[D&D Design Discussion] Preserving the "Sweet Spot"

Mark CMG said:

Strange, IMO, but "life restoring" magic and high-level divinations (although both are referenced above) are not ones I hear or read about a lot as being game breakers. Perhaps the gp cost for life-restoring spells offsets the benefit enough?

Click to expand...

Glad to have you comment, Mark.

Raise Dead is a really hard spell to balance, in my opinion.

On the one hand, you can't eliminate the "ultimate consequence" from the game, or the game loses its dramatic tension-- and that's bad for story.

On the other hand, you can't keep replacing the protagonists, cause that's also bad for story.

And you definitely don't want "being brought back to life" to become as mundane as a Light spell. That's also bad for story.

That's why I wouldn't mind Raise Dead so much at the pinnacle of play, and only provided the PCs cast it themselves.

The main problems with high-level play, as mentioned before, are the introduction of certain game-changing magics, and the growing ac/bab and dc/save discrepancies.

In our latest game I'm trying a system where I award normal XP, but it is divided into two pools. The main pool is used for levelling, and is always the same for every party member. The other pool (and the % of XP that goes into this pool increases with level) is used for various other things (crafting, paying off raise dead pentaly XP, buying skills, feats, stat bumps or action points). The goal is to stretch out that sweet spot before the mage takes control of the game, while still giving players incremental advancement.

They're at 3rd now, so it's a little early to see how it's going to play out, but I haven't had any problems yet.

Wulf said:

And how would you do it in such a way as to give the players the same "real time" rate of advancement/improvement as the current rules provide?

Click to expand...

Looking at this from a strictly mechanical POV, this is where things gets sticky.

Earlier editions of D&D created this elongated sweet spot through the use of diminishing returns (increasing amounts of experience for the next level), but the desire to keep a sense of quick advancement rules that out.

That leaves us (assuming we don't want to gut the current system wholesale) with incremental leveling - or simply doubling the number of levels available but reducing the gain at each step. Maybe PCs get hit points every odd level (or half level), with increases in BAB on the evens. Likewise, Saves might get broken up into Good saves increasing at odd with Weaks at even, spells begin gained on the evens, and skill points broken up into halfs. The trick would be in smoothing out the advancement curve.

Personally, I would prefer to simply tweak the experience tables, but I know that wouldn't fly with your criteria.

the Jester said:

slow down the rate at which you award xps.

Click to expand...

A few people have mentioned slowing down the rate of advancement but this solution is really contingent on the players and who you are designing for. Are you designing for a group primarily concerned about role-playing and story or are you designing for "the average gamer"?

If it's the latter, slowing down the rate of advancement isn't a good solution and will most likely bore that type of gamer. The vast majority of gamers fall into the "average/casual" category. This type of gamer wants to see quantifiable proof of advancement (cookies) and wants to see them at a reasonable pace. Slowing down the rate at which these cookies are distributed will only cause this player to lose interest.

A system that would allow a player to gain more options for their character but at the same not significantly increasing their power would be ideal. I'm not sure what a system like this would look like at the moment but I am intrigued by the enhancement system in D&D Online.

Basically each level is broken up into 4 ranks. At each rank, the player can choose from a list of enhancements that is based on their race, class, and level. I don't really like how they are implemented in DDO because they mainly just grant increased modifiers but I think the mechanics are worth exploring.

GlassJaw said:

How is the consequence of death not a major design decision for any rules system?

Click to expand...

Who said that? That's a huge leap away from what I posted (or did you teleport? ). I simply said I don't hear or read about "life-restoring" magic (and high-level divinations) as being game breakers. I gave a possible reason for "life-restoring" magic not being perceived as a game breaker as being the gp cost offsetting it, but posed that as a question. There may be more reasons than that, I suppose.

GlassJaw said:

Same goes for divinations. I've read MANY modules in which the author details at length either how to address the casting of such spells or how some factor within the module prevents their usage. Gaining instant knowledge, whether through asking some divine being a direct question, scrying, etc is a potential pain in the arse for the DM, especially if they are trying to keep something a secret or want something to be revealed later in the story.

Click to expand...

I guess, but I don't hear or read about it a lot as being a game breaker. As a possible reason, maybe a lot of information not really being known to the deity or source (entity) being asked through the divination (commune, etal)? I think some DMs allow for divinations and scrying to be a lot more powerful than they truly are and/or forget to have NPCs take precautions against them. There should probably be more information for DMs on how to handle these things.

Wulf Ratbane said:

Not picking on you, but that's exactly the approach I am talking about NOT doing. Just slowing down the rate of XP doesn't work, because it doesn't provide the players with the regular feedback of advancement to keep the game interesting.

(And I mean advancement in a Gamist sense. Ignore this comment if you don't know what I mean. Fnord.)

Click to expand...

Break it up? You could change the numbers around. 2nd level is now 3th level, and now 2nd level increasing hp, saves, and BAB, and 3rd level gives class abilities like Sneak Attack and spellcasting levels. (You'd have to make it so that you could only multiclass every other level). That way you get double the time in the levels you want, and you would still get the fun of updating the character sheet.

What happens if you cap out the as given class advancement past, say, 9th or 10th level? Past that point, you use different rules to determine what kinds of perks the PCs receive. Non-linear saves, BAB and HP progression. Skills that stop advancing past having 10 ranks in them. Past level 10, give the PCs something like feats (or some other definable means of progression) they can use to buy class skills, BAB/saves, skill ranks, more HP. That way the cookie of gaining a level is maintained, but the effect of numbers bloat is lessened.

How about having spells that you have to actively go out questing for (as opposed to automatically gaining more per level)? Maybe even including a mechanic for having spells past 5th level buring/disappearing out after using them (they might be powerful, but you have to be judicious when you use them otherwise they might be not be available when you really need them). What really is the difference between a low level damage spell and a high level one, other than the number of dice being rolled and the higher save DC?

I'll post more thoughts as they come to me.

Wulf Ratbane said:

Glad to have you comment, Mark.

Raise Dead is a really hard spell to balance, in my opinion.

On the one hand, you can't eliminate the "ultimate consequence" from the game, or the game loses its dramatic tension-- and that's bad for story.

On the other hand, you can't keep replacing the protagonists, cause that's also bad for story.

And you definitely don't want "being brought back to life" to become as mundane as a Light spell. That's also bad for story.

That's why I wouldn't mind Raise Dead so much at the pinnacle of play, and only provided the PCs cast it themselves.

Click to expand...

Two thoughts, please.

One being that there are a great number of players (DMs included) that don't look at RPGing as a "story" per se. I like to think that I am more of a story-wrangler, myself, in that when all is said and done, what has ultimately unfolded is a tale of sorts. But a lot of gamers really do play the game as a series of unending challenges that get progressively tougher (mathematically) and simply gathering resources to face them is the goal (including "life-restoring" magic). If part of the goal with 4E (and I know we aren't specifcally discussing that here but I think it is germane) is to attract more of those types of players (away from their computer-based games), then I think we will see more of that sort of design.


The second thought I am prompted to make by your reply is to build a once per year and once per character clause into the spell. To wit, no character's body and mind can take being yanked back from the void more than once in their lifetime and no caster can do the yanking (sorry Eric's Grandma ) from the void more than once in a certain time period, say a year as an example. But, again, I'm more for these things being setting contingent. I like the idea of the rules being less specific and allowing the setting to place further parameters.

Wulf Ratbane said:

Not picking on you, but that's exactly the approach I am talking about NOT doing. Just slowing down the rate of XP doesn't work, because it doesn't provide the players with the regular feedback of advancement to keep the game interesting.

(And I mean advancement in a Gamist sense. Ignore this comment if you don't know what I mean. Fnord.)

Click to expand...

Then how about adding new things in there to advance in. There are other things like reputation, status, and social standing that can be hard to be advanced and can have noticable values and effects, yet aren't always related to XP or level. About the time they slow down in normal advancement would be about the time that they would begin to want lands, title, and minstrels singing their names. This goes along with the person who earlier pointed out that there is a large difference between a 10th level fighter and a 10th level fighter leading an army. At lower levels, dangle carrots they can't get due to low reputation, social standing, or simple political power that will cause them to want it later. If you're a DM that only gives out XP for combat and not RP, then offer other rewards for RP whcih will slow down their advancement through combat, although still leave them with the choice of which to follow after.

Mark CMG said:

One being that there are a great number of players (DMs included) that don't look at RPGing as a "story" per se. I like to think that I am more of a story-wrangler, myself, in that when all is said and done, what has ultimately unfolded is a tale of sorts.

Click to expand...

I like to think of myself as more of a story sundae artist, where a satisfying story is the cherry on top of an enormous, sloppy, treasure-drizzled scoop of dead bad guys.

Anyhow-- instead of story, maybe I should have said "continuity?" A sense of "ownership" or "investment" in the character?

But a lot of gamers really do play the game as a series of unending challenges that get progressively tougher (mathematically) and simply gathering resources to face them is the goal (including "life-restoring" magic).

Click to expand...

Guilty...

If part of the goal with 4E (and I know we aren't specifcally discussing that here but I think it is germane) is to attract more of those types of players (away from their computer-based games), then I think we will see more of that sort of design.

Click to expand...

I agree it's germane. I also see it as a pretty natural evolution from 3e. As far as I am concerned 3e is pretty clearly designed for that kind of "Gamist" experience. It can serve adequately for Narrativist or Simulationist games, of course; but then again I'll use my vice grips to pound a nail when my hammer isn't handy.

painandgreed said:

Then how about adding new things in there to advance in. There are other things like reputation, status, and social standing that can be hard to be advanced and can have noticable values and effects, yet aren't always related to XP or level.

Click to expand...

I am not sure you can "design" cookies (or is it carrots now? Carrots is good too...) along these lines. I am not saying that perks like this can't exist or won't appeal to certain kinds of players, but again I think it's a round peg/square hole kind of thing with respect to the design of d20.

I can't imagine, for example, an entry on the 3rd level bard table that says, "You gain a Romantic Interest!"

By "can't imagine it" I mean it doesn't seem to be a meaningful carrot when you look at it alongside new spells, feats, BAB, skill points, and other "tangible" mechanics. It doesn't "fit" inside the established (gamist) mechanics (the level playing field) of Dungeons and Dragons.

About the time they slow down in normal advancement would be about the time that they would begin to want lands, title, and minstrels singing their names.

Click to expand...

I guess 1e was a lot better with regards to awarding this kind of advancement; but again, it's not really a tangible mechanic so it's pretty hard to design or codify.