D&D General A History of Violence: Killing in D&D

[Lanefan]

As I said, in your sessions are the PCs sitting on their hands? No? Then time based is as simulationist as anything an experience system is doing.

Time-based, be it in-game time or real-world time, in fact does allow the PCs to sit on their hands and still advance in level; which IMO is ludicrous.

 

[payn]

I don't view the party as an army or swat team either; instead they're a collection of independent free-thinking individuals sometimes working at cross-purposes and not always getting along or willing to most-optimally work with each other.

That said, two things do push toward the swat-team model: 1) as a team the party are usually greater than the sum of their parts, and 2) the missions they go on often resemble those that a long-range swat or commando team might be ordered to do.

Which, while making the DM's bookkeeping easy, doesn't incentivize anything other than showing up; and doesn't even incentivize that if it's character-in-play sessions being counted rather than player-at-table sessions. It doesn't incentivize adventuring, it doesn't incentivize risk-taking*, and it doesn't incentivize advancing the story.

Taken to a silly (but very plausible) extreme: the characters could advance in level by spending several sessions just sitting around at the farm telling war stories as freeform roleplay.

* - in fact, it actively and strongly disincentivizes risk-taking: if you're going to gain levels at the same rate anyway, why stick your neck out?

These ideas are not lining up. Individual risk reward and cross purpose agendas isnt conducive to team based success.

 

[KYRON45]

Time-based, be it in-game time or real-world time, in fact does allow the PCs to sit on their hands and still advance in level; which IMO is ludicrous.

Wouldn't "time based" imply : Time spent being productive?
My employment is time based.....in so far as while the time is passing i'm doing things conducive to getting things done.

 

[Clint_L]

Most RPGs out there don't use levels, so, no they are not necessary.

Some games out there don't even have an analog for XP.

Heck, some games don't even have power advancement as a major element of play.

MY favourite TTRPG, Dread has no levels, XP, or power advancement, though it is designed for one-shots.

 

[Mannahnin]

Time-based, be it in-game time or real-world time, in fact does allow the PCs to sit on their hands and still advance in level; which IMO is ludicrous.

It's ludicrous because no one (for reasonable real world applications of "no one") is actually going to do that.

And it's certainly no more absurd than killing monsters making you better at picking locks, or looting a treasure hoard making you a better swordsman.

 

[Lanefan]

When i get tired of the PC's being level 1...i make them level 2. They usually have some miles on them at that point and the experience of those miles is the sum total of all that has happened in that time.

What if some of the PCs haven't been around the entire time while others have? If they all advance at the same time at your whim, that's not fair to the (relative) veterans.

Level 1 in particular is known for sometimes having lots of character turnover.

 

[Clint_L]

Which, while making the DM's bookkeeping easy, doesn't incentivize anything other than showing up; and doesn't even incentivize that if it's character-in-play sessions being counted rather than player-at-table sessions. It doesn't incentivize adventuring, it doesn't incentivize risk-taking*, and it doesn't incentivize advancing the story.

Taken to a silly (but very plausible) extreme: the characters could advance in level by spending several sessions just sitting around at the farm telling war stories as freeform roleplay.

* - in fact, it actively and strongly disincentivizes risk-taking: if you're going to gain levels at the same rate anyway, why stick your neck out?

Fun?

 

[Mannahnin]

Hypothetical player: "I gain a level after one session, right? So what if I say my PC just stays back in town while everyone else goes to check out the goblin raids?"

DM: "Then that guy never becomes an adventurer. He was called but found his courage lacking, and settles down in town with a safer job. Want to roll up a new character, or would you prefer to figure a motivation for this one to actually be part of the game?"

 

[KYRON45]

What if some of the PCs haven't been around the entire time while others have? If they all advance at the same time at your whim, that's not fair to the (relative) veterans.

Level 1 in particular is known for sometimes having lots of character turnover.

I prefer to have the party at the same level. Unless they choose to not be. Sometimes it's fun to have a less powerful party member for dramatic purposes. Sometimes not so much.
It's not necessarily my whim. Save a kid from a well, stop the wolves from eating the farmers sheep, deliver the thing to the guy, stop the kobolds from setting fire to the crops....that's a level. Shopping for stuff, whittling yard ornaments, arguing about which bard is the best....not a level.

 

[Clint_L]

What if some of the PCs haven't been around the entire time while others have? If they all advance at the same time at your whim, that's not fair to the (relative) veterans.

Level 1 in particular is known for sometimes having lots of character turnover.

Why is it not fair? How are you defining fair? What's it to another player if the new player starts at the same level as the party? Does that invalidate the fun that was had at previous games?