Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Markn" data-source="post: 2993602" data-attributes="member: 21827">Sorry to jump in (and in some part this message is not related to the current discussion that is going on) but this is in response to the original post of extending the "sweet spot" of D&D.I think there are two ways of extending the sweet spot.  One is campaign design, the other is rules/mechanics/options in the game.For the first part, I really feel that the original dungeons and dragons (with the basic, expert, companion, master and immortal boxed sets) had one of the best campaign designs ever created.  Levels 1 - 3 were dungeon crawls, levels 4 - 13 ( I can't remember the exact level breakup so don't quote me on this part) were more dungeons/outdoor adventure, levels 14 - 20 were about attaining land and making a difference in the world, levels 21 - 28 were about making a bigger difference in the world and levels 29 - 36 were about becomming imortal (among other things).  The elegance of this system was that a DM had a starting and stopping point for each phase of the campaign.  Challenges seen on lower level were vastly different from higher levels.  It kept the whole campaign fresh during each stage and it tested PC's in ever aspect of their character.  It wasn't just focused on combat, it wasn't just focused on roleplaying, it wasn't just focused on the players being at the bottome of the power level, etc.  In and of itself, it allowed the DM to change the campaign play and challenges he threw at them.  During each "campaign phase" the PCs were at the bottom of the power level and rise to the top of that power level.  For example, in levels 14 -20 they would buy a piece of land, build it up, deal with other owners more powerful than them and then eventually reach equal power with those other land owners.  Then in the next "campaign phase" they would have to work with those same land owners to deal with threats on a country scale and deal with other political issues as well until they mastered that aspect.In a nutshell, the campaign design allowed the character to reach a certain power level, then put them in a different environment where they were at the bottom of the power level and had to work their way back to the top again and so on and so on.  This made for a sweet spot at all levels of play due to the inherent no power - gain power - top of the power - repeat cycle.DISCLAIMER - The problem with the above mentioned system is that not all groups wanted to attain similar goals and it would meet everyones playing style.  But lets ignore that for now shall we?!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Now for the mechanic aspect of the game.  One issue I run into with higher level games is the amount of time required to prepare the game as a DM, particularly if I want a villain who is an NPC and not a monster.  I could spend 2 - 3 hours designing a session and have the PCs fly through the encounter based on something I hadn't anticipated in 10 minutes.  To me that is an issue.  The flip side however is that in 3/3.5 we are experiencing higher level game play more than at any other incarnation of D&D ever before.  This, then, is a testement to the current rules of the game in that they have already extended the sweet spot more than ever before.  While I have no idea what could be done I like some of the suggestions mentioned by other posters in the thread.  One thing I do think needs to be done is reduce the buffs.  High level buff management is insane (both on the DM and player side).  I think it should be useful up to and including mid level play but beyond that it becomes a real bear to keep track of.Anyway, that is my 2cp.</blockquote>

Verification