Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 3396880" data-attributes="member: 467">Thinking more on this, I think one place where you see a great deal of difference between editions is levelling.  All versions of D&D have been class and level, and all versions made levelling the ultimate "carrot".  However, each version has treated levelling in a different manner.In B/X or -- to a lesser extent -- RC D&D, levelling was one half of the equation.  You found items to make you more capable, and you gained levels to make you more capable, in pretty much equal measure.  There was relatively little "benefit" in levelling -- better THAC0, better saves, more spells, etc... --  and those benefits came more slowly (in both XP required and between levels).  Any other special benefits you gained were gained through play and at the discretion of the DM.  yet, when you levelled, you still got better, more competent, more confident.  In that version of D&D, your opposition didn't necessarily inflate as you levelled.  High powered dragons still only had 20 hit dice, and fighting orcs was still viable at level 10 or 12.  There was no "sweet spot", nor were there "dead levels" as all levels were equally "dead".  With the inclusion of a progression of skills and weapon choices, Companion/RC D&D changed this somewhat.In AD&D, things changed a little.  Levelling was still slow, and most benefits were standard and gradual, but it added the component of increased and varied abilities over levels for most classes.  Suddenly, the process of levelling had high points and low points and "dead levels" were introduced.  Moreover, the nature of the design, where those extrabenefits for levelling usually finished out by 10th level or so, changed the view toward higher levels.  Suddenly, levels past 10 were sort of pointless -- a few hit points, minor save increases, minor combat capability increase -- and many people didn't bother rising to 20th or 36th level anymore.  That's a major shift in paradigm and in the way the game plays.  2nd Edition did more of this, and also included proficiencies as an attempt to fill the dead levels.  but extra proficiencies weren't really enough to make post level-10 advancement seem worth the huge XP costs.D&D 3.x started out a lot like AD&D in the levelling aspect, but more.  Every level gave you "proficiencies" (skill points) and the classes were designed to provide the same ind of typical development over (mostly) the low to mid levels.  Levelling was also faster, mainly because the designer belived -- and this is probably true -- that levelling is fun and drives people to play more.  Suddenly you could reach level 20 in under a year, and gain benefits at most of those levels.  More recently, there has been a push to completely eradicate the "dead level" and make sure that each step along the way provides incentive for the player to push onward, as if playing the game was not, of itself, enough reward.How does levelling affect the overall gameplay experience?  In B/X, levelling was something that happened, with time and effort and dedication and luck, and was secondary to the game itself.  there was a lofty goal -- level 36 -- that wasn't appreciably better than level 18 or 9, even, but it was there nonetheless.  Acquiring levels mattered less, and the game mattered more.  Moreover, things that happened outside levelling -- dominions and strongholds and war and calamity -- were bigger and better than levels.  The game was geared toward the "farm boy to (often quite literally) god" paradigm and that shaped not just the adventures but the worlds in which those adventures were played.AD&D essentially killed high level play by introducing many carrots early on and removing them later.  Worlds no longer included the truly mighty.  Kings and Tyrants were only 8th or 12th level, and that meant player characters never needed to be greater than that to be the greatest in the world.  if you did rise above, it was assumed that you were to go plane hopping.  Contextually, the PCs' home world was reduced to a pit stop on the way to "real fun" for those that enjoyed high level play.  For those that didn't, the world was a pler, more mundane place without veritable gods walking the earth.In 3e, to level is the drive.  There is no system for building nations and armies.  The planes, even, can be visited at any time almost, and certainly by 7th or 9th level.  The push is for the next carrot, and if the class your in doesn't provide a carrot, you switch to another class or a PrC or a substitution level.  Strangely, there's also an illusionary cap -- 20th level -- there, where the idea is that "everything changes" when that point is reached.  I say illusionary, becaue nothing actually changes.  Feats, skills, PrCs, class abilities all remain essentially the same once you hit "Epic", but by caling it "Epic" the designer have created an artificial barrier.  there's no functional difference between a 19th and a 21st level character, but because there is a label there, suddenly the worlds must choose -- is this an Epic world, or not.  Games and campaigns assume they must make the same choice.All in all, the changes to levelling -- how it is done and what it means -- have done much to make each edition of Dungeons and Dragons into its own game, each with its own strengths and preferred play styles.</blockquote>

Verification