So there have been a lot of traction on these boards lately about dividing up the segments of the game into tiers of play where the concerns of the PCs in it are different. They do not overlap except near the edges of the tiers, where a group of teens near the top of advancement for Black Forest start to fight, say, 4 orcs as a campaign-ending boss encounter--as opposed to first-level heroes in 'core' D&D, who regularly fight squads of 7-8 orcs.
Since no one has bothered to name tiers formally, I propose:
Fairy Tale: Black Forest
Heroic: It's just called D&D.
Epic: Godfall
However, while I think that there is a huge advantage in integrating all of the campaign stories into one metaplot, I don't think that it's especially fruitful to have one rules set that encompasses all three tiers of play. You could do one that has Fairy Tale and Heroic or Heroic and Epic, but all three? Nah.
So my question to you is: do you think that something could be done such that each of the three tiers use their own mechanics and has some overlap such that you could promote a character from one tier to the next under the assumption that you would be playing a fundamentally different game? For example, Black Forest characters are simple. The game has about the complexity somewhere between HeroQuest/DragonStrike and D&D. Your characters slowly get more complex until they're just shy of one or two abilities of a 1st-level D&D character. Then you could repeat that for the transition between D&D and Epic tier.
I just see Black Forest being played more like a board game and Godfall being played more like a wargame, given the scope and ability of those players. But I totally support there being a set of games that support the story of 'and here's how Steve the Crap-Covered Farmer became Zol-Stefan, demigod of darkness'.
Integrating Black Forest, Heroic, and Legendary Tier
Moderator: Moderators
-
Lago PARANOIA
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
Integrating Black Forest, Heroic, and Legendary Tier
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
I would say that level advancement is best treated as a way to teach players how to play the game. The game should be playable at all levels, of course, but should be best with all options enabled, at the final level (of each tier, if you use tiers).
Alternatively, one can use advancement simply to increase symmetrically numbers on both sides. In a properly constructed game you can advance that way to infinity, but nothing changes.
If the level advancement is simply about increasing numbers, there is no need for tiers. You can start as an ant fighting other ants and end as an elephant fighting other elephant using exactly the same rules.
If the level advancement increases also complexity, you could need some way to eliminate unneeded options in order to keep their number manageable. But D&D4e slot system, in which you have a maximum number of options and have to replace older and weaker options with newer and more powerful, works better than tiers.
Therefore it seems to me that the only reasonable motive to include tiers is to keep the game changing. The tiers should be mechanically somewhat different - not too much, or the people who liked lower tiers will dislike higher, and the other way round.
But in that case to define tiers you need to show what is the difference between them. The gain in power and the increasing complexity are best taken care of by the level advancement. The tiers must differ in some more important way.
Eg you could have an Adventurer tier, in which PCs are pseudo-medieval fighters and mages of similar power, and the Hero tier, in which PCs are similar to medium level D&D wizards, or equally complicated and powerful. The combat in both tiers will be different enough to justify separate rules.
Or you could have the second tier be about small unit combat (with the typical unit being equivalent not to a single warrior, but a squad or the medieval "lance".), and the third tier a large scale wargame.
Or the highest tier could be more similar to Magic the Gathering.
So, it is necessary to define the tiers first - and not only in terms of power, which is meaningless, because it is relative (if you grow at the same pace as your enemies, the combat stays exactly the same, although numbers are bigger). The different tiers must differ meaningfully.
Alternatively, one can use advancement simply to increase symmetrically numbers on both sides. In a properly constructed game you can advance that way to infinity, but nothing changes.
If the level advancement is simply about increasing numbers, there is no need for tiers. You can start as an ant fighting other ants and end as an elephant fighting other elephant using exactly the same rules.
If the level advancement increases also complexity, you could need some way to eliminate unneeded options in order to keep their number manageable. But D&D4e slot system, in which you have a maximum number of options and have to replace older and weaker options with newer and more powerful, works better than tiers.
Therefore it seems to me that the only reasonable motive to include tiers is to keep the game changing. The tiers should be mechanically somewhat different - not too much, or the people who liked lower tiers will dislike higher, and the other way round.
But in that case to define tiers you need to show what is the difference between them. The gain in power and the increasing complexity are best taken care of by the level advancement. The tiers must differ in some more important way.
Eg you could have an Adventurer tier, in which PCs are pseudo-medieval fighters and mages of similar power, and the Hero tier, in which PCs are similar to medium level D&D wizards, or equally complicated and powerful. The combat in both tiers will be different enough to justify separate rules.
Or you could have the second tier be about small unit combat (with the typical unit being equivalent not to a single warrior, but a squad or the medieval "lance".), and the third tier a large scale wargame.
Or the highest tier could be more similar to Magic the Gathering.
So, it is necessary to define the tiers first - and not only in terms of power, which is meaningless, because it is relative (if you grow at the same pace as your enemies, the combat stays exactly the same, although numbers are bigger). The different tiers must differ meaningfully.
"Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat."
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Even if the game is wildly different at different tiers, you still need to have a consistent mechanic for conflict resolution. Honestly, I would suggest less action declarations when you have more choices and your actions affect more things, but whatever. The core RNG has to be the same so that you can apply things you learned to future events.
-Username17
-Username17
-
RobbyPants
- King
- Posts: 5202
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm
I think you'd have to have some way to promote a character from on tier to the next, otherwise you're going to piss off too many people.
Of course, what you are can fundamentally change from on tier to the other, so it might really be like char-gen other than that you maintain stuff like your name, race, sex, appearance, personality, and backstory. Other than that, you're rolling up a new PC.
So, you could go from being a squire to a knight (which would make a lot of sense, and possibly be encouraged), but it wouldn't be required for you to become a knight. Maybe you could become a berserker or conjurer or something. I suppose you could try 4E's approach and have one tier give you a few choices in the next tier, but I think the differences should be strong enough to necessitate flat-out char-gen with a new sheet.
Of course, what you are can fundamentally change from on tier to the other, so it might really be like char-gen other than that you maintain stuff like your name, race, sex, appearance, personality, and backstory. Other than that, you're rolling up a new PC.
So, you could go from being a squire to a knight (which would make a lot of sense, and possibly be encouraged), but it wouldn't be required for you to become a knight. Maybe you could become a berserker or conjurer or something. I suppose you could try 4E's approach and have one tier give you a few choices in the next tier, but I think the differences should be strong enough to necessitate flat-out char-gen with a new sheet.
Once you're dividing the game into tiers, you're acknowledging that not only are you dividing things up by the numbers on your character sheet (the way 4E does), but also by what kinds of resources the players have and what stories you can tell at each tier. This means that at the peak of every tier there should be three options: graduate tiers into a new set of resources and stories, halt level advancement and turn into an E6-type game where you just acquire more feats and fill your batcave, or retire those characters and start anew at any tier of the group's choice. Mechanically, I think this means that making a Tier 4 character shouldn't be that much harder than making a Tier 1 character.
So my idea is that each Tier would have it's own class list, and graduating from Tier 1 to Tier 2 would basically have you make a level 1 Tier 2 character. Your Tier 1 class would then become a "background" that would give a selection of abilities associated with that class.
So, for example, if you make a Tier 2 Rogue, it would come with a default set of AC/HP/etc for being level 6, one ability being sneak attack for 2d6. The player then has the choice of saying that he came into being a Tier 2 rogue from the Tier 1 classes of Thief (extra 1d6 sneak attack), Squire (better armor/weapon proficiencies), Acolyte (a few divine spell slots), or Apprentice Mage (a few arcane spell slots). Essentially replicating what he'd have if he actually climbed through 5 levels of Thief/Squire/Acolyte/Apprentice Mage, but without the tedium of adding everything up and figuring it out from scratch if you're starting the character at level 6.
To get into more detail than that, I'd actually have to start designing classes, but I think the basic idea is sound, since it would mean that a Tier 4 character would be basically like making a Tier 1 character with little more added complexity than the choice of a Tier 1, 2, and 3 background.
So my idea is that each Tier would have it's own class list, and graduating from Tier 1 to Tier 2 would basically have you make a level 1 Tier 2 character. Your Tier 1 class would then become a "background" that would give a selection of abilities associated with that class.
So, for example, if you make a Tier 2 Rogue, it would come with a default set of AC/HP/etc for being level 6, one ability being sneak attack for 2d6. The player then has the choice of saying that he came into being a Tier 2 rogue from the Tier 1 classes of Thief (extra 1d6 sneak attack), Squire (better armor/weapon proficiencies), Acolyte (a few divine spell slots), or Apprentice Mage (a few arcane spell slots). Essentially replicating what he'd have if he actually climbed through 5 levels of Thief/Squire/Acolyte/Apprentice Mage, but without the tedium of adding everything up and figuring it out from scratch if you're starting the character at level 6.
To get into more detail than that, I'd actually have to start designing classes, but I think the basic idea is sound, since it would mean that a Tier 4 character would be basically like making a Tier 1 character with little more added complexity than the choice of a Tier 1, 2, and 3 background.
