Mechanics Cross-Pollination Thread

[Beoric]

If I were to guess about Beoric's claim, I'd assume that he feels that since still there was still a privileged class, poverty, etc....the two equate for the common man. The notion of a (even fictional) beneficent ruler has gotten a lot of push-back in the past 20 years as the old flames of class-warfare have been stoked once again by those seeking to manipulate the masses. I say no more.

That's not it, you would not hear me making that argument.

There is just no way to have this discussion without discussing what makes an empire an empire, how resource extraction works in an empire, colonialism, how colonialism works, and how those relate to Star Wars. Not that any of those would be the core of my argument, but they would pop up unavoidably from time to time. Also, I would have to talk about what kind of authoritarian regime the Empire is, and I doubt the very relevant discussion of whether or not it was fascist, or how the Empire (or for that matter the Republic) treats minorities, would go over very well.

The most politically neutral thing I can say is that, despite the symbolic trappings, the Republic and the Empire seem to have more in common with Republican and Imperial Rome than with modern democracies and empires. That transition from Roman Republic to Empire had a great deal of impact on the rights of the patricians, but not much impact on the plebians, whose lives were pretty much shitty under each, and possibly improved during parts of the Imperial period.

The fact that, at the outset, the story is only told by the patricians, does not help. This is in fact a trope from history; aristocrats write the histories, which is why everyone thinks Sparta was such a cool place (it was written about by Athenian aristocrats who admired its manly men and great armies - that actually weren't that great - and ignored its treatment of its own people), and why popular depictions of Rome are heavily influenced by patrician writings, which modern historians know to take with a grain of salt. Telling the story from the point of view of the aristocrats only implies that the point of view of non-aristocrats does not matter, which is exactly how historical aristocratic sources treated them.

There was ample opportunity in the first six movies to distinguish the lot of the common people, and it didn't - unless you count the treatment of the Gungans under the Republic, and the Ewoks under the Empire (the latter of which were pretty much ignored and allowed to continue their way of life, despite being on a resource rich moon along a hyperspace route), or the Droids under either. Or comparing the Clone Troopers, who were slaves of the Republic, to the Stormtroopers who are at least partly volunteers. But if I start talking about the treatment of the (clearly indigenous) Gungans, well, you see where that leads.

 

[Hemlock]

The most politically neutral thing I can say is that, despite the symbolic trappings, the Republic and the Empire seem to have more in common with Republican and Imperial Rome than with modern democracies and empires.

Well, sure. That's not even controversial. George Lucas is pretty overtly equating the Galactic Republic to the Roman Republic, as a lesson on how republics fall (when the people demand strong leaders to fight chaos).

That's not the statement that surprised me. Maybe I just read too much into your use of the word "nobody" in the absence of evidence about pretty much everybody? If you'd said "Based on how governments work, I suspect some people probably have it about as good under the Empire as the Republic" I would have shrugged and went on my way.

The fact that, at the outset, the story is only told by the patricians, does not help. This is in fact a trope from history; aristocrats write the histories, which is why everyone thinks Sparta was such a cool place (it was written about by Athenian aristocrats who admired its manly men and great armies - that actually weren't that great - and ignored its treatment of its own people), and why popular depictions of Rome are heavily influenced by patrician writings, which modern historians know to take with a grain of salt. Telling the story from the point of view of the aristocrats only implies that the point of view of non-aristocrats does not matter, which is exactly how historical aristocratic sources treated them.

I agree about Sparta. Good riddance.

There was ample opportunity in the first six movies to distinguish the lot of the common people, and it didn't - unless you count the treatment of the Gungans under the Republic, and the Ewoks under the Empire (the latter of which were pretty much ignored and allowed to continue their way of life, despite being on a resource rich moon along a hyperspace route), or the Droids under either. Or comparing the Clone Troopers, who were slaves of the Republic, to the Stormtroopers who are at least partly volunteers. But if I start talking about the treatment of the (clearly indigenous) Gungans, well, you see where that leads.

Meh. Both the Gungans and the Ewoks were equally ignored by the Republic and Empire, respectively. (Also, "resource-rich"?) But the fact that the people of Alderaan were vaporized as an intimidation tactic by the Empire cannot be ignored, and says a lot about the geopolitical environment in which the Empire was operating.

To a lesser degree there are also some moisture farmers and Jawas on Tattooine with reason to complain of their treatment by the empire: killed out of hand, but at least their planet wasn't vaporized. No patricians they.

I disagree with counting the Clone Troopers as part of the Republic, since they were actually an advance element of the Empire and clearly the forerunner to (maybe organizationally contiguous with) the Stormtroopers. The fact that the Empire may have started recruiting even more troops than just their cloned troopers over the twenty years between Episodes III and IV gets a big shrug from me. They're still Palpatine's patsies in either era.

If we want to talk about Republic vs. Empire it makes more sense to use what we know of the Republican status quo prior to Palpatine's ascent to power.

 

[Beoric]

I'm still not going to argue about the Gungans.

Trees (lumber) are resources, and clearly the land on Endor is fertile; one would have expected the Empire to indulge in slash and burn agriculture to grow cash crops.

The Clone Troopers were authorized by the Republic, being subverted by Palpatine does not change that.

Given that this is supposed to be channeling Rome, and the feudal/monarchic governments of many of the planets, we should not be surprised that warfare when it happens is brutal. Yes, the Death Star took out Alderaan in one shot, that does not mean it would not have been brutalized if it had been attacked in a more conventional fashion. Destroying Alderaan is the Star Wars equivalent of razing a city to the ground and putting its inhabitants to the sword.

But sure, let's say that the destruction of Alderaan is the one incident of mass destruction that the Empire performed in the first six movies for which, as far as we know, there was no moral equivalent in the Republic. And let's assume there is no Hiroshima-like nobler intention that it might not have actually saved lives by shortening the rebellion and preventing other uprisings. Other than that act of war, and the killing of individuals who had extended contact with the droid that held the plans for the Death Star, there are very few indications that ordinary people are worse off under the Empire in their day to day lives.

 

[Alexander Moonbeam]

Trees (lumber) are resources, and clearly the land on Endor is fertile; one would have expected the Empire to indulge in slash and burn agriculture to grow cash crops.

I doubt the Empire would want the location of their top-secret military installation to become an economic hub.

And let's assume there is no Hiroshima-like nobler intention that it might not have actually saved lives by shortening the rebellion and preventing other uprisings.

The Japanese and Americans were actively at war. The Aaldaranians and the Empire were not. There was no strategic sense in destroying Aalderan beyond a broad intention to rule by fear.

Of course the Republic was not perfect. If it was, it could not have been turned into the Empire. But, the Republic didn't blow up planets or summarily execute farmers for the crime of unwittingly purchasing a robot formerly owned by a rebel.

Shit fuck right this thread is supposed to be about game mechanics. Uuuuhhh so hey weapon vs armor class modifiers, huh? How do we feel about that?

And do we apply it to Monsters or only to demihuman(oid)s wearing literal armor?

 

[Hemlock]

But sure, let's say that the destruction of Alderaan is the one incident of mass destruction that the Empire performed in the first six movies for which, as far as we know, there was no moral equivalent in the Republic. And let's assume there is no Hiroshima-like nobler intention that it might not have actually saved lives by shortening the rebellion and preventing other uprisings. Other than that act of war, and the killing of individuals who had extended contact with the droid that held the plans for the Death Star, there are very few indications that ordinary people are worse off under the Empire in their day to day lives.

Sure. But aside from those RATHER LARGE exceptions, there's very little sign of ordinary people at all in the Empire era, so it's hardly surprising that we have nothing to compare to the Republic's security volunteers, bar-tenders and deathstick-dealers. (Again, not counting the slaves outside the Republic's influence; the Republic has anti-slavery laws good enough that Padme is shocked to learn slavery still exists in the Outer Rim.) There's a bar tender in A New Hope but we don't learn anything about him except that he is forced to tolerate open violence in his workplace.

In any case since we've established that the Empire is very bad for the people of Alderaan with whom they are not even at war, I'm content. That was my main point.

 

[Hemlock]

I doubt the Empire would want the location of their top-secret military installation to become an economic hub.

They also don't seem to use wood, or care much about fertile soil. (What is moisture-farming anyway, and why didn't Uncle Ben just move to a non-desert planet like Dagobah?) Cloud City looks like a hydrogen- or helium-3-extraction facility. To the extent the galactic civilization cares about resources, it looks like metal and energy are their priorities.

Uuuuhhh so hey weapon vs armor class modifiers, huh? How do we feel about that?

And do we apply it to Monsters or only to demihuman(oid)s wearing literal armor?

I like the goal of differentiating and adding realism, but not the implementation. As you point out, the implementation doesn't work well with most monsters, who have neither damage types nor armor type listed. It's an incomplete implementation with not enough impact to justify the hassle.

DFRPG weapons are pretty nicely differentiated though. There's only one weapon on the lists that has no reason to exist (saber). In contrast to AD&D there are "only" seven different polearms, and eighteen total ways of using them (e.g. poke with spike, slash with blade, swing spike for extra momentum), but all of them have situations where it makes sense for somebody to use them. Swords are great for individual duelists with a lot of money (like PCs) but even there various PCs have valid reasons to prefer axes (extra damage and cheaper), staves (good defense, high damage against unarmored foes), knives (good against wild animals like trolls, wolves), or spears (cheap, excellent damage against lightly armored targets, can be used with a shield).

 

[Beoric]

the Republic has anti-slavery laws good enough that Padme is shocked to learn slavery still exists in the Outer Rim.

I didn't remember this. It still doesn't explain the Clones.

Uuuuhhh so hey weapon vs armor class modifiers, huh? How do we feel about that?

One of my problems with many of the fiddly simulationist rules is they were invented by a dude who didn't actually have any practical experience with weapons, armor or combat, so you are complicating your system in order to add an inaccurate simulation. Like, with a footman's mace, why do you have an easier time hitting someone with a shield than you do hitting someone who is buck naked?

I rarely find it worth the effort, except for intuitive no-brainers, like bonuses if you are attacking from the rear, or penalties if the target has cover.

As an aside, it really annoys me how useless helms are in D&D. Until you get into really heavy armors, the first thing you want is a helm, which in D&D provides no AC improvement. And arguably a shield might be even more important - historically it was added to kit before body armor - but it only adds one point of AC, whereas one would think it would be better than at least the inferior types of body armor.

 

[squeen]

If you don't wear a helm in AD&D as part of you AC you receive an effective penalty. Ye old 1 in 6 is at your AC 10 head (by intelligent creatures).

The way that works out probabilistically, is an AC penalty of between 2 and 4 dependent on what you are wearing.

You may not love that, but it's there.

I like the WvsAC effect that creates a possible interest in weapons other than long swords, etc. It's tactical and still pretty simple---even if there is room for debate on realism. I've started using it and don't mind it.

 

[Hemlock]

I didn't remember this. It still doesn't explain the Clones.

It partly explains though why all the Jedi felt so uneasy about the clones. Although another big part of it was unease at having a massive professional army for the chief executive to play with. If Palpatine hadn't first engineered a massive war I don't know what they would have done with the clone troopers--freed them? Exiled them? Both?

 

[Beoric]

If you don't wear a helm in AD&D as part of you AC you receive an effective penalty. Ye old 1 in 6 is at your AC 10 head (by intelligent creatures).

The way that works out probabilistically, is an AC penalty of between 2 and 4 dependent on what you are wearing.

I remember that rule; it was actually 1 in 6 for any creature, or 1 in 2 for intelligent creatures. It was a rule that effectively meant everyone wore a helm; you may as well have increased the cost of armor by 10 gp, assumed it included a helm, and deleted the rule.

I guess you had to take off a helm to listen at doors, but even in the unlikely event that you forgot to put on your helm before opening said door (asshole DM: "You didn't say you were putting your helm back on, heh heh heh, oh, and you aren't holding a sword or shield because your helm is in your hands") a straight penalty would have been more efficient punishment.

 

[squeen]

Yup. I was a lazy typist.

Are you now poo-pooing the very thing you were complaining was absent? You need a holiday.

 

[Beoric]

You need a holiday.

This has been true for several years.

The book cost of armor includes a basic helm. Why increase the book cost?

The cost of armor and helms is detailed separately, so I assumed armor did not include the cost of a helm. Particularly since the choice of a helm theoretically makes a difference, and the two types of helms are different prices; if a helm was included, which variety of helm?

Grieves, vambraces, sabatons, etc. do not have separate prices listed, so I assume they are included with the cost of armor.

 

[Alexander Moonbeam]

As an aside, it really annoys me how useless helms are in D&D. Until you get into really heavy armors, the first thing you want is a helm, which in D&D provides no AC improvement. And arguably a shield might be even more important - historically it was added to kit before body armor - but it only adds one point of AC, whereas one would think it would be better than at least the inferior types of body armor.

I know this is the lazy option, but personally, I treat any suit of armor in my campaign as already including an appropriate helm. We don't treat pauldrons or greaves as separate items you need to buy, why should helms get special treatment?

It partly explains though why all the Jedi felt so uneasy about the clones. Although another big part of it was unease at having a massive professional army for the chief executive to play with. If Palpatine hadn't first engineered a massive war I don't know what they would have done with the clone troopers--freed them? Exiled them? Both?

I am imagining the Kaminoans, decades later, sending an email to Palpatine's successor about it. "Hey, do you guys still need this clone army we made you? They're eating all our food."

That email gets read by the chancellor's secretary's secretary, who searches her digital memos for "clone army for chancellor," doesn't find anything, and marks the message as spam.

 

[Hemlock]

Going back to the root purpose of this thread:

I’m starting this thread as a place where people who want to discuss mechanics can post. The intention is to identify the impact that mechanics has on the game, and how alternative mechanical systems impact the game in different ways. A corollary of this is to clarify the functioning of any mechanic under discussion, in order to facilitate meaningful discussion about the mechanic.

I posit that sharply increasing power curves from leveling up, a la high-level spells in *D&D, are problematic. I think we've discussed this before in various threads, but since this is a mechanics thread I want to state for the record that reserving 90% or even 70% of the rules of the game for PCs much more experienced than starting PCs puts unhealthy pressure on a campaign to either accelerate leveling (which can make the campaign feel unrealistic) or reduce lethality or both. It also potentially[1] introduces breakpoints into play where suddenly the DM must build adventures differently to accommodate new player capabilities like Teleport and Conjure Elemental, which may be partly responsible for the dearth of high-level D&D campaigns that didn't start out at high-level: it's sometimes hard to discard old DMing habits just because the PCs have levelled up.

Leveling up and getting better at things you can already do, or acquiring more capabilities that you could have had at first level but for the opportunity cost, is not necessarily harmful even if those capabilities are very, very powerful. For example, in OD&D, Charm Person is an extremely powerful spell[2], and remains almost as powerful even in AD&D. (It then gets progressively weaker down to its current 5E incarnation which is almost useless.) My argument is not that Charm Person is a problem at first level; but if it were available only when a wizard reached 9th level, that could create a problem: a player who is excited by the concept of building a spy network with Charm Person may want to rush through early levels of play until he reaches 9th level so he can start playing with the thing he actually wants. If the player dies at 7th level and has to start over, soft-hearted DMs may be tempted to prevent the death, or to allow a new character to start at 6th or 7th level, specifically so the player can reach their goal. If the character doesn't die, the DM may not be ready to revamp the campaign around a new and ever-expanding network of charmed NPC spies, and either the player gets frustrated or the DM gets frustrated. Arguably Charm Person at 9th level can be handled in a non-disruptive way--maybe you already have ideas for dealing with it--but the point is that when a large amount of game rules (spells) are reserved for high level, the game changes when you get to high level!

Contrast this with how D&D fighters tend to work: they get better at things, and better gear, but a 11th level fighter isn't playing a fundamentally different game from a 1st level fighter except with respect to traits gained unpredictably during play, like a magic sword that can cast Fireball 1/day or a divine curse that gives him the strength of ten men while the sun shines but knocks him unconscious at night. In D&D 5E fighters gain more and better abilities at high level, e.g. 15th level Eldritch Knights gain the ability to short-range teleport and Battlemasters get more Battlemaster maneuvers (semi-Vancian combat maneuvers like Disarm and Shove), but overall fighters still have a fairly flat power curve.

In Dungeon Fantasy RPG, powerful spells exist, but there aren't any spells that a starting wizard/cleric/druid is unable to start with if they sacrifice other spells to get all the necessary prerequisites. (There are a couple of spells which effectively "cost" 17 or so of your 30 total starting spell picks, but none that cost 31+.) Players can still get psychological rewards from the prospect of playing characters until they increase in power, but there's less pressure on the game itself to change into a "high-level" game because players who are sufficiently interested in a given trait already have it. If your artillery wizard dies just before he gains the ability to grant sapience to his illusions and send them out as spies, well, you can make a new wizard as an illusionist who is a master of illusions but not artillery--you can pick up the artillery spells later.

TL;DR flat power curves encourage players to focus on the experience of playing the game today, and not the hope of what their PC will be able to do tomorrow.

[1] Obviously this is not an issue if you've been building adventures all along which would not be ruined by Teleport or Conjure Elemental.

[2] Per https://greyhawk.fandom.com/wiki/Bigby, Bigby was earlier an evil low level Wizard who encountered Mordenkainen. The two wizards engaged in combat; Mordenkainen managed to subdue Bigby using a charm spell, and forced Bigby to become his servant. After a long time and several adventures, Mordenkainen managed to convince Bigby to leave his evil ways behind, and Kuntz ruled that it was safe to remove the charm spell, since Bigby had changed from an enemy to a loyal henchman.

 

[squeen]

I posit that sharply increasing power curves from leveling up, a la high-level spells in *D&D, are problematic. I think we've discussed this before in various threads, but since this is a mechanics thread I want to state for the record that reserving 90% or even 70% of the rules of the game for PCs much more experienced than starting PCs puts unhealthy pressure on a campaign to either accelerate leveling (which can make the campaign feel unrealistic) or reduce lethality or both. It also potentially[1] introduces breakpoints into play where suddenly the DM must build adventures differently to accommodate new player capabilities like Teleport and Conjure Elemental, which may be partly responsible for the dearth of high-level D&D campaigns that didn't start out at high-level: it's sometimes hard to discard old DMing habits just because the PCs have levelled up.

An interesting point, but I have to disagree --- at least with regards to AD&D. I don't feel that 70-90% of the rules are reserved for high-levels. While they may be a lot of discussion about the direction things can go at higher levels, those rules are mostly corner-case guidelines in the 1e DMG. Weird arcana when you don't need them, but wonderfully helpful when you do. They may be large in volume, but not in frequency...and that makes logical sense to me and does not apply pressure to "hurry up and get there". Remaining fair while not caving into PC desires/demands I think is the hallmark a good DM. For example, just because there is a listing for artifacts, does not mean you are obligated to place them in your world.

The notion that the playing field needs to change as PC get to higher levels and have access to teleport etc. is also well and proper in my estimation. It becomes a natural evolution from the mundane to the exotic. Every level-range has it's sweet spot for action, and that variety keeps you interested.

In my experience the power-curve in AD&D seems fairly flat. When all the rules are used, there are enough checks and balances so that death is always a real possibility. The PC rarely become super-human and invulnerable, unless it's through accumulation of magic items...which is a DM's self-inflicted wound. An intelligent enemy often has access to all the same abilities (and more!). As a player, even at name-level, we always felt quite vulnerable. Our DM was wonderfully adept at maintaining balance---the good with the bad. Swords that cut both ways.

Many years later, as a DM, the way the game grew to handle the evolving campaign was truly a wonder to me. If felt like I was walking in the footsteps of giants, and really appreciated the sensation and connection.

I know that many people want different things from an RPG, but I only wish I could convey my journey with 1e AD&D more succinctly, because it has been 5-star. I really am so enamored with the entire experience of two-decades of weekly play that any dissatisfaction with the system as a whole is so minor, it's hardly worth mentioning. Maybe I'm just easy to please. I also enjoy being challenged. Total mastery/success in a game is boring.

AD&D to me is just the three core 1e books with a small amount of cherry-picking of what came after (officially), plus a few adventure nuggets from the OSR. For campaign content, it's 90% DIY which is true now and back when I was a player in the 70's and 80's. We also stick to the four main OD&D classes, by and large. Over time, nearly all my attempts at rule-alterations have been discarded as unnecessary or failed experiments. I put my energy into creative world content, which can---in a one-off sense---be rule bending at times.

 

[Hemlock]

An interesting point, but I have to disagree --- at least with regards to AD&D. I don't feel that 70-90% of the rules are reserved for high-levels. While they may be a lot of discussion about the direction things can go at higher levels, those rules are mostly corner-case guidelines in the 1e DMG.

*snip*

AD&D has a lot of spells that I'm counting as rules. And I have to admit that I'm not 100% attached to my initial framing of the problem; I am open to discussing other hypotheses for player impatience to level and for high-level campaign fizzles too.

One trend I notice in 5E players including myself is that there's a lot of mental energy spent on character "builds" before play ever starts, like an Artificer who is planning to eventually take 3 levels of Ranger and 1 level of cleric, or wizards planning the best spells to take at each future level. This is true only to a lesser extent for AD&D: it may be fun to play a priest of Oghma and look forward to getting Mass Suggestion at level 9, or a metapsionicist who will (around level 7) acquire the ability to enslave defeated monsters to his will. But if we exclude psionicists, the AD&D concepts are basically one-liners ("half-giant gladiator") and the bulk of the mental energy is spent on actual play.

I conjecture two drivers for the difference between AD&D and 5E. One is that multiclassing in AD&D is simple and chosen once, at character creation, whereas in 5E it's a complex series of irrevocable decisions with permanent impact: this encourages forethought to avoid costly permanent mistakes. (For example, a Fighter 5/Barbarian 7 will always regret that 5th level in Fighter which gives him nothing; he'd be better off as a Fighter 4/Barbarian 8, even if Fighter 5 made perfect roleplaying sense at the time.) AD&D's equivalent is dual-classing, which isn't widely used due to strict attribute requirements and also I think because it delays gratification soooo much: it takes Str 15 Int 17 to create a dual-classed 9th level Fighter/10th level mage, but playing 9 levels as a Str 15 Fighter is very painful if you are actually itching to play a mage. And if you die it's all wasted.

Test for this hypothesis: this hypothesis would predict that squeen's AD&D game, which features players who are content to play at any level, probably doesn't see much dual-classing. If he does that's evidence against the hypothesis.

The second factor is something I alluded to with psionicists. Normally AD&D wizards have to find spells in play, like magic items, or research them. 5E wizards (and priests, and bards, etc.) have a much greater ability to predict what powers they'll be wielding at a given level of play. Just as AD&D fighters can't count too much on finding specific magic items, wizards can't count too much on finding specific spells like Wish and Magic Jar, and this may also reduce the amount of mental energy devoted to anticipating the future. Counter-argument: priests and psionicists can still predict their future power evolution and spell combinations (like Conjure Animals + Animal Growth) just as easily as 5E players can. If spells really are a driver of this live-for-tomorrow mindset, wouldn't it still show up in AD&D for priests and psionicists? Counter-counterargument: maybe, but psionicists don't exist in AD&D 1st edition which squeen is playing, and specialty priests don't either, only druids and clerics. And there are fewer spells overall.

How to test this hypothesis: I'm not sure. Ask squeen what his cleric/druid players do with their powers once they do get to high level? If they know awesome spell combos but aren't in a hurry to get to high level and use them, that would be evidence against this second hypothesis. If they simply don't use powerful spell combos, period, that is consistent with this hypothesis for why they are happy at any level, and weak (Bayesian) evidence in favor of it.

In my experience the power-curve in AD&D seems fairly flat. When all the rules are used, there are enough checks and balances so that death is always a real possibility. The PC rarely become super-human and invulnerable, unless it's through accumulation of magic items...which is a DM's self-inflicted wound. An intelligent enemy often has access to all the same abilities (and more!). As a player, even at name-level, we always felt quite vulnerable. Our DM was wonderfully adept at maintaining balance---the good with the bad. Swords that cut both ways.

It's not necessarily about superhuman invulnerability, although spells like Stoneskin/Ironskin and Magic Jar certainly do boost survivability a lot. It's also about offensive and strategic power. For example, Polymorph Other on a horse to turn it into a Silver Dragon, then cast a couple of Shadow Monsters spells to create some illusionary Flowfiends (or other monster with multiple strong attacks for its HD), then Enlarge the Silver Dragon and Haste them all to defeat the monsters you've already scouted out with Wizard Eye, and take the monsters' treasure.

You can have a DM who still makes you scared even when you know combos like this, but you're still far more powerful (and better at killing dragons/giants/etc.) than a player who's just relying on straightforward Ice Storm and Lightning Bolt while the monsters are actively attacking you. In that sense the power curve is real, especially if you do combine it with defensive spells like Magic Jar (and Sequester for your jar gem).

 

[Beoric]

TL;DR flat power curves encourage players to focus on the experience of playing the game today, and not the hope of what their PC will be able to do tomorrow.

I agree that games with flatter power curves prevent players from focussing on power acquisition, because that kind of power acquisition is not an option. I don't agree that games with steep power curves necessarily cause a focus on planning for a later "build"; none of my players do this, and even on the 4e CharOp boards it is only a few high-op players that seem to do this.

I also don't agree that flat power curve games are, by their nature, objectively better than steep power curve games. In the early 80s I was fascinated by the Gamma World setting, but could not get excited about playing the games largely because (IIRC) you didn't accumulate power in the same way.

I do think games like D&D could do a better job of dealing with high level play. I think the early systems presumptively transitioned to domain play which you hit "name" level, but there was very little guidance for how this was to be accomplished. The highest level game I ever played in was in my late teens/early 20s, and it was only notionally a domain game; we had strongholds, but didn't really do much with them except keep our stuff there. A couple of years ago I talked to my then-DM about it, and he said he had wanted to run a domain game, but just couldn't figure out how to do it.

That being said, the game changed significantly when we got to be high level, because the enemies shifted from monsters to NPCs, and they also had spells. And AD&D does not have a lot of magic that can easily be used to counter other magic. So yeah, we used teleport w/o error to flit everywhere, but we had no way of preventing our enemies from doing the same thing. It is a very different game from tracking your torches and your rations at 1st level.

So I agree in part with @squeen in that I think the power curve in AD&D isn't as steep as you think. This is partially because spells like sleep and charm are ridiculously overpowered; and partially because a lot of high level spells have serious limitations, and for a long time you get fewer of them. Also, many of the better spells are quite time limited, and there was a hard cap on the number of times you could cast permanency. Also, in AD&D you are supposed to find or be taught your spells; it isn't like later games where you just "pick" them as soon as you gain a level. So you might not get sleep until you are 9th level.

(Note Kanon Eberron is a lot like that; high level magic is rare to the point where high level wizards have trouble finding high level spells, and may have to fill those slots with lower level spells unless they find lost spell books or gain extraplanar teachers.)

I also think it helps as a DM to focus on the consequences of PC actions. Your silver dragon example just made me wonder why the horse-come-silver-dragon would want to fight for you. It remembers being a horse, but now has dragon instincts and is very smart. Why would a dragon fight for you in the circumstances? Does it figure out it is going to revert back? If so, is going back to being your horse a good gig for it, or would it be better off to fly off and find a situation where it will not be in combat all the time? If not, does it now want to take the treasure?

 

[Hemlock]

I agree that games with flatter power curves prevent players from focussing on power acquisition, because that kind of power acquisition is not an option. I don't agree that games with steep power curves (A) necessarily cause a focus on planning for a later "build"; none of my players do this, and even on the 4e CharOp boards it is only a few high-op players that seem to do this.

I also don't agree that flat power curve games are, by their nature, (B) objectively better than steep power curve games. In the early 80s I was fascinated by the Gamma World setting, but could not get excited about playing the games largely because (IIRC) you didn't accumulate power in the same way.

...


I also think it helps as a DM to focus on the consequences of PC actions. (C) Your silver dragon example just made me wonder why the horse-come-silver-dragon would want to fight for you. It remembers being a horse, but now has dragon instincts and is very smart. Why would a dragon fight for you in the circumstances? Does it figure out it is going to revert back? If so, is going back to being your horse a good gig for it, or would it be better off to fly off and find a situation where it will not be in combat all the time? If not, does it now want to take the treasure?

(A) I agree that it's not inevitable. More of a tendency than a simple cause, like how smoking causes lung cancer in 10-20% of lifelong smokers, but 80%+ of smokers still never get lung cancer. Presumably there are multiple factors that go into both trends. But almost no non-smokers get lung cancer.

(B) I'm not arguing for "objectively better," just "avoids certain kinds of problems," in the spirit of the thread.

(C) Obviously it depends. It's tough to drill down into an example, but for the sake of discussion:

1.) Maybe you know that the DM runs Silver Dragons as loners so you cast Charm Monster on the horse long before Polymorphing it.

2.) Maybe the enemy you're planning on attacking has a history of hostility to dragons.

3.) Maybe you negotiate with the dragon after its creation to request help. Silver dragons are traditionally pretty friendly to humans, and it knows you're its creator. Asking it to do you a small favor and help kill a demon (for example) is not crazy from a roleplaying perspective. It can fail, but so can anything in D&D.

4.) If dragons tend not to work with your DM there's no shortage of other creatures to choose from, some good-aligned and voluntarily helpful (ki-rin, planetars), others merely controllable and useful (trolls, mammoths).

5.) Coming up with reasons for a ki-rin, silver dragon, or planetar NOT to help you is a potential hassle for the DM along the same lines as explaining why Elminster doesn't just take out the bad guys, except the DM can't use the excuse of "Elminster's busy elsewhere." I.e. even if the dragon leaves, it still disrupted your campaign in a way that wouldn't have happened at lower levels. Obviously this depends on what you're doing--if you're just killing monsters literally for their treasure you'll get less sympathy from others than if you're trying to stop a necromancer from massacring the inhabitants of a peaceful village.

 

[Beoric]

The silver dragon example is only an example. The point is, the AD&D power curve may not be quite as steep as you think for a number of reasons, one of which is that many spells must be adjudicated narratively and can have unexpected consequences if cast in haste.

 

[Hemlock]

The silver dragon example is only an example. The point is, the AD&D power curve may not be quite as steep as you think for a number of reasons, one of which is that many spells must be adjudicated narratively and can have unexpected consequences if cast in haste.

Sure, it's only an example, but I think it's been shown that the "unexpected consequences" are still disruptive to a campaign and don't really lessen the power curve.

My takeaway here is that "not as steep as you think" just means "not as steep as I thought you were thinking it was." I get the impression you thought "silver dragon" was chosen as an outlier of some sort, but the point I was making would have been just a well served by Charm Monster + Polymorph Other (Troll). There are lots of monsters that are good in a fight when Enlarged and Hasted.