Why did they scrap Orcus?

[ModelCitizen]

To boil it down, it's okay for the Lich King to have the ability to kill you. It's also okay for the Lich King to have the desire to kill you. But at no point can the Lich King have both the ability and the desire to kill you. So if the GM wants the game to start off with the Lich King wanting to kill you, then there must be some limitation on his ability to do so that keeps him from doing it right this instant.

The Lich King and all other icons are completely unstatted according to the RPG.net thread. So... there are actually no limits on what they can do, and you're forced into conflict with them.

Can we stop talking about 13th Age now? It seriously appears to be a checklist of gaming's worst ideas from the last 10 years.

[Username17]

As you propose:
A stuns B.
B misses his turn.
C attacks and gains no benefit on B.
D attacks and gains no benefit on B.

Current 3.5
A stuns B.
B is stunned until his next turn.
C attacks and gains a benefit on B.
D attacks and gains a benefit on B.

Actually, 3.5 has the stun last until the beginning of Player A's turn. So C and D both get a benefit against B, but the benefit ends before A's turn. I think that is a bad solution, because if people pull initiative order shenanigans or A leaves the combat, it may become confusing when B's stun should end.

Yes, putting upkeep at the end of the target's turn creates a scenario where people are better off delaying until Player A debuffs Player B and then attacking. But honestly, that situation already exists provided that Player C delays until Player A's initiative count and then opts to go after Player A on round 1 and before Player A on round 2. And of course, in all versions of initiative where you reroll every round, having your action go off after your friend debuffs the enemies is always pure gravy.

-Username17

[K]

To boil it down, it's okay for the Lich King to have the ability to kill you. It's also okay for the Lich King to have the desire to kill you. But at no point can the Lich King have both the ability and the desire to kill you. So if the GM wants the game to start off with the Lich King wanting to kill you, then there must be some limitation on his ability to do so that keeps him from doing it right this instant.

The Lich King and all other icons are completely unstatted according to the RPG.net thread. So... there are actually no limits on what they can do, and you're forced into conflict with them.

It's not that they have "no limits", but that they have "undefined limits."

"No limits" implies that they can do anything. "Undefined limits" means that they do have limits, but you aren't aware of them.

That's the key point. You can be put into conflict with much more powerful characters, but you can't use 3.5-style Scry and Teleport (or you must be willing to change exactly one line of text in the Scry or the Teleport description to fix Scry and Die).

At the end of the day, being a small character who is in conflict with a much more powerful character is an unalienable part of fantasy fiction storytelling. Luke has to spend three movies getting good enough to fight Vader and be able to avoid Vader for three movies. Frodo has to be able to sneak past Witch Kings or else the story ends within a few chapters. The Avatar has be able to keep off the Fire King's radar until the last episode or else you don't have a series.

It's a flaw in your fantasy game if you can't tell the story of a weak character building his strength to fight a more powerful character.

[Username17]

It's a flaw in your fantasy game if you can't tell the story of a weak character building his strength to fight a more powerful character.

But the characters aren't going to be fighting those more powerful characters. Not a level from now, not five levels from now. Quite likely not ever.

I'm all for starting characters with tie-ins to the world. I'm all for starting characters with enemies that they aren't powerful enough to fight right now. But starting the players with the personal enmity of enemies so powerful that they don't have stats that they aren't expected to ever defeat is just horse dickery.

-Username17

[K]

It's a flaw in your fantasy game if you can't tell the story of a weak character building his strength to fight a more powerful character.

But the characters aren't going to be fighting those more powerful characters. Not a level from now, not five levels from now. Quite likely not ever.

I'm all for starting characters with tie-ins to the world. I'm all for starting characters with enemies that they aren't powerful enough to fight right now. But starting the players with the personal enmity of enemies so powerful that they don't have stats that they aren't expected to ever defeat is just horse dickery.

-Username17

If you are never going to be fighting those powerful characters, then it doesn't matter at all if you have their enmity.

It's just flavor at that point because it doesn't affect how any adventures play out.

[deaddmwalking]

Then why have it?

In fact, if it's never going to matter, it's even worse than 'Superman in Space' every adventure. It means that no matter how awesome you become, you never rate. You're never more significant or interesting to these powers that be than you were when you started adventuring.

You're an ant to a god. It doesn't matter how strong or good looking you are as an ant - your entire existence is trivial in comparison.

[Voss]

At the end of the day, being a small character who is in conflict with a much more powerful character is an unalienable part of fantasy fiction storytelling. Luke has to spend three movies getting good enough to fight Vader and be able to avoid Vader for three movies. Frodo has to be able to sneak past Witch Kings or else the story ends within a few chapters. The Avatar has be able to keep off the Fire King's radar until the last episode or else you don't have a series.

It's a flaw in your fantasy game if you can't tell the story of a weak character building his strength to fight a more powerful character.

There is a flaw in your reasoning, however. While those are potentially interesting stories to tell, they don't start out with Major NPC hunts <player>. No one has any fucking clue who Luke is until _after_ he blows up the Death Star. Sauron feels his ring moving in the world again, and it takes him something like 50-60 _years_ to find out that it is in the hands of somebody named Baggins, and not even the same Baggins. The Fire King doesn't know the avatar is really active again until people start talking about meeting the Avatar (which unfortunately happens more or less instantly because Aang is kind of an idiot). The only reason Zuko is out looking for the Avatar before hand is becuase his dad is an asshole (and easy plot points), and its less politically embarassing for Zuko to be doing that than just be permanently banished officially.

Translated to a game environment, enmity is _earned_ by player action. (Or in the case of Frodo, either player legacy or background). That is fine. But the set up for this shit is 'have a die or two of negative consequences because... all characters have that.' The elf queen (or whomever, it doesn't matter and might as well be randomly generated) just literally hates you for existing at all, and you just have to deal with whatever those dice rolls mean. There isn't even a reason that she would know who the fuck you are, let alone that you used to be a bird.

[Soda]

It should be closer to your level. If you're level 1, it's some thug or business rival. If you're level 10, it can be an emperor out to get you. If you start a game at level 16, then you can have some backstory about why an archdemon hates you.

So you have an enemy while just starting. If you started at level 4 with a baron that hates you, but now you're level 14, that baron is long-gone and you have plenty of in-game time to establish why a lich hates you now.

[virgil]

It's more that you need to put in a damned good reason why the high-level NPC, whose personal enmity you've gained, doesn't personally squash you. Don't leave that blank. You could get away with not deciding what it is, but at least tell the reader that it needs to be done.

[K]

There is a flaw in your reasoning, however. While those are potentially interesting stories to tell, they don't start out with Major NPC hunts <player>.

I'm not sure which stories you were reading because they all start with a major NPC hunting a weakass PC. Witch Kings literally are in the Shire hunting for Frodo within a few chapters and any lag time between novels is unimportant to the story (thus, was not included in the story). Star Wars take a single movie to get to it, but then goes two more before Luke can avoid getting totally schooled by Vader. The Avatar almost immediately gets hunted for being the Avatar.

It's Basic Fantasy Plot #2 right behind there is a powerful artifact we must destroy, but before has a secret destiny. Powerul enemy hunts guy who must level up to survive is as classic as chainmail bikinis.

The reason you have it is to drive the story. At 1st level, the Lich King sends dirty thugs to chase you down and you take down the leader of the thugs. By mid-level you are taking down vampire lords who control the Lich King's cities, and by high level you fight the Lich King by destroying his Soul Machine to weaken him enough to fight personally.

-------------------------------

As for the whole "there are bigger characters in the setting, so it makes my character seem meaningless" argument, I am unconvinced.

Your story is still thrilling even if you know what other people are doing (and you shouldn't know if you want your setting to have any verisimilitude). Sure, Elminister could totally kill all the Fire Giants in the Fire Fortress, but he's not here and he's not doing this adventure. Your character is and he's going to get all the credit and glory.

It's like saying that your enjoyment at winning the Nobel Prize is ruined because other people could have won the prize too. That's a super-weird position that doesn't actually fit with how people get feelings of accomplishment.

[Voss]

There is a flaw in your reasoning, however. While those are potentially interesting stories to tell, they don't start out with Major NPC hunts <player>.

I'm not sure which stories you were reading because they all start with a major NPC hunting a weakass PC. Witch Kings literally are in the Shire hunting for Frodo within a few chapters and any lag time between novels is unimportant to the story (thus, was not included in the story). Star Wars take a single movie to get to it, but then goes two more before Luke can avoid getting totally schooled by Vader. The Avatar almost immediately gets hunted for being the Avatar.

Well, for Frodo, there is also a big time lag (of years) in Fellowship of the Ring. Frodo dicks around the Shire for _years_ in Fellowship after gaining possession of the ring. He further screws around in the Shire for months after Gandalf personally shows up and tells him he should get the fuck out, because he randomly decides that departing on their shared birthday is somehow meaningful.

But the point you are ignoring is that this shit doesn't happen _for no reason_. The Avatar is literally walking up to complete strangers and saying 'I'm the Avatar' while grinning like a fucking moron. No one is wandering around with a 'detect Avatar' device (at least not a first), just so they can fuck with him.

My point, to really sum it up, is these character backgrounds are stupid. They aren't Enmity: The Dark Lord, because your crazy uncle made an heirloom of the Ring of Power, but rather 'a random Dark Lord fucking hates you because he is omniscient jerk and that is just what happens to newbies in this setting.' And that is fucking stupid. It is even worse when it happening simultaneously to every single person in the party, for entirely separate and unrelated reasons.

It's Basic Fantasy Plot #2 (right behind "there is a powerful artifact we must destroy," but before "has a secret destiny"). "Powerful enemy hunts guy who must level up to survive" is as classic as chainmail bikinis.

And just as distasteful when it is happening for no reason whatsoever.

The reason you have it is to drive the story. At 1st level, the Lich King sends dirty thugs to chase you down and you take down the leader of the thugs. By mid-level you are taking down vampire lords who control the Lich King's cities, and by high level you fight the Lich King by destroying his Soul Machine to weaken him enough to fight personally.

No. Generally not. Usually it starts with <hero> interrupting the dirty thugs while they are doing something completely unrelated to the hero (or the hero is involved through Unfortunate Circumstance, for which, see Luke Skywalker- literally no one (except Obi-wan) gives a shit about him until after the first movie is over). Then as the hero defeats thugs and leaders of thugs, bigger minions take notice and the hero gets pulled toward the Lich King or whatever. Thugs zeroing in on Predestined Heroes because of Villain Foreknowledge is shitty writing and usually boring as dirt 'heroes' (see Robert Jordan). The Hero's _actions_ (ie, player choices, in terms of a game) are what draw attention, and what makes a Hero. It doesn't just happen, except when the writer is being a lazy ass.

-------------------------------

As for the whole "there are bigger characters in the setting, so it makes my character seem meaningless" argument, I am unconvinced.

I honestly do not get that one either. There are pretty much an infinite number of plausible reasons why the Great and Powerful NPCs are too busy or too indifferent to care about any individual situation.

[K]

My point, to really sum it up, is these character backgrounds are stupid. They aren't Enmity: The Dark Lord, because your crazy uncle made an heirloom of the Ring of Power, but rather 'a random Dark Lord fucking hates you because he is omniscient jerk and that is just what happens to newbies in this setting.' And that is fucking stupid. It is even worse when it happening simultaneously to every single person in the party, for entirely separate and unrelated reasons.

I'd agree that it's lazy and stupid, but that's fantasy fiction for you. Many of the plots are extremely weak, especially those about destiny or prophecy.

The only important question is: "will having powerful enemies at chargen make it easier to come up with adventures for PCs?" Since the answer is "yes", there is no reason to not use it in an RPG.

In fact, plot hooks in general tend to suck.

-------------------------------

As for the whole "there are bigger characters in the setting, so it makes my character seem meaningless" argument, I am unconvinced.

I honestly do not get that one either. There are pretty much an infinite number of plausible reasons why the Great and Powerful NPCs are too busy or too indifferent to care about any individual situation.

Most importantly, you don't have to explain to the PCs what those reasons are. It doesn't impact any adventures at all.

[deaddmwalking]

The existence of high level characters isn't a problem. Assuming the setting supports them, they can be a good thing. Personally I don't care for Forgotten Realms in part because it seems that Elminster really is doing everything worth doing - but I don't object to it. Anyone could potentially become as powerful or put a similar mark on the world.

My objection is that it sounds like the Icons are arbitrarily more powerful than the players - and will continue to be no matter how the players advance. If you define the icons some clever player may take one out - so the solution appears to be to make them immune to player agency. And that is a dick move suitable only for a pubescent GM power trip.

[ModelCitizen]

It's Basic Fantasy Plot #2 right behind there is a powerful artifact we must destroy, but before has a secret destiny. Powerul enemy hunts guy who must level up to survive is as classic as chainmail bikinis.

Uh, 13th Age characters don't have to level up to survive, because there is no level where any of your abilities matter against a godlike unstatted metaplot entity. You're making a compelling case that the Lich King should have more limited divination abilities than he has in D&D, so that starting PCs can survive his emnity without DM handwaving. That's the opposite of what 13th Age does.

[K]

It's Basic Fantasy Plot #2 right behind there is a powerful artifact we must destroy, but before has a secret destiny. Powerul enemy hunts guy who must level up to survive is as classic as chainmail bikinis.

Uh, 13th Age characters don't have to level up to survive, because there is no level where any of your abilities matter against a godlike unstatted metaplot entity. You're making a compelling case that the Lich King should have more limited divination abilities than he has in D&D, so that starting PCs can survive his emnity without DM handwaving. That's the opposite of what 13th Age does.

13th Age doesn't say "these enemies are godlike." It just says that they aren't meant to be fought and stats will not be included.

It's far easier to handwave away the hostile action of an undefined enemy than it is to handwave away the same from a godlike enemy. Godlike enemies can be expected have all kinds of hard-to-handle abilities like perfect divination and that kind crap is really hard to narrate away with excuses for why the PCs aren't killed in the first adventure.

But the basic story of "there is someone way more powerful than you who is going to throw intrigues your way" is super easy from a storytelling perspective.

It's not a great mechanic, but since most campaigns never last long enough to actually kill a setting-important NPC, I don't see any serious issues with it. If the PCs actually do get big enough to kill the Lich King, you can just stat him up and end the campaign after the win.

[ModelCitizen]

They have titles we associate with supreme badasses like "lich king" and "archmage," and they're apparently too important to give stats for fear that they might be killed by mere PCs. Even if they're not literal gods they have plot armor and they're fluffed as being among the most powerful NPCs in the world. From a mechanical perspective they have the same status as Powers from Planescape. What the fuck do you want?

[Chamomile]

Luke ultimately beats Vader, Aang ultimately beats Ozai, and Frodo ultimately beats Sauron (sort of). The Lich King and Archmage and etc. have no stats and thus cannot ultimately be defeated. That's an important and significant difference.

[K]

They have titles we associate with supreme badasses like "lich king" and "archmage," and they're apparently too important to give stats for fear that they might be killed by mere PCs. Even if they're not literal gods they have plot armor and they're fluffed as being among the most powerful NPCs in the world. From a mechanical perspective they have the same status as Powers from Planescape. What the fuck do you want?

Fluff is just fluff.

Mechanically, they have no abilities other than immunity from being killed. It's pure MTP where the DM assigns actual abilities as needed at any power level that the DM wants.

Plot immunity doesn't make a character into a god. It doesn't even make them particularly interesting.

[K]

Luke ultimately beats Vader, Aang ultimately beats Ozai, and Frodo ultimately beats Sauron (sort of). The Lich King and Archmage and etc. have no stats and thus cannot ultimately be defeated. That's an important and significant difference.

Does that really matter for an RPG?

I mean, beating the final boss means the campaign ends. It's not even a meaningful part of your game design to have the final boss fight.

RPGs aren't about winning the story. They are about getting to play more and see more story, and having a final boss fight runs counter to that goal.

[ModelCitizen]

This isn't just some random shmuck with plot immunity, this is "The Lich King" or "The Archmage."

It's obvious these guys are supposed to be really powerful, and I don't believe that you can't figure that out. You've probably already realized you're wrong and you're just reposting the same nonsense because you don't want to admit it. So, uh, have fun with that, I guess.

[CapnTthePirateG]

Luke ultimately beats Vader, Aang ultimately beats Ozai, and Frodo ultimately beats Sauron (sort of). The Lich King and Archmage and etc. have no stats and thus cannot ultimately be defeated. That's an important and significant difference.

Does that really matter for an RPG?

I mean, beating the final boss means the campaign ends. It's not even a meaningful part of your game design to have the final boss fight.

RPGs aren't about winning the story. They are about getting to play more and see more story, and having a final boss fight runs counter to that goal.

How? I mean, in this case, these guys are supposedly unkillable, etc...but when you kill them that leads to more and bigger stories. You killed the Lich King, great...now the rest of them are scared and coming after you. And even if you kill them all, you still need to pacify the world and bring it into a new age of peace and prosperity or whatever. Plenty of story left.

[K]

This isn't just some random shmuck with plot immunity, this is "The Lich King" or "The Archmage."

It's obvious these guys are supposed to be really powerful, and I don't believe that you can't figure that out. You've probably already realized you're wrong and you're just reposting the same nonsense because you don't want to admit it. So, uh, have fun with that, I guess.

I'm just not as impressed by fluff as you are.

The Archmage really can just be a character with an overblown reputation who seems impossibly powerful to peasants. That doesn't change his ability to spawn stories at all or give a hint as to the true extent of his power.

You really can have world-shattering adventures with 1st level characters. The fluff is only sometimes related to actual power.

[K]

Luke ultimately beats Vader, Aang ultimately beats Ozai, and Frodo ultimately beats Sauron (sort of). The Lich King and Archmage and etc. have no stats and thus cannot ultimately be defeated. That's an important and significant difference.

Does that really matter for an RPG?

I mean, beating the final boss means the campaign ends. It's not even a meaningful part of your game design to have the final boss fight.

RPGs aren't about winning the story. They are about getting to play more and see more story, and having a final boss fight runs counter to that goal.

How? I mean, in this case, these guys are supposedly unkillable, etc...but when you kill them that leads to more and bigger stories. You killed the Lich King, great...now the rest of them are scared and coming after you. And even if you kill them all, you still need to pacify the world and bring it into a new age of peace and prosperity or whatever. Plenty of story left.

But that's plenty of story in a different campaign.

Once you kill off the primary plot hook for your campaign, the chances are high that the players will want to restart with new characters since they are already getting a new campaign. Level-based games just don't lend themselves to infinite replays with the same characters.

[deaddmwalking]

K,

Your point seems to be predicated on the idea that the players can eventually kill the Icons.

My impression is the opposite.

As a player, I would expect to be unable to meaningfully advance goals.

Can I capture/destroy an artifact that makes the Icon so powerful?

No - since their powers are not defined, nor are their power sources, no action I can take will reduce their power.

Can I make myself more powerful in order to deal with them at some point in the future?

No - since they are arbitrarily 'more powerful than you', there is no way to make yourself more powerful than them.

It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't want to either reduce their power or make yourself strong enough to deal with them, but lots of players will want to.

They'd be better off fulfilling the plot role with something smaller and/or less personal.

You could get the same effect with:

Lucky
You live in interesting times. Some people have good luck. Some people have bad luck. You have all the luck. Fate is smiling on you when she isn't pissing in your Cheerios. Each day you are either particularly lucky or unlucky with the [insert mechanical effect here]

That would allow the plot to work without giving you some 'unbeatable enemy' that you can't even work at dealing with.

You could also have:

Fey Friend
Fey are intrigued by you. Sometimes that's good. Sometimes it's bad. Fey are capricious and you never know what form their interest will take. [Insert mechanical effect]

In the first example, you have impersonal forces, so it's less objectionable. In the second, you have a pervasive effect, but each time you encounter it, you have the possibility of dealing with the source in a meaningful way.

With 'undefined supers' your actions can't matter.

Now, you might be right - the point might be to make the Icons the ultimate enemy when it's appropriate, but I'm getting the total opposite vibe, which is why I don't like the idea...at all.

[Seerow]

Luke ultimately beats Vader, Aang ultimately beats Ozai, and Frodo ultimately beats Sauron (sort of). The Lich King and Archmage and etc. have no stats and thus cannot ultimately be defeated. That's an important and significant difference.

Does that really matter for an RPG?

I mean, beating the final boss means the campaign ends. It's not even a meaningful part of your game design to have the final boss fight.

RPGs aren't about winning the story. They are about getting to play more and see more story, and having a final boss fight runs counter to that goal.

How? I mean, in this case, these guys are supposedly unkillable, etc...but when you kill them that leads to more and bigger stories. You killed the Lich King, great...now the rest of them are scared and coming after you. And even if you kill them all, you still need to pacify the world and bring it into a new age of peace and prosperity or whatever. Plenty of story left.

Alternatively, you kill him and take his mantle, or dismantle his kingdom, or whatever, because that was the endgame of that campaign. Now when you start your next characters in the campaign world, this is a thing that actually happened, and will affect what sorts of things are going on in the world around you.

My experience is that big end of campaign defining moments are irrelevant except maybe as exposition to the character who completes it, because that's the end of his story. But it can have big impact on future campaigns, assuming your group consistently plays in the same setting.






As a side note, just to add one more example of "The enemy is hunting the protagonist from the start of the campaign": Wheel of Time. Like literally the entire series is the Dark One trying to hunt down and kill the protagonists who for the majority of it are powerless to stop him, but throughout the story do gain the power to thwart the minions the Dark One relies on to do his bidding.