Advancement even faster?

[Nahat Anoj]

Often described as "playing".

Alright, fair enough.

The thing is that playing, and -- for me, particularly -- running D&D is fun. But I don't mean, when I say "running", "refereeing battlesbetween PCs and monsters/NPCs". I mean running the game -- presenting scenarios, challenges, puzzles and circumstances that make the players egaged and have fun. It seems that with 4E the definition of D&D is continuing to evolve -- as all things are wont to do, I suppose -- and therefore hte definition of "fun" is evolving. I am just not sure I will consider the new definition equivalent to the old, and I therefore I feel me and my "ilk" are on Darwin's chopping block.

Nah, I think most of the stuff you like will stick around. And honestly, I am now thinking that characters will tend to advance more rapidly per session because fights will get over with more quickly. Not because they're making it "easier." But, I don't know really know.

 

[Jhaelen]

And honestly, I am now thinking that characters will tend to advance more rapidly per session because fights will get over with more quickly. Not because they're making it "easier." But, I don't know really know.

I don't think so. Actually, someone from WotC said combat will take about as long as in 3rd.ed. The key difference is that combats will typically involve a larger number of opponents.

Someone from WotC also mentioned that the faster advancement rate meant a level-up would occur after 2-3 sessions. Actually, that's pretty close to the advancement rate I am seeing in my 3rd.ed. campaign. I'd say they currently advance after 3-4 sessions, which happens to be exactly right for my taste.

 

[Reynard]

Nah, I think most of the stuff you like will stick around.

Some of the stuff I like went out with 3.5 -- race/class combo limits (I am not as big a fan of level limits, tho), fast and abstract combat, strong character class archetypes and slow advancement, as examples -- and some things they have already said will be leaving in 4E -- save or die effects and vancian magic (nearly) come to mind. Plus, there's a whole list of thinsg they are adding in that don't sound good to me -- action points as the default, even easier multiclassing, cool powers for one and all, etc...

And honestly, I am now thinking that characters will tend to advance more rapidly per session because fights will get over with more quickly. Not because they're making it "easier." But, I don't know really know.

The problem isn't why they are adavancing so quickly, it is simply that they are -- that advancement in level and the acquisition of cookies (be they class abilities or gear or whatever) is more important than the play of the game itself. Or rather, that advancement is becoming -- obviously because the target audience deems it so -- as important as all that other stuff I was talking about.

I'm just frustrated because I am no longer in D&D's target demographic, I guess.

 

[Fifth Element]

So, they are going for even faster level advancement? I assume this is because levelling is considered the primary reward for sitting down at the table for 4 to 8 hours. This irritates me. I thought that playing was the primary reward for sitting down at the table for 4 to 8 hours.

back when there was the "Dead Levels" article on Wizards' site, I realized that something was happening to the game that i didn't like -- namely, that it was catering to a sense of entitlement rather than a sense of fun. This most recent snippet reagrding 4e has suggested to me that such is true for the new edition, and reaffirms my decision to just go back to running 1E and play the D&D that I want to play.

If leveling is fun, why should people not have fun leveling? I tried not to think "BadWrongFun" when I read this post, but it was difficult. If you don't like the faster advancement, just slow it down.

 

[Lanefan]

If leveling is fun, why should people not have fun leveling? If you don't like the faster advancement, just slow it down.

There's a bigger question here: at what point during the 30+-year evolution of the game did level-bumping become the most significant reward for play? And, if it's slowed down (which I think it should be, drastically) what other "rewards" could replace it? Or, does there always need to *be* a reward other than enjoyment of playing the game itself?

Lanefan

 

[S'mon]

Sounds like they're going for levelling at 3/2 the 3e speed, or about once per 8 hours of play (2 4 hr sessions). I would likely need to at least halve XP awards for my game, I prefer levelling about 1/5 sessions.

 

[Fifth Element]

There's a bigger question here: at what point during the 30+-year evolution of the game did level-bumping become the most significant reward for play?

I don't think anyone has demonstrated this to be true. Sure, it's the most significant reward in the rules, but you can't codify the fun that comes simply from playing the game.

And, if it's slowed down (which I think it should be, drastically) what other "rewards" could replace it? Or, does there always need to *be* a reward other than enjoyment of playing the game itself?

It is part of the "reward" of playing D&D. It is part of playing D&D. I don't think you can legitimately separate the two.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

There's a bigger question here: at what point during the 30+-year evolution of the game did level-bumping become the most significant reward for play?

For some people, 1974.

 

[Reynard]

I don't think anyone has demonstrated this to be true. Sure, it's the most significant reward in the rules, but you can't codify the fun that comes simply from playing the game.

The issue, though, is that the speed of advancement and the benefits thereof have both increased dramatically, since 3.0 appeared, through 3.5 and apparently in to 4E. Assuming there's an "optimal" level of fun one can have sitting at the table, the greater and greater focus on levelling and level-benefits as a portion of the fun suggests that gaining a level and its associated benefits compose a bigger potion of that "optimal" fun.

Or, put more plainly, the fact that levelling happens faster with more stuff is pretty good evidence that it is more important to having fun playing D&D than it used to be.

It is part of the "reward" of playing D&D. It is part of playing D&D. I don't think you can legitimately separate the two.

One shots?

 

[megamania]

Fun is important but many players equate that as leveling up and becoming more powerful.


I am fine with the rate of leveling up in 3.5 until about 12th level. Then it seems to take forever. The reason? It takes longer to resolve battles, the likelyhood of being taken down is greater as specialization becomes a bigger factor. The creatures one faces tends to be more dangerous.


I wonder where they are making the leveling up shorter or easier? Later levels or throughout the advancement?