D&D 5E What's the rush? Has the "here and now" been replaced by the "next level" attitude?

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
So what?

A single +1 sword in AD&D was worth 2500 gp if sold. That's 2500 xp in one go. Or, about a 1/4 of 1st to 2nd level for most classes, once split six ways. Look at the example encounter in the Basic D&D book (Mentzer) and you see a couple of hobgoblins with a several hundred gp gem - again, about a 1/4 level. Bumping levels in AD&D wasn't particularly long IME. 2e was a bit longer since you no longer had xp for gold. But, depending on the monster encountered (demons, even very small ones like Manes and Lemures were worth thousands of xp) you could still move along at a fair clip.

Note also that the 2500 gold was a pretty small fraction of what the PC needed to spend in training costs to level up. For example, that 1st level thief who needed only 1251 XP to reach 2nd level needed to spend more than that to level up. He needed to spend 1500 gp per week and he may have needed more than 1 week. In other words, he usually stalled for a while.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
So what?

A single +1 sword in AD&D was worth 2500 gp if sold. That's 2500 xp in one go.
One zero too many there, friend. Magic items only got you 1/10 their g.p. value in xp.

Non-magic items e.g. jewelry, gems, pretty vases, etc. got you full xp-for-value.

And in 30+ years of playing I have never seen xp-for-g.p. in use; everyone I've ever played with or even heard of around here ditched the rule pretty quickly. I rather suspect this wasn't unusual in a much broader sense, and in part led to 2e getting rid of it.

It was brought up earlier in this thread that you hit name level in about a year of play, maybe a bit more. That was Gygax's expectations in the late 70's. So, again, you still have to actually offer any proof that levelling has gotten significantly faster under WOTC than in AD&D.
By strict RAW it probably hasn't - much. (I've not played 4e but if it's trying to go 1-30 in the same time it took 3e to go 1-20 there's an obvious speed-up there) But by actual play experience based on what many people seem to have done at the table, yes it has.

Why? Well, partly because tinkering with the advance rate in 1e didn't affect play all that much, and allowed a longer campaign for those of us as wants such; where in 3e (and 4e? not sure) tinkering with the advance rate has some messy knock-on effects elsewhere unless the DM is really on top of things - the most obvious is wealth-by-level.

(and just as an aside here: a friend of mine is running a slow-advance Pathfinder game, looking at his online logs shows they've just done Session 79 yet the characters - a couple of whom have been along for the entire ride - are mostly 5th level.)

Lanefan
 
Last edited:

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I don't have a hard and fast rule for this. But, for me, once you've lost about half the group, I'm not terribly interested in continuing a campaign. The new players lack any connection to the campaign and it tends to, IMO, not be a lot of fun playing catch up.
Hmmm...are these campaigns built around a single storyline or are there multiple threads weaving through? I ask because a new player can often be given one of the threads as their own, so to speak, to bring into the whole. Or they can just pick it up as they go along, I've seen this work many a time.

And if the campaign is able to tell several stories one after another then any new players will be just as involved in the next story as the veterans.
That's usually the culprit right there. DM burnout.
Ah, there's the rub.

If a DM goes into a campaign with the idea of "this will last two years" then it's probably going to last about two years, at which point the DM will feel like she's done her time in the trenches and it's someone else's turn. The trick is to go into it as DM with the open-ended mindset of "I'll keep running this game as long as there's people willing to play in it", and see where it goes. Pre-set adventure paths are horrible for this, as there's always the sense that when the "path" is finished so is the game.

Maybe if I feel industrious later I'll start a thread about ideas for running a long campaign.

Lan-"D&D should be like the prairies, where the only thing beyond the horizon is more horizon"-efan
 

Celebrim

Legend
However, it has one glaring flaw for me. It's too much work. From his own admission, he's got hundreds of pages of house rules. In order to do this, you'd need to rewrite every single class, spell, and monster in the game.

No, there is no need to rewrite everything or anything. In fact, if that's your whole issue, then you need rewrite nothing. Most of my rewriting has nothing to do with playing at low levels, where, mostly things just work in 3.5 anyway. Much of the rewriting is to ensure that if I do go into the double digits, things will still work. Beyond that, I probably have about 20 or 30 different issues I'm trying to solve.

1) 3.5 has too many rules spread out among too many splat books. I'm condensing everything I think important in 3.5 including char gen into a smaller subset of rules.
2) 3.5 has poor balance, and is easily broken to produce scores of pun-pun like things. This requires a tacit table agreement not to break the system and even an understanding about what power level is acceptable. I far prefer to say, "If it is in the book, you can play it."
3) 3.X in general had too much slavish adherence to conventions of 1e because they needed to reassure the 1e crowd that this was still really D&D. An example of this might be the fact that Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Druid and Monk were core all classes in 3.X. Another example is seen in the Leadership feat, maintaining 1e's primitive exception based notions of the relationship of the character with the world.
4) Where 3.X departed from 1e it was seldom out of understanding why 1e did it that way or what the consequences of the departure would be.
5) 3.X never addressed issues like the broken economics of D&D, continuing to price items according to dungeon utility and balancing spells according to their utility against monsters or in solving dungeon problems without attention to their impact on society and economics.
6) 3.X had a lot of process ambiguities like what it meant to 'search' something.
7) 3.X was far too tentative about providing power through feats and skills while being extremely generous about providing power through spells. This and several other changes made spellcasters just far more attractive in the long run than non-spellcasters.
8) 3.X's base classes were a hodge podge conceptually, with some classes being extremely generic - fighter, rogue, or to some extent cleric - and other classes bringing with theme tons of real world baggage, setting trappings, baggage from prior editions, and other unnecessary assumptions. This resulted in all sorts of crazy patching through alternate classes, prestige classes, and additional equally narrow 'base' classes.
9) 3.X's math begins to break down near 20th level. In particular, save DC's bloat way too fast especially for high CR monsters. There is too much save and die with low percentage chances of avoidance at high level, leading to battling immunities.
10) Speaking of immunities, unquantifiable (and therefore infinite) power was itself was something that needed to go.
11) Several of 3.X's skills were odd or left largely undefined. Profession is a good example here. A good overview of the problem can be obtained by examining third party supplements and the different incompatible approaches that were used to try to deal with ambiguities in the skill system.
12) The fighter class in particular didn't do what it said 'on the box' and generally made everyone unhappy. There was also relatively poor provision for playing skillful characters that weren't 'the thief'.
13) My homebrew contained ideas that weren't supported by default - fey PC's, Orine, Idreth, mariners, etc. There were things that I was doing in 1e that no longer worked in 3e and didn't have good counter parts.
14) The 'housecat' problem (should farmers fear their cats?), and by extension the larger 1st level problem (1st level isn't part of the traditional 'sweet spot').
15) The tendency of PC's to die through no mistake of their own, just simple dumb luck.

And so on and so forth. If you want to play my game, I can give you about a 500 page document. If you want to play 3.5 just as a player, how much text does that encompass? All the core? All the 'complete' books? Where do you stop?

I can't recall any RPG system I haven't wanted to 'beat into shape' though. Chill 2e maybe, though I didn't run it, just play it and frankly never really understood the rules completely. Luck seemed to much of a god stat though, and I was never really happy with the brawling/martial arts separation.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
One zero too many there, friend. Magic items only got you 1/10 their g.p. value in xp.

Non-magic items e.g. jewelry, gems, pretty vases, etc. got you full xp-for-value.

If you sold off the magic items right away, you could get full XP for the cash value. The lower XP amount was for keeping and using the item as regular gear.
 

Hussar

Legend
If you sold off the magic items right away, you could get full XP for the cash value. The lower XP amount was for keeping and using the item as regular gear.

Thanks for that. I was fairly sure I was right on that but it could be my hazy recollections. :)
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
If you sold off the magic items right away, you could get full XP for the cash value. The lower XP amount was for keeping and using the item as regular gear.
I never realized this. (likely as a side effect of never using xp-for-g.p.) I always thought the 1/10 xp value came if you sold the item and that you got no xp at all if you kept it.

I'm now beginning to realize how horribly this would interact with the way we usually divide treasury* - if a +1 sword is found and sold by an individual it's obvious who gets the xp. But if that same sword is found and sold as a party possession with shares going equally around, do the xp divide the same way? If the item is sold once back in town but Charlie the Fighter died mid-adventure - party is setting aside a half-share for his estate - does he posthumously get xp for his half-share? If a party member walks off with half the treasury one day and is never seen again (and IME this has happened), who gets the xp?

* - the party keeps track of what they've found, work out the values once back in town, and give to-the-copper shares based on (usually) how much of the adventure each given character was present and alive for. Characters are (usually) responsible for their own expenses e.g. death revival, training, henches, etc.

I can also see this as a very strong incentive for parties to sell all their magic items as soon as they can - really annoying if one or more of them is secretly intended to be significant in the next adventure.

Bleah! :)

Lan-"high-level and unable to touch a simple gargoyle, or low-level and only able to hit it every 5 swings or so - choose one"-efan
 

pemerton

Legend
At the rate Wizards has increased the level of advancement, I still wonder why they even use a level based format any more. What's the use in levels is people want to fly through them as quickly as possible and the game is designed to cater to it?
I am playing 4e (the most recent non-playtest version of D&D). I am using the standard 4e XP rules.

The 4e DMG says this on rate of advancement (p 121):

If you were to start a campaign with 1st-level characters on January 1st, play faithfully for four or five hours every week, and manage to finish four encounters every session, your characters would enter the paragon tier during or after your session on June 24th, reach epic levels in December, and hit 30th level the next summer. Most campaigns don’t move at this pace, however; you’ll probably find that the natural rhythms of your campaign produce a slower rate of advancement that’s easier to sustain.[/quote]

This roughly fits my experience, including the bit about "a slower rate of advancement". I play around 20 sessions a year, of 3 to 4 hours each, and have taken about two years per tier (I expect the game to conclude this year, its 6th).

In what way is this "flying through levels as quickly as possible" with "the game designed to cater to it"?

Just go and look at the XP table.
I don't understand. XP rewards are radically different across different versions of the game. Comparing XP tables from Moldvay Basic to (say) 3E or 4e tells us nothing about respective rates of levelling.

the fact that these people want to rush through levels to get to what they see as "juicy bits" has effected the design of the game and I don't like it.
In what way?

And as [MENTION=2656]Aenghus[/MENTION] indicated, playing a magic-user was always about "rushing through levels to get to the juicy bits". Gygax and Moldvay tell us as much in their respective rulebooks.

If you don't like level gain, why not just slow down the rate of XP acquisition in your game by applying some sort of dilation factor?

It's an open-ended role playing game. There is no whle game, no half game. There's just the segments you want and choose to play. If you want to play a game facing orcs, giants, dragons, and demon lords... What stopped you?
If you are using a standard Monster Manual, to fight dragons, demon lords etc requires certain minimum statistical capabilities for the PCs. Which can't be gained except via levelling. I'm pretty sure that that is what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] means by "the whole game".

So challenge = fun, everything else = boring?
And what is challenge? Combat & skill challenges? What about, you know, role playing your character in a out of combat situation or experiencing the setting, getting to know the NPCs, etc? Challenge or boring stuff?
In my case, it tends towards the boring. I am not that interested, as GM, in engaging in exposition for the sake of it. And as a player I am not that interested in listening to it. I want to engage in situations of challenge or conflict ie the PCs want something and there is an obstacle in their way. In my personal experience, the reason that players build up a knowledge of the backstory is because they are engaging with the obstacles that it throws up.

What colour boots do my NPCs wear? In nearly all cases I couldn't tell you. What is their motivation, and with what political and/or cosmological force are they aligned? That is what I try to bring out in play, because that is the field of conflict with which the players (via their PCs) are engaged.​
 

Remove ads

Top