Quote from: Settembrini;446246If I wanted to play something self-limiting, I would never have taken up D&D.

Pretty much. Most campaigns usually don't run long enough to get to really high levels anyway but when they do its fun to manage a stronghold and deal with issues besides the next big bad monster.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;4461532) I find most of what people want from E6 is better handled by switching to another system like BRP or OD&D or Earthdawn, instead of rejigging 3.x.

Definitely.

My preference would be to use the Moldvay B/X D&D box sets.  (IIRC, the expert box set only goes up to level 14).

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;4461532) I find most of what people want from E6 is better handled by switching to another system like BRP or OD&D or Earthdawn, instead of rejigging 3.x.

 
Sometimes.  Sometimes not.  Some people have sampled many systems yet still like D&D.  The issue with D&D is that the tone changes drastically over the full range of levels.  Why not stick with the level/tone that you like?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;4461532) I find most of what people want from E6 is better handled by switching to another system like BRP or OD&D or Earthdawn, instead of rejigging 3.x.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. Some people have sampled many systems yet still like D&D. The issue with D&D is that the tone changes drastically over the full range of levels. Why not stick with the level/tone that you like?
 
 

Quote from: Exploderwizard;446252Pretty much. Most campaigns usually don't run long enough to get to really high levels anyway but when they do its fun to manage a stronghold and deal with issues besides the next big bad monster.

You can do that with E6. It isn't AD&D where you aren't allowed to until 9th level and then it magically becomes imperative. With E6, a 6th level dude is as tough as anybody else. It's just that they can't wipe out countries like a 20th level character. If anything, banding together groups of soldiers makes more sense when there are no uber characters to take care of things.

Quote from: Settembrini;446246If I wanted to play something self-limiting, I would never have taken up D&D.

Well, I took up D&D, like many folk, in a different phase of my life.  Also, when I started playing it, like most beginners, I was oblivious to the subtler nuances of the game.
And I changed.

I left D&D a long time ago...but many of the reasons I did so are the same reasons E6 was developed.  Fundamentally, To change the growth curve.  It's funny, many of the houserules I was using to bridge the gap involved trying to maintain the reinforcement of getting more powerful while slowing it down.

I almost suggested something similar to E6 for classic D&D, in response to a question on another board which was basically about maintaining a certain "sweet spot". I gave up on my off-the-cuff idea, though, when I decided that limiting hit point progression without rejiggering damage from high-level spells could create problems.

(I see that with E6 the solution is basically not to have high-level spells. I think it might be better to make them harder to cast. Sort of an equivalent limitation to paying 5000 XP for a single use of the spell, although presenting it as bare mechanics is very unsatisfying.)

An argument that no one has mentioned is that it's said to emulate fantasy better ('Gandalf is a fifth-level magic-user' and so on).

Quote from: Age of Fable;446271An argument that no one has mentioned is that it's said to emulate fantasy better ('Gandalf is a fifth-level magic-user' and so on).

Absolutely.

It still takes a little discipline from the gm. You can't make a bunch of 8th level guys to fight. One or two ever is ok though.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;446267I almost suggested something similar to E6 for classic D&D, in response to a question on another board which was basically about maintaining a certain "sweet spot". I gave up on my off-the-cuff idea, though, when I decided that limiting hit point progression without rejiggering damage from high-level spells could create problems.

(I see that with E6 the solution is basically not to have high-level spells. I think it might be better to make them harder to cast. Sort of an equivalent limitation to paying 5000 XP for a single use of the spell, although presenting it as bare mechanics is very unsatisfying.)

I let characters learn 4th level spells as feats. They can cast them as day long rituals from certain magical places.

Quote from: Nicephorus;446261Sometimes. Sometimes not. Some people have sampled many systems yet still like D&D. The issue with D&D is that the tone changes drastically over the full range of levels. Why not stick with the level/tone that you like?

My problem with D&D and low levels of HP stems from the lack of active defence. I don't claim it's more than a personal preference, but it kind of grinds my teeth how little one is able to do to preserve the limited number of HP one has at low levels.

At high levels, you start getting DR and SR, and immunities, and lots of HP, which ameliorates the problem somewhat. These options are not present in E6. As well, if you use monsters of CR higher than 6 (as I expect most E6 DMs would eventually), monster HP, DR, SR and immunities do increase, which means the PCs have little chance of ever getting the abilities they require to deal enough damage to ancient red dragons, etc.

In BRP, one can parry, dodge, magically buff one's self, wear armour, etc. and monsters have similar amounts of HP to PCs for the most part. In OD&D, monster-avoidance is a key element of play, so I don't object to extreme deadliness.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;446350At high levels, you start getting DR and SR, and immunities, and lots of HP, which ameliorates the problem somewhat. These options are not present in E6. As well, if you use monsters of CR higher than 6 (as I expect most E6 DMs would eventually), monster HP, DR, SR and immunities do increase, which means the PCs have little chance of ever getting the abilities they require to deal enough damage to ancient red dragons, etc.

It does, however, encourage the players to seek out a solution to a rampaging dragon that doesn't involve fighting it head-on.  Which is kinda cool on its own.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;446350My problem with D&D and low levels of HP stems from the lack of active defence. I don't claim it's more than a personal preference, but it kind of grinds my teeth how little one is able to do to preserve the limited number of HP one has at low levels.

Years ago, when I was running all sorts of BRP and active defense games (starting with L'Oeil Noir -Dark Eye-, followed by Stormbringer, Hawkmoon, RuneQuest and Call of Cthulhu, among others), I shared that feeling. That bothered me immensely about D&D. That changed when I realized that the gestion of defense is basically different, that it isn't a matter of rolling a parry, but a matter of movement, positioning, and other tactical options available to player characters in either format.

Back when I ran Arcana Evolved, I tried implementing a defense roll, basically rolling 1d20 instead of having a flat 10 + modifiers AC rating, with flat-footed etc ACs remaining flat numbers themselves. I soon found out that it was too much fiddliness for my and my players' tastes. It basically took away from the tactical emphasis (because regardless of your positioning, your attacker AND yourself could still crit or fumble), adding another layer of dice rolls and complexity to the rules (by the way of defense-dedicated feats I devised) that didn't add anything significant to the game's enjoyment.

Mileages will vary, obviously.

I wouldn't use monsters of higher level than appropriate for the campaign. Implicitly, if you're capping level progression, I'd think you're stating a specific setting power-level. Some monsters would basically become army-killers and appropriate in that role. If you have access to high-level magic (per suggestions above), then those are possible counters.

The thing about D&D (which frankly is something that I did not enjoy about the game when I played it) is that increasing the complexity of the game as you go up levels is largely achieved by increasing the power level of monsters. What E6 seems to be encouraging is to not follow this spiral, but instead to increase challenges and their complexity by multiplying them. Fighting a dozen (or however many) men isn't linearly more difficult/complex than fighting a single man, due to maneuver, terrain, morale, and the fact that the "threat" is broken down into discretely-killable units. About the latter, "overkill" damage is wasted, but area effects have a high utility, and as the "threat" is damaged, its ability to harm you decreases--unlike a D&D monster, which is all-or-nothing (little or no death spiral).

As a semi-compromise, I'd also consider continuing to track "levels" based on cumulative XP gained, but only give +1 HP per level in addition to whatever people spend their XP on.

Quote from: Benoist;446354Years ago, when I was running all sorts of BRP and active defense games (starting with L'Oeil Noir -Dark Eye-, followed by Stormbringer, Hawkmoon, RuneQuest and Call of Cthulhu, among others), I shared that feeling. That bothered me immensely about D&D. That changed when I realized that the gestion of defense is basically different, that it isn't a matter of rolling a parry, but a matter of movement, positioning, and other tactical options available to player characters in either format.

Back when I ran Arcana Evolved, I tried implementing a defense roll, basically rolling 1d20 instead of having a flat 10 + modifiers AC rating, with flat-footed etc ACs remaining flat numbers themselves. I soon found out that it was too much fiddliness for my and my players' tastes. It basically took away from the tactical emphasis (because regardless of your positioning, your attacker AND yourself could still crit or fumble), adding another layer of dice rolls and complexity to the rules (by the way of defense-dedicated feats I devised) that didn't add anything significant to the game's enjoyment.

Mileages will vary, obviously.

Our group sometimes disliked the static AC number, but more disliked the idea that your defense stayed the same as you level. I tried to explain that HP is abstract and that losing 10 HP from 60 didn't constitute an injury because the character is so good at defense.

That explanation of HP never flew because in play you are hit, take damage, and need a cleric to heal you.

One of the house rules I made to fix this feeling was to take the expected bonuses to AC you get from magic items and apply it as a bonus as you go up in level. Along with some changes to how and when you gain back HP, it made the whole thing a lot more emulative.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;446350My problem with D&D and low levels of HP stems from the lack of active defence. I don't claim it's more than a personal preference, but it kind of grinds my teeth how little one is able to do to preserve the limited number of HP one has at low levels.

At high levels, you start getting DR and SR, and immunities, and lots of HP, which ameliorates the problem somewhat. These options are not present in E6. As well, if you use monsters of CR higher than 6 (as I expect most E6 DMs would eventually), monster HP, DR, SR and immunities do increase, which means the PCs have little chance of ever getting the abilities they require to deal enough damage to ancient red dragons, etc.

In BRP, one can parry, dodge, magically buff one's self, wear armour, etc. and monsters have similar amounts of HP to PCs for the most part. In OD&D, monster-avoidance is a key element of play, so I don't object to extreme deadliness.

You can always redefine what an Ancient Dragon is. I consider CR 10 - 11 dragons to be the most powerful in my game world. A party of 6th level characters can kill a CR 11 dragon if they can keep it from flying, and there are enough of them.