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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5595558" data-attributes="member: 42582">I suspect, though, that a lot of groups who played through (for example) G1-3 may have waived level-training requirements - that seems to have been a fairly common houserule.And even those who used the level-training rules would have had mostly name level PCs in the G modules, who can self train. So the training may not be much of a speedbump in any event.Not if you were trying to tell me how 4e is best conceived of as a game. But they would be relevant to trying to understand the range of play experience that has occurred under 4e. I'm not entirely sure which of these [MENTION=31216]Bullgrit[/MENTION] is trying to address - but I'm not sure actual play experience is completely irrelevant.A further complexity is that, at least on these boards, it seems that few of those who like 4e as a system regard the 4e modules very favourably. Whereas modules like the G-series seem to be widely regarded as classics by fans of AD&D. (These are my impressions. Obviously, therefore, they are subject to rebuttal by more accurately collected data.)And I personally have encountered far more such players for whom the classic AD&D play experience was the G-series, and/or some of the other classic modules, than the traditionafemega-dungeon. At least for those players, features of mega-dungeon/open campaign style play of the sort that Ariosto describes aren't going to have informed their play experience - including their levelling rates - very much.For what it's worth, most of my own AD&D play was with GM-written scenarios rather than modules, basing treasure on the MM treasure tables and basing monster XP on the DMG tables and then, once I discovered it, Turnbull's Monstermark. It's a long time ago, but I would say that the rate of level gain may have been slower per unit of play than 4e. I don't think it was a hell of a lot slower, but so much was different about the way I played 25+ years ago that even if I could remember comparisons would be hard to draw.I do seem to recall that levelling slowed down a lot around name level - a fighter needs 125,000 (I think) to get from 8 to 9, but twice that to get any further level. But a 9th or higher level figther doesn't gain the capacity to earn XP at twice the rate. I think the biggest difference in 3E/4e levelling rates is in this respect - there is no name-level speed bump on levelling.</blockquote>

Verification