Why do almost all editions of D&D fall apart around 10th level

[LibraryOgre]

Not to mention, just in a numbers game, there were twice as many people in the world in 2010 over 1980... 50% more in the US. With numbers like that, it's not hard for a new product to get over the old product.

[Milo v3]

I mean a natural progression in that your gaming skills and character are beyond the basic linear dungeon and need new challenges. Gives a good opportunity to spend all the yellow stuff you have collected as well.

The "natural progression" is simply that you spent levels 1-9 building a reputation as a hero and it starts to pay off after 9th level.

The 1st edition Fighter, for instance, can establish a "Freehold" at 9th level. Some players used to argue he could ONLY do this at 9th level, but just as many would argue he could do it any time AFTER reaching 9th level. 2nd edition states the fighter attracts a band of men-at-arms due to his rep, but only if he has already established a "manor".

The 2nd edition DMG (pg 20) has a great article about "high level" characters. It states "High level" is determined by the group: "Campaigns that commonly have 4th to 8th level characters consider 12th level or more to be high level, while those with 12th-level characters set the limit closer to 18th or 20th level. While there is no set break-point for high level, character duties and responsibilities begin to change around between 9th and 12th level."

It goes on to describe how fighting monsters and hunting treasure tends to become less satisfying as the characters increase in power. Described is how as the characters become "jaded" the adventures they become involved in need evolve into ones where the characters' greater power and influence starts affecting the world at large, possibly having wide-reaching effects.

A sample character, Varrack, is used as an example wherein he gets appointed sheriff due to his great deeds, defends a village against bandits, gets appointed steward over several villages. Intrigue ensues and as Varrack grows in influence, his enemies become more insidious and numerous.

The DMG goes on to discuss "semi-retirement" where the PCs live on as NPCs that return when needed.

IMO, the way to keep the game fresh after a certain point, in any system, is to change the risks and rewards. As with Varrack above, the risk is no longer about his own well-being, it is about keeping the town safe. The reward is not a few gold pieces. The reward is instead greater reputation, influence, and responsibility, maybe even a title. It doesn't have to be about mass combat, running a kingdom, or fighting the entire Who's Who of demon lords.

Even with high-level Magic-Users that can teleport and blast entire armies into cinders there are opportunities at high levels. What if the group has gotten on the wrong side of a demon lord that can make troops materialize anywhere on the plane to harass or kill the group's family, followers, students, or allies? How do you stop it? How do you know where they are striking now or next? How do you keep your friends safe? Do you take the battle to the demon lord and risk losing some family while you are away? Do you strike a deal to stop the bloodshed? Do you enact a barrier around the entire plane that prevents the demons from entering but also prevents all teleportation and dimension-hoping magic (and probably makes more enemies of those that want to keep using these magics)?

I guess the best way to sum-up my impression of high-level campaigns is they become less about fighting and more about imagination, for both the players and the DM. IMO as the levels and powers of the group grows, so does the list of possible story lines.

Yeah those sound artificial to me since it only works with a small number of character concepts.

[barna10]

And which concepts does it not work for?

[thirdkingdom]

Yeah those sound artificial to me since it only works with a small number of character concepts.

I would argue that the issue is not with the explicit expectation that older games have of an evolving style of play as the characters grow more powerful but rather your understanding of "character concepts".

[Cluedrew]

To thirdkingdom: Could you expand on that point a bit?

I mean... it doesn't quite fit "wondering vagabond", not as I understand the concept and the rules.

[SaurOps]

And which concepts does it not work for?

There are several ranger kits that explicitly rule out fortifications and followers - beastmasters, feralans, mountain men and what have you - and several others where it's not explicitly noted but I could definitely see it not happening, like with the guardians or wardens, as the former guards a tract of wilderness and the latter is already beholden to an overlord and doesn't appear to really ever get out from under said boss's control. Explorers are also likely very busy away from home, which might interfere with running a landhold enough for one to not show up.

I never really got a good look at the fighter book, but presumably, there are several kits for it that might not jive with becoming a feudal landholder, either.

[barna10]

To thirdkingdom: Could you expand on that point a bit?

I mean... it doesn't quite fit "wondering vagabond", not as I understand the concept and the rules.

And what is "it"? Just because a player chooses to not take advantage of class features does not mean the game is broken or doomed to failure.

You could just as easily have a Magic-User from any edition that only takes detection spells and then argue the character is too weak when compared to all the other PCs so the system must be broken.

These systems work for the "wandering vagabond" because it does nothing to prohibit the concept. What else should be included to support this concept? Some sort of special abilities only available to wandering vagabonds? I don't think think there's much needed to support this concept besides the ability to wander.

[barna10]

There are several ranger kits that explicitly rule out fortifications and followers - beastmasters, feralans, mountain men and what have you - and several others where it's not explicitly noted but I could definitely see it not happening, like with the guardians or wardens, as the former guards a tract of wilderness and the latter is already beholden to an overlord and doesn't appear to really ever get out from under said boss's control. Explorers are also likely very busy away from home, which might interfere with running a landhold enough for one to not show up.

I never really got a good look at the fighter book, but presumably, there are several kits for it that might not jive with becoming a feudal landholder, either.

Again, a player making a choice to have his PC be one that doesn't take advantage of what is available does not prove the system is doomed to failure or will fall apart. If anything, your example of kits shows there are other choices besides just becoming a landed noble!

In the case of these kits, in a game I were running, the character would still benefit from an increased influence in the areas he patrols. He'd most likely be friends with all the woodland people, creatures, and various spirits that roam the woods. while he can't have followers, he can still have allies and friends. He could still become an epic hero and could still grow in amazing ways, which I assume the player would want since he choose a kit that didn't benefit from the normal perks of high level.

Beastmaster - cannot build a fortress can establish a tract of land he protects, "equivalent to a barony." He can also summon an animal horde of 100HD per level of the Beastmaster!

Feralans - These are basically feral humans. They start getting followers at 5th level and will rule a pack of wolves, caribou, or whatever they want at higher levels.

Mountain Man - not a candidate for high level greatness, but it might be fun for the right player.

Warden - Hey some people like to serve. There's nothing preventing the Warden from becoming a Baron or some other sort of important figure under his liege. It's just unlikely he'll ever be the head honcho.

[Milo v3]

Just because a player chooses to not take advantage of class features does not mean the game is broken or doomed to failure.

No, it just means that it doesn't fit all character concepts and everyone moving to a different style of play regardless of their character's personalities doesn't sit right with me. But if the character doesn't decide to, then they get left behind.

These systems work for the "wandering vagabond" because it does nothing to prohibit the concept. What else should be included to support this concept? Some sort of special abilities only available to wandering vagabonds? I don't think think there's much needed to support this concept besides the ability to wander.

.... I don't really agree with this line of thinking, I don't think you should have to not use class features just because your character doesn't completely change their characterisation from "Wandering hero" to "Orcus on his throne"... since that doesn't really fit with a lot of characters. There's a reason why games do give choices so you don't have to take class features that don't fit your character.

[barna10]

No, it just means that it doesn't fit all character concepts and everyone moving to a different style of play regardless of their character's personalities doesn't sit right with me. But if the character doesn't decide to, then they get left behind.

This can happen in every group and every system. If you have a player chooses to go in a different direction than the norm. This proves nothing.

.... I don't really agree with this line of thinking, I don't think you should have to not use class features just because your character doesn't completely change their characterisation from "Wandering hero" to "Orcus on his throne"... since that doesn't really fit with a lot of characters. There's a reason why games do give choices so you don't have to take class features that don't fit your character.

No one says you have to do anything.

Now, in 3Rd edition+, you must continue to concentrate on combat or you will be left behind.

[Milo v3]

This can happen in every group and every system. If you have a player chooses to go in a different direction than the norm. This proves nothing.

Except the character concept that doesn't fit with the "way high level is expected to be" is.... the standard character archetypes of low-level. If you follow the norm, that norm becomes wrong the higher level your character becomes...

Now, in 3Rd edition+, you must continue to concentrate on combat or you will be left behind.

Yes, except that's true from level 1 to 20. You make your characters from level 1 with that in mind.

[barna10]

Except the character concept that doesn't fit with the "way high level is expected to be" is.... the standard character archetypes of low-level. If you follow the norm, that norm becomes wrong the higher level your character becomes...

Interesting statement. Please back it up with some examples or facts. You might as well say "Slow doesn't fit with fast". And what is "the norm". What "norm" is understood by everyone that I just seem to be too dense to understand?

This may help illustrate my point much better than I can, especially zen moments 3 and 4.

[thirdkingdom]

To thirdkingdom: Could you expand on that point a bit?

I mean... it doesn't quite fit "wondering vagabond", not as I understand the concept and the rules.

I'm just not sure what he's trying to say about "character concept". The way I see it is this: starting with about halfway through 2e there was a de-emphasis on the end game of domain level play that, a removal of some of the features that helped maintain relevance for all classes at higher levels (note that I never said parity; it was never a design goal to have each class equally powerful at each level), to the point where, if played as intended, older games such as 1e or B/X have different design assumptions than 3.5 or 4e about what characters would do at higher levels*. In other words, the expectation was that you played the game with different goals in mind. It's kind of like trying to bring your D&D character into a straight Call of Cthulhu game; the two systems are aiming to do different things, and if you try a different playstyle than intended it is likely that you'll be disappointed. It's not the game's fault, though.

Here's an interesting thread about the demise of domain-level play. One of the most interesting quotes, I think, is from Michael Mornard (Old Geezer), one of the original players in Gygax's game:

Also, remember that "the group is one, solid, and indissoluble" was not a concept. We were all roving adventurers who would band together at times, but the highest form of play was to play solo. So once strongholds were built, one player might be a wizard staying in his tower and sending minions out to gather components for spell research, one might be building a mighty army, one interacting in the political intrigue, etc.

The higher levels of play as first practiced relied both on the benefits that characters got at Name Level (the ability to build a stronghold and gain followers, etc.) and the existence of henchmen (which were also phased out in 3e, largely). As was implicitly understood, each Player would have a main character with a number of henchmen, which could in turn have their own henchmen, and so forth. So, a 10th-level fighter PC might rule a small domain and send his henchmen out to adventure as needed, only emerging from his keep when the land is truly threatened (by war, the Tarrasque, etc.).


*That's not to say that you can't dungeoncrawl at high levels in older games. You certainly can, and I know that when I was 12 we pretty much ignored the domain aspects of the game. But now, with the benefit of age and hopefully some wisdom I've come to understand how important that transition is to the game.

[barna10]

I'm just not sure what he's trying to say about "character concept". The way I see it is this: starting with about halfway through 2e there was a de-emphasis on the end game of domain level play that, a removal of some of the features that helped maintain relevance for all classes at higher levels (note that I never said parity; it was never a design goal to have each class equally powerful at each level), to the point where, if played as intended, older games such as 1e or B/X have different design assumptions than 3.5 or 4e about what characters would do at higher levels*. In other words, the expectation was that you played the game with different goals in mind. It's kind of like trying to bring your D&D character into a straight Call of Cthulhu game; the two systems are aiming to do different things, and if you try a different playstyle than intended it is likely that you'll be disappointed. It's not the game's fault, though.

Here's an interesting thread about the demise of domain-level play. One of the most interesting quotes, I think, is from Michael Mornard (Old Geezer), one of the original players in Gygax's game:



The higher levels of play as first practiced relied both on the benefits that characters got at Name Level (the ability to build a stronghold and gain followers, etc.) and the existence of henchmen (which were also phased out in 3e, largely). As was implicitly understood, each Player would have a main character with a number of henchmen, which could in turn have their own henchmen, and so forth. So, a 10th-level fighter PC might rule a small domain and send his henchmen out to adventure as needed, only emerging from his keep when the land is truly threatened (by war, the Tarrasque, etc.).


*That's not to say that you can't dungeoncrawl at high levels in older games. You certainly can, and I know that when I was 12 we pretty much ignored the domain aspects of the game. But now, with the benefit of age and hopefully some wisdom I've come to understand how important that transition is to the game.

100% agree

[LibraryOgre]

And, of course, you've got the other side... Birthright, which re-emphasized the domain aspects, designing systems to run those aspects, and making it a core part of the assumptions of the setting.

[thirdkingdom]

And, of course, you've got the other side... Birthright, which re-emphasized the domain aspects, designing systems to run those aspects, and making it a core part of the assumptions of the setting.

You know, Birthright is something I never actually got around to checking out. It came out about a year or two after I was no longer gaming. I *think*, however, that the assumption was that you could essentially start low-level play as nobility, as opposed to having domain rulership be an eventual goal you worked *towards*.

[LibraryOgre]

You know, Birthright is something I never actually got around to checking out. It came out about a year or two after I was no longer gaming. I *think*, however, that the assumption was that you could essentially start low-level play as nobility, as opposed to having domain rulership be an eventual goal you worked *towards*.

Exactly. You could choose to start as a blooded scion of one of the old gods, with access to the resources of your holdings... you might have a small fiefdom, a source of magical power, a temple, a guild holding... all sorts of things, in combination. Some of the game was given over to managing these holdings, but you could also do the pure adventuring stuff... either by ignoring your responsibilities, or never having them in the first place.

[barna10]

Exactly. You could choose to start as a blooded scion of one of the old gods, with access to the resources of your holdings... you might have a small fiefdom, a source of magical power, a temple, a guild holding... all sorts of things, in combination. Some of the game was given over to managing these holdings, but you could also do the pure adventuring stuff... either by ignoring your responsibilities, or never having them in the first place.

Interesting. I never gave Birthright much attention beyond reading about the different human races, but maybe I should now...

[thirdkingdom]

To thirdkingdom: Could you expand on that point a bit?

I mean... it doesn't quite fit "wondering vagabond", not as I understand the concept and the rules.

Actually, I've got a better example. When I was in middle school, playing Basic with my friends, Charisma was a dump stat. Who the hell wants a high Charisma. Now that I'm older and actually know (somewhat) what I'm doing I recognize that Charisma is perhaps the most important stat in the game . . . if you're playing as intended. If I had to chose between a Fighter with a Strength of 18 and a Charisma of 9 or a Fighter with a Strength of 9 and a Charisma of 18 I'd pick the latter, every single time. Charisma affects your reaction rolls, so you're more likely to avoid fighting (again, one of the design assumptions of early D&D is that you *avoid* fights when possible) and make friends with NPCs. The higher your Charisma the more henchmen you can have and the more loyal they're going to be.

If you're going to ignore integral parts of the system you really can't claim that it's the system that's broken.

[Milo v3]

Interesting statement. Please back it up with some examples or facts.

I was directly responding to how it was been described by the people in this thread, and asked for more information because I don't have any editions before 3.0. It's impossible for me to have facts when I'm directly talking about "Could you describe x in more detail because from the little you've said it seems problematic?" and saying the impression I'm getting from what others are saying.

You might as well say "Slow doesn't fit with fast". And what is "the norm". What "norm" is understood by everyone that I just seem to be too dense to understand?

"Wandering hero" does not match "I'm building castles now and no longer adventure". So if it is how the other people on this thread described, it sounds rather artificial having to have your character concept change as you leveled up.

This may help illustrate my point much better than I can, especially zen moments 3 and 4.

That had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

edit: Also, what's with people saying things like "You don't get to claim it's broken" when the person didn't say it was broken. I know it's in the thread's title, but not all individuals in this thread are saying it's broken and it seems unnecessarily hostile (I'm one of the people who thinks D&D doesn't break at high levels for godsake).

[barna10]

That had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

edit: Also, what's with people saying things like "You don't get to claim it's broken" when the person didn't say it was broken. I know it's in the thread's title, but not all individuals in this thread are saying it's broken and it seems unnecessarily hostile (I'm one of the people who thinks D&D doesn't break at high levels for godsake).

First, that had everything to do with what I was talking about, not you. That's why I said it would illustrate my point.

Second, no one has said "You don't get to claim it's broken". What has happened is people have made claims and others have disagreed or agreed with them. People often get offended when others disagree with them or don't think their examples make sense or are relevant.

[thirdkingdom]

I was directly responding to how it was been described by the people in this thread, and asked for more information because I don't have any editions before 3.0. It's impossible for me to have facts when I'm directly talking about "Could you describe x in more detail because from the little you've said it seems problematic?" and saying the impression I'm getting from what others are saying.


"Wandering hero" does not match "I'm building castles now and no longer adventure". So if it is how the other people on this thread described, it sounds rather artificial having to have your character concept change as you leveled up.


That had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

edit: Also, what's with people saying things like "You don't get to claim it's broken" when the person didn't say it was broken. I know it's in the thread's title, but not all individuals in this thread are saying it's broken and it seems unnecessarily hostile (I'm one of the people who thinks D&D doesn't break at high levels for godsake).

Well, you admit that you've never played anything older than 3rd edition and insist that the idea of a character's goals changing over their career is "limiting" and "artificial", despite it being pointed out that is *literally* what the people who invented the game in the first place intended to happen.

[Milo v3]

First, that had everything to do with what I was talking about, not you. That's why I said it would illustrate my point.

Yeah... I'm saying I don't know why you said that since it has nothing to do with what I was saying. Why quote someone and then say random things that are unrelated to what your quoting.

Second, no one has said "You don't get to claim it's broken".

Literally the post above mine "you really can't claim that it's the system that's broken". and other times it's people saying "Just because a player chooses to not take advantage of class features does not mean the game is broken or doomed to failure." in response despite the fact that they didn't suggest the game was broken or doomed to failure.

edit:

Well, you admit that you've never played anything older than 3rd edition and insist that the idea of a character's goals changing over their career is "limiting" and "artificial", despite it being pointed out that is *literally* what the people who invented the game in the first place intended to happen.

Intended =! Good

And my suggestion is based on the fact that it is literally what the people who invented the game in the first place intended.... The game apparently having the expectation of the character goals changing so drastically is what I found limiting and artificial.

[thirdkingdom]

So, your goals, ambitions and dreams haven't changed since you were younger?

[barna10]

Literally the post above mine "you really can't claim that it's the system that's broken". and other times it's people saying "Just because a player chooses to not take advantage of class features does not mean the game is broken or doomed to failure." in response despite the fact that they didn't suggest the game was broken or doomed to failure.

Saying "If you're going to ignore integral parts of the system you really can't claim that it's the system that's broken." is entirely different than saying "you really can't claim it's the system that's broken". You can't take half a sentence and then claim someone is saying something they are not. The later is stating your argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It is not a dictum stating "You are not allowed to say the system is broken!"

Intended =! Good

And my suggestion is based on the fact that it is literally what the people who invented the game in the first place intended.... The game apparently having the expectation of the character goals changing so drastically is what I found limiting and artificial.

You are 100% correct. Just because a creator intended something to be a certain way does not mean it is the best. If this were true we'd all still be playing OD&D.

That being said, this isn't a thread about which version of D&D is the best. This is a thread that was started with the question "Why do almost all editions of D&D fall apart around 10th level?" And the answer that questions is impossible to render because it's based on the false premise that "almost all editions of D&D fall apart around 10th level".

You are free to make any claim you want, but others are also free to criticize those claims and to dispute them with claims of their own.

I understand, very well, how players that never played any of the pre-3rd edition versions would find the concepts some of us have presented as weird, outlandish, or just distasteful. Probably the same reaction I feel in my gut when someone starts defending 4th edition...yeeeuck.

Beyond all that is the fact that many players have played each of the editions to high levels and not all of them think the systems break down at higher levels. Logically, since there are groups that succesfully run games at high levels, in each version of D&D, the systems themselves do not "fall apart around 10th level", but they apparently do become unpalatable for some groups, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I have been in several groups that hhhhaaaaaaattttteeeeeeee 1st level. Does this mean the system "falls apart" around 1st level because my group doesn't like playing it "as intended" where you start at first level, or does it simply mean it doesn't work for my group? Not working for each and every group, in each and every situation, and each and every level, does not mean the system is flawed or "falls apart".

It's no different with the "wandering vagabond" (which still hasn't been defined...) Just because there is one or more concepts which are a stretch and don't seem to fit well does not mean the game is broken. Can you start playing baseball in the middle of a football game and claim there's something wrong with football because it doesn't support people wanting to play baseball? How about if you decided to start a rugby scrum on the 9th hole of a golf course? Is golf or the golf course flawed, or falling apart, because this isn't supported?

What if someone wanted to play a starship pilot? Why not if we are looking for stretches to the theme. Yes, one could easily play a downed starship pilot in a D&D game, but there wouldn't be any special rules to support this, at any level. Does this make the system flawed or does it make it "fall apart"?

In fact, I don't think you'll find a single campaign that would support EVERY concept or idea. Yes, there are generic systems that will support this, but there are few if any CAMPAIGNS that will support widely divergent ideas. D&D is and was a fantasy adventure game where the characters become heroes. Yes, you can stretch it into a game about thieves, intrigue, politics, etc., but that it was never intended to be a universal system where anything was possible.

[Knaight]

Beyond all that is the fact that many players have played each of the editions to high levels and not all of them think the systems break down at higher levels. Logically, since there are groups that succesfully run games at high levels, in each version of D&D, the systems themselves do not "fall apart around 10th level", but they apparently do become unpalatable for some groups, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I have been in several groups that hhhhaaaaaaattttteeeeeeee 1st level. Does this mean the system "falls apart" around 1st level because my group doesn't like playing it "as intended" where you start at first level, or does it simply mean it doesn't work for my group? Not working for each and every group, in each and every situation, and each and every level, does not mean the system is flawed or "falls apart".

When lots and lots of groups routinely find the same few issues though, it does suggest that the game does have flaws and is not in fact perfect. High levels are a routine site for these common issues. 1st level is a routine site for these common issues. This suggests that the game probably could have been designed better in those regards from the beginning. That's not a problem - every system has flaws, it's just a matter of picking systems where the strengths line up with what the particular group values in a game and the weaknesses line up with what you just don't care about.

I get that saying that old D&D isn't a perfect game to which all others are inferior is OSR heresy, but it's true. Old D&D has weaknesses, most of them are shared with other editions of D&D (largely because most mechanics are shared between editions), and there are legitimate reasons to dislike the game.

In fact, I don't think you'll find a single campaign that would support EVERY concept or idea. Yes, there are generic systems that will support this, but there are few if any CAMPAIGNS that will support widely divergent ideas. D&D is and was a fantasy adventure game where the characters become heroes. Yes, you can stretch it into a game about thieves, intrigue, politics, etc., but that it was never intended to be a universal system where anything was possible.

Two pages ago:

There are infinite ways to evolve the game, or you can always start over. NEVER forget, the game is a SYSTEM. There is not one play to play it, nor can you play it WRONG. It HAS to be generic.

This is all I was saying - it's not generic, there are things it can't do. We appear to be on more or less the same page now, except for a willingness to put some of the blame for D&D not fitting groups on how it was designed and not the groups.

[Milo v3]

So, your goals, ambitions and dreams haven't changed since you were younger?

No actually, but that's rather anecdotal and I will not assume that my experience in that area is normal. My issue isn't that people change, it's that the expected change is into someone that is opposite in concept. Most people don't become the opposite of themselves. It fits for some people, some people do change drastically, but it's odd for such a drastic change to be expected as the default.

Saying "If you're going to ignore integral parts of the system you really can't claim that it's the system that's broken." is entirely different than saying "you really can't claim it's the system that's broken". You can't take half a sentence and then claim someone is saying something they are not. The later is stating your argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It is not a dictum stating "You are not allowed to say the system is broken!"

My issue wasn't tone, my issue is people acting like the person they are responding to are claiming it's broken when they aren't saying that.

That being said, this isn't a thread about which version of D&D is the best.

Yes? I wasn't trying to suggest that one version of D&D was better, I'll try and word my posts better if that is how it came across. Though I'm not sure how you got the impression that was what I was talking about.

This is a thread that was started with the question "Why do almost all editions of D&D fall apart around 10th level?" And the answer that questions is impossible to render because it's based on the false premise that "almost all editions of D&D fall apart around 10th level".

I agree.

You are free to make any claim you want, but others are also free to criticize those claims and to dispute them with claims of their own.

Yep.

I understand, very well, how players that never played any of the pre-3rd edition versions would find the concepts some of us have presented as weird, outlandish, or just distasteful.

Which is why I asked for further information, since my perspective is innately limited but not having used the rules being discussed at the time. Though, I'm actually pretty open to pre-3.0 gaming, first RPG's I played were pre-3.0 ones (just was cyberpunk, warhammer fantasy roleplay, and call of cthulhu rather than D&D).

Beyond all that is the fact that many players have played each of the editions to high levels and not all of them think the systems break down at higher levels. Logically, since there are groups that succesfully run games at high levels, in each version of D&D, the systems themselves do not "fall apart around 10th level", but they apparently do become unpalatable for some groups, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Yep.

I have been in several groups that hhhhaaaaaaattttteeeeeeee 1st level. Does this mean the system "falls apart" around 1st level because my group doesn't like playing it "as intended" where you start at first level, or does it simply mean it doesn't work for my group? Not working for each and every group, in each and every situation, and each and every level, does not mean the system is flawed or "falls apart".

Yep.

It's no different with the "wandering vagabond" (which still hasn't been defined...) Just because there is one or more concepts which are a stretch and don't seem to fit well does not mean the game is broken. Can you start playing baseball in the middle of a football game and claim there's something wrong with football because it doesn't support people wanting to play baseball? How about if you decided to start a rugby scrum on the 9th hole of a golf course? Is golf or the golf course flawed, or falling apart, because this isn't supported?

This I disagree with, since I feel that "wandering hero" (I wasn't the one who said vagabond so I wont discuss it, though feel free to dismiss this response as you are replying to the vagabond one) archetype is one of the most common in D&D including early D&D from what everyone has told me who played it (not saying all characters were obviously, some stayed in a single city, some were part of an army, etc.) but heroes who travel from place to place adventuring is sort of seen as the standard when it comes to D&D characters. It's playing baseball on a baseball field.

In fact, I don't think you'll find a single campaign that would support EVERY concept or idea. Yes, there are generic systems that will support this, but there are few if any CAMPAIGNS that will support widely divergent ideas. D&D is and was a fantasy adventure game where the characters become heroes. Yes, you can stretch it into a game about thieves, intrigue, politics, etc., but that it was never intended to be a universal system where anything was possible.

I agree. I just disagree that "wandering hero" is a character concept that is somehow not fitting for D&D... when I've been told my entire life that is it.

[thirdkingdom]

I agree. I just disagree that "wandering hero" is a character concept that is somehow not fitting for D&D... when I've been told my entire life that is it.

My most common backstory is "he came out of the wastelands with a broadsword and a bad attitude," so I think that the wandering swordsman is totally a D&D archetype. Just remember that Gygax was more heavily influenced by Howard than Tolkien. Conan eventually became a king, after all.


My main issue with your post was the "Now, I've never played anything older than 3e, but let me tell you what I think about it." Come on dude. I don't voice an opinion -- even if I do have one -- about 4th or 5th edition because I've never pl,ayed them before.

[Milo v3]

My main issue with your post was the "Now, I've never played anything older than 3e, but let me tell you what I think about it." Come on dude. I don't voice an opinion -- even if I do have one -- about 4th or 5th edition because I've never pl,ayed them before.

That was not my intent, and I apologise if I worded it poorly. I was specifically intending to be saying "Based on what the person I'm talking to just said, x mechanic sounds like y because of z, so can I get more info on it".

The fact that I haven't played any D&D older than 3e (I have played RPG's older than 3e) doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to comment on pre-3e mechanics, especially when the whole point was to reduce my ignorance on the subject. That's like saying I shouldn't be allowed to ask questions or have an opinion on history that occurred before my birth.

[Cluedrew]

That being said, this isn't a thread about which version of D&D is the best. This is a thread that was started with the question "Why do almost all editions of D&D fall apart around 10th level?" And the answer that questions is impossible to render because it's based on the false premise that "almost all editions of D&D fall apart around 10th level".

Consider it a short hand for a question like: "Why, across various editions of D&D, does the highest rate of groups stopping a campaign because they find that the game has become less enjoyable do to their level advancement happen to be around or near level 10?" What would your answer be then?

Not working for each and every group, in each and every situation, and each and every level, does not mean the system is flawed or "falls apart".

... It does mean it is flawed, because it has flaws. Perfection is a high standard. And I suppose you could say it does "fall apart" in those cases, although they may be very few. (Going the other way though, it doesn't mean it will always fall apart.)

"wandering vagabond" (which still hasn't been defined...)

Well, vagabond basically means "one who wanders" so it basically means one who travels with no destination and few if any ties to a particular location. Hope that clarifies things for you.