D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back

[Obryn]

Re 3+ year 4e campaignsirty pool? Hardly, if one compares apples to apples - how were campaigns in each of the other editions holding up 4 years into that edition's run?

No idea. I tend to run shorter campaigns, myself. But to have a 3-year 4e campaign right now, it has to have started in 2008 or 2009. For 3e, games could have hit the 3 year mark anywhere from 2003 to ... well, now. So that's the stacked deck, basically; narrower mathematical opportunity.

I personally made the mistake of running through the HPE series for Campaign #1 . Nightwyrm Fortress, fortunately, is such a godawful adventure with zero redeeming qualities that I was able to cancel it and start over again with a better setting and a more cohesive character-centered game. I am guessing I am not alone in that.

Excellent! From what little I hear of Dark Sun I get the impression it might be well suited to longer campaigns due to its lower magic content.

Lan-"but now let's see if you can squeeze 10 years out of it"-efan

That helps, no doubt. But the accelerated advancement of 3e and 4e makes those sorts of 10+ year games more difficult without slowing down advancement. I've slowed it somewhat myself, so 2 years in, we're at 15th.

And yes - restricted magic items + inherent bonuses is an awesome way to run the game.

-O

 

[Neonchameleon]

In general, yes.

Also:

>2012
>allowing artificers in your game
ISHYGDDT

2006 we did... And the artificer is no worse than the wizard or the druid. It was bad then. If I were trying to run a 3.X game now (not gonna happen) I'd restrict everyone to Tier 3 classes; Bard, Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade*, Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, Psychic Warrior, Wildshape Ranger, Factotum. (Also allow tier 4 if I think the player knows what they are doing). Of course if doing that I might as well just play 4e.

* With a re-written Iron Heart Surge saying "We know what it was meant to do. Use it anywhere it would be reasonable."

 

[Tony Vargas]

Re 3+ year 4e campaignsirty pool? Hardly, if one compares apples to apples - how were campaigns in each of the other editions holding up 4 years into that edition's run?

I started playing AD&D in 1980, not long after the DMG came out and the edition was arguably 'complete.' For the first 5 years I played it, no 'campaign,' lasted longer than a few months or spanned more than 3-5 levels (one thief hit 5th level in a campaign I ran). By 1985, I started a serious campaign and it spanned the 1e/2e rev-roll, going a total of 10 years an 14 levels. But, by the time I started it, I had a 3-ring binder full of rule variants, so I'm not sure that really says much about the game.

I think one of the strength of early D&D, not of the system, but of the communities that played it, was being very accepting of rules variants. There's been a 180 since then, and 'RAW' seems to be all that really matters - there's an expectation that games be 'plug and play,' I guess. No tinkering required to get them to work. It's not an unreasonable expectation, but it makes comparing the classic and modern gaming experiences problematic.

 

[Lanefan]

No idea. I tend to run shorter campaigns, myself. But to have a 3-year 4e campaign right now, it has to have started in 2008 or 2009. For 3e, games could have hit the 3 year mark anywhere from 2003 to ... well, now. So that's the stacked deck, basically; narrower mathematical opportunity.

So put yourself in 2004, how many 3e campaigns started in 2000-01 were still going? Ditto 2e about 1993, though as it's designed for long games I'd expect a different result there.

I started playing AD&D in 1980, not long after the DMG came out and the edition was arguably 'complete.' For the first 5 years I played it, no 'campaign,' lasted longer than a few months or spanned more than 3-5 levels (one thief hit 5th level in a campaign I ran). By 1985, I started a serious campaign and it spanned the 1e/2e rev-roll, going a total of 10 years an 14 levels. But, by the time I started it, I had a 3-ring binder full of rule variants, so I'm not sure that really says much about the game.

I think one of the strength of early D&D, not of the system, but of the communities that played it, was being very accepting of rules variants. There's been a 180 since then, and 'RAW' seems to be all that really matters - there's an expectation that games be 'plug and play,' I guess. No tinkering required to get them to work. It's not an unreasonable expectation, but it makes comparing the classic and modern gaming experiences problematic.

Very true, and it'll be interesting to watch how this plays with 5e which on the surface seems to want to be a kitbasher's edition.

Lanefan

 

[Obryn]

So put yourself in 2004, how many 3e campaigns started in 2000-01 were still going? Ditto 2e about 1993, though as it's designed for long games I'd expect a different result there.

Again, no idea. I only know my own games, and 2 years tends to be a cap, no matter the game or edition. The advancement rate of 3e characters isn't very different from 4e characters, and the system had its warts as evinced by 3.5's release in 2003. I expect it'd be fairly similar, but the release of 3.5 right around then could screw stuff up, too.

I agree that 1e & 2e were more likely to have longer campaigns. XP progressions make a huge difference.

-O

 

[Steely_Dan]

I have an on-and-off-again solo (one player) campaign I've been DMing since 1987; so, I guess it just depends on commitment.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Very true, and it'll be interesting to watch how this plays with 5e which on the surface seems to want to be a kitbasher's edition.

Lanefan

Nod, it certainly looks like that's what it's going for. I wonder if that stems more from a need to cater to nostalgia amongst us older guys (who happily kitbashed 1e back in the day), or from a need to lessen the burden of design work (due to short staffing or under-funding, prehaps)?

Whatever the reason, as an inveterate rules-tinkerer, myself, I'd be delighted to see more acceptance of variants or 'house rules' in the broader community. I'm not optimistic that 5e can catalyze that particular reaction, but I'd be pleasantly surprised if it did...

 

[Steely_Dan]

Nod, it certainly looks like that's what it's going for. I wonder if that stems more from a need to cater to nostalgia amongst us older guys (who happily kitbashed 1e back in the day), or from a need to lessen the burden of design work (due to short staffing or under-funding, prehaps)?

That comes across as such a cheap and snide thing to say because "they" are not absolutely going in the direction you want, though I of course could be wrong.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The interesting thing I'm noticing is that the rules feel bland. And this helps. In most cases the rules get out of the way more than they do in my experience with any prior edition - and I'm using 5e to run a Caverns of Thracia campaign (in part because the Caverns are awesome, in part because they don't fit 4e, and in part because I want to see how 5e runs).

 

[pemerton]

Using published WotC adventures (which are a direct reflection of how the game is designed to be played), it can't; a single adventure often expects the whole party to be 2 or even 3 levels higher at the end than they were at the start and the challenges etc. are designed as such.

<snip>

I suppose it could be done in 4e if one didn't use published adventures.

I hadn't thought about the published adventure issue at all.