Game spy interview with Christopher Perkins

[Drammattex]

I'm confused.
If the sweet spot makes the game more playable from levels 1-30, why accelerate leveling?

While leveling is fun, there's something to be said for enjoying the ride instead of always focusing on the next destination point (which my players always do when they're close to leveling).

Ah, anyway... whatevs. I like most of the other stuff about 4e so far. Might have to check out that Sweet 20 thing (thanks, Sammael- it looks neat).

 

[Fobok]

Basically, I usually give levels whenever I feel the players have earned it. During levels 1-5, this comes very quickly, usually once a session, then about every 3 or 4 sessions from then on. Or, sometimes, if I've written a story that requires a certain level by the climax, I'll balance based on progress in the story.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

As for the rate of advancement: Seems too fast - I like some time to enjoy and master the abilities of a level before moving on to another. And by some time I mean 8 to 12 sessions, if not more. . .

I am in total agreement. While I enjoy leveling up and all the new abilities it might grant, it bothers me when we level so fast that I never have a chance to use some of those abilities before I gain more. I also found that the faster players went up in level, the less they appreciated it when it happened.

 

[hong]

Basically, I usually give levels whenever I feel the players have earned it. During levels 1-5, this comes very quickly, usually once a session, then about every 3 or 4 sessions from then on. Or, sometimes, if I've written a story that requires a certain level by the climax, I'll balance based on progress in the story.

Written... a story?

 

[Fobok]

Written... a story?

Yep. Every campaign I've ever run, in any game system, has always had a story arc.

 

[Cadfan]

Yep. Every campaign I've ever run, in any game system, has always had a story arc.

Amen to that. Same here.

If the players are the sort who think that a predetermined story arc is railroading, and they'd rather just have some kind of sandbox game where they run amok as they please, they can find a different DM. I won't hold a grudge, and there is a supply of alternate games available.

Its not railroading if the players consent.

 

[Gundark]

He did answer the Question on Page 3 (last Paragraph):
However, there isn't a startling increase in overall power level from a 20th-level 3rd Edition character to a 20th-level 4th Edition character.

So a 20th level 4e character is slightly more powerful than a 20th 3e character? Ugh. I was hoping that they would have stretched this out more.

We'll have to see how this looks when I get the book, however right now at this time it's the first bit of 4e info I don't like. I was hoping for the 20 level 3e = 30 level 4e.

That said I think that speeding up leveling makes sense if you're going to 30th level.

 

[Jer]

James Wyatt answers the question I had:

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13745039&postcount=15

I actually had to go and ask Chris Perkins and Andy Collins this morning what people mean when they're asking whether Fourth Edition characters will be "more powerful" than Third Edition characters of the same level. I assumed the question was relative, and it made no sense to me. 4E characters will be just as challenged by encounters of their level as 3E characters would be if 3E encounter design actually worked. The power level, from that mindset, is the same.
...

Andy explained that what he thinks people want to know is whether characters will have more hit points and do more damage. Purely a question of raw numbers, rather than of what those numbers mean in the world.

...

Given that 3E is inherently unbalanced—low-level characters are too weak and high-level characters are too powerful—I guess the right answer is that low-level characters will be more powerful and high-level characters will be less so. Everyone will be balanced, because we've erased the accident of math.

...

Oh, and ability scores—that was the other thing Andy said. I think the answer is the same: low-level characters will look better, and high-level characters will look worse. But only when you compare them to 3E characters decked out with magic items. Shifting emphasis away from magic items means that raw numbers will look higher across the board.

This doesn't actually answer what I mean when I ask about "power level" - which is will wizards still have earthshakingly powerful spells like Wish at 20th level, or will those be moved up to 30th level, but it does maybe give some insight into Chris Perkin's use of the phrase "power level" in his interview.

 

[Intrope]

Looks like we keep the same scale (3-18 as the 'base range') but that a typical character will have better stats at 1st level. Does this hint at a higher point value, 5d6 drop 2, or something else entirely?

Hmmm, maybe instead of having races set up with +2/-2 pairs they get +4, +2x4, +0? or something like that. And maybe they only get that if they're Heroic?

 

[Fobok]

James Wyatt answers the question I had:

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13745039&postcount=15



This doesn't actually answer what I mean when I ask about "power level" - which is will wizards still have earthshakingly powerful spells like Wish at 20th level, or will those be moved up to 30th level, but it does maybe give some insight into Chris Perkin's use of the phrase "power level" in his interview.

I don't know if they answer PM's, but I sent him one asking that very question in response to that blog.