for breakfast without having to loosen their belts.
To match them, the company introduced epic evil wizards to match. It's a never ending arms race between this higher powered tier (but still mortal/mundane thinking, their goals don't match their cosmic-level power). It's so much baggage without any substantial reward, in-game or out-of-game. They're all off going about their metaplot. It's like a separate setting.
Epic is not an extended scale that better represents these characters. It's an obsolete scale that is infrequently used and seldom supported.
Other settings have preserved the epic flavor of NPCs whilst keeping to a near 20 peak. Most of the game, monsters included, is designed around this.
It's not about "never reaching the Chosen level." It's about Epic being a poor system that stretches the setting around a set of assumptions not shared by anyone else (Eberron, Golarion), even many examples within its own "universe" (3E FR itself).
If that's not immersion breaking, I don't know what is. This completely defecates on the setting's internal logic after a night of wild orgy and then posted photos to the internet so other games and settings can make fun of it.
It's an albatross around the setting's neck from which detractors of the Realms have aptly hung the setting with. Rightly or wrongly, doesn't matter, it's an easy target, low hanging fruit people can knock down without much effort and hard to defend (because it's true given the ample support for a 1-20 game, and relatively paltry attention paid to 20+).
Ultimately, it skews other less epic characters upwards towards the 20+ end when their concept is as town guard captain or retired-adventurer-turned-barkeep.
It's all part of a systematic portrayal (in addition to the focus on the NPCs in the first place) that fosters the perception the Realms is overrun by Epic level shenanigans where the scale most parties start and end at (1-12 or even 1-20) seems piddling to comparison.
I realize this is really a side discussion, but it's one of many things WotC should look at in addition to focusing on non-high level, fresher NPCs.
And yes, if Elminster and company were all under CR 27ish* (Level 22-24 or so with some templates and boons), I think a lot of the criticism could have been averted.
*As a demonstration of how we've come. Why CR 27? Level 27 is about El's original level in the Grey Box if I recall correctly. As per 3E rules (again if I recall correctly), if you defeat anything under 8 CR below you, you receive no experience (like a level 9 character wailing on sub CR 1 goblins). 3E El (CR 35) just about learns nothing from defeating his old 1E self.
Another look at scales.
- Level 1: Goblins can kill you easily. Wild animals are a serious threat.
- Level 6: As per E6's framework, this represents maximum mundane human potential (Olympic Athletes, Spec Ops commandos, World-class thieves, top of field in a non-magical world)
- Level 8 or 9: A notch above peak human. You're superhuman.
- Level 16 (double level 8): You get access to level 9 spells as a caster. You can't cast many, but you're on the cusp of reality bending power (Wish, Miracle, Gate). All you have to do is say Boom, and reality cracks. It's no wonder in many settings, mortal champions and rulers of nations are around Level 15 max.
- Level 20: You can do all the above, but a lot of times per day. Making reality cry "uncle" is relatively trivial.
- Level 24 (8 levels over 16): You're well into Epic. Characters under level 21 almost can't touch you (Damage Resistance/Epic). Your spells are beyond the heights of mortal magic. You exist on a different scale from the rest of the mundanes, even exalted champions and archmages with world shaking magic (level 20).
- Level 32 (8 levels above 24): You can destroy most of the monsters (sub CR 30) in manuals with ease. The Tarresque (CR 25) is virtually inconsequential. You are the equal or greater of most demon lords or elder evils (beings who have existed since before mortal memory or perhaps even predate mortals). |
Edited by - Dark Wizard on 22 Jan 2014 04:41:19 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 05:34:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Well, porting them over is ... weird since it's well over a century since these NPCs were first described. Most characters, even many demihumans, would be well past their prime.
Fortunately, it's not like new NPCs can't be created. I don't see why we HAVE to port over people, especially given the century jump.
And there's the rub. I guess I am so hell-bent on using old characters because I have no interest in any characters created beyond 1385 DR.
Who will these iconics be aimed at, if most of us are still playing in the pre-plague world? |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36996 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 05:43:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
I don't get this "I can never be as powerful as them" sentiment. Sure you can. These very NPCs are living proof one can get to such heights of power in the setting. Of course, it'd take a character lots of work.
I would most strenuously disagree with this. There isn't a set of rules (at least not in pre-4E) for becoming a Chosen of Mystra.
And even if there were, a great many NPCs are not and never were PCs -- they were created for stories, and they either break or ignore certain rules and/or rules do not exist to cover some of what they can do. In many cases, rules were created after the fact just to be able to slap stats on someone that was never before given stats because there wasn't a need for them. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 06:12:46
|
The reason higher levels don't receive much support is mostly because when you get past level 10 in 3e terms, roughly, it doesn't make much sense to go adventuring anymore. Characters beyond that tier of power either retire or start to engage in what you called "separate setting", which is an endless sequence of movements and counter-movements to acheive greater worldly and otherwordly power in the general direction of some ends. The D&D game isn't really well suited for that, which doesn't mean it can't be fun. I do a lot of that kind of gaming, usually with characters around 10-15 levels.
But let me get to the point... even if you take 27th level Elminster and 24th level Szass Tam from the early TSR Realms, do you really think that any system that takes less than a few months to set up can account for all the preparations, contingencies, unique spells, tricks, exotic powers, artifacts, extensive networks of allies and subjects, etc. that would feature in any confrontation between them? Really, their levels at this point mean "Elminster is generally at a higher level of power as compared to Szass Tam, but only by so much". It's more a rank to measure relative personal power than anything else. The advantage of stretching it over a bit more is that you can fill more steps of the ladder, making someone 25th level sets them as just a bit more powerful than Szass Tam but not quite as much as Elmister, for example (which would require additional explanation were they 18th and 19th level, with no "room" in-between). Seems like a silly point, I'm sure, and it is. That's what I'm trying to say all along, that CR number amounts to practically nothing once you're past a certain level (usually around 15-17, but it starts earlier) because as you said, at that point it's a "separate setting". But I wouldn't say "separate setting", I would say "separate game". Because the Realms, and that seems to resonate with Ed's ideas to me, was built with these games of influence and cleverly applied raw force in mind. But that's just not D&D, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Regarding epic being a poor system, yes, every D&D epic I've ever seen was poor. Actually, I don't like any of the level systems much, be it epic or E6, but that's another subject. Game mechanics is just very hard to reconciliate with a world that feels real. What that means is that whatever you do with the level system, there'll be inconsistencies - it's a poor, poor model. Still, I think it's better to have a poor model than none, if only for the sake of completeness. As I said, if you want to play as Elminster-tier people, you should be able to. I've always admired 3e for putting everyone under the same rules, as outlandishly broken as they might get. Now, for some reason what should showcase the fact that these characters actually have an attainable level of power, not an arbitrarily high one, somehow seems to have been perceived as the opposite, and I just can't get my mind around that. Really, what's the point of statting Elminster if not saying "he's subject to the same rules of the world, he can be defeated just like you, and not be just a tool for solving things arbitrarily"?
I didn't understand - do you think the existence of this background game of magically-assisted intrigue does not fit the Realms? Or is it just that the blunders of the epic-level game system like "Elder Evils" who seem rather weak compared to some mortals, let alone the gods, who supposedly have some healthy respect for them? |
Never sleep under the jackfruit tree.
Tales of Moonsea - A Neverwinter Nights 2 Persistent World. Check out our website at http://www.talesofmoonsea.com and our video trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am304WqOAAo&feature=youtu.be, as well as our thread here at Candlekeep: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12955
My campaign thread: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16447 |
Edited by - Mapolq on 22 Jan 2014 06:20:20 |
|
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 06:16:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I would most strenuously disagree with this. There isn't a set of rules (at least not in pre-4E) for becoming a Chosen of Mystra.
And even if there were, a great many NPCs are not and never were PCs -- they were created for stories, and they either break or ignore certain rules and/or rules do not exist to cover some of what they can do. In many cases, rules were created after the fact just to be able to slap stats on someone that was never before given stats because there wasn't a need for them.
Firstly, I'm not saying there are rules for becoming as powerful as they are. But that doesn't mean you can't. What I'm saying is that if Elminster could become a Chosen of Mystra, so can some unborn person, in another story that hasn't been written yet.
Secondly, all PCs are created for stories too, that's what an RPG is, a game about a story. All PCs can break rules as well, and have abilities that were never written in any book. |
Never sleep under the jackfruit tree.
Tales of Moonsea - A Neverwinter Nights 2 Persistent World. Check out our website at http://www.talesofmoonsea.com and our video trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am304WqOAAo&feature=youtu.be, as well as our thread here at Candlekeep: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12955
My campaign thread: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16447 |
Edited by - Mapolq on 22 Jan 2014 06:18:15 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36996 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 06:44:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
Secondly, all PCs are created for stories too, that's what an RPG is, a game about a story. All PCs can break rules as well, and have abilities that were never written in any book.
Actually, what rules they can break is wholly dependent on what rules the DM will let them break. And a lot of DMs will not allow some of the things that some of the high-level Realms personalities do. Even those DMs that are lenient will be winging it, since the rules simply don't cover some of what those guys do. And even with the most lenient DMs, how many campaigns get past 20th level?
So we are back to the point I was making earlier: Some NPCs can do things the PCs will never be able to do. And that's just not acceptable to some.
So rather than put the paragons of unattainable power on everything, showcase the folks that the PCs can match and get better than. Let the Iconics be characters the new players can compare themselves to and eventually surpass. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 06:59:47
|
D&D's limitations aside, and I don't think it' as limited as we wave it off as, but that's left to a good DM and individual groups.
I feel the high levels are absolutely arbitrary. Just as Eberron or Golarion's focus on a Level 20 max is arbitrary, but at least they have a decent basis for it (scaled to foes in the bestiaries). The models might be limited, but the 1-20 model is far more rigorous than the 20-30, or in the cases of big names often 30-35. Rather than start a new faulty model that is more or less abandoned (and never worked well to begin with), why not project forward with an active model that everyone is using (and much of Pathfinder's Mythic Adventures is based on this concept).
If high-level character levels start to become meaningless (even before 20), why shove them a whole half-scale beyond the typical end game?
If their levels mean nothing, why have them there at those heights to begin with?
It would matter less if their influence didn't also gradually (through game design) pull the baseline higher even for mundane archetypes (where levels do matter for a under Level 12-15 games). Then the entire setting is skewed high or at least seems like it.
And I'm not saying it is or that it ruins the game, but it's unfortunate the Realms is saddled with this reputation when other settings have some Epic level beings and get none of the flak.
Points as summarized:
- Epic NPCs with levels that do not match up to the rest of the game, partly due to edition conversion and gradual level creep.
- Central focus (novels, media, covers, advertising) on Epic NPCs creates perception of high-level setting.
- A few mundane NPCs are stat'ed at higher levels that expected due to the skewed scale of the Epics. High-level becomes self-fulfilling as a new standard is gradually established over time through edition changes.
- Other settings and game products realize this and focuses support to level 1-20 play. Old setting level standards is not revised, now seems more jarring compared to current offerings.
- Despite changes in edition, perception is not abated (that the novels and movers and shakers haven't changed all that much doesn't help).
- Continued focus on high-level NPCs (even in new edition) in media. Rinse, repeat, recycle.
This thread is asking for a new focus in addition to the traditional aspects of the Realms (which don't get me wrong, have helped popularize the setting).
It's not a binary choice (game Iconics or Epic iconics).
Also, "new, low level, or gameable" does not mean "detached" from the setting or "generic" or "immersion breaking". Every edition of D&D has pre-gen characters, Iconics is just putting them in a more memorable and active role with the setting support behind them. They neither replace established setting heavy weights, nor do they prevent people from rolling up their own characters. They are a tool given some semblance of setting hooks.
And it's about time WotC started plastering images of diverse and identifiable playable character examples all over their wares in addition to their novel-based money-makers. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 10:19:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
Point: The problem with Elminster's character sheet in the 3e FRCS isn't that he was 35th level. It's that it was there in the first place, and right in the first few pages, when it probably should be in a splatbook or article.
Some factoids:
At the time the FRCS was published, the Epic Level rules had not been finalized.
The inclusion of Elminster (with stats) in the FRCS, just as with the inclusion of other NPCs, was to show gamers that the (new at the time) D&D rules could both handle play above 20th level and allow for a very accurate simulation of (previous) game and story elements via the new rules system.
One of the design goals of 3E was to create a system that was light years better than AD&D in terms of detailed character and NPC creation (read: players and DMs alike would have access to a set of mechanics that allowed for an accurate portrayal and translation of story and world elements into a PC or NPC's stats).
I'll also note that the front end of the FRCS includes a note from Elminster himself, stating flatly that the Realms needs its heroes.
*************
I don't agree with much of the criticism of high level play as written in this scroll. I appreciate and am aware of the Realms' baggage vis-a-vis high level and Epic NPCs, but in terms of play at the gaming table, as well as in terms of mechanics (for 3E), there is really no such thing as being able to compare the stats of Epic level NPC's against Epic PC stats and declaring winners and losers.
Having run a game from levels 1 to 23-25ish over a span of ten years or so, I can say from experience that there's just a whole hell of a lot more going on than simple number comparisons.
***********
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Who will these iconics be aimed at, if most of us are still playing in the pre-plague world?
I don't put much stock in the notion that most active Realms players run games in the pre-Plague Realms.
Regardless, the iconics would quite naturally be aimed at the same people Next is aimed at: brand new players and DMs, as well as gamers who are interested in giving Next a spin, and anyone interested in playing D&D who's interested in the Realms. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 22 Jan 2014 10:25:55 |
|
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 15:13:25
|
Wooly: I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion. I think we're just going on circles here, I'm just arguing there wouldn't likely be this perception (or it would be a lesser one) if these NPCs weren't plastered everywhere, and that it doesn't matter a whole deal which level they're statted at. Of course a player won't be able to do everything all the NPCs do, that would be a pretty crazy story, wouldn't it? But they can do some of the rule-breaking things the NPCs do, or they have in my campaigns.
Dark Wizard: Basically, because an absolute 1-20 scale will tend to compress characters into it, and end up making it more difficult to differentiate them. I grant you, that's not a very good reason. As I said, I admired the simulationist attitude of 3e, where even though people knew it couldn't be well simulated, the idea was that everything could ultimately be made to follow the rules. At the same time, I praise the idea that every one of these rules can also ultimately be scrapped at any time. So I guess an open ended scale would make it easier to throw a simulation of a character when you needed to.
I've run into this problem in Pathfinder. The characters are all around levels 11-13 and senators of the city of Innarlith. They have had, or might have, contact with several people who should be considerably more powerful than them - the Magister, Malchor Harpell, Marek Rymüt (the previous Khazark of Innarlith), King (Baron, canonically) Thuragar, Gavilon Jostins (his "court wizard"), Eles Wianar, and a few Zulkirs. Now, when I try to give these people levels within the 1-20 scheme, they all end up in the 15-18 range, since they must be the PC's seniors, but not quite the top of the heap yet. Now, I haven't statted any of them, I just wanted to establish their levels as a pecking order of sorts (not that people with lower levels can't defeat, or be more influential and powerful than, higher level ones, but levels are a start).
I don't overly mind putting these people into the 1-20 scheme, though, I just think it's a mistake to think this will address the "powerful NPC" problem. It will just shift "powerful" to whatever level they are, because they're powerful by definition - through the way they're described, not their levels. The way to actually go dispel this perception is just not showing the powerful people that much. I think most people here who are long-time fans of the setting, understand that these powerful NPCs are, generally, internally coherent and there is no in-world basis for the "NPC who makes PCs redundant" idea. It is just a matter of presentation, then.
A kind-of-stupid analogy now, but here it goes. Imagine we make a setting that's basically modern, real Earth. Players will generally be supposed to play powerful people, but not necessarily "world-runners". The only way people would start griping the game is boring since they can't, by general consensus, use a nuclear arsenal to solve their problems is if you show powerful people solving things with their nuclear arsenals (or the threat of using them) all the time. If not, well, it's a given that nuclear arsenals exist, but it just doesn't impact most people in significant ways.
Jeremy: I understand that was the reason for the high-level write-ups, and I loved them for it (even though going as far as wasting a third of a hardcover splatbook statting deities was... a bit far, I think). But the first pages of the FRCS wasn't a good idea in my opinion. Being a fan of the Realms and (more or less at the time) experienced player, I got what they wanted to say, but many people may have got other ideas from it.
Bottom line: as far as the original topic goes, I pretty much would like to see the same iconics as you guys, I've just been arguing the reasoning.
|
Never sleep under the jackfruit tree.
Tales of Moonsea - A Neverwinter Nights 2 Persistent World. Check out our website at http://www.talesofmoonsea.com and our video trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am304WqOAAo&feature=youtu.be, as well as our thread here at Candlekeep: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12955
My campaign thread: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16447 |
Edited by - Mapolq on 22 Jan 2014 15:19:30 |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 22:55:08
|
My stance is not about PCs vs NPCs in the Epic range or otherwise. It was never about fighting NPCs or removing NPCs. It was about how a seemingly innocuous decision (later unsupported) to include Epic stats ultimately fed into an already growing perception working against the Realms that did have some trickle down effect on other non-Epic NPCs over time and how to possibly address or mitigate it.
It's also not about slavishly adhering to a 1-20 scale, but pointing out why the perception is founded on some solid evidence (which even late 3E/3.5E era FR was designed towards).
I don't hate or love the high-level write ups. Of course I say that viewing things from hindsight. I feel a bit more prudence and revised design could go a long way. It's not the panacea for all the supposed ills, but one of many avenues that could be addressed. If Epic had been well supported, that tier of FR could have been a good representative for that branch of D&D. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case and it left those aspects of the setting incongruous with the rest of the game.
It's actually not too late if WotC is serious about supporting all eras and editions of play. With electronic publications, it's relatively efficient to address this in a few Dragon articles. They don't necessarily need to rescinde the Epic Level write-ups either. As an example, I point to older edition example with variable stats for some NPCs (such as Khelben in one of the Waterdeep supplements). That provides a versatility to handling NPCs that makes them viable components of the game at all levels (and opens them up for DMs to make their own determinations for them, which they could always do, but this method provides ready made tools to facilitate).
***
Mapolq, why must relatively local NPCs outrank PCs? Especially PCs who have earned their levels through game and roleplay.
This is what I mean by "feel Level 15".
With the Realms some rulers are Level 20ish, others are pure Epic. This trickles down, according to your extended range. A kingdom's general is thus level 18, the court mage is level 19, maybe the guard captain is level 10, etc.
In other settings, the ruler is level 15, his lesser rivals are 13-14. The general is level 11, the court mage is 13. The movers and shakers (Elminster and Szass-Shoon types) are level 20ish.
Where does the Level 15 PC fit into this? In other settings they're the kingdom's greatest champions (they're high level). In the Realms, they're middling level. One might say, well, editions change and all that jazz, but no, AD&D has been decently consistent. Level 15 is a character to be reckoned with, multiple attacks, loaded with often unique magic and weapons, 8th level spells, etc.
It's not about PC entitlement. Level 15 PCs in the Realms worked just as hard as Level 15 PCs in Eberron or Golarion. It's not about "well, Eberron is built around a different level of play" because both FR and Eberron are built on the same game using the same monster manual for most of the regular monsters (and even their setting specific monsters to an extent).
The Realms design is in part based on the (few) outliers instead of the standard (majority). Because the Epics are focused upon so much and their levels are noted as such and such height, the setting has started to shift towards that new normal that doesn't match as well with the standard game.
***
The nuclear analogy is weak one because the equivalent to nuclear-armed politicians are the likes of the Simbul and Szass Tam (Presidents of a sort). While they are internally consistent with each other, mutually assured destruction vs equals. Against the rest of the game, the incongruity widens significantly.
In that scenario, the President (El, Simbul, Szass, etc.) fires their nukes and it wipes out Godzilla (dragons, maybe even the Tarresque) or the alien armada (demon invasion of fairly decent CR fiends) without incident.
It's kind of like a nuclear-armed USA vs non-nuclear Imperial Japan, but not the USA of late WWII, it's like a modern nuclear-powered Nimitz aircraft carrier gone back in time to head off the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Like in the movie The Final Countdown.
In most genre appropriate movies or books, the big bad or unending hordes (ex: alien armada) are "immune to nukes" (the level 13 court mage's spells) and a weakness must be discovered and exploited, thus the tension rises and the story is enjoyable.
Now I'm not saying the Realms aren't enjoyable, but I am pointing out the sort of incongruity the Realms has to navigate. "Solving" this isn't the cure, but the 5E Realms have to be much more on the ball with these situations. |
|
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 06:30:40
|
I get what you're saying about the trickle-down. I guess it doesn't matter in my games because my players don't earn XP, they usually make their characters at the desired level for the arc, which we decide as a group, and then we advance them if we feel they've grown and accomplished things. This way we have them where we want them to be.
I'm not sure if you were commenting about my campaign example. But my characters are players in their own right, not overshadowed by local NPCs. The king of Sespech and the Lord of Arrabar are higher level than they are, but Dediana Extaminos of Hlondeth and Prince Woren of Nimpeth are not, for example. In Innarlith, their only senior is the Magister, who isn't a even a resident (Talatha is a native of Innarlith and has some ties to the city still, but as Magister she has other duties). As for political power, one of the characters has managed to be elected Ransar of Innarlith. We try to set the character levels to provide for interesting play.
Concerning dragons, planar invasions, etc... eh, I guess I just prefer my mortals to be generally able to ward off such creatures. It just makes sense to me, otherwise why wouldn't every realm in Faerûn be ruled by dragons, outsiders, etc? NPCs who can make short work of one powerful dragon seem pretty much a necessity. But also, most of these creatures are players in their own right. A dragon is not Godzilla - the Tarrasque kinda is, and I guess that's why I always found the Tarrasque so silly.
But yeah, I agree they should make the level scale as internally consistent as possible. And then focus on the low end of it. |
Never sleep under the jackfruit tree.
Tales of Moonsea - A Neverwinter Nights 2 Persistent World. Check out our website at http://www.talesofmoonsea.com and our video trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am304WqOAAo&feature=youtu.be, as well as our thread here at Candlekeep: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12955
My campaign thread: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16447 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 15:19:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
The Realms design is in part based on the (few) outliers instead of the standard (majority). Because the Epics are focused upon so much and their levels are noted as such and such height, the setting has started to shift towards that new normal that doesn't match as well with the standard game.
THIS.
That was the reason (or at least, the one they gave us) for why the Realms had to be 'nuked' in 4e. The game everyone was playing had nothing in common with the stories, or even the setting guides. Why play in a world where you amounted to 'a nobody'?
Which is why ALL focus needs to be shifted OFF the Mary-Sues in the setting. Sadly, The Sundering is a VERY bad start. It screams "its all about THESE guys - don't even bother trying".
But we shall see........
EDIT: Which is why we need to keep the iconics low-level and NORMAL, so that new fans can have something to identify with, whether they use them as pregen characters or not. We are not saying the setting shouldn't have high level NPCs - it just shouldn't focus on them (the way it currently does). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 23 Jan 2014 15:22:58 |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 17:18:57
|
If in 5e, the introduction to the realms is done by Elminster again, that is fine, but he should be listed in Cormyr or Shadowdale under notable npcs in said areas. Should he need to be stated again, then only in whichever area he retired in.
So the iconics.. levels 1 to 3 for em?
|
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 18:05:58
|
I'd put them around levels 1-3 myself, but I could see making it 5 or so to give them the ability and inclination to travel farther and have more initiative.
I guess what I'm trying to say all along, though, is that people shouldn't de-scale the levels and think that'll solve the problem. It might be part of the problem, but a relatively minor one. Drizzt, for example, was level 17 or something in 3e, and statted in a way that most level 12 PCs could give him a sound beating one-to-one, but he still was perceived as stealing the scene. He would probably still be stealing the scene if he was level 5, if he was still shown as "that guy" who pops up everywhere doing the awesome stuff and gracing sourcebook covers. Instead we should have about twenty of those, so no targets can be painted anywhere.
Also, I'm aware that Drizzt is way more than that, I'm just commenting on that dreaded perception. |
Never sleep under the jackfruit tree.
Tales of Moonsea - A Neverwinter Nights 2 Persistent World. Check out our website at http://www.talesofmoonsea.com and our video trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am304WqOAAo&feature=youtu.be, as well as our thread here at Candlekeep: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12955
My campaign thread: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16447 |
Edited by - Mapolq on 23 Jan 2014 18:06:42 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 19:01:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
So the iconics.. levels 1 to 3 for em?
It depends.
In their most basic form, yes. I think Paizo has them at several different (fairly low) levels, depending on which adventure path they are in. Since most of those AP's are made as 'campaign starters', and take a character up in levels, it makes sense they start out pretty low, if not level 1.
However, they also did mythic versions of them, for their mythic tier... which kind of blows everything we are talking about here right out of the water. I guess they can do that because they had already established them as the low-lev iconics, and just added a layer of 'cool' to them. Then again, Mythic =/= Epic, so I could be way off with these assumptions. Presumably a 1st level character can be epic. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 23 Jan 2014 19:02:15 |
|
|
|
Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe
Ireland
705 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 20:52:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Redneck with a crossbow.
Every setting now needs a redneck with crossbow. 
I'm sure you could get Darrel. |
“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien
*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36996 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 21:12:17
|
I'd not object to seeing them go as high as level 5 or 7... But no further.
Of course, the online write-ups of the Pathfinder Iconics don't even include levels or stats -- and I think that's a great way to go. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1885 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 21:30:32
|
I know this may seem counter intuitive but I think their stats should vary depending on the adventure they are placed in as pregens (which is what I think Paizo does with them). They are meant to be examples of playable characters, NOT part of canon in the sense that they are 'movers and shakers' or appear in novels. And now that I think about it...DnD did this with the original (non-advanced) game. Their 'iconics' were placed in the Companion and Master-level games 'as needed.'
By stats I mean level, not attributes. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
Edited by - The Arcanamach on 23 Jan 2014 21:37:17 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Idea: 5E/Next Iconics
