Legends & Lore: Experience Points and Levels

[TarionzCousin]

Besides which, I'm also choosing to see this as evidence of commitment to the AP format going forward.

Or, at least, inclusion of the Adventure Path format. As Mistwell noted above, it would still be nice to know the XP for monsters/encounters.

This article looks like filler to me, but it is reassuring filler.


Also, I really like the illustration:

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm repeating myself from a week or so ago, but W1: The Crucible of Freya does a decent job of introducing how both adventure path and sandbox designs may be published in the same product. And different XP methods could be published to accommodate different DMing styles in the same work.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm repeating myself from a week or so ago, but W1: The Crucible of Freya does a decent job of introducing how both adventure path and sandbox designs may be published in the same product.

It's not D&D, but from what I have heard, "Masks of Nyarlathotep" (a CoC adventure) does this better than any other published adventure.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

It's not D&D, but from what I have heard, "Masks of Nyarlathotep" (a CoC adventure) does this better than any other published adventure.

Both "Masks" and "The Enemy Within", which predate the Adventure Path idea, still have problems with the junctions. Sometimes the players need to get a certain clue to proceed which can be troublsome to provide them with. "The Enemy Within" does, IMHO, a better job: the players acquire a river boat and can drive along the large rivers at their pleasure. Different scenarios are waiting on th ebanks of the Reik river, but the PCs don't have to swallow the bait at once. The time pressure known from other adventure paths isn't present at all.

One of the included scenarios is even so cool that the PCs adventure at one side, leave it, and at some point find another clue leading them back.

The strength of both campaigns, shough, lies in the rather disjunct scenarios which give the payers a lot of freedom.

Another interesting concept is realized in a different CoC campaign: "Beyond the Mountains of Madness". It casts the PCs as members of a polar expedition, which severly liits their freedom of choice. Many players may balk at this idea, but, if they get into it, it works very well.

 

[pemerton]

I read the article last night before bed. I read it again this morning. I just read it again before posting... I don't get it.

They're going to support both XP levelling and non-XP levelling:

a much better approach is to allow designers to present both options, and let DMs decide how best to run any adventure. . . The game must provide options to support different styles of play — especially when it's clear that the default way of doing things no longer matches the way so many DMs run their games.​

Good to see a long standing method of level advancement get some recognition.

This is not an innovation. 4e already recognised this, and in its DMG discussed non-XP-based levelling.

Perhaps worth noting that in the recent Scourge of the Sword Coast adventure, the monsters in the bestiary list no XP, and the adventure simply states when the party levels

I see this as a pretty big deal for adventure quality.

Explicitly acknowledging that story designs just need signposts saying "You are now level 5" is a big step forward.

It is a pretty big deal. Being able to set advancement at any speed for the needs of the adventure makes it so much easier to write long adventure paths.

This is the innovation, as far as I can tell: actually designing adventures in a way that incorporates non-XP-based levelling. That was missing from 4e modules.

 

[Aloïsius]

Anyway, with bounded acuracy, this is not an issue so crucial as it was. I mean, in 3e, fighting a monster of the wrong CR could be 100% lethal. But now ? If I understand correctly, it will just mean that the PC will lose much more hit points and other expandable ressources, but it won't be an impossible fight.