5E Adventures - Levels and page count

ad_hoc

Hero
I have seen people complain about levels to cost ratio for Curse of Strahd in multiple places now.

Something along the lines of previous adventures being 1-15 for the same cost as the current 1-10.

This is very odd to me. I find that there is too little content in the current adventures for the level count. Levelling up characters quicker isn't a better value.

I would much rather have a more detailed adventure with more options for the players than at the extreme just a bunch of monsters to grind exp, or perhaps even worse milestones every short chapter just to get the level count in (HotDQ looking at you).

Page count is also along the same lines. I care a lot more about the quality of the content than how much of it there is.

If you feel differently, care to explain in more detail? I don't get it.
 

Bawylie

A very OK person
Helpful way to understand it -

If there is nothing to know, praise or complain about, people will pick anything at all on which to lavish praise, or deride as the very end of civilization.

$49.99? How will I feed my children?

10 levels? How will my children survive epic dangers?

Ravenloft? Thank Strahd! We're saved!
 

Ath-kethin

Explorer
I'm actually disappointed the level range is so broad; they said we'd get a shorter adventure, but I don't really feel that going 1-10 instead of 1-15 really fits the spirit of "shorter adventure."

Personally, the value of this adventure to me is exactly the same as the previous ones: basically none, because I don't want a campaign, I want an adventure.

Unlike the previous ones, I might actually end up buying this one anyway, once it is available for half or so price - depending on how easily it can be inserted into my actual campaign.
 

Croesus

Visitor
I find that there is too little content in the current adventures for the level count. Levelling up characters quicker isn't a better value.
I've noticed this too. Lost Mine of Phandelver worked out about right, but in running Princes of the Apocalypse, I've noticed that the PCs are having a very difficult time reaching the levels they're assumed to reach before getting to certain areas. I've been consistently boosting XP awards for story and such just to keep them in the ballpark, even after adding a number of additional encounters and quests.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
I have seen people complain about levels to cost ratio for Curse of Strahd in multiple places now.

Something along the lines of previous adventures being 1-15 for the same cost as the current 1-10.

This is very odd to me.
That is very odd to me too, because if I'm understanding you correctly, people are complaining that they're spending the same amount but aren't going up as much in levels?

That's baffling to me because whether or not I go up 1 level or 20 is irrelevant to how much time I actually spend playing. And to me, that's what is important when it comes to cost. I don't want to spend the same amount of $ on a product that I spend 25 hours with as one that I spent 100 hours with. I can have fun playing the game at any level. I cannot have fun playing the game if I'm not actually playing it.

By that logic, I could charge $39 for a five page book, as long as it gets you from level 1 to 15.
 

dave2008

Legend
I'm actually disappointed the level range is so broad; they said we'd get a shorter adventure, but I don't really feel that going 1-10 instead of 1-15 really fits the spirit of "shorter adventure."

Personally, the value of this adventure to me is exactly the same as the previous ones: basically none, because I don't want a campaign, I want an adventure.

Unlike the previous ones, I might actually end up buying this one anyway, once it is available for half or so price - depending on how easily it can be inserted into my actual campaign.
Well, when you reduce the level spread by 33%, it is definitely shorter. Maybe not as short as you want, but it is hard to argue that it is not shorter. And if WotC employee's are to be believed, the next AP will be even shorter. SO at least you have something to look forward too. Unfortunately they have not provided any indication that they will make APs that span 1-20 to cover the other end of the spectrum.
 

Ath-kethin

Explorer
Well, when you reduce the level spread by 33%, it is definitely shorter. Maybe not as short as you want, but it is hard to argue that it is not shorter. And if WotC employee's are to be believed, the next AP will be even shorter. SO at least you have something to look forward too. Unfortunately they have not provided any indication that they will make APs that span 1-20 to cover the other end of the spectrum.
That is true. And I guess my overall issue is with the leveling rate in 5e in general - I think it's way too fast.

I understand the WotC strategy; they made the leveling hyper-fast so that people can play through a full campaign in six months. It's actually brilliant; it helps reestablish the sense of community from the early days, when everybody played the same (limited number of) modules. It also helps guarantee that people will move through the modules quickly enough, and be done with them in time, to be ready for the next one that comes out.

But it's not for me. I like spending months to years developing characters, and playing the same character for a long, long time. Luckily my players agree and that's why we don't use XP at all. They just level up once in a while when it makes sense for the story. This way, I can run them through multiple adventures, they feel their characters developing, and we all win.

That said, I don't know why the campaigns don't go to 20th level. I thought that was the intention, way back when, but of the official published stuff I have only played Lost Mine of Phandelver, so I don't really know how they work.
 

ad_hoc

Hero
I'm actually disappointed the level range is so broad; they said we'd get a shorter adventure, but I don't really feel that going 1-10 instead of 1-15 really fits the spirit of "shorter adventure."
Yeah, I was hoping for 5-10. Though, as has been touched on, the early levels are covered by minor things the PCs can do in town.

Levels 1 and 2 aren't full levels in 5e. They typically only take a session each. My issue is when level 5-10 are assumed by APs to take only a session or two each.

My sweet spot would be 4-5 sessions per level between 5 and 11.
 

Mistwell

Legend
I've noticed this too. Lost Mine of Phandelver worked out about right, but in running Princes of the Apocalypse, I've noticed that the PCs are having a very difficult time reaching the levels they're assumed to reach before getting to certain areas. I've been consistently boosting XP awards for story and such just to keep them in the ballpark, even after adding a number of additional encounters and quests.
Stop calculating XP to the last point. Just tell your players they've leveled after you feel like it's time to level. They won't notice, and your quality of life as a DM will increase.
 

RSIxidor

Explorer
Leveling on plot points doesn't work for everyone but if PCs aren't leveling fast enough, at the very least, increase XP they're getting to compensate.

I'm intrigued by seeing that the original writers of Ravenloft have apparently been running this for friends and family every year since they originally wrote it and are back on board for this one. To me, that says we might get quite a lot in the way of notes and information that may flesh out the page count quite nicely.

I'm also expecting some new monsters. I'm not expecting new player options but you never know.
 
That is very odd to me too, because if I'm understanding you correctly, people are complaining that they're spending the same amount but aren't going up as much in levels?

That's baffling to me because whether or not I go up 1 level or 20 is irrelevant to how much time I actually spend playing. And to me, that's what is important when it comes to cost. I don't want to spend the same amount of $ on a product that I spend 25 hours with as one that I spent 100 hours with. I can have fun playing the game at any level. I cannot have fun playing the game if I'm not actually playing it.

By that logic, I could charge $39 for a five page book, as long as it gets you from level 1 to 15.
"You fight a duck. Gain a level!

The party will need to put on their snowboots. When they do, they gain a level!

If any member of the party farts IRl, the party gains a magic sword and 10 levels!"
 
The old school modules were released at varying party power levels - eg 'an adventure for 4-5 characters of levels 5-7'.

I'd rather see something more like this rather than a series of start overs to accommodate the 1-15 or 1-10 or 1-anything paradigm. That implies each AP should be a self contained campaign, without the ability to port characters across easily, if at all.

I'd like to see more of a series of 'modules' of varying level needs, myself, so the heroes of Cragmaw Castle can grow through lots of different scenarios, all iconic to 5e.
 

akr71

Adventurer
I haven't been keeping that up to date, but I thought the page count on Strahd was close to POTA & OOTA. I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the fewer levels were to leave room to further detail the 'new setting' everyone has been clamoring for.

Buy the book, play the adventure, then make up your own Revenloft stories. Just my 2cp
 

Psikerlord#

Explorer
I'm actually disappointed the level range is so broad; they said we'd get a shorter adventure, but I don't really feel that going 1-10 instead of 1-15 really fits the spirit of "shorter adventure."

Personally, the value of this adventure to me is exactly the same as the previous ones: basically none, because I don't want a campaign, I want an adventure.

Unlike the previous ones, I might actually end up buying this one anyway, once it is available for half or so price - depending on how easily it can be inserted into my actual campaign.
Yeah I will never buy such a long adventure. I did buy ruins of phandelver, admittedly, but at least that's only 1-4 or so. My preference is short adventures with a level range of about 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12. I don't really play above 12th level, all gets too gonzo.
 

Quartz

Adventurer
Yes. I've said it before, but I want mini-paths. Adventures that take the players through just a few levels
 

Mark CMG

Creative Mountain Games
I'm actually disappointed the level range is so broad; they said we'd get a shorter adventure, (. . .)

From them directly? Or, maybe they figured this new initiative would garner many short adventures (which is highly likely).
 

Ath-kethin

Explorer
Yes. I've said it before, but I want mini-paths. Adventures that take the players through just a few levels
I suppose in fairness, it's likely the old-timers who are really clamoring for this - and we're also the ones most comfortable with just taking older adventures and adapting them. As a few people pointed out quite a while back, we have no real need for new adventures; just based on the TSR stuff, I have enough adventure material to play for longer than I will live.

It is also seeming like WotC is intending for the AL stuff to fill the "shorter adventure" gap, while still relating to the main storyline. That's just an observation/supposition on my part.
 

Ath-kethin

Explorer
From them directly? Or, maybe they figured this new initiative would garner many short adventures (which is highly likely).
Mike Mearls on Twitter, July 2015:

"@michael_natale it's tricky, because shorter adventures are hard to make work in book and game stores. we have some ideas, though."

I could have sworn there have been other mentions too, but I can't find them now.
 

Advertisement

Top