swordchucks
 member, 1405 posts
Tue 18 Jul 2017
at 19:48
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
DarkLightHitomi:
Dnd was also majorly inspired by lotr and my general impression is that Gygax's idea of a campaign would look very much like lotr.

My understanding is that this statement would have resulted in a very irate Gygax.  He claimed that LOTR wasn't a major influence on D&D.  I'm sure the battles with the relevant lawyers had nothing to do with that.
DarkLightHitomi
 member, 1154 posts
Tue 18 Jul 2017
at 20:14
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
While there might be issues admitting such officially and legally, I hold to my general impression.

Regardless though, a campaign like lotr, including both hobbits and gandalf as pcs, still seems a viable campaign to me, though it may not be to everyone's tastes, I do think denying that such a campaign is a core viability of rpgs only hurts, both an individual's potential experiences and gameplay options, but it also hurts newbies who hear and follow suit and thus are denied an experience they might enjoy greatly simply because everyone they know claims it is "not what a good rpg is."

Personally, I think people need to start looking for and accepting divisions in the idea of "role-playing games" so that they can not only more easily focus on their desired style of gameplay, but also to work against players running into issues of "this is what an rpg is and how it is played" and thus not even realizing how many alternative experiences theg deny themselves simply from never havinb experienced an alternative and never hearing about them because everyone is usjng the same terms for vastly different things (no matter how similar they may be superficially).


Personally, I've played campaigns that were like lotr, and those are my favorite type of campaigns, but as of late, it is harder and harder to find folks that can accept that such campaigns exist, much less being open to trying them or at least accepting them as an alternative way of playing.

The exception is free-form players, but I find that a system can be immensly useful and actually makes it easier to play, even when you are playing free-form with a system (as opposed to playing the rules). In fact, I don't really like true free-form games, but I rather am very tired of playing squad-based-combat-games-with-tacked-on-story.
GreyGriffin
 member, 106 posts
 Portal Expat
 Game System Polyglot
Tue 18 Jul 2017
at 21:13
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
I think you're missing the point.

Epic 6 allows and even encourages asymmetrical encounters.  Powerful dragons are threatening, and remain threatening throughout your career.  No matter how mighty a Dwarf King you are, a dragon can still defeat you in single combat.  That very same dragon retains its meaning within the narrative, without having to worry if you spike up in power.  As a DM, you aren't forced to introduce a new, stronger dragon that's 2 age categories more powerful, just to keep that dragon at the forefront of the PCs' minds.

In a system where so much is dependent on the statistics you can put into play, there is only so much that "playing smart" can do for you.  Eventually, you encounter diminishing returns, and your opposition becomes effectively invulnerable.  Tucker's kobolds hold up as a desirable archetype, sure.  But As an actual, designed-and-rolled gameplay encounter, 3.x as a game system just doesn't support it past around level... probably 8, to spitball it.

It's important to separate the expectations we have of literature and gameplay.  You're playing D&D.  Dice will hit the table eventually.  You'll tally hit points and make saving throws.  Lord of the Rings might have been a formative influence, but so was Conan, and Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, and Kull the Conquerer.  For every player who wants to play Frodo or Samwise, you'll get at least one more who wants to play Red Sonja or Aragorn, or even archetypes informed by the post D&D fantasyscape, like Drizzt or Flint Fireforge.

It's a rare player outside of a horror game that wants to be profoundly disempowered the way that the hobbits are in Lord of the Rings, and D&D is not a horror game.  Aside from the sense of powerlessness (effectively putting themselves in a purely reactive role to the GM's narrative), there's the matter of balance and fair play.  The hobbits have to contrast their contribution to the story and the gameplay next to Aragorn, Gimli, and Gandalf. While you can definitely gain some satisfaction from playing a plucky underdog character, the experience at the table can very easily turn sour, when the opposition has the ability to crush you, but simply doesn't for railroad-narrative reasons.

... this is rapidly becoming a much more philosophical discussion than a critique of a particular 3.x mod, but bringing it back...

In this vein... epic 6 allows you as a player to constrain your concept.  Your character concept doesn't have to scale to level 20.  You might be the most dangerous thief in The City, or you might be a fearsome night watchman, but you can be a plucky hobbit or a gritty warrior, without worrying about how your relatively grounded character concept will translate into the crazy anime action levels of 13+...
DarkLightHitomi
 member, 1156 posts
Tue 18 Jul 2017
at 21:43
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
Aye, e6 does this, but it isn't the only way to get this, and I think it is overly complicated and limiting (in a bad way).

Also, I think it is a great disservice to assume that playing a hobbit will give a feeling powerlessness. The feeling of powerlessness is dependant on the player's goals. A player who wants to jump in and kick strawberries feels powerless from having less, or even equal, combat ability to the monsters they face, but their inability to seriously affect the story won't, while a player who wants to explore character and world won't feel powerless from simple lack of numbers (and these are usually the folks that can get greater mileage from weaker numbers), but they do feel powerless when their choices don't matter. (For example, I walk up to a group camping in the wilds. I expect that they might try to attack, so I'm ready for it, but I also want to avoid it if possible. But since I am ready for combat if it turns to that, being told I get the exact same penalties as an idiot that walked up deaf, dumb, and blind with open arms, makes me feel powerless.)

Personally, I do not consider the hobbits to be diempowered. Combat is not their forte, but it is not the only thing that matters. The Hobbit is a story all about a hobbit, a hobbit with very little combat ability, yet the hobbit is still a major player in progressing events and had a massive impact on the outcome of events. Bilbo should not be looked down upon as being a lesser character to play simply from lack of combat ability. This applies to games just as much as stories.
GreyGriffin
 member, 107 posts
 Portal Expat
 Game System Polyglot
Tue 18 Jul 2017
at 23:07
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
In reply to DarkLightHitomi (msg # 32):

Putting aside that D&D's rules are largely combat rules...

If LotR were D&D, the hobbits would absolutely be disempowered.  Their status as low-level, low tier characters directly influences their ability to affect the plot.  Frodo becomes the main character essentially because he has a decent Will save.  While a novel writer can get away with embiggening such a character, a game has mechanics.  And 3.x operates under some pretty simulationist assumptions.

If your numbers aren't high enough to matter, your decisions don't matter.  If you decide to sit up and keep watch against someone creeping into your camp, that decision doesn't matter if your Spot is +3 and your assailant's Hide/Move Silently is +20.

Or, alternatively, if your hide/move silently is +20, and your opposition's Spot check is +3, you don't have to carefully cling to cover on your way to his camp, carefully mapping out your approach and only ducking in where you are sure you'll remain unseen.  You could probably pants him without him noticing for an hour.  Being unfailingly stealthy can be just as dry an experience as being unfailingly spotted, although it's probably less frustrating.

"Bounded" math (as it's been termed, as it relates to 5e, and is salient to this argument) constrains those cases and allows those decisions to matter in the first place, since you are rarely up against an unsurmountably high wall of numbers.  And, in the case of Epic 6, when you are, it's clearly signposted by the fact that you're being harassed by someone genuinely invisible, or throwing a spear at a dragon.

So I have to ask, from the other perspective... what are the advantages of a full 20 level progression over a system like Epic 6, especially when trying to craft a story that relies on fairly grounded characters interacting, like Lord of the Rings?  What makes Epic 6 overcomplicated and limiting over the full gamut of 3.x mechanics?
Godzfirefly
 member, 486 posts
Wed 19 Jul 2017
at 05:28
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
Slight tilt to the subject, since the topic seems to have drifted a bit from just E6...

Is there something inherently wrong with a high probability of failure or less-than-heroic characters?  From a strictly-RP perspective, I mean.

What I mean is, there are game systems/settings where the entire point is to have underpowered players opposing an overpowered authority/situation.  The entire horror genre is based on it, really.  Paranoia and Outbreak:Undead do an amazing job at taking characters that will certainly die and making it fun to instead see how long and well they can survive the situation before their inevitable demise.

In Outbreak: Undead especially, you're playing normal people (yourself, in fact) in a zombie apocalypse.  At best, you tend to have only a 50% chance of success for any action you take.  Is that inherently bad?  Is it a bad system for having such a low chance of success?  Or is it just a different playstyle that may not be your cup of tea but is still effective for fans of that genre?
GreyGriffin
 member, 108 posts
 Portal Expat
 Game System Polyglot
Wed 19 Jul 2017
at 05:52
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
It's not inherently bad, but 3.x's mechanics don't support it.  The mechanics don't support losing conflicts, failing checks, or scraping by against a superior foe who withdraws because he is wounded.  It doesn't support mechanics like long-term attrition, mental trauma, or even the idea of playing "normal" people.  A 1st level commoner in 3.x is mechanically insignificant, liable to lose a fight with a cat.  Its mechanics aren't granular enough to etch out meaningful differences between one common person and another, what with them being balanced around the levels of 4-10.

There are plenty of games that do support those playstyles.  Engine Heart.  Apocalypse World.  Call of Cthulhu.  World of Darkness Core.  They are designed around those narrative assumptions, and use mechanics that support those themes.

3.x just isn't.  It assumes you're going to at the very least be playing a Fighter or Rogue, and that you want to stand a decent chance of winning a fight.  All of your tools as a player character, all of your feats and spells and abilities are pointed firmly towards overcoming obstacles and being victorious.  There aren't a bevy of grimoires that summon beasties that just eat you, or scads of miscellaneous "scrap" gear that is designed for you to improvise with.

The way tactical combat works brutally punishes retreating (which is assumed to work in the favor of the PCs, who will rout the enemy), and there are no mechanisms to resolve anything like a chase, and even a basic stalking scenario falls apart because of skill imbalances.  There are no consequences for combat other than HP loss and potential death.  The grappling rules as a text are more nightmarish than the consequences of the grappling rules.  All of these narrative verbs and adjectives are really important in a gritty horror game, but not so much in a game of hearty adventure and monster slaying, which is what 3.x is.
Godzfirefly
 member, 487 posts
Wed 19 Jul 2017
at 06:00
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
  Would you assert then that 3.x is less capable or incapable of playing in scenarios where the players are at significant disadvantages?  Fighting in a war on a side that is truly overwhelmed?  Attempting a rebellion against an entrenched militaristic Empire using limited resources?  Or finding a way for a low-level party to prevent an elder dragon from ravaging their homeland?

  Is 3.x only capable of high adventure with characters that overcome every obstacle and foes that flee before them?
Egleris
 member, 165 posts
Wed 19 Jul 2017
at 09:42
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?

I would say that it's less of a system incapability, and more an issue of the player mentality that the system inspires in the players. If you pit a powerful enough enemy against them, the PC cannot win; there are optional extra rules that allows for making diplomatic encounters more complex than a mere die roll, alternative rules to make chases interesting, and over twenty years of materials (from 1998 until today when considering only 3.P, which is still going and has three different baseline core rules to pick from) which can be used to support nearly anything you want to do.

However, the game is structured so that players are expected to win and succeed; the mechanics bear this out, and as a results, players tend to act as if their winning is a predetermined conclusion, often without paying attention to the contextual cues of why this might not be so in their specific circumstances. Which, naturally enough, prompts people to go for the straightforward approach (which is whatever their character happens to best at), and also what leads to TPK if they get in over their head... or more likely, a GM taking pity on the players and saving them with something unlikely.

These are both factors which E6 helps with; the removing of the level scaling makes it so that if you see a creature, you more or less know what kind of threat it is, and the capped level makes it so that the players are aware that they're limited, and thus allow for more cautious gameplay. I think that encouraging this shift in mentality in the players is one of the biggest features of the E6 paradigm - it allows more freedom and creativity in handling situation by cconstraining the players. Because, as it really should be obvious, you can only think outside the box when there is a box for you to be constrained by.
GreyGriffin
 member, 109 posts
 Portal Expat
 Game System Polyglot
Wed 19 Jul 2017
at 14:52
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
I definitely agree that it's partly derived from mentality, and that system influences behavior, but I disagree, I think that much of that reason is rooted in the rules.  3.x lacks any sort of failsafes or fail-forward mechanics, which means that success is often the only way to progress the story or scenario.  On top of that, the combat system lacks meaningful progress or failure signposts.  This is partly because of the inherent fuzziness endowed by level scaling, but is also because a lot of combat lose conditions are effectively decided by a single saving throw.  You go from full fighting trim to drooling and facedown after 1 failed save.

I do agree, though, that one of Epic 6's strengths is stabilizing the mechanics enough to allow for proper signposting of encounters.  As I discussed in world-building above, it allows you, as a GM, to use your setting's symbolism and even just evocative descriptions in a way that is much, much more useful to the players.
DarkLightHitomi
 member, 1157 posts
Thu 20 Jul 2017
at 20:19
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
D20 was designed in a way that failsafes and fail-forward mechanics are not needed, mainly because whether these things are needed is combination of how the the rules are needed and who is gming.

There is a piece of advice out there "always fail forward" and this advice does not require mechanical support. It is about how you use the rules, how you structure the cases where a die roll might be needed into the overall narrative.

More importantly though, the rules are so commonly misused and misunderstood (in their design goals) that many supplements and especially third-party designers design their material with contrary design parameters.

In particular, d20 is not a game at all, it is a toolbox to aid in playing the game of role-playing. Just look through the dmg for all the ways the book basically screams for the gm to bend or even break rules to fit the campaign and better fit player's character concepts.

Yet despite how much the rules scrwam for this, it is very rare to find anyone who does it. The core rules assume the gm makes rulings about every encounter, but the only changing people do is blanket houserules that apply to everyone in every applicable situation.

From what I see, d20 is flawed but it's number one biggest flaw is that it can't communicate itself effectively enough to convince players to use the rules as they were designed.
GreyGriffin
 member, 113 posts
 Portal Expat
 Game System Polyglot
Fri 21 Jul 2017
at 00:24
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
In reply to DarkLightHitomi (msg # 39):

The blend of success and complication is a relatively recent development in mainstream RPG design.  Although it has been kicking around in the wings, it didn't really emerge as a core part of systems until Burning Wheel and FATE.  D&D, even unto this day (much as I love and enjoy 5e), doesn't offer any fail-forward or succeed-at-cost mechanics (or even advice), while FFG's new Star Wars game has it literally baked into the dice.

3.5 DMG p. 14:
The ability to use the mechanics as you wish is paramount to the way roleplaying games work - providing a framework for you and the players to create a campaign.  Still, changing the way the game does something shouldn't be taken lightly. [emphasis mine - ed.] If the Player's Handbook presents the rules, then throughout the Dungeon Master's Guide you will find explanations for why those rules are the way they are.  Read these explanations carefully, and realize the implications for making changes.


Every game has an editorial intent.  Even the loosest and most universal games strive towards something, even if that something is mechanical independence or a generalized sense of consistency.  3.x's editorial intent was to bring D&D's style of gaming forward with new technology that was coming into the market at the time.  Classless systems, universal task resolution, and point-generated characters all laid their stamp on 3.x.

3.x then stormed the marked with the SRD and OGL.  This generous license is the reason that the majority of the third party and supplemental material sported the d20 logo.  Mutants and Masterminds 2e was considered "bold" at the time for changing their core mechanics enough to disqualify them as a d20 branded game.  The material exists not because 3.x is the best vehicle to carry it (something realized in the twilight years of 3.5 and especially after 4e hit shelves.

3.x's rules mean something.  They do something.  They lend a certain theme and tone to games which use them.  A lot of supplemental material exists that tries to turn them into something they're not, and some does a better job (Mutants and Masterminds) than others (d20 Modern).

I recall a particular D&D module I played that required a Turning check, or a Strength or Open Locks check at something like DC 30 to open a door.  Our Cleric/Rogue (yes, that was one character) had just been murdered by the adventure, and our combined Strength and Aid Another checks were insufficient to pass the obstacle, just because the numbers were too high.  The DM was left hanging in the breeze by the system as we started contemplating the cost of hirelings to start some kind of mining operation for what was supposed to be a minor not-even encounter.

In order to keep the adventure going, the DM had to effectively fiat the door open.  The system did him no favors.  It told him to keep the door shut.  It didn't recommend "succeed, but."  In fact, the DMG (p. 33) advises "Succeed, and..." and "Fail, And," to punish failed rolls with increasing degrees of failure.  Fail Forward or Success But are not in the DMG's lexicon.

3.x makes for a fun time crawling through dungeons and bopping monsters, because that's the core of its design.  Mouse Guard?  Less so.  Much less so.  And the number of house rules necessary to change those core identities, competencies, and incompetencies built into a system's architecture could arguably make it completely unrecognizable as the game you started with in the first place.  (See, again, Mutants and Masterminds.)

What I'm trying to say, in summary, is that, yes, a DM can totally fudge it to fail forward.  A DM can make it up on the fly, a DM can totally wrap a system around his finger to make it fit his modus operandi.  That does not mean the system is helping him.  What a DM does to break a system over his knee is often done in spite of the system rather than because of it.  Saying a DM can change the rules does not mean that the rules are good or appropriate for a situation or theme.

This message was last edited by the user at 00:25, Fri 21 July.

NowhereMan
 member, 154 posts
Fri 21 Jul 2017
at 01:19
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
This is really just a nitpick, but if your example, GreyGriffin, is the one I'm thinking of (Sunless Citadel), the door in question is not required to be opened to complete the adventure. Instead, what's behind it is a reward for figuring out the particular puzzle associated with the door. It's not a "fail forward" because failing means little at that junction, instead just giving you a reward for succeeding.
GreyGriffin
 member, 114 posts
 Portal Expat
 Game System Polyglot
Fri 21 Jul 2017
at 01:25
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
NowhereMan:
This is really just a nitpick, but if your example, GreyGriffin, is the one I'm thinking of (Sunless Citadel), the door in question is not required to be opened to complete the adventure. Instead, what's behind it is a reward for figuring out the particular puzzle associated with the door. It's not a "fail forward" because failing means little at that junction, instead just giving you a reward for succeeding.

The example I'm thinking of was a Dragonlance 3.5 module, behind which the Plot MacGuffin that was supposed to begin the meat of the adventure was hidden.

It's not unreasonable to put these kinds of things behind locked doors, but the assumptions the system has to make about your available resources can completely hamstring you if your math just doesn't add up.

And if the game or module locks "optional" content up behind a door? That's saying something too.
NowhereMan
 member, 155 posts
Fri 21 Jul 2017
at 01:45
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
Nitpick comment retracted, then. :)

What are you suggesting that locking "optional" content behind a door is saying?

I have nothing to really add about E6 in specific, since I have zero interest in it.
GreyGriffin
 member, 115 posts
 Portal Expat
 Game System Polyglot
Fri 21 Jul 2017
at 02:28
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
Most often?  The game is making judgement calls about what resources you "should" have available to you, if you were "good" at it.  If you are "good" at lockpicking, you should have someone who can pick a DC 30 lock.  If you are "good" at group composition, you should have a cleric.

Or, alternately, it's making assumptions about the skills and abilities that go unappreciated in a group (such as, say, social skill checks, or Turning Undead), and giving those abilities a chance to shine.  It may also be making judgements about what it expects you not to have, either tantalizing you with future prospects of power and ability further down the advancement track, or giving you a nugget of props for bringing an appropriate (or even uncommon) character type.

Having not read the scenario you're describing, I honestly can't read the intent there.
NowhereMan
 member, 156 posts
Fri 21 Jul 2017
at 02:57
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
In reply to GreyGriffin (msg # 44):

In the case of the Sunless Citadel, it was to reward bringing along a cleric or paladin who had the capability to Turn Undead, which was useful since the Big Bad of the module was a vampiric tree.

Modules overall have the issue of making assumptions about your group. It's the nature of the beast, since modules have no way of knowing what your particular group composition is like. You either have to go in knowing those assumptions have been made, or you have to tinker with the module from the get-go to make it work for your group. This is regardless of game system or setting.
DarkLightHitomi
 member, 1158 posts
Fri 21 Jul 2017
at 06:00
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
A mistake being made with some of these exanpkes is confusing module design with system design. A module designer might have different expectations from the system designer which colors their designs. For example, their rogue player might be a big time munchkin/powergamer breaking the system without breaking the rules to get insane numbers (something the gm shoukd keep in check) like +50 open lock, for which the module designer might not appropriately adjust for in their module designs.

Furthermore, what does failure mean? It could be that the door doesn't open, but there is no reason to think that it can't be that door opens at a cost, but let us say the door remains shut, well in that case, the key must be obtained, either by having an encounter with those that keep the door locked, or solving a puzzle, or finding it hidden somewhere, etc. Basically, failing to open the door just adds an extra encounter to deal with (which is another reason I agree with gold/quest-completion=xp).

If a module doesn't provide multiple ways to get past every potential chokepoint, then it is a flaw in the module design and the gm needs to fill in as required.

It is my opinion that the gm is basically playing destiny for the players, and therefore, just like characters in a book, there will always be a way forward, but it won't always be the way that is expected.
GreyGriffin
 member, 116 posts
 Portal Expat
 Game System Polyglot
Fri 21 Jul 2017
at 08:08
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
There is a reason to think that the door doesn't open at cost - that's what failing a check means in d20.  Having a failed roll succeed at a task is a GM fiat, an audible call, not a function of the rules.

We've gotten pretty well off-topic here, digging into the guts of "What is a system?  What does it mean?"

Dragging it back on-point, systems with flattened math (like Epic 6) make designing adventured with lateral solutions much easier.

Obstacles faced by players have more predictable, and most of all, more readable difficulty.  An Epic 6 character with certain competencies falls within a pretty predictable range of numbers.  If your party has a rogue, you can count on a DC 35 lock being almost impossible, but a DC 20-25 lock being quite achievable.  You can continue to use those numerical benchmarks because the character's ranks don't continually crawl up.  That means that certain types of locks (adamantine dwarf vault locks?) continue to have a consistent, contextual, narrative meaning that reflects in the mechanics faced by the player.  He knows he has to roll high or spend some kind of resources to get through those locks.

In the face of a level 15 Rogue, those adamantine dwarf vault locks are still adamantine dwarf vault locks, but he can bypass them on a roll of about 5.  The DM is forced to recontextualize the lock in order to retain the challenge (or at least the chance of failure).  To mitigate the constantly growing power of the PCs, the DM must arbitrarily put the difficulty on an arbitrary sliding scale, which effectively removes advancement; diminish the evocative nature of the earlier challenge in order to retain the evocative nature of the later challenge (only rusty iron goblin vault locks until level 5), which diminishes the stakes of low- to mid-level adventures; or escalate the context, which can rapidly get ridiculous (masterwork godforged superadamantine double-walled vault locks with Symbol of Pain cast on each of the tumblers!)

In a system where you "peak out," like Epic 6 (or Mutants and Masterminds), the DM can clearly present challenges, and the players can read the context of those challenges in relation to other challenges they faced, and gauge the difficulty of the challenge against a character whose capabilities they are more familiar with, since the character's context doesn't rocket upwards in tier.  Advancement isn't stymied, though it is finite (A dedicated lock-picking rogue has plenty of gear to chase and at least a handful of feats to invest in), but since your context isn't constantly shifting that more incremental advancement can actually be more profoundly felt when he is not facing constantly escalating threats and difficulties.
DarkLightHitomi
 member, 1159 posts
Fri 21 Jul 2017
at 08:41
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
Why does the level 15 rogue need challanging locks to pick? She's been there, done that, got the t-shirt (and the loot).

 At the point of being a demigod, there shouldn't be any locks that give her trouble, and the lack of them helps keep her skill in perspective. She is a demigod, not some level 5 but with higher numbers. How can you feel like a demigod if nothing ever becomes easy?

At the point of being a demigod, she should be looking at becoming skilled in other things now that she has mastered locks.

To me this sounds like expectations are remaining static while the numbers grow. Sounds like you want the experience and difficulty to remain the same and to keep facing the same types of things despite refluffing them as different.

But really, trying to achieve that while leveling up to 20 is basically ignoring what those higher levels mean. Do you think Sauron faces challanging locks? Does he worry about the same things a bunch of level 1s worry about? Of course not!

Being high level doesn't mean facing more difficult versions of the same things, it means facing entirely new types of challanges. As such powerful beings everyone and their grandma looks to the PCs. Some with worship, some with fear, some see them as people to manipulate to achieve their own ends, others want to make them queens and kings, etc.

The challanges faced by high level characters should not be locks or tracking, it should be the need to be in many places at once, being targets of entire kingdoms, assasination attempts, etc. When you are a demigod, you are like Hercules, everyone recognizes your power and wants to either be touched by it or to influence how you use it.

You pass through town, people don't go "Hey look, adventurers!" rather they act much like Bilbo when Gandalf first came by offering adventure, people are amazed, honored, and/or terrified.

If you keep trying to make locks a challange to high level players, then the game has not advanced and thus has been eclipsed by the advancement of the characters.
GreyGriffin
 member, 117 posts
 Portal Expat
 Game System Polyglot
Fri 21 Jul 2017
at 16:30
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
Why does the level 15 fighter need monsters to hit with his sword?  Why does the level 15 cleric need undead to turn?  Opening a lock is just an illustrative example, but it does represent the character's core competencies.

To go back to the previous point - creating a world in which those transformative challenges exist that both feels consistent and rewards the players' actions in the ongoing narrative is a nightmare.
DarkLightHitomi
 member, 1160 posts
Fri 21 Jul 2017
at 19:16
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
Combat may still be a regular challange at higher leveks, but even then, why must battles always be with creatures that can individually challange the pcs in direct head on challanges?

Sure having one or two such beasties is fine, but by the time one is level 15, they should be facing mostly large groups of lower level creatures using harrassment tactics and asymetrical warfare strategies.

A level 15 should rarely be facing other level 15s or the creations of such.

And delving dungeons for loot is pointless at that level.
bigbadron
 moderator, 15391 posts
 He's big, he's bad,
 but mostly he's Ron.
Fri 21 Jul 2017
at 19:44
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
Okay, at this point some people need to back away from this discussion, because we're just seeing the same few names basically repeating the same arguments - "It sucks."  "No, it doesn't.", just phrased differently.

If you've given your opinion, you don't need to keep repeating it until the other guy agrees with you (because, you know, he is never going to).

Accept that some people like games that you think are dumb, and go play the ones that you like.

Thank you.
DarkLightHitomi
 member, 1161 posts
Sat 22 Jul 2017
at 04:45
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
Hmm, not quite my impression but I don't catch such things very well, so onwards to main topic,

If you are interested in e6, I recommend first playing normally but capping individual classes to 6 levels and make the numbers such as bab and base saves non-stacking. Simple, fast, and if you like it, then you can go through the trouble of sorting out the e6 rules for advancing past level 6.
Coridan
 member, 214 posts
Mon 24 Jul 2017
at 04:26
Re: what do people think of Epic-6?
I may run an E6 game, as a test, to see how it works.