Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 9287447" data-attributes="member: 2067">This makes me wonder about the disconnect between the progression math and the player psychology.Number Go Up is tried and true game design for progression, but what if D&D focused a bit more on horizontal growth instead of vertical growth? That is, you get new abilities that are about the same power level more than you get new abilities that are more powerful. For the fighter, it's like you get more magic weapons, but each weapon is still only adding 1d8 damage. More magic armor, but it's adding resistances or giving new ways to impose disadvantage on the attack rolls. Same power level, just more options for it.Maybe we still have the Number Go Up, but it's big jumps. You get an entire tier or 5 levels at a time or something that really makes you feel like you're part of a new world. Your resistances become immunities, for instance. Your 1d8's become 2d10's. But then maybe you plateau there for a few levels. And you don't get those just from XP accumulation, but from big, momentous events. Like, if these could tie to resolving a PC's personal conflicts you could be very Shonen about it, where having an emotional breakthrough suddenly lets you punch out the villain who was beyond your ability just a few minutes ago. Or you could tie it to treasure for a dungeon crawl vibe (it's not just a +1 sword, it's a +5 sword!). Or you can tie it to slaying monsters for a bit of that old XP-for-killing-monsters vibe, but it'd be like, SLAYING A DRAGON or DESTROYING A LICH, not just bopping your 5th orc on the head.I wonder if that would allow DMs to give progression when it "felt right" (like when the party was getting bored), rather than linking it tightly to play time. You could speed run a 1-20 game in like 4 encounters. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I guess the central idea I'm exploring there is, how important is vertical progression, especially over time, and especially in comparison to horizontal progression? Does Number need to Go Up as incrementally or as consistently as it does? Is there better or worse rates? Does it vary between groups? 5e today has a pretty well-assumed pace, and some built-in vertical/horizontal transitions...is it working well? Could it work better or be more flexible or more impactful?</blockquote>

Verification