Banishing "Sacred Cows"

[Ridley's Cohort]

From a game designer's point of view, the reason for levels is because levels and the quantum jumps in power that comes with them is a heck of a lot more exciting for players than spending individual xp, one at a time. Try getting excited about getting 2 extra hps every session. But when you get 8 hit points after 4 sessions because you 'leveled', it feels a lot more different, and it's a lot easier to get excited about. The same goes for spells, spell progression, etc.

That is just baseless rationalization IMNSHO.

I would point out as evidence the fact that levelling in 1e/2e ground to a near halt at ~8th level. I remember distinct grumblings about how it will take 6 more months to reach the next level while we were gaming every weekend. If your argument were correct, then I would argue it demonstrates a weakness of 1e/2e, not a reason for its success.

3e has actually shifted the game a strong step towards the purchase model by levelling at a vastly higher rate.

It is convenient for the DM to have large, rare quantum jumps, and a numerical value that rates a PC's power level. But there is no advantage from the players' POV there.

 

[Desdichado]

Um, no. You, in the absense of other data, may make that assumption, but that doesn't make it correct.

You see, folks like Ryan Dancey have access to actual sales data that we do not. When he says that D&D vastly outsells other games, you have a few choices: Either he's right, he's mistaken, or he's lying.

There's a lot of other industry people around here. If he were mistaken or lying, one of them should have spoken up by now.

Whether or not he, or we, understand why one game sells much more than another (a topic which we can and have had many threads about), the fact that it does is a matter of sales record.

It's still the most reasonable assumption to make, though. Since you can't refute it, all you're doing is taking petty jibes at my argument because you don't like it. I didn't say I could back it up with empirical evidence. I said it was logical and likely.

So far, you haven't even tried to dispute that. And lacking any other argument except "you don't have data for that" -- not even, "that's not a logical assumption to make" this argument is starting to get fairly stale. If you don't like my assumptions, fine. But otherwise, I don't see what you've got against them.

 

[Kibo]

Sure, if you have a very loose definition of a dungeon.

Funny thing to say, that. "Dungeon" originally ment "the lord's tower", and often refered to the keep of a castle, including the rooms, ... well cells, underneath it.

But don't take my word for it.
And while you're there....

More than a coincidence. Less than comic.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

I just want to re-state my previous (if unclear) argument hat D&D sells well more because of brand-recognition than because of any "sacred cows" like classes and levels, IMHTGO. People would probably play D&D more than any other given RPG no matter what, "market research" be damned.

Regarding the convenience of levels in determining adventures: (1) using my proposed system (in which a PC spends XP points as they are acquired), simply tally the total number of XP for the party. That's the "level" of the adventure suited to that party that's published on the back of your typical published adventure; and (2) CR's don't really work anyway, and they're certainly not any better than the old XP system of 2e, in terms of gaining XP. If anything, the new XP system is more complicated.

 

[Desdichado]

Funny thing to say, that. "Dungeon" originally ment "the lord's tower", and often refered to the keep of a castle, including the rooms, ... well cells, underneath it.

But don't take my word for it.
And while you're there....

More than a coincidence. Less than comic.

Neither. I was referring to the idea expressed in the Dungeon magazine submissions guideline that was quoted shortly thereafter, in which all adventures are reduced to "dungeons" regardless of what they are. I never meant that in reference to that specific example. Nice try on the troll-o-meter, though.

 

[Desdichado]

I just want to re-state my previous (if unclear) argument hat D&D sells well more because of brand-recognition than because of any "sacred cows" like classes and levels, IMHTGO. People would probably play D&D more than any other given RPG no matter what, "market research" be damned.

Regarding the convenience of levels in determining adventures: (1) using my proposed system (in which a PC spends XP points as they are acquired), simply tally the total number of XP for the party. That's the "level" of the adventure suited to that party that's published on the back of your typical published adventure; and (2) CR's don't really work anyway, and they're certainly not any better than the old XP system of 2e, in terms of gaining XP. If anything, the new XP system is more complicated.

Yes, when all is said and done, that's the explanation I find most likely as well. And since none of the market research (which I've only heard about second hand, obviously, not being a WotC employee) doesn't address the actual reasons why gamers do what what they do, all these arguments to try and "prove" me wrong with this misapplied quotes and such are pretty fruitless.

Y'know, it's absolutely fine if you disagree with me. No problem. I'm not trying to claim I've got a monopoly on truth here or anything like that. But for Pete's sake, just admit that you have a different opinion, folks. These "proofs" that I'm constantly getting shoved in my face are pretty tiresome at this point.

And, since this thread is already diverged on a tangent, let me address yours as well. The XP and CR system is more complex and less useful really than what we had before, except as a method of scaling one monster against another. Unless you have the "ideal" party of one rogue, one fighter, one wizard and one cleric of exactly the same level with exactly the DMG recommended equipment, then CRs are fairly meaningless. Assuming they were assigned right in the first place. Trying to factor in the realities of your party of 6 off-the-wall characters, with no divine magic because nobody wanted to play that, and less than standard magical equipment because you want a lower magic world, or whatever the details may be, is silly. You just do what you always did: read the monster descriptions, know what your party is capable of and match them up.

Trying to figure out how much experience the party gets after all that is even worse. I agree, WP, just looking at the experience level of the party would be at least as effective. I can't imagine what real utility levels add to that equation.

 

[Corinth]

Y'know, it doesn't hurt to ask those in the know what the deal is.

 

[Humanophile]

OK. Question. Why does revamped D&D have to become some point-based, freeform RPG? I think the point has been made, there's no point in D&D becoming GURPS or a Storyteller system. There are already perfectly good games out there that do just that, attempting to clone them with D&D would just make a bad mishmash.

When I play D&D, I like a simple, abstract system. Classes are simple. Levels are simple. Hit points are simple. Point-build is not simple, and two characters with the same number of points can be built to completely different power levels. You may prefer a system where the DM has to filter everything, but personally, I think most DM's prefer the option of knowing roughly what balances what, pre-tweak. And to be totally honest, I don't think that many players enjoy agonizing over where to place their points for maximum effect. If you do, great, just realize that there are already games for that.

Aside from that, though, why does every "what sacred cows should become hamburger" thread devolve into the merits of point build vs. the status quo. If I think that D&D should still be a simple, generic game, but I think that some spells should have their levels tweaked, clergy of pacifism shouldn't be trained in heavy armor, and that human-level eyesight is considered a weakness by all other creatures, where does that place me? D&D 3e isn't perfect by any means, but there are certain things I come to expect from the D&D label.

Now, is there anyone else who has less fundamental quibbles with the system?

 

[Conservative Cow]

<sigh>

Another hate Epitat against bovines.

 

[Desdichado]

OK. Question. Why does revamped D&D have to become some point-based, freeform RPG? I think the point has been made, there's no point in D&D becoming GURPS or a Storyteller system. There are already perfectly good games out there that do just that, attempting to clone them with D&D would just make a bad mishmash.

When I play D&D, I like a simple, abstract system. Classes are simple. Levels are simple. Hit points are simple. Point-build is not simple, and two characters with the same number of points can be built to completely different power levels. You may prefer a system where the DM has to filter everything, but personally, I think most DM's prefer the option of knowing roughly what balances what, pre-tweak. And to be totally honest, I don't think that many players enjoy agonizing over where to place their points for maximum effect. If you do, great, just realize that there are already games for that.

Aside from that, though, why does every "what sacred cows should become hamburger" thread devolve into the merits of point build vs. the status quo. If I think that D&D should still be a simple, generic game, but I think that some spells should have their levels tweaked, clergy of pacifism shouldn't be trained in heavy armor, and that human-level eyesight is considered a weakness by all other creatures, where does that place me? D&D 3e isn't perfect by any means, but there are certain things I come to expect from the D&D label.

Now, is there anyone else who has less fundamental quibbles with the system?

[sigh] Have you read the thread? You start off by asking a question that is pointless. Nobody that I know of has advocated going to a "point-based, free-form RPG." Point-based is already an option for chargen (if not for advancement.) My whole thing is options. Point-buys, granular advancement, different kinds of damage tracking: yes, other people do have quibbles with those kinds of things. All of these are brought up every few monthes on these threads, at least, and we're the fans of the D&D system!

So, instead of including some of the info in the DMG that I believe is wasted space that is very little used by most players, they could have included some moreof these options --instead of just point-buy chargen-- which would have gone a long way towards appeasing those who like to take an option or two from another type of game system.