Forked thread: Treasure & Advancement Rates

[Lanefan]

I know that this was discussed in the lead-up to 3e, but I haven't located the article yet. If memory serves, the WotC customer survey found that levelling as fast as that suggested by B/Q was not the norm, and this change was made specifically to address that issue. I hope to obtain a direct quote in the not-too-distant future.....but sometimes that sort of rich treasure is too well hidden to find!

Two (or three?) factors to consider here:

1. 2e (mostly) dropped x.p. for g.p. which took away the biggest source of x.p.; the various other x.p.-earning methods listed one post above were, as far as I know, downplayed or ignored by most. So, 2e was slower as played.

2. I can't give exact numbers - nor, I suspect, can anyone - but I'd hazard an educated guess that many 1e groups had either dropped x.p.-for-g.p. entirely or modified it greatly. So, on average 1e had also slowed down.

3?. I don't have the numbers handy, but after the first few levels didn't 2e require more x.p. per level to bump than 1e? If so, 2e was slower by design.

That said, bloody WotC and their marketing survey - did it not occur to them that the reason slower advancement was the norm was because play groups wanted it that way? They were "fixing" a problem that didn't exist until they fabricated it with their own survey!

Lan-"that marketing survey was one of the best ideas ever brought to the game and one of the worst things to ever happen to it"-efan

 

[Raven Crowking]

Two (or three?) factors to consider here:

1. 2e (mostly) dropped x.p. for g.p. which took away the biggest source of x.p.; the various other x.p.-earning methods listed one post above were, as far as I know, downplayed or ignored by most. So, 2e was slower as played.

2. I can't give exact numbers - nor, I suspect, can anyone - but I'd hazard an educated guess that many 1e groups had either dropped x.p.-for-g.p. entirely or modified it greatly. So, on average 1e had also slowed down.

3?. I don't have the numbers handy, but after the first few levels didn't 2e require more x.p. per level to bump than 1e? If so, 2e was slower by design.

That said, bloody WotC and their marketing survey - did it not occur to them that the reason slower advancement was the norm was because play groups wanted it that way? They were "fixing" a problem that didn't exist until they fabricated it with their own survey!

Lan-"that marketing survey was one of the best ideas ever brought to the game and one of the worst things to ever happen to it"-efan

I assume that your (1) is supposed to be "as written"? But 2e also did away with training rules, and added other potential XP sources, such as simply casting a spell.

In any event, I agree with you on one thing -- WotC took a data point, which was accurate -- and drew an inaccurate conclusion because that data point was examined using only a shallow analysis of what it meant.

It could have been that people wanted to level faster (I believe there was data to that effect), but without taking into account all of the factors that would be affected by such a change.........Well, this was a problem that required solving when I was running 3e. YMMV.

The point is that, given a complex problem, a cursory look at one or two factors simply doesn't supply enough information to draw strong conclusions. Even if you find those conclusions convincing, you should not be surprised that others do not, and you should be careful about what you consider to be "facts".

When your conclusions are about what someone expected to be the norm, and their statements contradict your conclusions, you should perhaps be doubly careful.


RC

 

[Umbran]

I do so because this is a convenient and compact example of the sophistry and intellectual dishonesty which you have filled this thread with.

It seems to me as though you are attempting be deliberately provoking with your posts in this thead, which consist AFAICT of ad hominem attacks on the basis of skimming the material. Be that as it may, if you base your conclusions on skimming the material, you are obviously no stranger to the merits of shallow analysis.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The two posters above are getting personal, and both are engaging in ad hominem argument - they are both addressing the intentions and person of the writer, rather than the content of the arguments. They are trying to dismiss each other through accusations of personal misconduct.

They will now be leaving this discussion.

If anyone else wishes to continue with such behavior, please do the moderation staff a favor - take yourself away from the boards for a few days, so we don't have to do it for you.

 

[Bullgrit]

That said, bloody WotC and their marketing survey - did it not occur to them that the reason slower advancement was the norm was because play groups wanted it that way? They were "fixing" a problem that didn't exist until they fabricated it with their own survey!

I don’t know what their marketing survey fully revealed or what their full interpretation of it was, but…

I don’t know if they were trying to fix the problem you’re assuming they think they found. Is that the same survey that showed most campaigns only lasted at most 18-24 months before dying off. (Players moved on in Real Life – school, jobs, family, etc.) I remember a designer “complaint” that with slow level advancement the players only experienced half to three-quarters of the presented game (levels 1-10 to 1-15) in the expected lifespan of a campaign.

That is, many/most players never got to play up to half of what the game offered. Sort of, “What good are levels 11-20 if no one ever actually reaches them?”

So maybe the problem they were trying to fix wasn’t “slow advancement” but rather “half the game is unplayed.” ?? – I’m presenting this as a question for consideration, not a statement of factual knowledge of the designers’ intents.

I know in my AD&D1 games, I never experienced anything over 12th level. Anything over 8th level was extremely rare – I can think of only 2 very short campaigns (less than 4 game sessions) with PCs of name level.

Maybe ironically, I’ve still never really experienced anything over 12th level, even in D&D3.

Bullgrit

 

[Stoat]

Maybe ironically, I’ve still never really experienced anything over 12th level, even in D&D3.

IME, getting much above 10th level takes a lot of time and commitment. I've done it twice in 20 years. In both cases I was the DM, the campaign lasted for more than 2 years, and the campaign withstood a lengthy period during which we only met to play every six weeks or so. Also in both cases, the game went on until the PC's were level 20. I

I know I manipulated 2E's exp system to keep the players leveling in one of those campaigns. I probably did the same in the other one as well.

 

[Lanefan]

I don’t know what their marketing survey fully revealed or what their full interpretation of it was, but…

I don’t know if they were trying to fix the problem you’re assuming they think they found. Is that the same survey that showed most campaigns only lasted at most 18-24 months before dying off.

Ayup. And why was that?

Because as a survey parameter they threw out all responses from people over a certain age (35, I think) - thus the opinion of anyone who got in during high school or college during the late 70's-early 80's WAS NOT HEARD as by 1998 they were too old!

So, anyone who had started in the glory years and was still playing - in other words, those who would most be expected to have and support long campaigns - were ignored. And from a poll I did here a while back, that includes a whole bunch of people in this forum. (side note: it's ironic this originally-3e site is largely populated by people who never got to vote for what 3e became)

(Players moved on in Real Life – school, jobs, family, etc.) I remember a designer “complaint” that with slow level advancement the players only experienced half to three-quarters of the presented game (levels 1-10 to 1-15) in the expected lifespan of a campaign.

That is, many/most players never got to play up to half of what the game offered. Sort of, “What good are levels 11-20 if no one ever actually reaches them?”

Quite possibly, though it can just as easily be argued that because the game design reaches that high doesn't mean it's intended to be played that high. I always looked at the info. for very high level types merely as the framework for building BBEGs. I've run 15th, 17th, 20th level opponents against parties, and had them encounter NPCs up to 31st level on occasion, but the highest PC I've ever DMed was 12th.

Maybe ironically, I’ve still never really experienced anything over 12th level, even in D&D3.

Ditto. Highest PC I've played in 1e: 11th. Highest in 3e: 11th.

Lan-"the design of all editions falls off the rails at higher levels anyway"-efan

 

[the Jester]

So maybe the problem they were trying to fix wasn’t “slow advancement” but rather “half the game is unplayed.” ?? – I’m presenting this as a question for consideration, not a statement of factual knowledge of the designers’ intents.

IIRC, the designers did indeed say that this was an issue that they were trying to address.

 

[the Jester]

Ayup. And why was that?

Because as a survey parameter they threw out all responses from people over a certain age (35, I think) - thus the opinion of anyone who got in during high school or college during the late 70's-early 80's WAS NOT HEARD as by 1998 they were too old!

Wait, what??

Are you serious?

Are you sure about this?

 

[billd91]

Wait, what??

Are you serious?

Are you sure about this?

It's true.

"For the purpose of the 1999 study, the following methodology was employed:

A two phase approach was used to determine information about trading card
games (TCGs), role playing games (RPGs) and miniatures wargames (MWG) in the
general US population between the ages of 12 and 35. For the rest of this
document, this group is referred to as ìthe marketplaceî or ìthe marketî, or
ìthe consumersî.

This age bracket was arbitrarily chosen on the basis of internal analysis
regarding the probable target customers for the companyís products. We know
for certain that there are lots of gamers older than 35, especially for
games like Dungeons & Dragons; however, we wanted to keep the study to a
manageable size and profile. Perhaps in a few years a more detailed study
will be done of the entire population."

from Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0 -- Wizards of the Coast

 

[Bullgrit]

"For the purpose of the 1999 study, the following methodology was employed:
...
between the ages of 12 and 35.

Because as a survey parameter they threw out all responses from people over a certain age (35, I think) - thus the opinion of anyone who got in during high school or college during the late 70's-early 80's WAS NOT HEARD as by 1998 they were too old!

Um, not entirely accurate.

I was 32/33 in 1999. I started in 1980 at the age of 13 -- I had been playing nearly 2 decades by the time of the poll. So I fall within their demographic, and yours. The 18-24 month campaign length was/is about my experience even now, with another decade added to my time.

And, there's a difference between taking a poll within a certain demographic, and "throwing out responses."

You can't please *everyone*, so you have to pick an audience and try to please the hell out of them specifically.

Bullgrit