D&D General Back to First Principles

[Oofta]

It very much was in 2e. In 1e levelling was slow if your DM had dropped the xp-for-gp rule, which IME many did.

And that's exactly how I like it.

It took years to get to level 10, if you ever got that far. I kind of like that slow advancement and there's nothing stopping you from doing it in any version of the game. But this is one of those areas I always seem to get outvoted, even when I DM.

 

[DND_Reborn]

FWIW, when DMing and playing in AD&D 1E or 2E, we continued to award XP for gold recovered. We did this because combat was very deadly IME and if we only awarded XP for monster/goals, it would have taken forever (even longer LOL!) to level.

I agree also parties tended to be larger, 5-8 was routine, not counting any retainers (often 1-3) or NPCs (1 or 2 maybe), all of which would count as 1/2 PCs towards removing XP from party members.

And yes, advancement did take years of game play. Two memorable campaigns:

1. a B/X => BECMI which I ran from 7th grade until 12th grade (1986-1991), going from 1st level all the way to Immortal (briefly). Now, we were kids, some things got crazy LOL, and we played for 8-10 hours pretty much every weekend, and a heck of a lot more during summers (sometimes we would meet to play for days in a row! Our record was over 80 hours, only taking breaks for meals and to travel less than an hour from my house to a one of the player's).

2. a AD&D 1E/2E hybrid from 1999 - 2004. Characters made it from 1st level to 12-15th (depending on class). College years, summers often still free (only part-time work), etc. so had the time to play an average of 6-8 hours a week (again, more during summer).

By comparison, my first 5E campaign went from 1-20 levels in about 2 years. Advancement in 5E is WAY faster. You need less XP to level and monsters are worth more in 5E (an AD&D orc was worth 15-20 xp (even with XP for gold), in 5E an orc is 100 xp). A fighter would need to kill 90 orcs or more to make 2nd level in AD&D, but only 3 to make 2nd level in 5E.

Of course, things were different "back-in-the-day". Now, with the Internet, video games, computers, etc. there is more for people (and kids of course) to do, so D&D isn't necessarily a main form of entertainment like it was for me growing up. With less time devoted to playing, people want to see advancement more quickly so they feel the "reward" of advancement often enough to make it enjoyable.

But... that is the difference, isn't it? In 5E, it seems like the reward is advancement, it prior days it was the adventure, magic items, money, etc. Just how it feels IME anyway.

 

[Zardnaar]

???

Even if you gave xp for treasure (which many didn't) you'd be hard-pressed to get three levels out of one adventure in 1e, for a few reasons:

1. There's only so many xp in the adventure and no guarantee whatsoever your party will find/earn all of them.
2. Parties in 1e were usually larger - 6 to 8 characters was typical - meaning you'd be dividing those xp more ways.
3. By 1e RAW you couldn't advance in level until you trained, which meant going back to town for some downtime.

Contrast this with, say, 4e; whose introductory adventure (KotS) was specifically intended to get you from level 1 to level 3.

I was thinking the B series. We got to level 3 in KotBL for example.

Also ToEE we were leveling almost as fast as 3E not as fast as 5E.

Copious amounts bof treasure was why. My 3E players were surprised vat the amount of loot they were getting from old adventures. Kill s ghoul that necklace was 8000gp. Frostbrand at level 5 or 6.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

First.., @GreyLord ... O_O Last time I checked there was only PDF of this, no PoD. Certainly no "Colour Hardback" option!
Still, I recommend checking Dark Dungeons anyway. It really is a nice little "retro-clone", and I actually prefer it's handling of how to determine ToHit v AC.

Second... [don's Ye Olde Grognard Helmet of Nostalgia]
Yuppers. Back in my day, it took YEARS to get to level 9...which was a heroic task! It wasn't "expected" that PC's would get to level 2, let alone level 9. I remember Gary stating (in a Dragon Article, iirc, maybe Dragon's "Sage Advice" column in it) that he would expect that a group playing weekly, for about 6 to 8 hours (a 'typical amount of time'), should take about a year. After that, about 2 levels PER YEAR of play, depending on Player 'skill' and PC Class.

That level of advancement fits perfectly in line with my experience...if a bit slow. We would play for 8 to 10 hours, sometimes twice a week. Summer vacation...skies the limit! Anyhoo... it took us about a year to get our PC's to between level 9 and 10. Then 2 levels per year. It took me 6 years of a silly amount of time to get my highest level PC ever, "Denakhan the Arch-Mage", to 20th level. The two other main PC's played by my friends were both fighters; Level 22 and Level "15" (but he DID get to level 21...then had a REALLY bad fight against a Vampire). Last we played, he was still 15th and looking for a Cleric with Restoration to get back his levels. Undead in earlier editions was like "Hardcore Mode"!

That said...the "expectations and goals" of the Players of the game has changed rather significantly over the decades. Before, and this is ALL just my experience, the "goal" of the game was to just play the game and see IF you can survive. The expectation was that you would eventually die in the attempt...the trick was to get to a level high enough where death was more of an inconvenience. Once you hit that, then it was a matter of always trying to have that "back door" from death. Of course, there WERE limits (ex: Resurrection Survival rolls, death from massive damage, Save vs. Death, Poisons where if you fail, you die, the Disintegration spell was actually "POOF! You're dead!", etc).

Todays game though? Getting to level 20 and being heroic the entire way is the expectation, not the exception. Players got upset in 1e when they lost a character that they couldn't get "raised". But, they started again and were proud of getting that PC to level 6. Now they can do it again with a new PC, level 1, and try and get farther than level 6. THAT was the "mechanical goal", for the most part. Nowadays though...a Player looses a PC and they get upset...but not because they just lost a character that couldn't get raised. It's because their expectations were not met; they EXPECTED to be able to play that PC up to level 20. But they "DM let them die", and not they have to.... start a new PC at the same level or maybe one level lower (I believe that is the general consensus and the results of many a poll I've seen asking what level a 'new' PC starts). Tell them they have to start at 1st Level, or even 3rd? Ooooohhh man! Watch out! Oh, and expect to not have Players.
[/doff's Ye Olde Grognard Helmet of Nostalgia]

Bottom line: Expectations of WHY you are playing the game and the goals of playing a character has changed drastically. I'd also say that the type of person Playing the game is also different. Probably why there is still a lot of contention between "Old School gaming" and "New School gaming". I don't see that changing for at least another couple decades until all us Old Timers finally kick the bucket and make our way to our respective Alignment-oriented Outer Plane. Personally, I'm hoping for Gladsheim...but I'll probably end up on Concordant Opposition.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[DND_Reborn]

Todays game though? Getting to level 20 and being heroic the entire way is the expectation, not the exception. Players got upset in 1e when they lost a character that they couldn't get "raised". But, they started again and were proud of getting that PC to level 6. Now they can do it again with a new PC, level 1, and try and get farther than level 6. THAT was the "mechanical goal", for the most part. Nowadays though...a Player looses a PC and they get upset...but not because they just lost a character that couldn't get raised. It's because their expectations were not met; they EXPECTED to be able to play that PC up to level 20. But they "DM let them die", and not they have to.... start a new PC at the same level or maybe one level lower (I believe that is the general consensus and the results of many a poll I've seen asking what level a 'new' PC starts). Tell them they have to start at 1st Level, or even 3rd? Ooooohhh man! Watch out! Oh, and expect to not have Players.

This was why I posted the thread about script immunity. In 5E, players "expect to win", which was never my experience in prior editions. FWIW, I have actually lost players because they felt it was unfair when their PC died or their damage resistance didn't work against the BBEG, etc.

Well said!

 

[Fenris-77]

I like B/X and B/X adjacent games. I like running them, I like playing in them. Fantasy exploration (so D&D) does play a lot differently when the PCs aren't as durable as they are in 5E, or (and) when they have less mechanical widgets to lean on. It's a big part of my enjoyment of OSR stuff generally. I also enjoy 5E, but they really aren't the same thing except in some surface level ways, at least in terms of game play and feel. That's ok too. No one is being conscripted into a game here, and people are allowed to like their own thing.

For that specifically 1984 feel I quite like B/X Essentials from Necrotic Gnome. It even has some options and whatnot to open up the Rogue and Fighter a little, if you so desire.

 

[Oofta]

This was why I posted the thread about script immunity. In 5E, players "expect to win", which was never my experience in prior editions. FWIW, I have actually lost players because they felt it was unfair when their PC died or their damage resistance didn't work against the BBEG, etc.

Well said!

Does that have anything to do with the rules of the game though? I mean, it is more difficult to accidentally kill off a PC than in early editions, but the DM still has infinite dragons. We never particularly cared for a high body count in the day, unless I tried to run an elf I don't remember many of my PCs dying.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Does that have anything to do with the rules of the game though? I mean, it is more difficult to accidentally kill off a PC than in early editions, but the DM still has infinite dragons. We never particularly cared for a high body count in the day, unless I tried to run an elf I don't remember many of my PCs dying.

I think it does, at least to some of us who obviously feel the way we do. Of course your experiences are probably different, which is fine of course.

Now, we will have to discuss the rules as designed or default. I pointed out about advancement, how XP is greater for creatures in 5E, and you need less of it. That means you will level up more quickly (again, by default). Now, of course a DM can always use other mechanics for leveling (such as X number of sessions or benchmarks or Y number of adventures), but that isn't the default design.

We've discussed how the DM can run a game as difficult or easy as they want, but again the design of 5E does make it easier. Also, as I prompted in the script immunity thread, I do agree players and their characters are "expected to succeed/win", and I have seen it in all the new players (whose first experience was with 5E) compared to the veterans in the groups I play with.

I don't mean to imply, BTW, that in the day PCs died left and right, but it happened enough. Sure, our goal then became to raise the PC if possible, but with spells like Revivify, once you reach 5th level and if you have access to it, the game changes gears and just becomes a cakewalk unless the DM purposefully acts against the design of the game.

I'd like to point out I am not saying there is anything wrong with 5E for the people who want that style of game, but for many of us it is easier to throw back to B/X, BECMI, or AD&D for a different experience.

And frankly, the "infinite dragons" argument has never held much water with me. There is a vast difference between being a hard but fair DM and a killer DM just out to wipe out the PCs.

 

[Oofta]

I think it does, at least to some of us who obviously feel the way we do. Of course your experiences are probably different, which is fine of course.

Now, we will have to discuss the rules as designed or default. I pointed out about advancement, how XP is greater for creatures in 5E, and you need less of it. That means you will level up more quickly (again, by default). Now, of course a DM can always use other mechanics for leveling (such as X number of sessions or benchmarks or Y number of adventures), but that isn't the default design.

We've discussed how the DM can run a game as difficult or easy as they want, but again the design of 5E does make it easier. Also, as I prompted in the script immunity thread, I do agree players and their characters are "expected to succeed/win", and I have seen it in all the new players (whose first experience was with 5E) compared to the veterans in the groups I play with.

I don't mean to imply, BTW, that in the day PCs died left and right, but it happened enough. Sure, our goal then became to raise the PC if possible, but with spells like Revivify, once you reach 5th level and if you have access to it, the game changes gears and just becomes a cakewalk unless the DM purposefully acts against the design of the game.

I'd like to point out I am not saying there is anything wrong with 5E for the people who want that style of game, but for many of us it is easier to throw back to B/X, BECMI, or AD&D for a different experience.

And frankly, the "infinite dragons" argument has never held much water with me. There is a vast difference between being a hard but fair DM and a killer DM just out to wipe out the PCs.

Well, I was talking about lethality/level but in my experience the game was no more lethal than it is now unless you had a killer DM. Even if the party cleric couldn't raise dead it was just a matter of going to the nearest town. Revivify just cuts down the time the PC is out of commission, it's the express delivery raise dead because not being able to play for an extended period can be boring. There used to be more "oops your dead" but I guess we always just avoided the insta-death aspects of the game. That, and we never played tournament grind-house mods. Nowadays I discuss how lethal people want the game to be, although it's never completely off the table.

Perhaps more people seem to want a low-fatality rate game than in the past, but it's not that hard to kill off PCs in 5E. Double tap and drag the body off works. Or just target the cleric first.

In any case, my 5E elf died just as quickly as any elf I've tried to play in any edition so my experience may or may not be typical. In one of my recent sessions (level 14 PCs) I came close to permanently killing a PC. It's not that hard.

 

[DND_Reborn]

In any case, my 5E elf died just as quickly as any elf I've tried to play in any edition so my experience may or may not be typical.

LOL I guess you're just cursed. Does that mean half-elves you play only die half as often?