Level Advancement Rate in 3e

[jmucchiello]

Re: Re: Re: 3e is too fast for me

I've had darn near 50% turnover in players so far in my 1 year long campaign. Given how frequently people move in this country, my guess is that most groups don't last more than 1 year.

That must be an age problem. Our core every Sunday night group of 7 people has been the same 7 people for 5-6 years now. And that's with 4 DMs each running separate and distinct games. So technically each campaign only meets 12 weeks a year. The quickened pace of 3e was startling to us. We still haven't fully converted.

Joe

 

[bwgwl]

Re: 3e is too fast for me

I think I resent the notion that level progression was ramped up on the assumption that gamers have a short attention span. Most of the campaigns I've been in have run for years, not months...then again, some have failed after only a few sessions, so you never know.

i wouldn't resent it; there's no need. WOTC didn't ramp up the progression because of any perceived "short attention span" of gamers -- they ramped up progression because the majority of gamers they surveyed said their campaigns run between 6 months to a year.

i myself tend to fall into that group. in my 20+ years of gaming, i've yet to be in a single campaign that lasted more than, say, 18 months.

they changed advancement not because of any perceived shortcoming in gamers, but simply because they wanted the average gamer to be able to get to 20th level in the lifespan of an average campaign.

 

[Damon Griffin]

Re: Re: 3e is too fast for me

they changed advancement not because of any perceived shortcoming in gamers, but simply because they wanted the average gamer to be able to get to 20th level in the lifespan of an average campaign.

Okay, on further reflection I think I'm more mystified about this than resentful. Leaving aside the question of how the "average" campaign length was determined, and whether the figures are accurate, I don't understand the paradigm shift that's implied by the stated goal: they want the average gamer to get to 20th level. Why? What's so special about 20th level? You don't "win" the game when you get there.

One of the great things about D&D has always been that it was open ended. You didn't top out, reach maximum character development and have to quit or start over with a new character. Now, the game seems to have been infected with a video game mentality that associates a particular numbered level of play with "completing" the game (or at least, reaching a point where it is assumed the player will be satisfied to quit).

Setting this arbitrary (and, as far as I can see, meaningless) goal seems to have had the immediate effect of making players want to reach this goal as soon as possible. Or possibly it's just made the designers assume the players would want to reach this goal as soon as possible, I don't know.

Anyway, the whole thing just seems bizarre. Do the majority of 3e players really see 20th level as somehow more meaningful and satisfying than 10th or 15th level? Are there really many players out there who find some kind of comforting closure in having earned 190,000 XP? Is the ELH seen by these people as a sequel, a la King's Quest II or whatever?

I think it'd be really sad if D&D turned into a tabletop video game emulator.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

Re: Re: Re: 3e is too fast for me

Okay, on further reflection I think I'm more mystified about this than resentful. Leaving aside the question of how the "average" campaign length was determined, and whether the figures are accurate, I don't understand the paradigm shift that's implied by the stated goal: they want the average gamer to get to 20th level. Why? What's so special about 20th level? You don't "win" the game when you get there.

I can't speak for others here, but for me right now, D&D 3E is still new. I'm like a guy at the steering wheel of the new sports car. And I want to take it for a spin! That means that I want to take the players from 1st all the way to 20th, to see how 3E feels like. What power curve is it optimal at? At what speed/level does the engine start to whine? At which levels do the tires squeal and start to break down? At what levels do the brake fade.

Sure, I can be rely on reviewers to do this and tell me about it, but maybe I'm a better DM/player than most reviewers, and can take 3E to a higher level before it starts to break down?

So far, my players are at 9th-10th levels and the system is still purring like a quiet kitten. I haven't maxed out the tacometer like Shark or some of the other guys have yet. I haven't red-lined the machine. And I'm eager to.

Finally, the fast levelling is controllable. It's nice to have a baseline, and they chose the baseline to reflect the typical campaign. I don't think it's a bad baseline at all. Sure, if your typical game lasts 72 months, then it won't work for you. But they had to pick a baseline, and I certainly think that the 1e/2e baseline were unreflective of typical campaigns. (Also, 1e/2e broke down very quickly --- at around 11th or 12th level)

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: 3e is too fast for me

If the majority of the D&D market is college age kids, you can rest assured that no campaign can last more than 4 years, which is the time it takes to graduate college, and most wouldn't last past a year. (Say, you joined the group in the DM's senior year)

Now, you're not in that demographic, so those rules don't apply to you... For me, the advancement is just about right.

Aside from the fact that I was in that demographic (way back when), I guess I can kinda agree... Assuming that is the demographic.

i wouldn't resent it; there's no need. WOTC didn't ramp up the progression because of any perceived "short attention span" of gamers -- they ramped up progression because the majority of gamers they surveyed said their campaigns run between 6 months to a year.

I have to say, ever since 3E came out, I've questioned exactly which gamers they surveyed and which gamers they got for playtesting.

they changed advancement not because of any perceived shortcoming in gamers, but simply because they wanted the average gamer to be able to get to 20th level in the lifespan of an average campaign.

What Damon said I too stand by; They've set a number both arbitrary and false, thus forever altering the direction of the game. I have an intern at work that saw me fiddling with my website, and he asked me about it. While claiming to be an avid RPG enthusiast, it took nearly an hour to explain some of the simplest differences between pen-and-paper and Baldur's Gate.

After three hours, he was absolutely amazed; He didn't know such a game was possible.

He's becoming more enthusiastic, and while I've pointed him towards books that are more in-line with the style of game I run (Black Company, the original Conans, Dune, etc.), I'm hesitant to ask him to join my table for feat of just that sort of mentality and the damage it can cause to my game.

I think it'd be really sad if D&D turned into a tabletop video game emulator.

Hands Damon a Kleenex.

Don't worry... It only effects your game if you let it.

 

[Glyfair]

I have to say that I have a very diverse experience with RPGs. I've been playing various RPGs since 1978 or so, and have been a regular at a local and popular game store/club for most of that time (since it opened, in fact). Much of my experience was with a mixed group of college students, high school students & adults (defined everyone older than high school students, not in college).

In my experience that any RPG campaign that lasts more than a few months is uncommon. However, certain groups will change games almost monthly, others are still playing variations of the same game they learned 25 years ago.

I personally only know of two games that were played regularly for longer than a year or so. One lasted about 5 years (a Melanda campaign) and another I know had lasted about 7 years when I lost track of it (a Runequest game). I've also been involved in multiple games that never got past character creation.

However, I have to admit that D&D has the most flexible advancement rate I've seen. It is very easy to speed up and slow down advancement. The only thing that gets tricky is adjusting speed by level (for example, I think levels 1-5 go too slow, 10-15 too fast). Even that just takes more work.

The only issue I've seen with that is when running published adventures. Even then it's only adventures that expect you to raise multiple levels (3 or more). Personally, I like Piratecat's method. However, that only works with very experienced and trusting groups. For most groups, just adjusting the experience level is fine.

Glyfair of Glamis

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 3e is too fast for me

Aside from the fact that I was in that demographic (way back when), I guess I can kinda agree... Assuming that is the demographic.

I have to say, ever since 3E came out, I've questioned exactly which gamers they surveyed and which gamers they got for playtesting.

The right ones, it seems, judging by the sales they've got.

What Damon said I too stand by; They've set a number both arbitrary and false,

Who cares?

thus forever altering the direction of the game.

Yep. And I think it's great. Now you might actually GET to those levels at the top (bottom?) of the tables, instead of fantasising about it.

Not that there's anything wrong with fantasising, mind you.

 

[Buttercup]

IMC the characters have gone from level one to level two in about two weeks of game time (4 sessions). I think the next level will go rapidly too, and then it will start to significantly slow down. We only play once a month though, so I don't want it to slow down so much that they lose interest.

I may just start awarding a standard amount of xp after each session, no matter what they fight or don't fight.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 3e is too fast for me

The right ones, it seems, judging by the sales they've got.

Guess things just "felt" better as a fringe-culture.

Who cares?

Considering that many people complained that a lot of 2E's rules were arbitrary, doesn't the general acceptance of 3E's own arbitrary features seem a bit contradictory?

Yep. And I think it's great. Now you might actually GET to those levels at the top (bottom?) of the tables, instead of fantasising about it.

Not that there's anything wrong with fantasising, mind you.

Being that I've achieved it, I'd say those that were unable to were victimized by their own lacking, not one of the systems. Now, however, the system caters to the power-gamer and the RP minimalist, setting a goal that, as stated earlier, is false and contrary to the nature of the game: A goal that seems to demark a point of winning a game when the only way to really win is to have fun, which can be achieved at any level of play.

 

[Bragg Battleaxe]

To me, its simple. XP essentially comes from combat. If your campaign features non-stop combat, then the PCs are going to level about every 14 fights, which is the intended pace I believe. If you have 7 combats per night, thats every 2 sessions. However if combat is not the primary feature of your sessions and say you have 2 or 3 fights per night with more "in-game" downtime for travel, healing, etc. then you have eliminated the problem.