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

[Barak]

Interestingly, me and one of my players are sorta having this argument, in an extremely passive-aggressive fashion.

I'm running the WLD right now. Through no prompting of my own at all, the players are staying in areas that were "set" for characters of 7-9th level. They are at 9th level. By RAW, they should have levelled by now. But I'm not using XP, I'm levelling them when it's good for the balance/fun of the game. They are already running over most of the encounters, since they are at the highest cusp the place was created for, and they have somewhat more equipment than normal (not overly much, truly).

The majority of my players are fine with that. They are having fun with the encounters/combat, are enjoying their characters evolving, etc. Two of them (brothers, btw), are somewhat less enthusiastic. Not surprisingly, one is a "powergamer". And by far the most "effective" character. They are antsy about the lack of levelling lately.

I think they believe it's because they think I think I can't handle high-level play. That's not true, it's because them being higher level would really make the current part of the dungeon a complete cakewalk. I -do- think they are at about the best levels of the game, but I did know that they'd go all the way to 20th level when I started running the WLD, and I assume they will. But anyway. One of the brothers, perhaps to assuage his brother's desire of even more extreme powergaming, perhaps to show me that high-level wasn't that bad, decided to start running a game, in which we'd -start- at 20th level. With all WotC books available.

Well. I made my character, and I doubt we'll play for very long. When started from low-level, I do think playing through level 20 can remain in the sweet spot. Most "killer" high-level characters don't have a very high survival rate at lower levels, so it remains balanced.

 

[VirgilCaine]

And my fears were exacerbated when we had out last session of the high-level campaign I play in. We have in the party: 13th level Witch, 13th level Hexblade, 14th level Bard, and 15ht level Wizard. Most of us are "standard" adventurers; not "inefficient" by a long shot, but not "optimized" either. Except for the Wizard, who is optimized beyond compare.

And that's it.
A battle that was supposed to challenge the party (and probably WOULD have challenged 3/4's of the party normally!!) is now a note in the books, and an extremly unsatisfying enounter in my eyes. Extremely anti-climactic for all involved but the Wizard.

The DM pretty much stated "That's the last CR13 encoutner you guys will have". So now, to challenge one memeber of the party, he'll have to up the ante, which is that much more dangerous to us "lesser" members of the party.

I don't think anyone's in the "Wrong" here, it's just a frustrating situation, and one I as a DM will likely have to face in the next few months. (And yes, I could selectively "fudge", btu I'm not a fan of that solution.

So, a lucky shot with a spell and the DM jumps to conclusions about the parties challenge level? I mean, it's a dragon--SR AND a good Fort save can't stop bad luck. What a jumpy DM.

Where are the healer and the skill monkey in that party, anyway?

If you don't like save-or-die effects, use more Gargantuan sized zombies.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

So, a lucky shot with a spell and the DM jumps to conclusions about the parties challenge level? I mean, it's a dragon--SR AND a good Fort save can't stop bad luck. What a jumpy DM.

Where are the healer and the skill monkey in that party, anyway?

1) Sghould've stated that this ISN'T the first time that it's happened. It's simply the first time an opponent died on the FIRST ROUND. This was the "straw that broke the camels back". We've all been tacitly feeling that way for some time. It's essentially a "Wait for the creature to fail-it's-save" fest in every combat, depsite some unique attempts by the other players in each combat. It's not "Bad Luck" if the same thing happens eveery battle.

2) NPC healer, no "skill-monkey" per se.

If you don't like save-or-die effects, use more Gargantuan sized zombies.

It's not my call.
I'm playing, not DM'ing. (Of course, these gargantuan zombies would probably net us more XP than a single dragon, anyway!)

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Wulf captured the major points of our conversation but I wanted to highlight my interest on this issue.

If you take a look at the essence of the "challenge" in D&D, it basically boils down to bigger numbers. The players get bigger mods so the "challenges" have to as well and vice versa.

But if the increase in challenge is a linear progression throughout the lifetime of the characters and/or campaign, i.e., the "challenge" is the same regardless of the level of the characters, why is there a need to make the numbers so cumbersomely high?

If leveling up is only about bigger numbers and everything scales up in lockstep, then maybe there is not much point.

Levelling up can bring:
(1) Quantitative rewards.
(2) Qualititative rewards.

#1 done simplistically is just running faster and faster to stay in the same place. #2 done simplistically leads to the "problem" of Teleport, Plane-hopping, potent Divinations, and Gate.

It is possible to straddle these two by consciously offering more variety and worrying less about whether an encounter or scenario is a genuinely life-threatening challenge or not. FREX, an army of 1000 trolls may not actually be a physical threat to a 15th level party, but it can still be fun and interesting to see how the PCs would try and handle dealing with it when cities and people they care about may be in danger.

 

[Slobber Monster]

I've been thinking lately that the feel of the higher level game might be changed for the better without screwing up balance just by shifting a number of spells and effects up a level. If you shift every planar ally/binding, travel and raise dead spell up one spell level then you delay its entry into the game by two character levels ...yet those spells still retain enough value to be worth taking. Of course you'd need to recalculate the pricing for a number of magic items, fiddle with the Summon Monster lists and tweak some CR's, but it seems like a manageable amount of work.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

My Midwood campaign is still very low level -- no one over level 2 at this point -- but I've been thinking about this myself. I might go with an XP table that goes up in an exponential pattern, rather than being so much of a straight line.

Ironically, I think 4E will enable this, as OGL publishers republishing 3E will need to create their own XP and advancement tables, and I suspect many of them will put in a more harsh XP table instead of the comparitively rapid one in 3E. The Fork is coming!

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Along these lines, there are a couple of things that I feel like pointing out, again, all from my point of view:

-Prior editions did a good job of balancing out some of the "wahoo" elements with sizeable dollops of risk. I remembering winning a battle against a powerful wizard because he teleported himself waist deep into the floor of his tower. We stole the ring off his fingers. Haste was balanced by aging. Polymorph Other was balanced by the risk of taking on the mental state of an animal. There are more examples I could come up with. I personally liked that kind of touch, and would like to see more of it. I like the idea of magic as dangerous, unpredictable, and although you might be able to master world-shattering magic, you might just be better off not doing so.

-On the other hand, 3E does better at having fewer "save or die" mechanics. They've been toned down, though not enough for my liking. I don't like having my character's life depend on the roll of one die. Or the lives of the foes I face, either.

-Taking Raise Dead out of the game requires rebalancing the risk of death. Action Points are one good way to manage this - you can spend them to make saves, etc. I also like the concept, in Skull & Bones, of "rolling the bones" - I don't have the book, but I've had the concept explained to me, so forgive me if I'm in factual error - when you "die" you roll on a table, and various bad things happen to you, but then you're basically stabilized and alive. Kind of a "nine lives" concept - you don't die, but you might lose a limb, or an eye, or gain an impressive scar, or a limp... the list goes on. You get a negative effect, but effect hopefully adds character to your PC, instead of ending him.

-Another point about Raised Dead - I limit it in my games via role-playing considerations. Think about it: If you're a cleric being asked to raise someone, why would you? If he's been acting counter to your religions beliefs, he's not worthy. If he's been acting in accordance to your beliefs, he's in heaven, and who would want to be brought back from there? If he's not a believer in your religion, why would you even consider it? All taken together, this means Raise Deads should be rare.

 

[Baron Opal]

For me, what truncates the "sweet spot" are the following issues:

1) Lack of PC dependance on outside forces.
2) Certain die rolls become over-significant (save or die).
3) "Numbers bloat".

Looking at a number of adventures from the past few issues of Dungeon, I can see that the lower level adventures have a hook or a plot that captures my interest to a greater degree than the high level adventures. These are adventures that have familliar and/or classic tropes that we all* enjoy playing. What makes them so difficult to adapt to a higher level game is that either the magic circumvents the adventure (see #1, speak with / raise dead vs. the murder mystery) or the characters can simply endure the obsticles (see #3, fighter / ranger vs. the orc horde). Sometimes this can be worked around by changing some assumptions. Soren Thustrup's Circle of Rites is a good example of a murder mystery that takes into account the abilities of higher level characters. Who the killer and victim are is fairly easily discovered, but the "why" is the meat of the adventure.

As far as "save or die" spells go, what is the real problem with them? It reduces a combat to a couple of key rolls. Even so, there are some cirumstances where that isn't a problem if the situation can be addressed in the short or long term. Petrification isn't so bad. It takes the character out of action indefinatly, but can be fixed through a number of means. Whether or not it is a long or short term problem depends on the resources of the party at the time. While this is also true of character death and raise dead we have thematic problems with death being "so easily fixable". Conditions short of death, petrification, insanity, imprisonment, &c., we as players and DMs seem to accept far better when the local Miracle Max fixes them with a wave of his hand. Also, there needs to be some kind of partial effect for a successful save. My current favorite is ability damage. Petrification damages dexterity, insanity - wisdom and disintegration - constitution. Also, adapting the holy word model for some spells is appropriate. Effects are graded dependant on the difference between caster and target and a successful save moves you one or two steps up the chart.

One way I would address number bloat is to limit the stackability of spells. Named bonuses are the way to go, but I would trim it further still. Five common and maybe three rare types of bonuses would be sufficent, I think, to allow some variation in what spells or items are chosen. Also, higher levels spells give improved bonuses, not additional layering of bonuses. The 6th level version of Cover My Tukas gives the same type of bonus as the 2nd level version as well as duplicating the effects of the 4th level Save My Bacon. This minimizes the alterations to the character sheet, number of spells to check a dispel magic against and the caster can still cast the lower level versions on other party members or himself when the spell is lost.

So, to widen the sweet spot I would:

1) Challenge my assumptions. There are just some adventures that need to be rethought for high level characters. Scotland Yard did not pester Sherlock Holmes with the average murder.

2) Reduce the situations that require single, critical rolls. This will require changing some spells.

3) Redefine some abilities so that there is some obsolescence at higher level. 14th level parties should not even consider casting bless.

 

[Baron Opal]

Does this have to be some form of mechanical advancement? What about characters accruing influence, enemies, a greater engagement with the setting?

I guess to do agree that character development needs a mechanical component, even if its just new items. Like Pavlov's dogs, D&D players are trained to expect that --and I count myself among the dogs, despite how much I claim to interested in "story".

Well this isn't just a problem with D&D, all games have their "sweet spot" and are tied to advancement. We all want our splinters of our personalities to grow and develop regardless if we are playing D&D, RuneQuest, Vampire, Cyborg Commando or Traveller.

 

[painandgreed]

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.



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.

Unearthed Arcana has a reputations system IIRC. Not sure off hand how it is handled but there is a reputation score. Most nobility systems involving titles have descrete levels also.

Easiest way to look at them from a gamist point of view is to look at the reputation system in WoW. Certain quests or actions get you reputation with certain groups. Once your reputaitons gets to a certain point, more quests open up, items become for sale. As your rep increases more quest open up and items get cheaper. Items being typically the more powerful magic. In D&D it could represent title and lands which is basically an annual income as well as a base of operations. The important missions are only given out to people that have already proved themselves, so they can't just jump in, compelte one quest, and then earn their reward. They have to start at the begining, doing adventures and proving their loyalty which might be easy but gain no or less XP and treasure.