D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Tiers of Play

[ExploderWizard]

I think tiers of play are a great idea, but they are largely useless without the proper adventure support.

What made the BECMI model work so well was that the adventures produced for each boxed set were markedly different. You went from dungeon crawling to wilderness exploration to kingdom building to plane-hopping to godhood.

I think one problem that 3rd and 4th edition both faced was that the adventures were designed more or less in the same manner. You basically went to a site and fought monsters, whether they be orcs or Orcus. If you're going to have tiers of play, I think it's best to make the adventures significantly different in feel for each tier. Otherwise, it just feels like you could just add bigger monsters into the same adventure and get more or less the same result.

Oh WOTC I hope you are reading this. Not that expert level adventures never featured dungeons or that basic level adventures never included above ground encounters or anything, but this is pretty spot on.

 

[TwoSix]

Oh WOTC I hope you are reading this. Not that expert level adventures never featured dungeons or that basic level adventures never included above ground encounters or anything, but this is pretty spot on.

Are you a professional game designer? I hear the best way to get Mike Mearls to hear you is to post an open letter on the forums and indicate you have nebulous but impressive game design credentials.

Mod Note: Dragging out the stuff from a closed thread is a good way to get the hairy eyeball from the mods. Just sayin'. ~Umbran

 

[Ichneumon]

As suggested upstream, those level ranges do look similar to the old BECMI split. It wouldn't surprise me to see products based along those lines. Also, there was no mention of Legendary amongst the tier titles. If it's still a thing, it might be an attribute that 20th level characters aim for - an incentive to keep them adventuring.

Time to rechristen Wandering Monsters as Legends & Lore 2? The monsters seem to be done, and this column wouldn't have looked out of place under L&L.

 

[Desdichado]

Is this a hint as to the new Basic / Expert / Companion / Master / Immortal set of books?

Basic / Apprentice = levels 1–4

Expert = levels 5–10

Paragon = levels 11–16

Epic = levels 17–20

I can hope! I'd love for that game to be published alongside the "Advanced" game.

Y'know, this just kind of clicked with me when seeing this post: I wonder if part of the reason I never embraced even the concept of higher level play (much less the actual experience) was that I came into D&D with the Moldvay B/X game, which really only had the first two tiers (of five) that later came out in BECMI and the RC.

Sure; there's a lot of other reasons I don't like high level D&D very much, but this may have been a subconscious albeit extremely powerful one, that D&D isn't supposed to go outside of those first two paradigms!

I do like the idea of more discretely and sharply separating the tiers. I don't think I'd go so far as to advocate for putting the tiers in separate books (or boxed sets, as the case used to be) though.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Is this a hint as to the new Basic / Expert / Companion / Master / Immortal set of books?

Basic / Apprentice = levels 1–4

Expert = levels 5–10

Paragon = levels 11–16

Epic = levels 17–20

I can hope! I'd love for that game to be published alongside the "Advanced" game.

I really hope it's not split into that many products. All we need is a "Basic/Expert" set for beginners that goes up to level 10 with limited/simplified options, and a "PHB" that has everything.

 

[Mistwell]

I really hope it's not split into that many products. All we need is a "Basic/Expert" set for beginners that goes up to level 10 with limited/simplified options, and a "PHB" that has everything.

Why not make it two distinct but compatible games, like BECMI was? Start with four classic races, four classic classes, no feats, no backgrounds, no sub-classes, focus on non-grid play with no class abilities/spells that are best for grids, compressed set of classic spells and equipment. Dungeons in Basic, Wilderness in Expert, Kingdoms in Paragon, and Planes/Gods in Epic. Support each tier with BEPE modules and world maps.

I think that product would sell well. New players would buy them. The types of players Hasbro highlighted in their study of gamer perspectives (quick rules, quick set-up, shorter games) would buy it, and some experienced players would buy both.

 

[Keldryn]

I think tiers of play are a great idea, but they are largely useless without the proper adventure support.

What made the BECMI model work so well was that the adventures produced for each boxed set were markedly different. You went from dungeon crawling to wilderness exploration to kingdom building to plane-hopping to godhood.

I think one problem that 3rd and 4th edition both faced was that the adventures were designed more or less in the same manner. You basically went to a site and fought monsters, whether they be orcs or Orcus. If you're going to have tiers of play, I think it's best to make the adventures significantly different in feel for each tier. Otherwise, it just feels like you could just add bigger monsters into the same adventure and get more or less the same result.

I've always loved the overall structure of BECMI D&D. AD&D implied a similar progression from dungeon crawling to wilderness adventures to building strongholds and establishing a territory. BECMI just made that framework more explicit and expanded it to encompass the quest for immortality (the focus of Set 4: Master Rules). There were certainly flaws in the implementation, but I still think the idea is very sound.

X1 Isle of Dread (levels 4-7) and B10 Night's Dark Terror (levels 2-4) are both great examples of how the focus on wilderness exploration dramatically changes the gameplay experience from "dungeon crawling from one encounter to the next."

Many higher-level adventures from the TSR era still ended up being of the "visit a site and fight monsters" variety, but there are three that still stand out to me today as providing an example of how high level D&D could play out:

X10 Red Arrow, Black Shield (levels 10-14) featured an invasion of the "Known World" nations by the Master of the Desert Nomads. The war is not simply a background plot in this adventure, but is played out on the map using the War Machine rules. Each of the nations has the potential to side with either the Master or oppose him, depending on the PCs' actions. The adventure plays out over the course of many months as the war progresses, and in the end the political map will likely be very different.

CM1 Test of the Warlords (levels 25+) showcases the domain rules of the Companion Set. A new king has established himself in a land north of the "Known World" that has until now been unclaimed. The PCs can pledge allegiance to this new king and establish their own dominions in this untamed land. The module is a loose framework that features a number of events that take place over the span of several years, including potentially wedding one of the PCs to the new king.

M5 Talons of Night (levels 20-25) has the PCs traveling between worlds (including a cubic world, and another one that is a tiny toy version of their own), leading armies into battle, and ultimately negotiating peace between the world's two most powerful empires (or failing, plunging the world into a massive war).

Both X10 and CM1 need a lot of fleshing out to make them playable, and each contains scenarios that are very contrived or implausible. But they provide great frameworks for paragon-tier campaign arcs. All three are good examples of adventures with higher stakes that don't simply focus on fighting tougher monsters in more dangerous locales.

It was this overall campaign structure of BECMI that I was really hoping to see in 4e when they were first talking about the three tiers of play. I love the idea of the heroic/paragon/epic structure and how each tier would have a visible effect on how the game played. I love the idea of saving much of the world-affecting magic for the paragon and epic tiers. I love the idea of paragon paths and epic destinies that reinforced your characters' roles in the narrative. It sounded like a more structured and refined take on BECMI.

 

[Mercurius]

Good stuff and its nice to see overall agreement here and in the polls. As someone already said here, my only point of divergence is that I see Paragon (11-16) PCs already taking on potentially world changing events, or at least great quests..

All that said, I do hope that level 20 isn't a hard-cap, or at least that there are higher level options - a "Legendary" or Mythic tier. It seems artificial to cap advancement, although at some point it should slow to a crawl and/or jump to some kind of semi-immortality. I could imagine an optional book a few years down the line that details a few different paths for advancement beyond 20th level.

I also think that the basic formula of quick-average-slow-slower advancement for the four tiers mirrors real life. The fastest advancement in any skill is from novice through apprenticeship to journeyman/expert. Then its a slower, but solid, pace to mastery, then its much slower with only a few achieving a legendary status.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Are you a professional game designer? I hear the best way to get Mike Mearls to hear you is to post an open letter on the forums and indicate you have nebulous but impressive game design credentials.

No, and I don't play one on TV.

 

[Mistwell]

No, and I don't play one on TV.

Soooo not you? [It's titled "Exploding Wizard"]

[video=youtube_share;VyRyG7vv-dE]http://youtu.be/VyRyG7vv-dE[/video]