D&D 5E Anyone else finding character advancement pretty dull?

[Wiseblood]

I misread your post. When I thought it said Umbran dictionary I lost it.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Grognards need levels now. Or titles maybe.

The leveling system should be based on how many editions (or better yet--half editions) back you got started. So if you got into the game in 4e Essentials, you are a Level 1 Grognard, while if you go into it in late 2e Skills & Powers you are a Level 5 Grognard. If there is any confusion as to which one you actually got into it on, add +1 to the clearest one.

I got in with Mentzer Red Box, followed shortly after by 2e, which puts me equivalent to late (post UA?) 1e, as a Level 7 Grognard.

 

[Umbran]

All it means is that you prefer a previous edition.

With respect, you have dumped about three-quarters of the meaning of the term.

But, you know, shades, subtlety, nuances and distinctions, pfah! Who needs 'em?

 

[Eric V]

It is painful when the gamers that were the focus for so many years find that they have been kicked to the curb and aren't the ones being catered to anymore.

Its like tabletop mini gaming, it keeps getting simpler/streamlined, and those who want thick books of rules and options to build tactics around suddenly find themselves abandoned by the games they have loved for so long. then they wail on DakkaDakka about how the game is going downhill while sales soar. Thankfully there is usually someone there to put out a rule-set for that market, but they want their 40k/WH/BA/WM the way it was in some prior edition with all those fiddly bits.

I admit I did drop running 5e but not for PC options issues.

A decent point, here.

I think people like myself (and a few others from this thread) just need to accept that D&D just isn't "that" game anymore. It's fairly simple (which is good and bad, mostly bad, but just IMO), provides a simple framework through which one can play through some swords-and-magic adventures. Monster in-game complexity, more detailed character development, more and better options...it's just not there.

And that's on purpose. It's supposed to appeal more to the casual crowd than the hardcore gamer crowd. Someone upthread mentioned board game cafe people and I think that's right. It's the best way to understand how leveling up a character in mere moments is a feature; it's bizarre to me because leveling up is between weekly sessions, not something done in session, but in a different kind of playing atmosphere, I can understand how making/leveling up a character in no time at all is a good feature.

I do find it weird how people like not getting product, but maybe the fear of oversaturation runs that deep. I don't know, myself; I feel a the game is doing well enough that it could take the "risk" of producing a bit more, but what the hell. What do people want to see WotC produce? Every time I see an idea offered, it tends to get shot down. Should they produce nothing? It seems weird.

To the original question, I find it kind of boring. Having said that, leveling up has always been kinda cool, but the fact that there are so few decision-points makes it more bland. Even as regards spells; some are just so clearly superior that it ends up being something of a false choice; most casters have the same base of spells. I know people will say that you might choose spells based on personality quirks of the character or whatever, but playing to your character shouldn't involve choosing a markedly inferior option.

From what I have read, PF2 may be swinging the pendulum too far the other way, but maybe not so far that people who are a bit more "hardcore" gamer might still appreciate it.

 

[billd91]

With respect, you have dumped about three-quarters of the meaning of the term.

But, you know, shades, subtlety, nuances and distinctions, pfah! Who needs 'em?

Meh. The community already did that as indicated by the definition 2 in the Urban Dictionary.

 

[Hussar]

Well, considering 2e players were considered "grognards" in 3e days, I'm really not sure what the problem is here considering 4e players as grognards. It's been as much time since 3e was wrapped up as when 1e wrapped up and 3e started (that sentence got away from me a bit) and 3e players considered 1e players to be grognards.

Seems pretty fair to me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

A decent point, here.

I think people like myself (and a few others from this thread) just need to accept that D&D just isn't "that" game anymore. It's fairly simple (which is good and bad, mostly bad, but just IMO), provides a simple framework through which one can play through some swords-and-magic adventures. Monster in-game complexity, more detailed character development, more and better options...it's just not there.

You are, of course, just talking about mechanical character development. There's all sorts of interesting...more interesting, IMO..."character development" that doesn't require rules. Every week that I play a character he/she develops further, usually without leveling.

And that's on purpose. It's supposed to appeal more to the casual crowd than the hardcore gamer crowd. Someone upthread mentioned board game cafe people and I think that's right.

Codswallop. You are defining "hardcore" in an overly narrow way.

It's the best way to understand how leveling up a character in mere moments is a feature; it's bizarre to me because leveling up is between weekly sessions, not something done in session, but in a different kind of playing atmosphere, I can understand how making/leveling up a character in no time at all is a good feature.

This threw me a little. Maybe you are taking options and rules and complexity and combining that with leveling time, as if they are all part and parcel. They're not. While I think 5e has too many options already, I also think the leveling happens way too fast. I like campaigns that last for years, where you really feel invested in your character. It's one of my biggest complaints about 5e.

I do find it weird how people like not getting product, but maybe the fear of oversaturation runs that deep. I don't know, myself; I feel a the game is doing well enough that it could take the "risk" of producing a bit more, but what the hell. What do people want to see WotC produce? Every time I see an idea offered, it tends to get shot down. Should they produce nothing? It seems weird.

I think most people like more adventures, more campaign settings, etc. But many of us don't like what happens to a game when too many mechanical character choices are offered: all of the sudden players starting finding bizarre combinations whose only positive attribute is MOAR POWAH, and then they slap on a character concept as an afterthought. It changes the emphasis of the game, in negative ways.

Even as regards spells; some are just so clearly superior that it ends up being something of a false choice; most casters have the same base of spells. I know people will say that you might choose spells based on personality quirks of the character or whatever, but playing to your character shouldn't involve choosing a markedly inferior option.

Now that part I do agree with. That's another one of the flaws of 5e (and previous editions) in my mind.

From what I have read, PF2 may be swinging the pendulum too far the other way, but maybe not so far that people who are a bit more "hardcore" gamer might still appreciate it.

Again with that narrow, selective use of "hardcore". It's simply a different emphasis. Imagine two players:

Player #1 plays 4 nights a week in 4 different campaigns, 2 of which he DMs. In between he follows others' streaming games, builds elaborate 3D sets for his adventures, puts together soundtracks and creates elaborate parchment player handouts, and he puts hour and hours into drawing sketches of character and NPCs. But he doesn't allow any supplements at his table: it's straight PHB, with no feats or multiclassing.

Player #2 plays twice a month, and in between he reads various forums to figure out how to optimize his character mechanically, because at his table all supplements, UA, and many homebrew options are all allowed.

Who is more "hardcore"?

 

[delericho]

The leveling system should be based on how many editions (or better yet--half editions) back you got started.

Quite possibly, but maybe it should be like old-school AC - the more grognardy you become, the lower the number.

So preferring 4e would make you a Grognard-4, preferring 2nd would make you a Grognard-2, and so on, all the way back to a Grognard-0 (obviously, those for whom OD&D is the one true game).

Which of course then allows for the theoretical Grognard-(-1) - those who grumble that the term really refers to Napolean's imperial guard.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sure, and if the discussion is fun in its own right, it's worth having.

But if you expect it to be anything other than just empty words, I fear you're going to be disappointed.

If that means what I think it means, I'm afraid nothing said on this discussion forum magically appears in people's PHBs so maybe this platform isn't right for you?

 

[GreyLord]

Quite possibly, but maybe it should be like old-school AC - the more grognardy you become, the lower the number.

So preferring 4e would make you a Grognard-4, preferring 2nd would make you a Grognard-2, and so on, all the way back to a Grognard-0 (obviously, those for whom OD&D is the one true game).

Which of course then allows for the theoretical Grognard-(-1) - those who grumble that the term really refers to Napolean's imperial guard.

I was a wargamer before I was a roleplayer...and there is nothing wrong with being "factually" correct!

On the other subject, if those who started with 3e and 4e are now considered grognards...we need a new term for those pre-3e gamers (the 2e and before).

Maybe we should call them the Ultra Grognards...or maybe the new guys should be called Neo-Grognards with the original RPG Grognards remaining as such...and the ORIGINAL Wargaming grogs (yes, when D&D came out and even to AD&D, there were those who were grognards even then...mostly the old grumbling Wargaming crowd)...called simply...the Grogs.