D&D 3E/3.5 1e-3e vs. 4e: The inverted difficulty curve in D&D 5e design

[Dragonblade]

I was going to post this in my other thread about ascending bonuses in D&D, but I think this is worthy of its own discussion.

One thing that occured to me is that in most editions of the game up to and including 3e (though 3e mitigated some of it) is that the difficulty/lethality curve in D&D is completely reversed compared to almost all other forms of gaming in our culture aside from some other TRPGs. And since most TRPGs trace their roots back to D&D, that's not surprising.

For example, in most games, particularly videogames, the game starts out easy to help new players learn how to play, but then gets harder and more lethal as you go. The increased difficulty and lethality is often offset by giving the player more options to compensate. For most of us, I think this is intuitive and makes sense.

But in 1e-3e, the game in many respects starts out harder and more difficult at the early levels, before becoming easier, albeit more complex at the higher levels. Gygax somewhat recognized this and save or die was put in to maintain some of that low level insta-kill threat at higher levels. But then save or die is somewhat offset by Raise Dead magic at higher levels.

But 4e was the first D&D to recognize this ascending difficulty issue and went the other way. It tried to start the game out easier for beginning players and then make it harder.

This is actually what I consider a more intuitive and better design approach, but that of course is my opinion. Games should be easy for beginners but get harder as you go. But, I think this also contributes to some of the so-called videogame feel that some people think that 4e has. Reversing the power curve that D&D has had since its inception was a pretty big shift.

So it will be interesting to see if the designers of 5e are cognizant of this and what they intend to do about it. For the future of the game, I vastly prefer a model that ramps up both difficulty and complexity at higher levels as opposed to how D&D played in earlier editions. But I definitely think that options for reversing the power curve and making the lower level game more difficult and lethal should be there for advanced players who enjoy that challenge.

 

[Dausuul]

I think the logic in D&D, particularly the older editions, is that a low-level character is one you haven't put a lot of time and emotional investment into. A high-level character is someone you've been playing for months, if not years. And you can't just do a save/reload in D&D.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I have picked up on something equally strange. It seems people think beginners need a less formal game with rules for every situation being added as the levels go up. Shouldn't that also be reversed?
The heroic levels can have minis, a grid and encounter powers but the paragon levels could do without. At paragon levels the training wheels can be taken off.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The heroic levels can have minis, a grid and encounter powers but the paragon levels could do without. At paragon levels the training wheels can be taken off.

This assumes that using grids and minis is "easy mode" and not using them is harder. Which I do not believe to be the case. The game can be easy with or without minis and grid depending on the ruleset you are using.

 

[Gryph]

That particular curve in video games also effects the time spent at level. Those easy early levels are designed to go by very quickly and get your character to the sweet spot of the game.

If you're going to match that difficulty curve, I think you also need to move away from the flat time/level curves of 3e and 4e or the "easier" levels are in danger of getting boring very quickly.

 

[Dragonblade]

That particular curve in video games also effects the time spent at level. Those easy early levels are designed to go by very quickly and get your character to the sweet spot of the game.

If you're going to match that difficulty curve, I think you also need to move away from the flat time/level curves of 3e and 4e or the "easier" levels are in danger of getting boring very quickly.

Interesting thought. I agree with that.

So you should average a level a session up until about level 5, then things slow down a bit and you linger longer at each higher level. That's somewhat like how earlier editions worked. I would support that model as long as their was a loose retraining mechanic that allowed you to swap out undesirable character options freely. That way you could play longer at a certain level without feeling like you have to level up to change up your PC.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

This assumes that using grids and minis is "easy mode" and not using them is harder. Which I do not believe to be the case. The game can be easy with or without minis and grid depending on the ruleset you are using.

Agreed, however, with regard to the OP:
One aspect of AD&D and the early D&D in general is that the players were not really expected to know the rules at all. I have played with GM's that did not allow the players to even roll the dice.
The DM was expected to know the rules in the earliest days players of non casters could play with out knowing the rules. Thus, while I played quite a bit of AD&D in college, I did not own the books never actually knew the rules.
I told the DM what my character was going ot try and he told me what dice to use.
About the only caster I ever tried was a druid where I borrowed someoone else's book in order to select spells.

In part, training DM's should be a major part of any future D&D and thus another reason that the beginner game should be fairly trasparent in the rules and power curve. More designers notes to guide the beginner DM's in to the intent of rules and remove from the players as much as possible the need to know rules.
All of this can be added later to the taste of the group.

I am also beginning to think that much more DM advice should be disseminated via the modules.

 

[Dragonblade]

I have picked up on something equally strange. It seems people think beginners need a less formal game with rules for every situation being added as the levels go up. Shouldn't that also be reversed?
The heroic levels can have minis, a grid and encounter powers but the paragon levels could do without. At paragon levels the training wheels can be taken off.

Hmm, I think the other way makes more sense. Complexity, which also means more rules to know, should come more into play at higher level with the lower levels being a more old school freeform game. Monte Cook talked about this in an L&L column. Though I don't fully agree with him. I think the rules should be consistent at all levels. Just that lower level PCs shouldn't need to know as many because they would have fewer options.

One thing I liked about 1e/2e and 4e is that the rules feel like they get out of the way. 4e may seem like it is complex, but once you understand it its very intuitive. I have played entire sessions of 1e/2e and 4e without ever cracking my PHB open once. But when I play 3e/Pathfinder I feel suffocated by rules everywhere even at level 1.

I think using miniatures should be optional system you add or not depending on how a DM wants to run a specific encounter.

 

[nightwyrm]

For example, in most games, particularly videogames, the game starts out easy to help new players learn how to play, but then gets harder and more lethal as you go. The increased difficulty and lethality is often offset by giving the player more options to compensate. For most of us, I think this is intuitive and makes sense.

This is only true for most modern games. If you look at the very first RPGs like the first Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy which pretty much cribbed off D&D, they were HARD right from the beginning. You bought a pointy stick and poked at slimes for hours around your first town to build XP and gold.

It was just that the videogame industry quickly learned that it was difficult to get a lot of new players with these type of games and switched to the modern difficulty curve. This is something that 5e can learn from - the ability for a new player to jump right into the game and start playing without reading a bunch of stuff.

 

[MarkChevallier]

I think this is one of those lessons from video games that just don't translate very well to RPGs, for most people. I think video games have specific design issues which are quite separate from role playing games. There are some lessons, yes, but they must be carefully teased out and applied appropriately.

In a level-based system like D&D, being low-level means you are less experienced than a high-level character. Naturally, you should find the world a more dangerous place; you're weaker, you don't have the skills and abilities you may possess in the future.

Before 4E, the zero-to-hero model that was the tradition of D&D emulated this - when you were a zero, there were a lot of enemies you couldn't face, and even weaker enemies often had reason to give you pause. You had to be cunning and careful. Later on, when you were a hero, there were more heroic enemies to face, that if you'd fought them before, would have simply destroyed you.

The game didn't go from hard to easy; it went from weak to strong. Which surely is part of the whole idiom of a level-based system?