Legends and Lore April 2, 2012

[Crazy Jerome]

Put me down for another vote for not having "new directions" tied to level. I don't want the game telling me when to switch to Castle and Catapults. If it wants to provide the means to switch when I'm ready, that's great.

Part of the reason we even have these discussions is because of coarse granularity in the ways that people get abilities. If you must play a fighter to be a major landowner in the main political system (Basic read strict), then those abilities are part of the fighter's power. If you must spend a feat to get a title to get land in some optional system (something glommed onto 3E/4E), then you can only do it when you have a feat to spend.

I think that the ability to have and keep a small barony is something that should be reflected in slow character development--or occasionally that the character starts with, when appropriate--but the actual title, land grant, etc. should be entirely outside the character level scheme.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am flabberghasted at how much of 5e development seems to be cribbing from my notes of the last 4 years or so. The "three pillars." Adventure-based design. Now the one year-game.

This is an issue near and dear to my heart ever since I began designing for one-year-game-play a few years back. I think it's important that the game be designed to be played, so I think it's important that in the course of how people actually play it, they get to access a significant chunk of what the game has to offer -- I'm sick of playing for months and not getting anywhere, I'm sick of having so much game content left untouched.

If you level every 3 sessions, and you have about 3 sessions per month (one a week, excepting a holiday/crunch time/whatever miss), then you're going to get about 12 functional levels of play.

I think those 12 levels can be in any style of tier. So you should be able to play 12 levels as commoner joes just off the turnip truck if that's what you want. You should also be able to play those 12 levels as demigods and royalty if that's what you want. And if you want to change tone between levels -- say, go zero-to-hero, or hero-to-demigod, or even reverse direction, or whatever, the game should help you do that.

You should be explicit about this. This means not making a 30-level game that anyone only sees 1/3rd of at a time. This means making a 15 or 10 level game that everyone sees the vast majority of, and being able to give it different glosses depending on what kind of flavor you want for this campaign.

And if you want to play a longer campaign that covers more styles at once? Well, you can "reset" every 10 levels, and you can slow the rate of advancement, and that's how you get 10-year mega-campaigns with the same cast of characters.

And you're welcome, WotC.

 

[Shroomy]

I think they should just crib from Pathfinder and have three advancement tracks (fast, medium, and slow; use medium as the default assumption in most adventures). Flat math and less reliance on magic items should make this quite easy.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

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 agree with pretty much all of your post, and wanted to add an addendum to the above.

I've played Hero/Champions for decades - there is not "upper limit" on character advancement or campaign length - and no hard coded end point.

I'd like to see the same thing in D&D. When you get to the "top level" have some sort of 3rd ed ELH type thing. A module that support indefinite advancement - but at a slow pace. So every now and again the character gets some new shiny, but does not become overpoweringly powerful. I like to play characters for decades, and while I don't need to see much improve in combat numbers, there needs to be a way for a character to mechanically grow in response to what he does (a new environment (like the sea) and the character can get a few sea related choices)

And as it seems that they are trying to limit BAB/AC advnacement, that would be even easier to manage.

 

[Nathal]

Me too...2 hours week would be lucky...once a month maybe...one-shot games often...

I hear you. Long were the days when we could play all night.

Now we gotta negotiate with our wives to have a full saturday evening gaming

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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.

But... it DIDN'T necessarily confirm a thing. You THINK people don't want to play the same character for months at a time? How about you FIND OUT? People want to end at 12th level? WHY do they want to end there? Might it be because the EXISTING rules they're playing with mean that even though they'd prefer to continue the changes in gameplay bring out that choice? It is WIDELY known that 1E, 2E, 3E begin to change rather dramatically at about that time. I've never WANTED to quit there - I'd much rather keep going. But it's often prefereable to quit there than tolerate the unwanted shift in tone that is actualy being talked about. That means people want/don't want a shift in tone, not that they get tired of playing their PC's in a short period of time.

I wonder if they're really paying attention, because this suggests to me that they may not be asking the questions to hear the answers but simply to provide "support" for something that they've already decided.

 

[Boarstorm]

This article really left me feeling that they're asking the wrong questions.

 

[Sunseeker]

Well, my gaming group consists of busy working adults. Some are parents and some have other family commitments. Due to conflicting schedules, we are sometimes only able to meet once per month. However, we do try to ensure that our sessions are at least four hours long each (kinda pointless to meet otherwise).

So who plays for two hours per week? On average, we do.

Wow, I have to say, not the overall response I expected. Respectfully, I don't think I would enjoy playing D&D for that little time.

 

[Viking Bastard]

We game 4-5 hours every other week, with extra sessions randomly sprinkled in when the stars align correctly. So yeah, 2-3 hours a week.

Now, in my teens that would've been 4-5 hours a week, at least.

 

[Incenjucar]

Wow, I have to say, not the overall response I expected. Respectfully, I don't think I would enjoy playing D&D for that little time.

My games would simply cease to be if they were only two hours long. The last session was four hours of RP with some light skill challenges mixed in, followed by one hour of combat. One of the chunks of RP was itself at least two hours long. Nobody I know wants their ENTIRE game session to be having dinner with half-elves in the tundra.