D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

[Micah Sweet]

From what I recall, Elric and the other emperors also apparently "level up" by sleeping and entering into the dream realms.


Yes. Conan's power increase is primarily diagetic. He becomes a king of a powerful nation in the setting. I'm not sure, however, if that is an argument in favor of milestone leveling.


I find this ironic as I consider 2e to be the edition that has the least emphasis on an emerging story. It's probably the edition that leaned the hardest into GM-curated stories, metanarratives, and adventures. (In many ways, it's quite similar to 5e, which feels a lot like 2e in terms of GM as storyteller albeit with a post-3e style characters with builds.)

I see D&D as setting and reading material as different from D&D as a game. I played mostly 1e for decades, and that evolved into my love for the OSR and the sensibilities of Classic play. However, I fell in love with the setting materials that were the hallmark of the 2e era. I consumed a ton of books from multiple settings, read a lot of D&D novels, I was really into all of it. I would have been very happy to see that go on forever. Still would really.

Of course, the setting stuff also provided a lot of interesting mechanical stuff too, and a lot of inspiration for my own games, so it was great that way too.

 

[pemerton]

And I would point out that Conan’s stories are not presented in chronological order. He’s an accomplished thief in the first story.

The first published Conan story is The Phoenix on the Sword. He's king of Aquilonia and a very tough fighter.

The second is Tower of the Elephant. He's a young(er) thief in Zamora, and is a very tough fighter. He kills a lion with a single blow:

It was Conan's savage instinct which made him wheel suddenly; for the death that was upon them made no sound. A fleeting glimpse showed the Cimmerian the giant tawny shape, rearing upright against the stars, towering over him for the death- stroke. No civilized man could have moved half so quickly as the barbarian moved. His sword flashed frostily in the starlight with every ounce of desperate nerve and thew behind it, and man and beast went down together.

Cursing incoherently beneath his breath, Taurus bent above the mass, and saw his companion's limbs move as he strove to drag himself from under the great weight that lay limply upon him. A glance showed the startled Nemedian that the lion was dead, its slanting skull split in half. He laid hold of the carcass, and by his aid, Conan thrust it aside and clambered up, still gripping his dripping sword.​

.
(From The Tower of the Elephant)

I think it's in Queen of the Black Coast that he kills were-hyenas by punching them.

 

[Lanefan]

These are all excellent arguments in favour of milestone leveling.

How so?

 

[Hussar]

He increases in power in the sense that he achieves political power. But it's not clear that he is a better warrior or adventurer as he ages, or at least not by much; he's pretty damned good from the earliest we see him. But that's because he's not a character in a game and doesn't need to level up.

What is the underlying argument here - that levelling up as happens in D&D is not very realistic? That's not exactly breaking news. I still think milestone levelling makes the most sense, though, because it can be linked to narrative progression.

Not quite. The underlying argument is that the source inspiration - pulp fiction - is not really a good reflection of how D&D actually works. D&D has never done pulp heroes. Pulp heroes are never "farm boys just off the turnip truck". That's what you get in things like Tolkien and later fantasy to a large degree. (although there are earlier examples of course) The "zero to hero" is the opposite of Pulp heroes.

And it's that complete misunderstanding of what pulp actually means that drives so many of the disagreements about what D&D should be doing.

The first published Conan story is The Phoenix on the Sword. He's king of Aquilonia and a very tough fighter.

The second is Tower of the Elephant. He's a young(er) thief in Zamora, and is a very tough fighter. He kills a lion with a single blow:

It was Conan's savage instinct which made him wheel suddenly; for the death that was upon them made no sound. A fleeting glimpse showed the Cimmerian the giant tawny shape, rearing upright against the stars, towering over him for the death- stroke. No civilized man could have moved half so quickly as the barbarian moved. His sword flashed frostily in the starlight with every ounce of desperate nerve and thew behind it, and man and beast went down together.​

​

Cursing incoherently beneath his breath, Taurus bent above the mass, and saw his companion's limbs move as he strove to drag himself from under the great weight that lay limply upon him. A glance showed the startled Nemedian that the lion was dead, its slanting skull split in half. He laid hold of the carcass, and by his aid, Conan thrust it aside and clambered up, still gripping his dripping sword.​

.
(From The Tower of the Elephant)

I think it's in Queen of the Black Coast that he kills were-hyenas by punching them.

Ahh, my bad. I got Phoenix mixed up with Tower. I think it's because I read Tower first, so, it's always the "first" Conan story in my head. You are, of course, right.

But, again, while I might have gotten my publication dates wrong, the basic point remains. At no point is Conan a 1st level character. No pulp hero is ever a 1st level character. That's not something that comes from pulps. That comes from epic fantasy, really. Tolkien, Lloyd Alexander. C. S. Lewis where the heroes are literal children when the story starts. That's the inspiration for leveling in D&D.

But everyone wants to connect OSR to Pulp fantasy because Epic fantasy doesn't fit with their interpretation of what D&D is "supposed" to be. You want pulp fantasy? Try Savage Worlds. THAT'S pulp. D&D? D&D has never been Pulp fantasy.

 

[pemerton]

while I might have gotten my publication dates wrong, the basic point remains. At no point is Conan a 1st level character. No pulp hero is ever a 1st level character.

No dissent from me!

That's not something that comes from pulps. That comes from epic fantasy, really. Tolkien, Lloyd Alexander. C. S. Lewis where the heroes are literal children when the story starts. That's the inspiration for leveling in D&D.

But everyone wants to connect OSR to Pulp fantasy because Epic fantasy doesn't fit with their interpretation of what D&D is "supposed" to be. You want pulp fantasy? Try Savage Worlds. THAT'S pulp. D&D? D&D has never been Pulp fantasy.

Well the thing is that Gygax cited influences that included REH and other pulps, but published a rules system that doesn't do a very good job of emulating their fiction - eg Conan generally foregoes loot for higher values (eg rescuing a threatened person); whereas in AD&D that will cost you all your XP!

And in the classic game, the move from 1st to 2nd level literally double survivability. It has a big impact in 3E and 5e too. What fiction is that emulating, in any fashion?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Maybe that's why the modern storygame idea doesn't resonate with me: I want and expect any RPG I play or run to be open-ended, able to last as long as people want to play it and the GM wants to run it.

And that's absolutely fine. Some people like films, some like TV miniseries, and some like TV shows with multiple series with two dozen episodes per series - whether classic TV or even soap operas. Storygames are going for the film equivalent.

 

[Parmandur]

What is the underlying argument here - that levelling up as happens in D&D is not very realistic? That's not exactly breaking news. I still think milestone levelling makes the most sense, though, because it can be linked to narrative progression.

Not really arguing anything? Just pointing our thst gold for experience has a strong narrative logic to it. Milestone is still pretty good, but DCC style is the most logical way to reward players in my experience. XP for killin' is the worst way to reinforce coherent PC behavior, however, way worse than rewarding plunder.

 

[billd91]

But, again, while I might have gotten my publication dates wrong, the basic point remains. At no point is Conan a 1st level character. No pulp hero is ever a 1st level character. That's not something that comes from pulps. That comes from epic fantasy, really. Tolkien, Lloyd Alexander. C. S. Lewis where the heroes are literal children when the story starts. That's the inspiration for leveling in D&D.

For Conan, it would be off stage, before his life gets chronicled in the stories. For the hobbits in LotR, it’s a much bigger deal in the stories, since they leave the Shire and come back transformed after their adventures in the wider world.
It’s also a version of Joseph Campbell’s apotheosis, as the hero on his journey is transformed to cope with his new world.

But ultimately, it’s more of a game-based carrot, something dangled in front of the player as a reward.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

For Conan, it would be off stage, before his life gets chronicled in the stories. For the hobbits in LotR, it’s a much bigger deal in the stories, since they leave the Shire and come back transformed after their adventures in the wider world.
It’s also a version of Joseph Campbell’s apotheosis, as the hero on his journey is transformed to cope with his new world.

But ultimately, it’s more of a game-based carrot, something dangled in front of the player as a reward.

This it 100%. Although the play is fun alone, advancing and acquiring is very compelling.

We used to have the desire to play longer and get more experience and frankly gold.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But, again, while I might have gotten my publication dates wrong, the basic point remains. At no point is Conan a 1st level character. No pulp hero is ever a 1st level character. That's not something that comes from pulps. That comes from epic fantasy, really. Tolkien, Lloyd Alexander. C. S. Lewis where the heroes are literal children when the story starts. That's the inspiration for leveling in D&D.

Even epic fantasy doesn't always do "level up" type narratives. Beowulf? He begins being able to do things like swim for multiple days straight in armor. The oldest epic we have, the Epic of Gilgamesh? The man is literally 2/3 god from birth, and starts out a king so overwhelmingly powerful, the gods themselves must craft an opponent for him to make him change his ways. Herakles, Perseus, Theseus, Aeneas? Almost all of them start as royalty or nobility of some kind, most of them are children or grandchildren of gods, and several of them can perform feats of strength from their youth that even well-trained soldiers can't match. Even Odysseus, the Greek hero most closely linked to trickery and cunning rather than strength, is stronger than most men, the grandson of Hermes, and king of Ithaca.

Of the Hobbits, it's also pretty clear that their journey hurts them almost as much as it steels them. Frodo is left a broken man for the rest of his days. Bilbo is wrung dry due to leaving the ring behind. Of the actual ring-bearers, only Samwise comes out unequivocally stronger than he was before, and he also (a) held the ring for the shortest amount of time, and (b) showed by far the greatest resilience against its temptations, with the Ring seemingly unable to tempt him. Merry and Pippin do grow rather a lot, but they also have by far the less arduous adventure--very literally getting "less experience" than Frodo and Sam.

Frankly, I would argue the place we find the most "level up" narratives is actually fairy tales. Which is rather fitting, since that was the actual inspiration for C.S. Lewis. Not the Greek epics (which are, you may note, mostly relegated to setting and background), not the Norse sagas, but the whimsical and often dangerous world of classic fairy tales. And fairy tales are where Campbell's thesis comes closest to being kinda-sorta mostly right-ish, if you ignore his demand that it be universal, hegemonic, and that every part of his Journey be present.

This it 100%. Although the play is fun alone, advancing and acquiring is very compelling.

We used to have the desire to play longer and get more experience and frankly gold.

I think there's room here to say there are different kinds of advancement. And, believe it or not, MMORPGs have a great way of describing the two that most clearly come to mind (there may be other kinds as well, of course.)

In an MMO, gaining levels is a key feature. Partially, this is because Big Number Go Up feels good. You can also argue that getting superior gear, once you're at max level, is effectively just a continuation of the levelling proces--you have to put in work to get rare items or currency to buy new items, which increase your amount-of-power so you can do more things. Same idea, just the source of the numbers has changed.

But there's another, completely distinct form of advancement in MMOs: Achievements. Sometimes you get them for doing a lot of something. Sometimes, for completing a very difficult task. Sometimes, for completing a long and complicated quest, e.g. crafting a legendary item or piecing together a deep mystery. Sometimes for exploring every corner of the realm. Etc., etc. These cannot be mapped to the "level up" process, because they aren't about advancement along a track; they're about reaching some kind of destination intended to be meaningful. The difference between marking a journey by the number of miles travelled vs the set of scenic places visited. Both are ways of communicating how much a journey affected someone; different people will get more out of one or the other (or, for those lucky few, draw near-equal bounty from both.)

That's where a story-focused game's advancement lies, and in part why folks interested in story advancement don't get that much joy out of level-type advancement. Who cares what level you are, if you save the Kingdom of Placitia, or recover the Lost Scrolls of Incognita the Diviner, or build the first Power-Wrought weapon in a thousand years, or go back in time and prevent the fall of Arkhosia, or assembling the Sword of Seven Towers by resurrecting your dead wife, or whatever else? While they can't be universally compared the way levels and gold pieces can, they have far greater personal meaning, the moments of triumph (and tragedy, those too can be achievements of a darker sort!) that filled a story with weight and worth.

Maybe that's why the modern storygame idea doesn't resonate with me: I want and expect any RPG I play or run to be open-ended, able to last as long as people want to play it and the GM wants to run it.

Well, uh...believe it or not, that's kind of where my game is at. Like there will eventually be a point where we've wrapped up all the major stuff that has mattered to the characters, but we're nowhere near it yet. At this point, we're still at absolute least a year away from resolving all of the open questions, and that's a very optimistic estimate. By the time we get to that point, we'll have been playing six to seven years of the same campaign. I think my players, if they even wish to keep playing Dungeon World, would value and appreciate the change of pace at that point!