Maxus wrote:
Anyways. More and more I'm thinking D&D could be three games at different power levels. The Lord of the Rings low fantasy stuff, the medium fantasy like it basically is, and the high-powered fantasy stuff where your character go all God of War and not be terribly surprised if your character takes out a few gods and Titans on the way.
I agree...but we're back full-circle to defining what those 3 power levels are. And I'm about ready to give up, because after reading back through the thread, I can't find anyone willing to define "high-level" as anything other than "able to advance the plot under their own power". And as far as I'm concerned, that's not a "level" or even "power" issue...that's a strictly playstyle issue, as to whether you enjoy player-driven games and whether the game is set up to handle that, at any level of play.
I've tried to pin down the difference between high-level and low-level adventures, and ultimately can't (in fact, Lago mentions that earlier in the thread on p. 8, and I apologize for overlooking it). The only differences I'm seeing are:
1.) Some people (Lago, Archmage, etc.) define high-level as requiring the ability of a character to be self-contained...there is no reliance on third-party assistance or plot devices to progress, further the plot, overcome obstacles, or achieve goals. This most often is reflected in transport, oddly enough...if you want to have adventures under the sea, or on a floating sky island, or in space, or on the 544th level of the Abyss, it is considered important that a high-level person be able to get there BY THEMSELVES.
So it doesn't matter if the adventure involves journeying to Llolth's Abyssal home and slaying her...if the game involves the PCs getting there on their own hook, that's fine. If they need help to get there, it's low-level.
2.) Some people (Lago, most notably) seem to want to define high-level as "stuff you can't do without magic". So again...it doesn't matter if you slay monsters as big as buildings, or kill gods, or destroy the evil artifact that would veil the earth in darkness...if you do these things by sticking your sword in people, that's low-level.
To a point, I can see where he's coming from...but he's proceeding from a base premise that high-level people are immune to swords (because they have flight, incorporeality, bladeproof skin, instant telportation, whatever), so anything sword-based isn't high-level. But that premise is not a given; you have to want it to be there. Because "level" is an abstraction, and there's nothing saying that high-level has to mean "melee = obsolete" other than designing the game so that it is that way.
So maybe this "high-level" definition I'm seeing comes down to:
--High level people never travel on the ground...they fly, or teleport, or astrally project, or have a spaceship. So you can (almost) never come to grips with them.
--High level people use ranged attacks almost exclusively, usually highly devastating ones. They shoot lasers, or explosions, or use ki-fist-dim-mak waves or something.
--High level people don't worry much about the mundane planet...they're busy with other planets, or dimensions, or whatever.
--High level people ignore mundane dangers. Things like fire, ice, hunger/thirst, sleep, terrain, poisons, whatever...none of these things matter, unless they are magical (and usually high level magic).
--High level people consider death an inconvenience at worst; to fully deal with them, you need to trap their soul or something.
Is that more what you are talking about, Lago?
Regardless...I don't want most of that crap in my D&D. As possibilities, yes. As defaults, no. Not even at high levels. If that makes me a grognard, well, grog grog grog.