A D&D Exercise for Sorcerer Players

[jburneko]

Or How To Play Epic Characters At First Level

Reading all the threads about Sherman Tank Demons and what not reminded me of a discussion I had a few years back with a fairly well versed D&D player.  We were discussing some of the classic questions that D&D raises.  In particular the issue of "Where do all the orcs and goblins go when you hit level 10 and why does no neophytes ever seem to stumble across a dragon?"  This was also couched in terms lamenting the fact that D&D is basically designed to do farm-boy becomes epic hero progression and that no level 1 Paladin is going to start off charging into hell to tackle the devil himself.

I had been reading Sorcerer at lot at the time and I pointed out that his (and probably the designers) assumption was that levels are absolute.  That level 1 means farm-boy and level 15 means seasoned veteran.  I admitted that much of the language in the books leads one to this assumption but I pointed out that by changing JUST the language it would be quite possible to play D&D on a grand epic scale starting at level 1.  The key is to view levels as purely relative.  A level 1 character is less than a level 3 character who is less than a level 5 character but that's it.  Otherwise attach whatever MEANING you want.

As an example I whipped up a first level Paladin and I said his name was Sir Gregory.  Sir Gregory is the proud leader of a holy order of knights sworn to protect the king and queen at all costs.  He's not a young man but he isn't old either.  In fact he does have a wise old retired mentor who lead the knights before him and was responsible for saving the kingdom from an age of darkness by slaying a grand tyrannical dragon.  I named this mentor Sir Patrick and made him level 5.

I said that Sir Gregory had just discovered that a terrible evil Sorcerer had opened a portal to hell itself and was summoning forth a grand army of DEMONS!  I created this horrible evil Sorcerer named Havarmax and made him level 3.  Then I simply opened the monster manual to the page that said Orc.  I crossed out Orc and wrote in Demon.

I think I pretty much blew my friend's mind.

Anyway, it was pretty much Sorcerer that taught me that trick.  I often find that if I use the above example with someone familiar with D&D but who doesn't grasp Sorcerer then suddenly Sorcerer makes a lot more sense.  Just because your Sherman Tank's Power is 2 doesn't mean that its cannon balls fall two feet from the barrel with the impact of a feather pillow, it just means it isn't very effective at getting you what you want.

If your goal is to level the city you're probably only going to take out a building or two before being overwhelmed.  If your goal is taking out a building then you're probably only going to blow out a few windows and maybe a support beam or two but that building will endure.  If your goal is killing that one guy in the building then much glass and concrete and fire will rain down on him but damn he just seems to duck, dodge and roll at the last minute emerging like Bruce Willis in Die Hard.

Just a thought.

Jesse

[Tor Erickson]

Hey Jesse,

So I've been thinking about your D&D example and I thought of one way in which Sorcerer is distinctly different.  By clever use of strategy, tactics, and teamwork, it's conceivable that a PC in Sorcerer could take on a Power 10 demon (I mean using all of the different ways to get bonus dice and then a bit of luck).  In comparison, there is NO WAY a level one fighter could beat an out-of-the-box-dragon.  Not by using the rules in the Player's Handbook, you couldn't.

What this means to me is that Sorcerer PCs can interact with very powerful entities, perhaps avoiding potentially-fatal conflict until absolutely necessary, but still have a chance when push comes to shove of coming out on top.

Likewise, because there are more options to resolving conflict than simply "I kill you or you kill me" the PC can experience the full power of the demon and have the story continue (Will vs. Will contests).

Anyways, this is what I hope because I am about to introduce an extremely powerful, deadly, and antagonistic demon into our next session of Charnel Gods.

Tor

[jburneko]

Tor,

Oh, by no means is my exercise meant to be 1-to-1.  To do a first level dragon I'd probably take one of the low level lizard monsters and give it the burning hands spell as its "breath weapon" or something.  But yes, there's no way a 1st level character is going to tackle one of the ACTUAL D&D Dragons which is very much UNLIKE Sorcerer where Power levels don't work that way.

My main point was that I've sometimes used this D&D example as a stepping stone to fully understanding how Sorcerer works.

Jesse

[Tor Erickson]

Damn you, Jesse, how dare you compare Sorcerer to D&D!? 

snif snif.

Okay, I'm better. 

I guess what I'm saying, and it doesn't sound like you're objecting, is that a 'level 1' Sorcerer character can take on a much broader range of challenges than his counterpart in D&D.  But a level 1 Sorcerer can also get his ass kicked by a nobody, and it's largely dependent on how invested the Player is in that particular ass-kicking. 

Or are we talking about completely different things?

Tor

[xenopulse]

Tor--I think what Jesse meant when he scratched out Orc and wrote in Demon is that you could conceivably take a CR 1 creature's abilities and just use them for a "dragon" instead. That is, you're not bound by the monsters in the monster manual. You can, in your world, make a dragon and give him 2HP. There's nothing in D&D's rules that keeps you from reimagining the monster scale.

Beast Hunters does this too, by the way, just like Sorcerer (which shouldn't be a big surprise). There's nothing in the game that limits you to fighting small things at first and armies only after you gain a bunch of tattoos; in fact, there's not a single word of guidance about the scope of each challenge per adversity point spent, or anything like that. The only scaling things are the beasts--just like demons in Sorcerer and prepared monsters in D&D. That's a very purposeful design implementation.

[LandonSuffered]

Wow, Jesse...what a fantastic discussion topic (though I'm not sure that it belongs in Ron's forum).  The idea that character level in D&D measures "effectiveness" not necessarily experience or seasoned-ness of a character is a little mind-blowing. 

Of course, wasn't Isildur (of Tolkien's books) felled by orcish arrows? And only a bit after cutting the One Ring from Sauron's hand?

Switching to this method of game play explores the possibility of character level measuring a character's importance to the game adventure.  For example if Lord Mucky-Muck is only 1st level (and thus has only 4 hit points) he'll be removed from the story a lot sooner than Taran the Assistant Pig-Keeper (a level 12 orphan or whatever).

However, while you can mix and match the meanings in D&D, the game system itself is a pitted against you, especially in the current edition of the game:

-   Level is gained based on "experience" points, implying a higher level character is more experienced (i.e. as he has more "experience points")
-   Higher level characters have access to more feats and special abilities
-   Comparison of characters from different level brackets.  As long as everything is level or continues to scale in the same direction (for example Level 1 is great but Level 8 is legendary) things are okay. Once you have Lord Mucky-Muck (level 1 paladin) engaged in a skill contest with Taran (level 12 rogue) you're going to have a hard time justifying the high level character losing in a particular area without re-vamping the whole skill mechanic of the game.
-   Magic-using characters would really seem to break the deal, unless you are really re-defining what a magic user is in the game (for example a "powerful magic user" only has access to 2 or 3 spells).

Of course, Gandalf never seemed to use that many spells in the LOTR books (pyrotechnics, light, shatter, hold portal...hmm, maybe a couple more), but then you're not just re-structuring what game effectiveness means in D&D...you're now in a position where you need to re-structure players' expectations of what D&D IS.

It would be interesting to run a game like this, though...certainly worth a post in the Actual Play forum.