The Gaming Den

I don't know if this has been discussed before, at the least my google-fu has failed me.

Should the raw effectiveness of any ability type possessed by a character have a distinct peak?

If so, how should this impact the high level portion of a game?

Given that reaching a high level, or a high experience total, can require a significant time investment, having a campaign wind down as the character reaches the peak of abilities can be somewhat unsatifying.

I realise that many players might enjoy the 'journey,' but having a game fall apart due to a systems inability to cope with advanced characters, in effect forces an endgame, if not arbitrary rulings to keep certain character types in check, or to resolve the unfortunate implications of having advanced characters and antagonists present in the campaign world.

The recent discussions on character concepts and obsolescance got me thinking about the structure of ability advancement. Should games be designed with an endgame in mind? What should that look like? Do tiers and cut-off points for various character types allow for games with multiple distinct thresholds of play (as opposed to a fancy title and minor abilities and modifiers).

Feel free to discuss, add insights, refine issues or toss insults. While I have written this with D&D in mind, particularly the different approaches that various editions have taken with advancement, I don't care if you want to talk about other systems.

The only real issue is the capstone ability. There really isn't a point to taking ten or twenty levels of a class to get the thing at the end considering how often campaigns won't last the dozens of sessions to get there.

Heck, considering that 3.X DnD will usually let you be 20th level for like half a session, waiting your whole career to get there is just cruel.

Not getting to use your capstone is a dissapointment, sure. I would prefer that sort of stuff comes online earlier, assuming the capstone is an iconic feature of the class.

But there are also issues where improvements to certain abilities become redundant, or at the least you suffer from diminishing returns.

Take iterative attacks. In AD&D, the warrior classes reached their maximum number of attacks at 13th level. Past that, they were getting a minor improvement to accuracy every level, but by that point in a campaign, they were probably going to get a lot more benefit from magic, than experience.

While further advancement was not totally redundant, you would probably be better off getting a powered up magical girdle, or an improved version of your weapon, than simply increasing level.

It's somewhat similar in 3e, though obviously you can invest in more combat feats, get more mileage our of stuff like Power Attack and other maneuvers.

At what what point should you just be able to put 'Master Swordsman' on your character sheet and move on to bigger and better things?

It basically comes down to what you support as a designer.

For example cap stone abilities, you could design them in regular D&D as something awesome that you only use once.
Or you could have a game more like E6 where you are expected to play a lot at the level cap and thus use your capstone ability a lot. ((note I have never actually read the rules on E6 so I could be wrong about that)

Or your example of the AD&D fighter. If the class doesn't really do anything anymore after level 13 you should cut out the further levels. Make them prestige class, or add something to the levels, just do something about it.

And when abilities become obsolete should be judged on a case by case basis. Jumping becomes obsolete when everyone gets fly. Sleep becomes obsolete when everyone gains a few levels.
Master Swordsman becomes obsolete when you design it so. If you for example don't give the Master Swordsman a way to get flying it becomes obsolete once you need to fly.

And yes, I do think the game is better if certain abilities become obsolete as you gain levels, so that it actually feels like there is a meaningful difference between the levels.

I don't know that a game needs to be designed to have a particular "endgame" in mind; as K notes, whichever endgame level you designate, you might not reach it.

I do think that a campaign should be designed with an endgame level in mind, though.

I don't understand this obsession with 'endgame.' Its vaguely valid in MMOs, as its just the shit to chew on over and over again when the developers stop writing content, but it makes zero sense in a TTRPG.

Capstone abilities are just a shitty flag waving at the end of the tunnel. They aren't entirely illusionary, but they might as well be.

Voss wrote:I don't understand this obsession with 'endgame.' [...] Capstone abilities are just a shitty flag waving at the end of the tunnel. They aren't entirely illusionary, but they might as well be.

People have an inherent desire to complete things - if a bar is empty, people will try to fill it. Despite the fact that only the tiniest fraction of campaigns ever make it to 20th level, people routinely create 20-level builds. In most of the D&D games I've run that have lasted long enough, I get characters to 20th and then have them adventure stuck at 20th level for a while until they "unlock" epic levels, so that they get to spend at least a noticeable period of time "maxed out" while still doing things they care about.

echo