D&D General Breadth vs Depth: Is D&D designed the wrong way around?

[EzekielRaiden]

I would definitely prefer a game focused on low to mid level play (though I think my ideal approach would actually be something like 20 levels of customization with 10 current levels worth of power scaling).

I think the depth/breadth framing here could actually be reversed, though. In my mind, having more levels in the game is adding breadth, while improving a more limited range of levels is adding depth.

Why would more levels, but fewer classes and emphasis on long-term progression, be "breadth"? Why would a larger stable of smaller, more focused classes be "depth"?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, this what I do. Make the game the way I want it.

I do like your ideas in the context of a new game though @EzekielRaiden . Big fan of the BECMI model.

Only if this "new game" is still explicitly called D&D (albeit possibly with a similar "Basic vs Advanced" distinction.) Not calling it D&D would be the kiss of death.

 

[Amrûnril]

Why would more levels, but fewer classes and emphasis on long-term progression, be "breadth"? Why would a larger stable of smaller, more focused classes be "depth"?

It sounds like you're thinking of depth in terms of interesting decision space as a given character progresses, whereas I'm thinking of in terms of interesting decision space at the level the players are experiencing at a given point in time. That is, you only have ten levels of play to move through or choose between, but each of those levels is a more refined, in-depth experience than the corresponding level in the current game.

 

[Pedantic]

It sounds like you're thinking of depth in terms of interesting decision space as a given character progresses, whereas I'm thinking of in terms of interesting decision space at the level the players are experiencing at a given point in time. That is, you only have ten levels of play to move through or choose between, but each of those levels is a more refined, in-depth experience than the corresponding level in the current game.

If the scope of the decision space isn't going to change, what is the argument for a character level progression system in the first place?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Only if this "new game" is still explicitly called D&D (albeit possibly with a similar "Basic vs Advanced" distinction.) Not calling it D&D would be the kiss of death.

Unless its not made by WotC. Then you call it whatever you want. That's my vote, and its far more achievable anyway.

 

[Maxperson]

Your problem is that you are assuming those are independent events. They aren't. At the absolute least, they have your active interest making it happen, not to mention the "people tend to game with like-minded people" effect. That's kind of a glaring hole in your logic here...

I'm not assuming. They WERE independent events. There was a reason that I pointed out that many of them were people I found at conventions or on a board at a game store. I never once went into those games asking what level they play until. They simply did it independently of me and I had no prior knowledge with which to make a biased decision.

 

[MGibster]

If even 5% of players reach high level, that's still millions. They should keep it so that those of us who do play to 20 can have fun at high levels.

It makes more sense to me for WotC to put more effort into the parts of the game 95% of the players use and less effort into the parts that only 5% are interested in.

Would this mean actually making levels 1-2 playable or would they still be secret 0 levels and now we only have 8 levels to play in?

For my second 5th edition campaign, one of my players wanted to start out at level 3 because that's when classes become "mechanically interesting." Since it was my second campaign, I wanted to start at 1st to get a better feel for the system, but you both have a valid point. Maybe part of the problem is WotC is trying to balance against multi-classing?

I am one of those folks who prefers D&D from levels 5-10. Any higher and I start become less and less interested. Just a preference.

 

[Maxperson]

It makes more sense to me for WotC to put more effort into the parts of the game 95% of the players use and less effort into the parts that only 5% are interested in.

For my second 5th edition campaign, one of my players wanted to start out at level 3 because that's when classes become "mechanically interesting." Since it was my second campaign, I wanted to start at 1st to get a better feel for the system, but you both have a valid point. Maybe part of the problem is WotC is trying to balance against multi-classing?

I am one of those folks who prefers D&D from levels 5-10. Any higher and I start become less and less interested. Just a preference.

As I said earlier, I don't at all believe that only 5% of players play 13th-20th level.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not assuming. They WERE independent events. There was a reason that I pointed out that many of them were people I found at conventions or on a board at a game store. I never once went into those games asking what level they play until. They simply did it independently of me and I had no prior knowledge with which to make a biased decision.

...They literally are not because you were a causative factor in all of them. It doesn't matter that you didn't MAKE them. The fact that you chose them is more than enough!

They cannot, under any statistically meaningful definition of "independent event," qualify as such. This is not a matter of debate. This is literally mathematical definition. Independent events must have genuinely unrelated probability. Sharing a common directly causative factor--namely, your choices and preferences--automatically disqualifies that.