Is 4th edition getting soft? - edited for friendly content :)

[Lonely Tylenol]

I think there's also a small number of older (30+) gamers like me and the other members of my gaming group who find that work, family and other commitments are starting to eat into gaming time. As a result of this, we are unable to meet more than once or twice a month and thus also prefer shorter campaigns and quicker levelling.

That describes me pretty accurately.

 

[Baby Samurai]

That describes me pretty accurately.

And me (us)!

I'd prefer not to spend 4 years of my actual life to get a character past 10th level in a game...

How I miss the days of playing for 43 hours at a clip.

 

[Doug McCrae]

1e (for example, and IME) was designed to easily allow 1st level replacement characters to be used with even mid-to-high level parties (6th to 14th). And, again IME, while such characters didn't throw the system out of whack, the differences in level were certainly noticeable by the players.

"Experienced players without existing characters should generally be brought into the campaign at a level roughly equal to the average of that of the other player characters... If the experience level is above 8th, you will wish to start such newcomers out at 4th or higher level. After all, they are not missing out on anything, as they have already played beginning character roles elsewhere, and they will not have to be virtually helpless and impotent characters in your campaign, as you give them a substantial level to begin with - 4th, 5th, or 6th for instance." - 1e DMG page 111

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Experienced players without existing characters should generally be brought into the campaign at a level roughly equal to the average of that of the other player characters... If the experience level is above 8th, you will wish to start such newcomers out at 4th or higher level. After all, they are not missing out on anything, as they have already played beginning character roles elsewhere, and they will not have to be virtually helpless and impotent characters in your campaign, as you give them a substantial level to begin with" - 1e DMG page 111

Yes, but that book also said to disregard advice if you thought it would improve the game.

RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

From my own experience, it's the younger players who prefer shorter campaigns and more frequent levelling.

In my early 20s, I played in a D&D campaign that lasted 3-4 years. Now, in my late 30s, they are over within six months.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yes, but that book also said to disregard advice if you thought it would improve the game.

RC

You mean, basically like Rule Zero?

 

[Raven Crowking]

You mean, basically like Rule Zero?

Yep. But 1e was designed more like a hodge-podge of take-it-or-leave-it systems than 3e is. (I think most people will agree that 3e is far more integrated than 1e, but I could always be wrong....) In addition, the 1e DMG actively encouraged DMs to deviate from the rules presented (although it cautioned them to be certain that they understood the presented rules before deviating from them).

Moreover, I think most people will agree that there was less of a difference between a 1st level 1e character and a 5th level 1e character than there is between a 1st level 3e character and a 5th level 3e character (for example).

The steeper the power curve, the more divergence there will be between the power of characters at various levels, and the harder it will be to balance for a party with an uneven level spread. In 1e "Level is King" because level is the chief determinant of the mechanical difference between characters of the same class. However, in 3e, level is far more important. IMHO, of course. YMMV.

In any event, my point in bringing this up was simple: It is possible to play a game in which death has meaning without being a revolving door or requiring "replacement avatars" of the same level as the lost character. The point at which players feel the loss of levels, and the degree to which a system can handle them, do not necessarily equate.

RC

 

[Remathilis]

Yep. But 1e was designed more like a hodge-podge of take-it-or-leave-it systems than 3e is. (I think most people will agree that 3e is far more integrated than 1e, but I could always be wrong....)

Yup, and that's one of the major reasons I don't play 1e, I play 3e. And I don't play 3e like Windows XP trying to Windows 3.1, I play it using its default assumptions (just as I will play 4e using 4e's assumptions). Trying to make 3e or 4e emulate 1e seems counterproductive: level limits, thac0, male/female ability score caps, and class/race restrictions have all gone the way of the dodo, its time for Save or Die, (heck saving throw rolls in general) and other artifacts which add little and infuriate many (see: here ) to go as well.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yup, and that's one of the major reasons I don't play 1e, I play 3e. And I don't play 3e like Windows XP trying to Windows 3.1, I play it using its default assumptions (just as I will play 4e using 4e's assumptions). Trying to make 3e or 4e emulate 1e seems counterproductive: level limits, thac0, male/female ability score caps, and class/race restrictions have all gone the way of the dodo, its time for Save or Die, (heck saving throw rolls in general) and other artifacts which add little and infuriate many (see: here ) to go as well.

To each his own.

The philosophy found in the 1e books is that each game should become its own thing, not so differently than the shared worlds of differing groups of authors would become their own thing.

The philosophy found in the 3e books seems somewhat different to me. YMMV.



RC

 

[gizmo33]

<snip> level limits, thac0, male/female ability score caps, and class/race restrictions have all gone the way of the dodo, <snip>

Comparing the creation of 3E to the blundering destruction of a species is a little unfair IMO 3E's not all that bad.