D&D 5E Does progression rate slow down?

[FormerlyHemlock]

D&D is not really Simulationist friendly at all. If you object to the things you do, you should object to notions like levelling up instead of piecemeal progression, the arbitrarily defined attributes, hit points, that AC makes you harder to hit instead of reduce damage and the very notion of character class.

This looking down on the gamist approach simply doesn't tally with playing D&D in the first place. If we were talking about GURPS (itself a lovely system) this could be a discussion. D&D is by default not simulationist.

You're using an overly-narrow definition of "simulationist." Simulationism encompasses those who find joy in taking systems seriously and extrapolating in a consistent fashion. Some simulationists like to use real life as a baseline; others play Spelljammer and are totally cool with thinking about binary gravity and what kind of a physics that implies, and whether PC races possess cell differentiation, and whether HP have a physical basis.

D&D does simulationism just fine.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

D&D is not really Simulationist friendly at all. If you object to the things you do, you should object to notions like levelling up instead of piecemeal progression, the arbitrarily defined attributes, hit points, that AC makes you harder to hit instead of reduce damage and the very notion of character class.

I find that most editions of D&D strike a good balance between Simulationist ideals and concessions to Gamism (for the sake of playability). Some editions make too many Gamist concessions for my taste, though no edition of D&D skews so far to Simulationism that is as unplayable as GURPS. (IMO)

 

[B9anders]

You're using an overly-narrow definition of "simulationist." Simulationism encompasses those who find joy in taking systems seriously and extrapolating in a consistent fashion. Some simulationists like to use real life as a baseline; others play Spelljammer and are totally cool with thinking about binary gravity and what kind of a physics that implies, and whether PC races possess cell differentiation, and whether HP have a physical basis.

D&D does simulationism just fine.

I see that. Same then how, IMC, hp is a reflection of bodily fortitude, catching your breath, skill and a sort of accumulated divine luck that the gods as a whole favour the exceptional with (for similar reasons, important people in the world are often high level. They are simply favoured with easier access to XP - And likewise, non-combat actions can help you level up if it is of the sort the gods favour as being decisive actions).

Nevertheless, I find the radical gamist/simulation dichotomy jarring and objectionable. There is rarely a 'purely gamist' approach to playing a game like D&D (maybe 4th, I never tried it, but so I hear), same as it is near impossible to have a purely simulationist approach to it.

To say "You can stop trying to figure out how the world is supposed work in any sort of consistent matter, because it's just a game at that point" because XP is decided to belong to the player rather than the character is to me wrong in so many ways.

 

[Grainger]

For example, if you treat XP as an award for the player, then you can feel free to include bonus XP for meeting whatever criteria you feel like, even if there's no logical (in-world) reason why avoiding a combat in favor of RP (or whatever) should make you better at swinging your sword.

Indeed, and that's what I actually want. I encourage my players to be heroes, not thugs who solve every problem by killing stuff. Of course, often combat is unavoidable but often it isn't. I don't want to penalise them for coming up with more heroic or interesting solutions to problems. In fact, 5e has the DM award XP if the players overcome the encounter by any means (I interpret that to mean killing the enemy, talking to them, stealthing past them, etc.). In those situations, From a simulationist perspective, the PCs are getting better at adventuring (rather than fighting).

 

[S'mon]

Update to OP: Most of my group are 6th level now, and advancement has definitely slowed down, to something resembling other iterations of D&D. So it looks to me now as if the xp chart does work as intended after all, and progression through the 5-10 'sweet spot' will be at quite a moderate pace. I think after some months of that the players will probably be quite happy with potential faster progression from 11th, and I can always reduce xp awards & progression rate when doing a lot of 'dominion level' type play. Just by not increasing non-combat awards from the level-10 rate, that should keep progression not TOO quick.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I find that most editions of D&D strike a good balance between Simulationist ideals and concessions to Gamism (for the sake of playability). Some editions make too many Gamist concessions for my taste, though no edition of D&D skews so far to Simulationism that is as unplayable as GURPS. (IMO)

Heh. The following observation is not a dig at you, just an ironic observation, but:

One reason I left GURPS was because it was getting waaaay too gamist. It seemed like every new article that came out was defining everything in terms of point-buy abilities, completely ignoring any simulationist elements (i.e. GURPS Psionics 4E encouraged you to model psionics by point-buying powers and then just tacking on 10% discount for being "psionic", instead of creating an actual psionic system like GURPS 3E had). My ideal GURPS is actually GURPS: Gulliver by t-bone, which ignores point-buy almost-completely and instead focuses on the logical consequences, both good and bad, of being much bigger/smaller/heavier/lighter than normal PCs.

At least in D&D you can simulation-ize the gamist elements, but when everything is directly modelled as point costs it becomes really hard to get away from the gamism.

 

[B9anders]

Heh. The following observation is not a dig at you, just an ironic observation, but:

One reason I left GURPS was because it was getting waaaay too gamist. It seemed like every new article that came out was defining everything in terms of point-buy abilities, completely ignoring any simulationist elements (i.e. GURPS Psionics 4E encouraged you to model psionics by point-buying powers and then just tacking on 10% discount for being "psionic", instead of creating an actual psionic system like GURPS 3E had). My ideal GURPS is actually GURPS: Gulliver by t-bone, which ignores point-buy almost-completely and instead focuses on the logical consequences, both good and bad, of being much bigger/smaller/heavier/lighter than normal PCs.

At least in D&D you can simulation-ize the gamist elements, but when everything is directly modelled as point costs it becomes really hard to get away from the gamism.

That is not true though. Psionic Powers has a very different treatment of Psionic.

I like gurps a lot, although I prefer 5ed. But the reason I prefer dnd is exactly because I find gurps too simulationist.

 

[Relax]

If anyone is interested in a simulation, try playing HarnMaster. If the fight doesn't kill you the infection of your wounds probably will. It is by far my favourite unplayable game I've encountered.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That is not true though. Psionic Powers has a very different treatment of Psionic.

I like gurps a lot, although I prefer 5ed. But the reason I prefer dnd is exactly because I find gurps too simulationist.

Perhaps I misremember. It's been several years.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

One reason I left GURPS was because it was getting waaaay too gamist. It seemed like every new article that came out was defining everything in terms of point-buy abilities, completely ignoring any simulationist elements (i.e. GURPS Psionics 4E encouraged you to model psionics by point-buying powers and then just tacking on 10% discount for being "psionic", instead of creating an actual psionic system like GURPS 3E had).

That was definitely something we noticed, between 3E and 4E.

One of the biggest changes between editions was how point cost for stats and skills moved from exponential growth to linear growth - a 3E character paid 5 points for +1, then 10 points for +2, and 20 points for +3 (IIRC); while a 4E character paid 10 points for each of ranks +1 through +3. I want to say that 3E used points to judge rarity, where 4E used points to judge power.

The upshot was that the best wizard in a 3E fantasy was going to be a goblin, because goblins had a racial bonus to IQ that thye purchased at the discounted rate (paying 5 points for the +1 from race, then 5 more points to have one above the racial average). Meanwhile, a 4E wizard was equally competent regardless of race, since a -3 racial handicap could be offset exactly by the points required to be +3 above racial average. There was no way to "game the system" by purchasing the same abilities in different ways at a cheaper price.

For me, I think I saw this as an acceptable concession for gameplay. You didn't have to worry about picking the one correct race for your buils, because you could just pick anything and it would be just as good.

Which is weird, because I'm hugely in favor of the 3.x-era rules where Elves just have better Dex and Halflings have terrible Strength, even though it means you do need to pick the right race for your class. Maybe it's because D&D is a class-based system, and there were always two or three different optimal races for each class? Or maybe it's as simple as the fact that GURPS is otherwise hugely Simulationist, so I need that Gamist inclusion for balance, where D&D is already kind of Game-y so I need to hold onto what Simulationism there is remaining.