Are "epic-level" Dungeon Fantasy games viable... and fun?

[The Colonel]

Dunno about DF itself, but the problem in "that other RPG" tended to be that, above a certain level (which varied with edition) it could be tricky to keep the PCs "in the dungeon" as the walls stopped being effective physical barriers without the addition of credibility stretching magical upgrades.
Superhero characters also seem to be a poor fit to a game of glorified breaking and entering generally - if they can take on whole armies and wrestle with epic foes, they are better doing that than going room to room hunting for ever growing piles of change.
Mind you, I'm not a big fan of high fantasy stuff generally, so if you like that sort of thing and can make it work "we're sleeping on the transport tonight lads" as the French say*.

*Actually, it translates as something completely different.

[johndallman]

DF characters seem to work fine in the broader genre of "fantasy adventures" which aren't confined to dungeons, but include long-distance travel, politics, nation-building, interplanar travel, quests, and so on.

The campaign I'm playing in fits that genre well. It had one reasonably large dungeon at the start. Since then, there have been various barrows, forts, lairs and so on, but their individual room counts have been ten or less.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by johndallman

DF characters seem to work fine in the broader genre of "fantasy adventures" which aren't confined to dungeons, but include long-distance travel, politics, nation-building, interplanar travel, quests, and so on.

The campaign I'm playing in fits that genre well. It had one reasonably large dungeon at the start. Since then, there have been various barrows, forts, lairs and so on, but their individual room counts have been ten or less.

They're clearly not intended for politics and nation-building, but certainly they're at least as suitable for that as That Other Game so long as you avoid taking the kind of disadvantages that make you incompatible with those activities.

[Dammann]

I just built a Knight, added all the power-ups that were obvious, and maxed the attributes. I came up just over 1100 points, and I could have dug into some more generalized power-ups. I note that at some point, increasing skill level is silly. I think a 1250 Knight could go toe-to-toe with about anything in Monsters, but at that point you’re saving the world and fighting home brewed baddies, I imagine.

[KarlKost]

4

Originally Posted by ericthered

And then there is Kalazz (no idea if he'll turn up), who seems to play these wild 1000+ point games in every genre he runs and makes it work.

I played Infinite Earths with 1500 points, with the party being an elite group of "supers", one was a "half-demon", the other was the shapesfiter "T-1000" android, a martial artist Chi master with imbue and a mystic witch.

They went to the world of Steel with the purpose of finding ways to defeat the AIs there.

In the end, the AI Brisbane formed an Android body for itself using Tokyo's tech and Brisbane escaped into the multiverse, to be used by me as a "Brainiac" ultimate super villain type. It was very fun

[KarlKost]

Originally Posted by Witchking

IME the most challenge is when the players are a mix of min/max'ers and flexible broad builds, worse with a difference in current point totals. If the party builds or bends their PCs with/to similar goals it can help a lot.

I always incentive GMs to be fully involved in the players sheets creations, and that to not have worries about vetoing stuff. Just have common sense of course.

I also give a few "freebies" points to colour the characters. Go ahead and spend those into that Philosophy skill, or become a real good soccer player. That helps avoid the minmaxers.

Now, my game table are my friends from years of course

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by KarlKost

I always incentive GMs to be fully involved in the players sheets creations, and that to not have worries about vetoing stuff. Just have common sense of course.

I also give a few "freebies" points to colour the characters. Go ahead and spend those into that Philosophy skill, or become a real good soccer player. That helps avoid the minmaxers.

Now, my game table are my friends from years of course

GM's should have input on PC creation and IMHO PC's should work to build a player that broadly fits into/advances the party as it exists/as it is being constructed.

I have always tried to spend a point or two on 'flavor' outside the nuts and blots of character effectiveness. Part of why I miss the half point from editions 1-3 is that used to get me 2-4 flavor skills, now it is less. Ah well...

[WingedKagouti]

Originally Posted by Witchking

Part of why I miss the half point from editions 1-3 is that used to get me 2-4 flavor skills, now it is less. Ah well...

You have the Dabbler perk (PU2) instead now, which can give you 4 or 8 skills at a slightly improved default.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by WingedKagouti

You have the Dabbler perk (PU2) instead now, which can give you 4 or 8 skills at a slightly improved default.

I have seen it and do not find it impressive, at all.

I like 99% of the changes from 3rd to 4th editions. If I were seriously thinking of GMing again it would be about the only thing I would be tempted to houserule. Or I would create a perk that allows 2 skills (not necessarily related) at effectively 3ed halfpoint level E = stat-1 A = stat-2 H = stat-3 etc.

That said they were never going to be able to please everyone on every point. Heck I would guess whatever inhouse committee that handled the 3rd ed to 4th ed process had disagreements on the small points.

Such is life.

[Black Leviathan]

I mean yes it scales. Dungeon Fantasy characters don't really outgrow threats they face they just gain the ability to afford the cooler capabilities. You might want to cap skill levels and attributes to reasonably high levels to discourage game-breaking abilities. it also may be a good idea to keep players in their class-lane as 500pts could sort of defeat that baked-in convention.