I'd put it that, beyond the first twelve levels, the settings are woefully underdeveloped.

I mean, suddenly planeswalking becomes easy and even routine...And there's (AFAIK), very little material to support that. I mean, 3.5 you can visit afterlives while alive. I think the possibilities just sort of overwhelm most developers. You're not fantasy heroes any more; you're fantasy super-powered heroes.

Maybe looking at it from that direction would provide more material?

Because fantasy super-powered heroes are not iconic to D&D? The average person does not imagine Superman in a Paladin Suit when he thinks D&D, instead he thinks of thieves and other scoundrels popping the ruby eyes off a demonic idol. Is this the campaign world's next Justice League? Let's not hold our breath.

Seriously though, in earlier editions, the superhero scale was so faraway and the 1-12 range was enjoyable enough that most people simply did not care about those high levels. By the time most people got there, the campaign had already climaxed and they were ready for new characters. It also doesn't hurt that most kickass modules were designed for 1st to 12th level ranges and these modules showed that you could do a variety of awesome epic things without resorting to level inflation.

Simply put, the fact that the rules were there didn't mean people actually used them and I don't blame them for not using them either. In my opinion, they were unnecessary with what you could already do with twelve levels.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. I was taking a bath on the elemental plane of fire.

But seriously, I recognize only two real restrictions on my gaming.

1) Am I enjoying this game?

2) Is this game making me feel sick?

If 2, then 1 = no. So it's pretty much one restriction.

I'm amused by the fact that both you guys and the forgies insist your method of play is better.

Oh har har. :rolleyes:

You can laugh this off too but I would also like to state that it was good how 3rd Edition, though some of that edition's mechanical additions really exaggerated and distorted the issues, exposed the designers (that stayed onboard) to the lunacy that high level play of older editions can entail and agree with them in thier opinion (but not thier exact implementation) that a lot of nonsense had to go since it was spoiling the core D&D experience at those high levels (although Wish was definitely not one of them - even moreso in 3rd Edition).

Aside from a computer game or two, I started playing D&D with 3rd edition. My first 'real' game of AD&D just started on this very forum.

So I don't really have any context for any editions outside of 3rd. In the end, I'll play what I enjoy and hopefully not end up insisting it's the only way to play the game.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;261787I'm amused by the fact that both you guys and the forgies insist your method of play is better.

WTF? Grouping me with forgies? Nowhere did I insist that my method of play is better AND everyone should do it. I even stated that if you like playing above 12th level, all the more power to you. It's just that, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION AND FROM MY OBSERVATIONS AND IN NO WAY SHOULD YOU THINK I AM TELLING YOU EXACTLY WHAT YOU SHOULD DO, the 1st to 12th level range is more iconic to D&D. These are the levels where you go through stuff like Keep in the Borderlands, Temple of Elemental Evil, The Slavelords, and Against the Giants.  Do I literally need to sissy up my argument by adding more coddling words as not to send people into a nerd rage?

Quote from: DeadUematsu;261869WTF? Grouping me with forgies? Nowhere did I insist that my method of play is better AND everyone should do it. I even stated that if you like playing above 12th level, all the more power to you. It's just that, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION AND FROM MY OBSERVATIONS AND IN NO WAY SHOULD YOU THINK I AM TELLING YOU EXACTLY WHAT YOU SHOULD DO, the 1st to 12th level range is more iconic to D&D. These are the levels where you go through stuff like Keep in the Borderlands, Temple of Elemental Evil, The Slavelords, and Against the Giants.  Do I literally need to sissy up my argument by adding more coddling words as not to send people into a nerd rage?

So glad you posted before me. I agree with this post totally.

I just ran a dnd game that went about 6 months. For the first like, 16 games they were running from almost everything and getting their asses kicked by the same wizard over and over again.

When they made it to 8th level, they showed up in a city after dark where the king's son, Duke of the land, was a vampire and so were a lot of his knights. The party instandly destroyed the lot of them, cast out all the ghouls, and took over the city.

The next game, a player needed help on the country side so the Paladin, without asking me if it was ok, said, "I grab my hundred finest knights and ride out to meet him.

8th level is so epic to me... I just can't imagine a game with 12th or 15th level characters.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;261794Aside from a computer game or two, I started playing D&D with 3rd edition. My first 'real' game of AD&D just started on this very forum.

So I don't really have any context for any editions outside of 3rd. In the end, I'll play what I enjoy and hopefully not end up insisting it's the only way to play the game.

You aren't missing much. 1st and 2nd editions are almost the same as third. They use the same chance to it, AC, spells, classes... you get more of a revision in English text books.

Quote from: Cranewings;262016You aren't missing much. 1st and 2nd editions are almost the same as third. They use the same chance to it, AC, spells, classes... you get more of a revision in English text books.

Completely disagree. I've played almost a decade of third edition and before that, almost two decades of 1st and 2nd edition (as well as classic D&D).

All fine games that felt very different to me in play from 3rd and also varied in the prep department and handling of things.

I can really see why some people love a particular edition while disliking another because to me, they are very different.

Quote from: Consonant Dude;262033Completely disagree. I've played almost a decade of third edition and before that, almost two decades of 1st and 2nd edition (as well as classic D&D).

All fine games that felt very different to me in play from 3rd and also varied in the prep department and handling of things.

I can really see why some people love a particular edition while disliking another because to me, they are very different.

I think the mood of the artwork and flavor text in the books has more to do with it than anything. I haven't been gaming for as long with you, but I started with 2.0 and played a fair share of 1.0. To me, the games were just about the same. I liked them for the same reasons and we ran the same kinds of games. The GM's style was 90% of the difference from game to game... meaning if Frank runs 2.0 or 1.0, it is still a Frank game.

I'll admit, the settings for 3.0 are a LOT different than the other settings, but asides from Dragon Lance and FR, we rarely used them. It was always home brew.

Maybe the people you played with changed?

Nerd rage? How does 'amused' equate to 'nerd rage'?

Yeah, if you can't argue this without resorting to hyberbole, there's really no point.

So I'll just end with 'It sure sounded to me like you were saying 1-12th was better than the higher levels'. If that's not what you were trying to say, sorry for the confusion, but you weren't very clear on that.

Nah, Consonant Dude is right. There are pretty strong differences in play between the various editions IF you play BTB.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;262076Nerd rage? How does 'amused' equate to 'nerd rage'?

Yeah, if you can't argue this without resorting to hyberbole, there's really no point.

So I'll just end with 'It sure sounded to me like you were saying 1-12th was better than the higher levels'. If that's not what you were trying to say, sorry for the confusion, but you weren't very clear on that.

Look, you are the one who grouped me in with The Forge and knowing how people around here view the Forge and its kind, it's fair to extrapolate that your view is negative at best and meaningfully insulting if worse. Okay?

Also, I can and I did argue my point without hyperbole. In my opinion (and I hope I do not have to explicitly state this every time), 13th level and beyond play is unnecessary. For me, there is nothing that you can do in the full 20 levels that cannot be done in the first 12. Seriously. Age of Worms would have been better, again in my opinion, if it were written for 1st to 12th level. Fundamentally, it is saying 1st to 12th level is better than the higher levels. If that sounds like condescending gravel to you, tough. I could not care one iota because such an opinion should not be getting your briefs in a bunch. Especially since I have no control over what and how you play. And if I do, man...

Nah, the Forge is deliberately pretentious and irrevelant to most game designing and this place is occasionally unintentionally pretentious and relevant to most game designing.

Sorry for the insult, but I don't subscribe to the 'Forgies are out to kill gaming' theory, so I didn't see it.

Again, I'm not angry about it. When I get angry, I get very, very icy.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;262076Nerd rage? How does 'amused' equate to 'nerd rage'?

Yeah, if you can't argue this without resorting to hyberbole, there's really no point.

So I'll just end with 'It sure sounded to me like you were saying 1-12th was better than the higher levels'. If that's not what you were trying to say, sorry for the confusion, but you weren't very clear on that.

I'll say it. I think dnd makes very little sense from levels 1-12, and becomes nonsense at anything higher. I actually don't like dnd beyond 8th, but I'll run it to 9th.

If someone runs a game that everyone likes at level 13 or higher, good for them. GMing is like making music. The fact that someone likes it is enough to make it... good.

You just won't catch me playing or running that 13+ game, because I feel, in my heart, it sucks.