Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucla-cs.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!srt From: srt@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.games.frp Subject: High/Low Level Message-ID: <1995@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Mon, 5-Nov-84 22:05:09 EST Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.1995 Posted: Mon Nov 5 22:05:09 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 03:53:48 EST Organization: UCLA CS Dept. Lines: 108 Well, I'm going to try and clear up my position on high-level games, in response to Dave Pare's recent message. I will not resort to calling Mr. Pare a "Bozo" or telling him that he gets "Massive Minus Points". Not that I wasn't tempted :-). Just seems like a poor sort of argument. Oh, and I have played plenty of high-level characters, both as a player and as a DM (though more often as a DM) and I eventually came around to low-level play. First of all, the spelling Ghods is an old fanzine trick to avoid confusing the fictional gods with possible real life entities, thus avoiding offending people. Particularly useful when your fictional world has a Christian deity who isn't exactly like the real world one (if there is one). Secondly, the whole issue of high-level vs. low-level has been discussed in great (I'm tempted to say excruciating) detail before, in forums like A&E. Each side has its merits, and each side its faults, and no one "wins" the argument. Third, let me explain my comments about fighting Ghods and why that is munchkinism. My feeling is that Ghods should be portrayed on a different level from normal characters. Ghods are SUPERnatural, not natural, and should be portrayed that way. To assign Ghods hit points and magic spells is to make them mundane, and that is, I think, a major mistake. After all, what does it mean to kill a Ghod? The concept simply doesn't apply. Of course EGG and the other eggheads at TSR got themselves into this bind and slipped out a back door. They claimed that the Ghods in G,DG & H were just "avatars" of the real Ghods. But that just begs the question... Ghods traditionally have great power over the natural plane. Why should they manifest themselves as an avatar that can be beaten? No reason at all. Let me slip back to my Flatland analogy. Suppose your FRP universe is represented on a flat piece of paper, and a particularly tough character as a tangled mass of lines. A Ghod doesn't have to be *tough* - in game terms - to wipe out your character. Ghod is three dimensional, and he simply has to pick up an eraser and "erase" you out of existence. So the question of conflict never comes up. Ghods, after all, are GHODs! And sure, this means a GM can ruthlessly crush your pet character anytime he wants to simply by having a Ghod will it. I don't think that's right, either. A good GM won't do that so casually, because he'll be roleplaying the pantheon of Ghods, the Ghod himself and so on. It will only happen if you really deserve (you destroy his main temple, for instance). If you have a DM who abuses this privilege, simply quit playing with him. He'll get the message. Fourth, getting back to point two, let me approach this argument by saying what I think is good about low-level play. 1. Low-level play encourages role-playing. Low-level characters have fewer resources available to them, and are less likely to play as a collection of powers rather than a real persona. Of course, a good role-player will do well in either situation, but the low-level game encourages better role-playing. 2. Low-level characters have more advancement to look forward to. All denials to the contrary, every game system has a point past which it fails to work. AD&D craps out around 20th level (witness ED&D, if that has come out), RQ! is getting Heroquests tacked on, and so on. The closer you play to this natural limit, the less your characters can advance before things get silly. 3. Low-level games are more "realistic", both in comparison to real life and in comparison to fantasy. How long does it take to become an expert in anything in real life? Many, many years. Yet I doubt that most high-level characters in play have been around for more than 5 years. As someone pointed out, D&D has only been around 10 years (actually, its been a bit longer - I played a pre-publication version around 12 years ago). How did they get to be high-level so quickly? They played in a campaign where treasure troves were over-inflated. It is hard enough to rationalize dungeons at all, much less ones that are packed to overflowing with goodies. No doubt this particular argument is going to get a lot of flak, because everyone has their own idea of what realistic is. But I think that a comparison between campaigns and fiction would show low-level campaigns to be much closer to the fiction ideal. 4. Low-level games are more interesting. Again, in comparison to fantasy fiction, we see that the "classic" works of fiction all focus on weak characters, and not on high-level duels. Frodo is the main character in LOTR, not Gandalf. And remember "Gandalf was a 4th Level MU"? In the Wizard of Earthsea series, Ged was more interesting as a boy than as a grown man. Even as a powerful wizard, he didn't overcome his trials by using his magic. He tried as hard as he could to find his strength from his character, not from his abilities. Fantasies that feature all-powerful characters are much more one-dimensional: Conan, Elric, Saturday morning cartoons. 5. Low-level games allow a better continuation of action. If a new character enters a low-level campaign, he is weaker than the other characters, but not so much so that he is useless. He can contribute in a meaningful way. A new character in a high-level campaign usually "walks along" on several runs until he has gained enough ep to be useful. 6. Low-level games allow the characters a wider selection of game-level goals. As a low-level character, you can aspire to be anything. If you want to be a innkeeper, for instance, that is acceptable. In a high-level game, you are forced to continue adventuring to keep pace with the others. So, I look forward to hearing what you find good about high-level games. I hope you ignore criteria that are independent of the game level, such as creativity of the GM. I'll probably think of other reasons why I like low level games, which I'll eventually post if this discussion continues. Scott R. Turner UCLA Computer Science Department 3531 Boelter Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90024 ARPA: srt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srt