How did you play back in the day? - forked from Q's Leveling Comparisons

[Storm Raven]

Sorry, I didn't realize this was a private public beating.


(And, pointing out that you are guilty of the same thing you accuse Ariosto of is relevant. IMHO, at least.)

Well, first one wonders why you felt the need to dredge up an argument from a closed thread in which you were given an explicit admonishment not to respond to my posts. This is (obviously) a different thread, but it seems poor manners to refer back to an argument that has been locked by the moderators in this way.

Second, this is an entirely different thread, with an entirely different issue. And if you bother to go back and look at the thread, you may note that I didn't say anything not entirely consistent with the quotes your provided from Coleman and Gygax. The rate of advancement for 1e and 3e are comparable when modules are analyzed, and they were intended to be in a comparable range by their respective designers.

So, we are left with you posting a random non-sequitur referencing a closed thread making an analogy that simply doesn't work. Good job.

 

[Lanefan]

An underlying -- perhaps the motivating -- issue in that other thread was the perception in some quarters that characters in 3E gain levels faster than in 1E. Quasqueton's analysis, within the scope of what it covers, suggests that level gains (within that covered context) should be about the same until roughly what would be "name" level in AD&D.

So, whence the perception? There is anecdotal evidence that many DMs skimped on treasure XP, which became standard, "by the book" practice in 2E. In the absence of an adequate replacement, that certainly would tend (perhaps by intent) to slow advancement!

The question of how much potential treasure was likely to be secured by a given group of characters was raised. I don't think that is likely to be a big issue in consideration of most modules, but it could be in a different kind of situation -- such as the dungeon as originally conceived and presented.

That's a situation pretty well designed not to get "cleaned out" by any particular group of characters. As a consequence, it does not lend itself to calculations on that basis (double or triple XP needed to "level up" a party being a good start in my experience, more depending on actual traffic). Moreover, returns per hour of play time may well be lower.

The fallacy here is that the only "return" you mention is that of levelling up. While levelling is *a* reward, there are or should be other returns just as valid; including acquiring wealth, acquiring in-game knowledge of the game world and how it operates, and - on a meta-game sense - just plain having fun.

If levelling is the only form of "reward" considered valid, then the game becomes little beyond number-crunching.

Lanefan

 

[Ariosto]

Sorry, Lanefan; I certainly did not mean -- did not even conceive -- that fallacy. And "here" the question of rate of gaining levels is in fact (as far as I can see) the matter at hand, to the extent that it relates to the subject of the thread from which it was forked.

I do not recall any suggestion that 3E modules yield "in-game knowledge of the game world and how it operates" at a more rapid rate, and the suggestion of more "fun" per hour is someplace I think we may profitably avoid going.

Sometimes, one relies upon the reader to consider the context of comments, to keep in mind the subject that happens to be under discussion. I would draw to your attention that in this case I restated the framing issue in the very first sentence you quoted.

 

[Hussar]

There's plenty of that to go around.

The quotes from Gary and Monte demonstrate that a player in 1e was expected to gain approximately 3/4 of a level for every level gained by a 3e player, so that after 52 sessions the 1e player is level 10, and the 3e player is level 13, a gain of +9 and +12 levels respectively, or 3/4.

The quotes were evidence before the math was done; I imagine that the sands have shifted.


RC

Out of curiousity RC, were those paladin levels or thief levels? It would make a very significant difference.

You are taking a line pretty far out of context. EGG did say that 1 year would get you about 10 levels. Since that would be about 10 paladin levels and about 13 thief levels, I don't think you can make such exact comparisons.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Out of curiousity RC, were those paladin levels or thief levels? It would make a very significant difference.

You are taking a line pretty far out of context. EGG did say that 1 year would get you about 10 levels. Since that would be about 10 paladin levels and about 13 thief levels, I don't think you can make such exact comparisons.

You can follow the quote in the other thread, and read exactly what EGG said. He did not differentiate by class; presumably he was able to understand what the term "average" means. As you seem a little confused, I provide the following link: define:average - Google Search . I hope it helps.

Also, as a nitpick, let us note that EGG didn't talk about "1 year" per se, but 52 4-hour sessions, giving us a real idea of what he thought the average was, regardless of class.


RC