D&D 5E Are DMs getting lazy?

[Mallus]

Re: level advancement & treasure in older D&D/AD&D - this really depends on what you use for your baseline assumptions. If you do what a lot of people did --ie use the tournament modules that were adapted and published for home campaign play -- leveling was quicker, because they contained a *lot* of treasure & magic. If you use the tables in the back of the DMG as your guide, your results will be different (though I should note, the tables in the back of the DMG don't produce the, ahem, wealth density found in the classic AD&D published adventures, up to and including the magic item load-outs found in your average pre-gen PC).

For my (somewhat) recent foray back into AD&D, I used *parts of* a few classic AD&D modules, and that yielded a significant amount of cool bling and heaps of money. In 2.5 years the party went from levels 2-3 to 8-9. Which proved to be a satisfactory amount of advancement, even for a group that had played 4e and 3e as their previous long-term campaigns.

 

[Mallus]

Meant to respond to these earlier...

I probably should have said "The *dominance* of Adventure Paths" since I don't mind their existence but rather don't like how they have edged out shorter, episodic adventures.

AP's do seem to have eclipsed other forms of published adventure, haven't they? Though there's still an active community producing & publishing older-style, site-based, non-AP modules out there in the OSR-sphere.

Adventure Path-style adventures (starting with the first one, Dragonlance) are popular because (in my opinion and in my experience as a publisher) the majority of customers who purchase them are reading rather than playing them.

I think this has to be true. The sheer number of hours it would take to play through the amount of content a company like Paizo produces means their products are mainly being read by their customers -- well, their subscribers, at any rate.

It took one of my groups about 2 years to finish Kingmaker -- and that's with a abridged version of the endgame necessitated by the DM getting a teaching position in another state.

 

[Zardnaar]

Advancement could be semi-fast, yes, but the parties tended to be much bigger if you include henchmen and also summoned monsters reducing the experience per character in combat. I personally didn't get to play many modules, and my DM would roll on the tables and we'd seldom get much treasure. Not only that, but it was very hard to find where treasure was hidden, and it was often badly trapped. Most of the time we were playing at high level, too, where each level took much more time. I included that in my estimate.

Well this was was a recent 5 man party and we played Horror on the Hill and ToEE with D&D clones (that ads TSR era xp rates). Advancement was not that slow or 1 level every 5 adventures. We went through levles 2-4 with 1 adventure.

 

[Hussar]

You could also look at the GDQ series of modules, which were intended to be played back to back, and see that advancement is nowhere near as slow as Sir A is claiming. Or the A1-4 Slavelords modules. Or Dragonlance. The idea that I would have to do 10 000 fights to hit name level is pretty exaggerated. None of those modules feature 100 combats, yet, you are presumed to gain about 1 level per module.

 

[SirAntoine]

Don't believe what Hussar wrote, or shidaku or neonchameleon.

 

[SirAntoine]

You could also look at the GDQ series of modules, which were intended to be played back to back, and see that advancement is nowhere near as slow as Sir A is claiming. Or the A1-4 Slavelords modules. Or Dragonlance. The idea that I would have to do 10 000 fights to hit name level is pretty exaggerated. None of those modules feature 100 combats, yet, you are presumed to gain about 1 level per module.

Consider yourself reported.

 

[SirAntoine]

Well this was was a recent 5 man party and we played Horror on the Hill and ToEE with D&D clones (that ads TSR era xp rates). Advancement was not that slow or 1 level every 5 adventures. We went through levles 2-4 with 1 adventure.

I don't think anything I've said should have pushed anyone's buttons.

 

[Mallus]

Consider yourself reported.

You want to report someone for posting facts? That's... novel.

 

[SirAntoine]

Mallus should be reported, too. It's not that he is wrong, which he of course is, it's that he is trying to foster resentment and animosity.

Any time you feel like trying to mock others, stop yourself and either make no comment or a positive and constructive one.

 

[billd91]

You could also look at the GDQ series of modules, which were intended to be played back to back, and see that advancement is nowhere near as slow as Sir A is claiming. Or the A1-4 Slavelords modules. Or Dragonlance. The idea that I would have to do 10 000 fights to hit name level is pretty exaggerated. None of those modules feature 100 combats, yet, you are presumed to gain about 1 level per module.

Yeah, advancement may have been slower than 3e in a number of ways, but 10,000 fights or one level every 2 years really has no basis in any published version of D&D.