Legends and Lore April 2, 2012

[Gundark]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (A Menagerie of Topics)

Hopefully the public play test begins soon.

Discuss

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Looks like we're still a ways away from playtesting.

As usual I have a hard time answering the poll. I like to play a character for years so I wouldn't want it to be "done" (ie hitting max level) in a few months, but I also prefer to play other characters after a few months.

In other words, I and most people I know prefer to play a character for a few levels or a few months, switch, play the new character for awhile, switch back to the old character for a while, and so on.

Playing the same character for years, but not the same campaign the whole time.

Can't really answer the poll that way, can I?

 

[Quickleaf]

Can Wizards find someone who can create a useful poll? I was flabbergasted at how badly last week's polls were designed.

Which of the following kinds of advice do you want to see in D&D books?
I want advice for both players and DMs in D&D books. 3684 83.0%
I want advice for DMs in D&D books. 369 8.3%
I don't want advice for either players or DMs in D&D books. 297 6.7%
I want advice for players in D&D books. 86 1.9%
Total 4436 100.0%

Thinking back on the D&D books you've read, do you feel that you've gotten enough use out of the advice printed in them?
Yes, I've gotten enough use out of the advice in some of the D&D books I've read. 2321 54.7%
Yes, I've gotten enough use out of the advice in most of the D&D books I've read. 1260 29.7%
No, I haven't gotten enough use out of the advice in the D&D books I've read. 665 15.7%
Total

 

[Argyle King]

"Should the typical campaign change at high levels to take on a different tone?"

I had a hard time answering this question. I wanted to vote that "no, it should stay the same," but that doesn't really cover my answer. I like the idea of becoming a ruler, owning land, and various similar things; however, I don't feel that should be a function of levels. Instead, I believe obtaining a position of political importance, gaining allies, and etc should be a function of in-game actions and the natural flow of the story & campaign world; not a function of reaching a certain level and then that level switching to a new mode of play.

I say that because that was exactly my problem with skill challenges. I think skill challenges were a great idea, but I hated how they came across as being a separate game bolted onto D&D. I prefer for all of my characters options and skills to be available at all times; not dictated by what mode the game says I am in; no matter if that mode is decided by level or if it is decided by some sort of combat/skill challenge/RP division of labor.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm having a hard time with this article right off the bat.

Why did I ask that particular question? First of all, I think that most people don't want to play the same character for months at a time. After a while, you've done what you wanted to with your current character and are ready for a new one. So, finding out that 12th level is the end point that many folk want to hit confirmed my suspicion.

Playing to 12th level does not imply a a few months. I know people whose campaigns have them level once a year, and they're level 10. I am always amazed at the number of people here who say that they've played the same character for near on a decade.

How long it takes to get to level 12, and how long a player wants to play a character depend on a incredible sum of factors. Quality of campaign, quality of players, quality of character, ect... I don't like where this misinformation is seemingly headed.

For the poll, "over 20th level" was the only answer I could give. I'm ready to leave a character behind when I'm ready. There's no rhyme or reason to it. Usually it's because I didn't put enough effort into a character. There are others I've been forced to leave behind(due to death) that I still love to this day, and would re-create in a heartbeat given the chance. Where's the poll option for that?

To the second poll, 2 hours a week? Jeebus that's barely time to sit down! I raid in WoW for longer than that 4 days a week! When I sit down to the D&D table, I play for 6-8 hours. If everyone is free, we often have all-nighters! At two hours a week, even my fastest progressing games would take YEARS to complete.

I'm really starting to feel like the design of the new edition is aiming for a slam-bam thank-you-ma'am style. Who really plays D&D for 2 hours a week? Yeesh.

To the second question: really there's no universal answer for this, and there shouldn't be. Some games may go to castles, some games may stay so-so adventurers, some games may go into godhood! This should be determined by the game design of the DM, and the wants of the players.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think there is some traditional image of the meaning of levels, but strictly speaking how can they ask "at what level" without specifying in which edition? For example "beyond 20th" means different things to me in OD&D (which ends earlier for non-humans), in 3ed (that's when you get to Epic and the rules become totally wacky), and in 4ed (when Epic is not really wacky).

And regarding fundamental changes to the game... What if I want them to be optional so that one group can feel a huge change while another can just explore more difficult dungeons? What if I want the change to be gradual but absolutely not fixed to a certain level? And also, how about the fact that IMXP the game already has an intrinsic change due to spells granting flight, permanent invisibility, save-or-die, teleportation, powerful divinations etc.?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Bored of a character based on levels? Level determining the fundamental point of the game? These seem like odd concepts to me.

I want people to rule a keep at high and low level play. I want people to be able to go adventure-hopping at high and low level play. I want people to be able to go through an epic story at high and low level play. And, I'm going to want to switch characters when it strikes me, whether that's two sessions in, two levels in, two years in, or at the end of infinity. It's not a matter of "I hit level 4, now I'm bored" and want to swap out, and it's weird that the poll asks about it. As always, play what you like

 

[delericho]

I have a hard time unpicking that article, because I think there are two issues at work: firstly, a set of preferences about how campaign duration and levels; and secondly, how I thinkthe game as a whole should be structured.

See, my experience has been that I generally get the best results running campaigns that last between six months and a year. And, similarly, that the ideal level range for this sees us starting somewhere between 1st and 5th level, and probably gaining about 8 levels in that time (so ending between 9th and 13th). Furthermore, over the course of the campaign, the game style is unlikely to change a great deal.

However, I think it would be a really bad idea to design the game to suit those preferences exactly. And that applies even if the game was designed specifically for me (which, of course, it shouldn't be).

The way I think the game should be structured is as follows:

I'm going to assume a 30-level range. I'm also going to assume this is split into 4 tiers - the Beginner tier (levels 1-5, representing the low-level play of pre-4e versions), the Heroic tier (6-15), the Paragon tier (16-15) and the Epic tier (26-30). (Although the level ranges have changed, the HPE tiers basically map to the 4e equivalents.)

The tiers should each be fairly distinct in character. The Beginner tier should be about being the farmboy off on his first adventure, at scrabbling about against dangerous monsters, about those first few battles, and so on. The Heroic tier should be about characters who are clearly "a cut above", but who are still distinctly mortal - PCs are the Three Musketeers or the Black Company. The Paragon tier makes the characters legendary heroes, and somewhat superhuman, but recognisably so - they're Lancelot, or Aragorn. Finally, in the Epic tier the characters are practically demigods, engaged in struggles for the fate of history itself - Achillies, or Leonidas, or Gandalf.

The game should include easy-to-use rules for starting a campaign at the start of any of the tiers - it should support starting at 6th, 16th and 26th level just as it does at 1st level.

However, finally, the game should include an E6-like mechanism for continuing play in a given tier indefinitely. Normally, when you level from 15th to 16th, you would move from the Heroic to Paragon tiers, and the character of the campaign would change. But for groups who are happy with their current campaign and characters, it should be possible to not change, and just carry on as before. Basically, you don't want to force people to stop having fun just because they've gained a certain number of XP!

I think that probably hits all of the bases quite well - people can jump straight in to the game style they want without too much difficulty, the game 'natively' supports 10-level campaigns in a given style (which should probably be about 9-12 months weekly gaming), the game provides the option for the style to change over time, but the game also supports groups who don't want the game to change.

Of course, it's also a tall order to deliver!

 

[delericho]

Playing to 12th level does not imply a a few months.

Indeed. It can mean a few months, or it can mean 2 years, or more, or somewhere in between. Or even less, I guess. Those are the main options.

I'm ready to leave a character behind when I'm ready.

Also agree. I play a character from the start of the campaign until the campaign loses steam (or the character dies, of course). Very occasionally, I'll want to switch out a character, but that's not tied to level (and often, not to time either). But, mostly, the campaign is telling a story, and as long as it's interesting, it makes sense to stick with the character.

To the second poll, 2 hours a week? Jeebus that's barely time to sit down! I raid in WoW for longer than that 4 days a week! When I sit down to the D&D table, I play for 6-8 hours. If everyone is free, we often have all-nighters! At two hours a week, even my fastest progressing games would take YEARS to complete.

I'm really starting to feel like the design of the new edition is aiming for a slam-bam thank-you-ma'am style. Who really plays D&D for 2 hours a week? Yeesh.

3.5 hours once per fortnight for me, so it's actually pretty close. We level roughly every 3 sessions, but that's mostly because that's what best fits the current campaign. As a consequence of this, the campaign ran from 1st to 6th level in seven months last year. I expect it to resume and run to about 12th in seven months this year (with a slightly faster levelling rate), and then continue up to about 15th level next year.

But here's the thing: I needed the game to support characters of up to 15th level (which of course 3e does), but I did not need the game to support any given rate of advancement - I'm capable of (and indeed have) setting a suitable rate for my own group. The game will, of course, need some sort of a baseline... but it's probably not an issue of burning import. (And, FWIW, either the 3e or 4e rates seem like they should be fine for 5e, too.)

 

[Mark CMG]

I'm going to assume a 30-level range.

That seems to be their assumption as well.