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

[Plane Sailing]

For the first part, I really feel that the original dungeons and dragons (with the basic, expert, companion, master and immortal boxed sets) had one of the best campaign designs ever created. Levels 1 - 3 were dungeon crawls, levels 4 - 13 ( I can't remember the exact level breakup so don't quote me on this part) were more dungeons/outdoor adventure, levels 14 - 20 were about attaining land and making a difference in the world, levels 21 - 28 were about making a bigger difference in the world and levels 29 - 36 were about becomming imortal (among other things). The elegance of this system was that a DM had a starting and stopping point for each phase of the campaign. Challenges seen on lower level were vastly different from higher levels. It kept the whole campaign fresh during each stage and it tested PC's in ever aspect of their character. It wasn't just focused on combat, it wasn't just focused on roleplaying, it wasn't just focused on the players being at the bottome of the power level, etc. In and of itself, it allowed the DM to change the campaign play and challenges he threw at them. During each "campaign phase" the PCs were at the bottom of the power level and rise to the top of that power level. For example, in levels 14 -20 they would buy a piece of land, build it up, deal with other owners more powerful than them and then eventually reach equal power with those other land owners. Then in the next "campaign phase" they would have to work with those same land owners to deal with threats on a country scale and deal with other political issues as well until they mastered that aspect.

I'm not sure whether you dismissed this post (and my earlier comments along the same line) as being 'simulationist' and thus not meeting your 'gamist' priorities, but I think that is misunderstanding the point.

The point here is that the 3e rules don't really contain gamist support for elements of a campaign beyond killing things and taking their stuff.

IMO the best way of extending the sweet spot is slowed advancement and introducing gamist support for other elements of a campaign - supporting the kind of things which Markn talks about from the basic/expert/etc D&D set.

Many of the people on ENworld who played 1e (as young adults and upwards) found lots of gamist fun in continuing adventures where levelling up wasn't providing the gamist buzz... so other things were.

You would probably draw some useful and interesting information from a thread asking people what made their 1e/2e games most fun, specifically which gamist elements most supported their inner gamist desires for 'cool new things' as time went by.

Regards,

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

[fanboy]I was hoping to see you there Wulf- I was hoping to get your autograph on Grim Tales and Slavelords of Cydonia! Ah, well. [/fanboy]

My autograph? You call that fandom?

What you really should be doing is naming your firstborn after me. Trust me, there's playground security for a kid named "Wulf." I'll show up at the christening with iron-shod booties.

You goofball.

Drop me an email with your address. I'll sign two and send them to you, and you can give the two you have to a buddy.

I owe you at least that much for the awesomeness of Chi-Rho.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Email sent!

I'm glad you enjoyed the CHI-RHO formula. Every so often something just seems to click, and that was one such time. The multi-leveled pun is kinda scary though. In a nice way.

And I think Wulf would be a great name for a kid.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I have an excellent solution to this problem, if you'd like to discuss it.

I'd like to see the discussion!

I guess I haven't seen those past discussions because Wulf's quote—"First, I wanted to add caster levels, because RAW aren't very friendly to multiclassing"—seemed off. Isn't 3.x quite about the most friendly rules system for multiclassing? The amount of level dipping I see is obnoxious. 2 fighter, 2 ranger, 2 monk, 1 barbarian, 3 paladin... maybe it is that the melee classes could use some touching up to make it less attractive, like the PHB2 alternate to Barbarian rage, berserker strength.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'd like to see the discussion!

I guess I haven't seen those past discussions because Wulf's quote—"First, I wanted to add caster levels, because RAW aren't very friendly to multiclassing"—seemed off. Isn't 3.x quite about the most friendly rules system for multiclassing? The amount of level dipping I see is obnoxious. 2 fighter, 2 ranger, 2 monk, 1 barbarian, 3 paladin... maybe it is that the melee classes could use some touching up to make it less attractive, like the PHB2 alternate to Barbarian rage, berserker strength.

Friendly to non-caster multiclassing, oh very yes.

Friendly to caster multiclassing, emphatically no.

 

[WayneLigon]

How do you extend the "sweet spot?"

Where would you "cap" the game?

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?

I don't know how to do it with the third sentence. When I did my long-term Arcana Unearthed game, I had a few goals in mind. I wanted longer low-level play because I was capping the game at roughly 16th level (that would be when they were tough enough to face down the BBEG) and because there were certain monsters I wanted to use for a longer time than would normally be the case. Also, because this was AU, with new classes, spells, and such I wanted the players and myself a longer time to become familiar with the differences before forging ahead into higher level play.

I set the campaign up in two parts. Part One was the unfolding of events, exploration, and giving the PC's time to become used to their new abilities. Part Two would occur, I anticipated, around tenth level; they'd have the power and abilities to turn things around and take the fight to the bad guys.

In Part One, the PC's got roughly 1/3 to 1/2 the XP per encounter (I also give XP for meeting certain goals and for roleplaying encounters as well - if you discover the evil duke is providing shipments to the enemy, you've 'defeated' him and get XP commensurate to the threat you risked). Once the PC's assembled enough information and power to take the fight to the enemy, the blinders came off and we moved to the normal rate of advancement so they could take a central role in the huge battles that were to come.

Edit: Of course, AU doesn't have a lot of the 'game breaking' spells, either. I just realized that, so perhaps my advice isn't all that useful to you.

 

[Cheiromancer]

So everyone but me has figured out how to preserve the sweet spot? Or are they writing up a brilliant solution to the problem and plan to post it any time now?

If so, I'm waiting with bated breath.

edit:

The idea that got me most excited was the idea of dropping the x4 to initial skill points. Instead impose a -2 non proficient penalty to untrained rolls. It makes it easy to broaden competency; I can see folks putting 1 point into all sorts of skills for a sort of minimum competency.

To this I might add a rule systematizing the synergy rule (5 ranks in two related skills means +2 to each; but only one such synergy bonus applies to any role) would mean that there would an incentive to achieve mastery in an area. With 5 ranks + 2 synergy bonus + (ability bonus and/or masterwork tools and/or skill focus, whatever) a character could achieve 20 DC roles routinely.

 

[Valvorik]

Currently 15th level and okay

Running a game where most PC's are 15th level (5 players) and it's working.

That said, have in place houserules similar to some suggested already and addressing various issues. Would be a little much to post all (campaign bible is over 500 pages at this point), but some key ones:

- have reduced effectiveness of information guaranteeing spells (commune etc.) and travel spells (use MC's UA's version of teleport, cap all spells like phantom steed and windwalk at 100' speed so that nothing flies faster than air elemental);
- have revised raise dead/resurrection spells including removing true resurrection's "painless no loss aspect", all coming back from death is painful, have removed clone entirely as a means of creating playable replacement characters;
- have adopted WOTC's epic fixes to most "save or die" spells so that they're usually "save or uber damage";
- have adopated Arcana Unearthed variant death and dying rules with substantial house rules that ensure less character death but just as much of a brake on level advancement over time for taking damage = hp +10;
- have announced intent in next campaign to remove additional spells that "take the spotlight off skills", again modelled on MC's and some WOTC designer musings;
- apply rigorous connections of cultural and other backgrounds to prestige classes that avoids too much PrC'ing.
- add new feats from published sources and routinely do not add many that over-stack or are just "too good" in my view, same for new spells etc.

You will find if you look at Monte Cook's Unearthed Arcana that a number of "problematic" spells people have cited don't exist in that setting, a bit of a tip off.

I am blessed with players who voluntarily seek comprehensive character development as much as min/max objectives and who knowingly swerve from "power gamer" to "character I want to play".

I try to ration what sorts of accomplishments characters reach at different levels so that it would not be before 19+ that plane-spanning threats etc. figure. E.G., one reason I revised "return to temple of elemental evil" and ran it for 15th level was that the scale of threat was such lower level characters should not be the ones dealing with it and even then intended the "worst outcome" to be disasterous on a regional scale and only threaten world on a longer time horizon that other forces could hope to counter.

All of that said, find lots of good discussion in this thread identifying issues to address if you want to "take adventures out of dungeon" and don't want to follow the WOTC path of moving high level adventures into plane hopping.

 

[rounser]

But if I don't cap the Open Locks skill somehow, then eventually I reach one of two points:

1) Locks are made obsolete as a dramatic obstacle.

2) By coincidence, the heroes seem to tackle dungeons full of mastercrafted locks.

#2 is an instance of the world changing to accomodate the hero's existance-- almost the very antithesis of verisimilitude.

This actually answers a question that has been knocking around in my head for a while:

Q: How to prevent PCs from entering an area that they cannot handle at their current level?
A: Put a high DC lock on the door (and make it really hard to break)...or equivalent. I'm open to suggestions on how you "fence off" a wilderness area by character level.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think that the high DC of the lock becomes a lot easier to swallow if the PCs have been hanging out to break into the "mystery dungeon" they found at first level, and finally manage to do so some ten levels later.

EDIT: I can see a major flaw in this plan. It relies on the assumption that someone's maxing out Open Locks, and if they're not, they're not going to open the door "on schedule". Still, better than nothing.

 

[Cheiromancer]

@Valvorik:Could you elaborate on the death and dying rules and how it relates to a brake on level advancement? I don't own Monte's arcana unearthed (or evolved), though it really sounds interesting.

I wonder if a "not dead yet" rule might work. I.e. a character who takes lethal damage turns out to have only been knocked unconsicous, and loses a level from the experience. Or maybe an amount of xp based on how far into lethal territory they fell.