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 Has the "here and now" been replaced by the "next level" attitude?

[Hussar]

But, Umbran, you are missing my point. You can do it with a fighter. It just takes about seven levels.

As I said I have no problems with playing the "apprentice" levels. I just don't want to spend hundreds of hours doing so.

 

[Celebrim]

Says you. You are the one who talked about ten sessions per level. Are you saying that's mistaken?

No. My PC's leveled for the first time about 6 sessions in, and then again about 16 sessions in, and then I think hit 3rd about 30 sessions in. Since that time we've been doing about 10 session per level.

But I'm also not playing a published adventure path that has to make sure that at the end of it you've leveled up sufficiently to play the next one. If I was going to play 'Whispering Cairn', as written, it would play pretty quickly. The thing is, I almost never use anything as written. If I was going to actually use the module, I'd probably adapt it to my setting and expectations most likely by having the narrative of 'Whispering Cairn' overlap narratives specific to the PC concepts (adding 10-15 challenges along the way to the finish) or else tone down the final encounters to scale them to 2nd level characters. I might also be tempted to make certain areas of the tomb a bit larger. I love the tight design into 3-5 encounter easily digestible blocks, and it reads in many ways exactly like a dungeon that follows my idealized rules for dungeon building, but a few or the areas could use to move up to 5-7 encounters IMO because they feel a little cramped. Also I'm not a fan of the wolves lair at the beginning. Wolves to me remind me too much of giant rats - too generic of an early foe. In short, I'd tinker.

Oh and I did say I wanted to play a fighter. But that's ok. I wouldn't want to stop you from telling your players what class they should play.

LOL. Ok, you can play a fighter. I did say that you could play the same game I outlined in RAW. So play a fighter. But if you were going to play in my rules and you wanted to be a pirate, you'd likely want to play an Explorer - since the class (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?300112-Playing-Like-Celebrim-The-Explorer-Class) was designed with that sort of concept in mind. But I don't tell players what class to play. Building a fighter pirate would be really easy under my rules as well. Or you could dip fighter or explorer since they play so well together multi-classed. The real point though isn't about classes, but rather that Pirate Captain is a profession and not a class. It's a color and story you give your character - aft and fore. You could be a wizard, cleric, fanatic, champion, sorcerer or rogue - and if I was designing the sandbox for a pirate game I'd probably have NPC pirates of every sort. You could be 1st level or 10th. What matters isn't what powers your character has, but that he has a ship and he robs other ones. That's a story we don't have to wait until 7th level to have.

Regardless of how you build the character, under my outline you are a pirate captain no later than 2nd level. Technically you could put on the hat in the 1st session, but probably at first you'd have no way to pay a crew and no money to dress the part, so the only people calling you captain at 1st level would be the other PC's.

Look, my last word on this thread. Yes, there is no one right way to do things. I think I've made that clear. There isn't even one right way to do things for me, as my goals in a given campaign might change. But on the other hand, there is a right way to do things. It's the way that works. My way makes me abundantly happy. Your way makes you want to hurry up and get to 'the good stuff', makes you complain that you can't be what you want right from the start, makes you less than fully enjoy the first 80 or 160 hours of play, makes you mystified that people would be happy to play slowly, and makes you - from your abundant testimony in this thread and others - quite unhappy. So even if my way wouldn't necessarily be the right way for you, it's very clear to me that how you percieve 3e as working is incorrect. Not in the sense that it couldn't work that way or that it would be always wrong to work that way, nor even in the real sense that you impose restrictions on the system that aren't actually found in it, but it is certainly wrong for you to insist on it working in ways that frustrate you when no of that is necessary. How you think about the system is more important than the system itself. Many people believe systems of every sort, whether 3e or 4e, have inherent limitations that they don't actually have. What's changed isn't the system but how they think about it. IIRC, you've moved on to different systems and through that given yourself permission to think differently about them and started enjoying play more. That's all to the good. But I think you should go ahead and give yourself more permission to think differently and enjoy the game. Then I think you might understand why so many of your complaints - like "You can't be a pirate captain until 7th level" - sound like strawmen.

 

[SteveC]

Only if "interest" is a limited resource. As if you cannot be interested in multiple things?

I suggest, instead, that this is creating a false dichotomy.

Of course you can be interested in multiple things, that's something to be expected in an RPG which can be fun from many different angles and for different reasons.

I know that if a game is holding my interest I'm focusing on the now, on what's happening in the session and what I'm hoping will happen next time, the rate of progression isn't something I'm really thinking about.

It's the time when the game isn't really holding my attention in and of itself that I start to think about character builds and how maybe "things will be better in a couple of levels."

Is this a universal maxim? Of course not, since nothing can truly be said to be universal where opinions are concerned (not even this sentence).

However, I'll definitely argue that in the (vast) majority of cases, lack of satisfaction with the rate of character development means other parts of the game aren't holding the player's interests.

 

[Umbran]

But, Umbran, you are missing my point.

Wouldn't be the first time, but I think there's still a point to be made here.

As I said I have no problems with playing the "apprentice" levels. I just don't want to spend hundreds of hours doing so.

RPGs, as group activities, have significant needs for compromise.

Player: I want to eventually play a pirate captain. I want to do this with a fighter class. I want to reach my goal after X hours of play.

GM: Ergh. I'm fine with a pirate game. But, my typical style starts at first level, and each level is... long. To reach your goal as a fighter takes several levels, so we'd exceed your limit on hours of play. I can offer you a way to some of what you want much faster, but it calls for using a different class.

This is the heart of negotiation. Insisting "my way of the highway" is not a great way to get a group of folks to work together to mutual enjoyment. If the player is unwilling to flex on anything, then there are very few games that'll work for them. Similarly, if the GM is unwilling to adjust, they'll only be open to a small number of players.

Where the GM could flex: run the game faster, start at a level well above 1st level.
Where the Player can flex: play a different class, adjust what it means to be a "pirate captain", agree to raise X.

If your desires really are so specific that you can't give on anything, then yes, it is time to look for someone else to play with.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Wouldn't be the first time, but I think there's still a point to be made here. RPGs, as group activities, have significant needs for compromise. Player: I want to eventually play a pirate captain. I want to do this with a fighter class. I want to reach my goal after X hours of play. GM: Ergh. I'm fine with a pirate game. But, my typical style starts at first level, and each level is... long. To reach your goal as a fighter takes several levels, so we'd exceed your limit on hours of play. I can offer you a way to some of what you want much faster, but it calls for using a different class. This is the heart of negotiation. Insisting "my way of the highway" is not a great way to get a group of folks to work together to mutual enjoyment. If the player is unwilling to flex on anything, then there are very few games that'll work for them. Similarly, if the GM is unwilling to adjust, they'll only be open to a small number of players. Where the GM could flex: run the game faster, start at a level well above 1st level. Where the Player can flex: play a different class, adjust what it means to be a "pirate captain", agree to raise X. If your desires really are so specific that you can't give on anything, then yes, it is time to look for someone else to play with.

Gonna have to disagree on the open to small number of players bit. I think players who refuse to budge are actually in the minority so I would say most DM's would have no problem saying no to certain things and still have no problem getting players. What I find annoying os a player and DM arguing more than the game is played. I as a DM, draw the line and have no problem doing it.

 

[Incenjucar]

Generally, if a DM and a Player's perspective doesn't mesh well enough, the Player simply won't be showing up anymore, unless they have no other options for play. If you can anticipate this, you might be able to prevent it.

 

[Hussar]

Celebrim your mistake is thinking that I am somehow unhappy with play. I'm perfectly content. I'd only be unhappy if I was forced to play through what I view as rather tedious games.

Fortunately I play with people who share my taste in pacing and we're pretty content.

But this thread is predicated on the idea that there is something wrong with wanting a faster paced game. And I've now repeatedly been told that I am somehow failing to understand both 3rd ed and gaming in general because I don't play the way you do.

That's the part that rather bewilders me.

 

[Derren]

But, Umbran, you are missing my point. You can do it with a fighter. It just takes about seven levels.

For clarification, what is your idea of a pirate? Because that is an occupation which requires a boat or ship and the intention to perform illegal activities known as piracy. Nothing in that would require a specific level to achieve. The hardest part would be the boat or ship, but as soon as you have that you are a pirate. So why 7 levels?

 

[pemerton]

Only if "interest" is a limited resource. As if you cannot be interested in multiple things?

I think you've got me backwards.
[MENTION=9053]SteveC[/MENTION] explained it in his reply to you: the issue isn't about being interested in multiple things, it's about having nothing else of interest. If a GM is concerned that his/her players are not interested in the "here and now", then my advice would be: make the here and now more interesting. My personal view - for whatever it's worth - is that pre-packaged plot which the players can't really influence is one recurrent reason why players are more interested in the mechanical cultivation of their PCs than in the "here and now" of play.

 

[Hussar]

For clarification, what is your idea of a pirate? Because that is an occupation which requires a boat or ship and the intention to perform illegal activities known as piracy. Nothing in that would require a specific level to achieve. The hardest part would be the boat or ship, but as soon as you have that you are a pirate. So why 7 levels?

Primarily it's skills. Note just for clarity, I mean captain, not just sailor. So he needs to be able to navigate out of sight of land (iirc dc 25 Survival or kn geography I forget which) plus be able to assess the value of cargo to some degree, be able to reliably bluff and intimidate, and, yes, fight well.

Which you can do reasonably well with a seventh level fighter.