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 Has the "here and now" been replaced by the "next level" attitude?

[frogimus]

Actually, Luke may be a Jedi through half the movie, but doesn't learn to give in and use the power until that last shot in the trench.

If you don't like the roleplay of an RPG, find a group that feel as you do and play the game the same way. Don't tell us we're wrong for playing the game we want to play if everyone around our table is happy with it.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Actually, Luke may be a Jedi through half the movie, but doesn't learn to give in and use the power until that last shot in the trench.

If you don't like the roleplay of an RPG, find a group that feel as you do and play the game the same way. Don't tell us we're wrong for playing the game we want to play if everyone around our table is happy with it.

What you do at your table doesn't concern me. What concerns me is a game system that is designed to cater to the "rushed mentality".

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I have noticed that I am now in the camp of can we hurry up and level. My reason is I am deathly sick of the lower grind levels. I have been playing the game for years now and it sometimes gets frustrating to wait to truly be able to play your concept. And many times games have fizzled before you get to do what you really want.

I have noticed that when I play Shadowrun or other non level type games this is not a problem mainly because you start with a more effective character and usually can play your character concept right away.

We are second level right now and I hate my character. I am playing a necromancer and it will be several levels before I can truly be a necromancer instead of just the wizard with ray of enfeeblement.

I enjoy the world I am playing in and the RP is fun but combat is so boring I can do it in my sleep.

There are so many issues say you want to multiclass as part of your concept but at first level you can only be one of your classes.

I am not sure how to fix this as long as we have a game where your character improves through gaining levels.

I would say a large part of this is the system itself.

 

[frogimus]

Umm, actually I don't care for a rushed game either. I guess maybe some of the later editions cater to them. Not sure, since I play B/X if I want an RPG and WarmaHordes, Anima Tactics, or Helldorado if I want to play with miniatures.

Seriously, play what your group likes. If some other table of players want to play it different, why is that wrong? Its a game.

 

[Lanefan]

My problem Lanefan is that if it takes two years to be "just getting going" I want to blow my brains out.

I have zero interest in a campaign where the presumption of play is that long. [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] mentioned being three years into a bi-weekly game and the players still don't know what the big bad is doing.

I'm just not interested in that game.

Guess I won't be inviting you in, huh?

Seriously, to me the game is more than just a series of encounters that add up to a series of adventures that add up to a single story path. It's more about the personalities of the characters that cycle in and out of the party/parties, and how they interact - are they friends, lovers, deadly enemies, tricksters, etc. - as that's where a large part of the entertainment (and what is the point of any of this other than entertainment, in the end?) comes from. Sure, there's adventures and things to do, and a story out there somewhere that we'll pay attention to now and then; and we'll gradually get better at what we do (i.e. level up) as a side effect of playing the game and occasionally succeeding at a mission. Characters (and players) will come and go - characters die, retire, return, split into different parties that get played at different times, re-merge or reshuffle party lineups, etc.; players join, leave, move away, return, etc. - but the game endures and carries on.

What bores me quickly is the tactical chess game, where no character is ever able to go off plan without seriously endangering the whole party - fine once in a while, but as a constant playstyle it's not for me.

I have noticed that I am now in the camp of can we hurry up and level. My reason is I am deathly sick of the lower grind levels. I have been playing the game for years now and it sometimes gets frustrating to wait to truly be able to play your concept. And many times games have fizzled before you get to do what you really want.

Maybe an answer is to come up with character concepts that are not - or are much less - mechanically dependent.

As an example, start with: "This character is going to be a happy-go-lucky type who falls madly in love with every dashing knight that crosses her path; she's more courageous herself than she realizes but hasn't had much chance to show it yet (field adventuring will soon fix this!), her dream is to become famous enough that the bards will sing her name in their tales, but her shorter-term goal is to pay off some debts for her family. Oh, and she never knows when to stop talking, particularly when she's nervous." So far this concept could fit with any class and most races; about the only mechanical thing the concept points to is that if not a Cleric her dump stat will probably be Wisdom. From there you just take it as it comes, and create the concept on the fly as the character develops through play both mechanically and socially.

Or, if you want a more mechanical setup, try: "This character hasn't got much self-esteem, he's somewhat socially inept and doesn't know how to start or end any conversation, and this has always bothered him. That said, somewhere along the line he heard of this thing called magic, and that people could learn how to shape it to their will; and dammit, if magic can make him better-spoken and get people to listen he'll do whatever it takes to learn how." So mechanically we've got a low-Cha high-Int magic-user (any race) who is going to focus on anything that will enhance either or both of Charisma and communication to the exclusion of pretty much anything else. From there, see where the run of play takes you.

Notice that both these examples are *starting* points; largely open-ended (as should be the game as a whole) and malleable to suit whatever may happen through play. Trying to start from the end (as in "this character is going to be a 20th-level Necromancer with a nightmare steed, a castle outside Waterdeep, and who specializes in spells that summon and control Devils") before you've even started roll-up is the highway to madness.

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

Actually, Luke may be a Jedi through half the movie, but doesn't learn to give in and use the power until that last shot in the trench.

If you don't like the roleplay of an RPG, find a group that feel as you do and play the game the same way. Don't tell us we're wrong for playing the game we want to play if everyone around our table is happy with it.

Wait, what? I'm not saying anyone is wrong. And, I was looking at the three movies as a whole to be honest. Luke is a Jedi half way through Empire, and then we have a whole lot more story after that. That's my point.

If I want to be a weapons master, as an easy example, why not follow the same arc? Half way through the campaign, I'm the weapons master and now there's a whole lot more story.

Using Elf Witch's Necromancer example - it's not unreasonable to think that "Necromancer" begins when you can animate dead. There might be other starting points, but, that's a pretty big one. For a wizard, that's seventh level. If Elf Witch was in Celebrim's campaign, she had to wait three years to reach that point. That's a pretty long wait to achieve the character you want to play.

Now, no one is saying, "well, then, start at 7th level". I don't mind the "building up to it" levels. That's fine. But, is it really wrong to want to achieve that, in say, eight months of play (which is generally the pace I play D&D at)? For me, that would be about 100 hours of play. Give or take. 3 hour sessions, 4 sessions/month, times 8 months is about 90 hours of play.

How is that "instant gratification"?

And, Forever Slayer, you've still failed to prove that levelling is significantly faster in later editions. That's a very contentious point. Like I said, I've always seen play at about 4-6 sessions (and 3-5 hour sessions by and large) since the early 80's and we always advanced at about the same rate. And this is under multiple DM's and completely different groups, none of which have any connection to each other, well, other than me.

AFAIC, levelling up after about 12-15 hours of play is perfectly reasonable.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Wait, what? I'm not saying anyone is wrong. And, I was looking at the three movies as a whole to be honest. Luke is a Jedi half way through Empire, and then we have a whole lot more story after that. That's my point.

If I want to be a weapons master, as an easy example, why not follow the same arc? Half way through the campaign, I'm the weapons master and now there's a whole lot more story.

that doesn't sound so bad, but the problem shows up in a moment...

Using Elf Witch's Necromancer example - it's not unreasonable to think that "Necromancer" begins when you can animate dead. There might be other starting points, but, that's a pretty big one. For a wizard, that's seventh level. If Elf Witch was in Celebrim's campaign, she had to wait three years to reach that point. That's a pretty long wait to achieve the character you want to play.

see here is the problem. imagine that game and it only makes it to level 10.. so go 6 levels 'building' to get 3 levels of playing yoru idea...

AFAIC, levelling up after about 12-15 hours of play is perfectly reasonable.

agreed

 

[Celebrim]

I think you guys are missing my point though. I have no real problems with the whole just starting out character thing. That's fine.

My problem is that many DM's figure that the journey is the whole point of play. Luke doesn't become a Jedi at the end of the movies. He becomes one about half way through. Arthur doesn't become king at the end of the story. Peter Parker isn't bitten by a spider after months of story.

Arthur is born king. He doesn't level up to become one. But presumably no one in the Arthurian RPG is Arthur, unless the only PC is Arthur, because it would violate the rule that no one could be more special than anyone else. Peter Parker doesn't level up. He gains 10 levels from a spider bite all at once. The story more or less begins with him as 10th level. Superhero games accept that by basically starting everyone out at 10th level. If you want to play a Swords & Capes style game were the characters are superheroes, just start out at 10th level to begin with.

Just because a character has goals doesn't mean that those goals should only be achieved at the end.

What goal is that?

And what's the point of a game with twenty levels if you only ply thirteen of them?

First, what's the difference? I don't understand how it really matters. I'm being serious. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I don't see what you see. The only difference I see between level 13 and level 20 is that 20 has bigger numbers. I don't honestly see why you want to go beyond 13. You are playing exactly the same game only it takes longer to get anything done because there is more accounting and bookkeeping. If speeding up the story is the desired goal, playing at high levels is the opposite of obtaining that goal.

Second, the game doesn't have just 20 levels. Level 20 is an arbitrary stopping point as well. You could progress on to level 60. Why does the story stop at 20?

 

[Elf Witch]

In my case I believe giving up two schools of other magic to be a necromancer should give you more than it does. I am not saying animating dead at first level but how about being able to control them at some level at first level. Or if you allow animate maybe start small like small animals. Allow some of the flavor in at lower levels. Have a way for a multiclass to actually be a multiclass at the very start.

You can start games at higher levels but I have found that a lot of players and DM don't enjoy it. And that is not always the answer to some of the problems of the hurry for the next level.

In Shadowrun my mage could control elementals as well from day 1 as she could after four years of play. The difference was she had more resources to afford the supplies to to do the summons. My character stared the game with her spells and again I never had the need to add to them. I instead used my resources to afford better equipment and to improve other skills. Though I had a four which is above average in pistols from day 1. Most of the advancement in Shadowrun came from role playing and advancing in power in the world itself I went from a street runner to helping run a private security company. I have found it easier to keep a long running Shadowrun game going than a DnD game. Once DnD gets high level it becomes an incredible amount of work for the DM.

I wish it was easier to mirror this in DnD other than just starting at a higher level. I think it would help support other kind of stories. I know it is just wishful thinking so the solution I am finding is to play something else for awhile.

 

[jodyjohnson]

What you do at your table doesn't concern me. What concerns me is a game system that is designed to cater to the "rushed mentality".

I agree. The system should reward 'stop and smell the roses' play with triple XP rewards.

It would certainly reward that style of play.

Rushed play receives half XP. That's how Gary did it (Gary Johnson).