D&D changes every 5 levels by design...

[Sammael]

I think that the second iterative attack makes a whole lot more difference than the third. Namely, it marks the point where the fighter can no longer move and use all his attacks in the same round, but, rather, he has to start making choices in combat.

 

[Desdichado]

Neat stuff, and makes sense.

My players hate me for always starting them off at low level though

My players hate me for refusing to run anything over about 10th level because I don't like that feel of the game anymore.

That is an interesting post. I guess I kinda just assumed that the progression was a historical anomaly, not something that was built in by design.

It's also my experience that the feel can change dramatically with just very minor house rules on, say, hit point accumulation per level or something like that.

 

[Mouseferatu]

D&D of any stripe should do what the DM wants it to do. If the game is gritty all the way up to 9th level, then that's the DM's prerogative.

It's all in how you run your campaign.

This does not negate the truth of the original assessment.

Yes, D&D can do whatever the DM wants it to. I've seen super-heroic low-level games, and gritty high-level ones. The fact that the system has such flexibility does not necessarily change the fact that the game was/could have been designed with something akin to the aforementioned breakdown in mind. In other words, while you can do X with the system, it may indeed be easier to do Y with the system. That doesn't make Y better than X; just closer to the initial design philosophy.

Personally, I find the "change every 5 levels" assessment rather illuminating. I may choose to ignore it in some campaigns, but it will definitely at least get me to think more thoroughly about the effects I want from a given campaign, and how best to achieve them.

 

[T. Foster]

The idea of D&D being "four, four, four games in one!" is cool (even if I have no desire to play two of them) but is at least somewhat at odds with the standard "20 level campaign-arc" model -- the idea that you're not supposed to just pick the one game you like and stick with it, but are instead expected to play all four, in order. This is likely to be just as unsatisfying for the guy who wants to play wuxia-style but has to wait around for 6 months to a year playing "grim n' gritty" before he can start having fun as it is for me, the guy who was enjoying the grim n' gritty game but now find myself stuck playing wuxia-style as my ostensible "reward." The game should, IMO, include more advice (and/or alternate rules) to facilitate narrower one, two, or three-style campaign-arcs for those who prefer them.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

My players hate me for refusing to run anything over about 10th level because I don't like that feel of the game anymore.

Me too.

I am sure I'm just repeating what I said in the Sweet Spot thread... I don't really care what "level" the game assigns to any particular power level. It's just a number.

What matters to me is

a) what powers are available to the characters over the arc of their career

b) how much real-world game time is spent getting there

and

c) how do I give the players the "I leveled!" feel (aka powering up) at a consistent and satisfying rate over the course of that real-world time.

If I were to redesign D&D to be "ONE! ONE! ONE! Sweet Spot Game!" those would be the the design criteria.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

And another things-- also probably mentioned in the Sweet Spot.

To me, this illustrates the fundamental flaw with Adventure Paths as we currently know them:

I believe that most people (yes, most) are going to be unhappy with about 50% of the content. It's going to drag down the way any given AP is viewed, as a success or not. I think an AP that focused on extended play through 5 or 10 levels, instead of 20, while perhaps missing a certain portion of the market, would overall be considered a much greater success by its target market.

 

[kyloss]

" Think of RPGs as food. D&D 3.x offers nearly every flavor of ice cream available. But if you like cake, you should look elsewhere."

But what if I want an Ice cream cake , or birthday cake flavored ice cream?

 

[buzz]

I think an AP that focused on extended play through 5 or 10 levels, instead of 20, while perhaps missing a certain portion of the market, would overall be considered a much greater success by its target market.

I think WotC is exploring this, given releases like Red Hand of Doom and the Expedition series.

Anyway, I also think it's good idea simply because mega-campaigns like Shackled City seem to be asking for a huge commitment from the play-group. E.g., my Saturday crew is playing Age of Worms; given our typical schedule, we estimated that it'll take us three years or so to play through the whole thing. And this leaves aside the fact that the odds we'll stick it out for that long are pretty slim.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I think WotC is exploring this, given releases like Red Hand of Doom and the Expedition series.

I knew there was a reason I felt like a genius again today.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Disagree. D&D of any stripe should do what the DM wants it to do. If the game is gritty all the way up to 9th level, then that's the DM's prerogative.

It's all in how you run your campaign.

I agree with the intent of the statement.

The actuality of it however, does not hold up to 'official' support.

If you want to run a low-powered, grim and gritty game and use prepublished module and official source material, you're going to be prunning a lot of material, adding rules to compensate for the lack of magical gear, etc...