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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5162616" data-attributes="member: 22779">I've been mulling this one over for a bit.I think there's an element missing from Celebrim's analysis and that's the presumed campaign length that has become fairly codified into D&D design.  The market research leading up to 3e showed that (of those that were queried) a campaign lasts about a year, year and a half on average.  Now, remember, this was of 2e players, primarily.  There's a quote floating around here somewhere from Gygax that stated something to the fact that 10 levels should take about a year of sessions (or so, give or take), which would put a "campaign" length at around the same ball park for earlier editions.3e let that length strongly influence their design.  When you presume that a campaign will be about a year and a half, that's about 80 sessions (to pick and easy number, pick another, probably between 60 and 100 if it makes you feel better).  Once you make that decision AND you decide that within an average campaign, an average group should be able to hit the entire game, that gives you your advancement rate.In 3e, that means you should bump about every four sessions.  Probably a bit quicker.  In 4e, that means you should bump better than every three sessions.  Is this catering to a certain kind of gamer, or is it recognizing the realities of the player base and designing to that reality?  1e didn't really have a presumed campaign length and, I think, for most gamers, a large chunk of the rules when unused.  How many eighth level spells did you actually cast in 1e after all?Once you make those two decisions - that a campaign will last about X number of sessions, and within those sessions, the players should have the opportunity to experience the entire game - you get your rate of reward.</blockquote>

Verification