D&D General Let's Talk About the Changing Game

[Reynard]

By "Changing Game" in this thread, i mean the evolution of play through the life of a campaign driven largely by the PCs gaining levels.

I started D&D (and RPGs) with the Mentzer Red Box in 1985. Shortly after, we got the Expert set with Isle of Dread, and a while after that the Companion Set. We bought a Dragon Magazine here and there when we could find one, but generally speaking this is all we had. So, during my most formative D&D years, the idea of the Changing Game was baked into my experience and was undiluted by tons of other materials, including published adventures. To me, D&D was homebrewing everything and rising through the ranks from dungeon delver, to trailblazing explorer, to ruler of one's own domain. That's just how the game was meant to be played.

Before I go on: I know this isn't the way everyone, or even most people, experienced D&D. I think it was more common for folks to go from the Basic rules to AD&D (1E or 2E depending on when D&D was discovered). And while AD&D included gaining followers and building fortresses, it did not include much in its core about domain rulership or warfare. those rules in the Companion Set (reproduced in the Rules Cyclopedia) were unique to that "edition" of D&D. So I am NOT engaging in badwrongfun for anyone who says the game is "meant to be played" differently than I do.

Anyway -- I still want the game to be played like this, and I think you can do it with any edition. not least because those Domain and Warfare rules in the old Companions set are perfectly viable for any version of D&D or even other games. They are stand alone modules which work with any game that uses language similar enough to D&D to figure out how to make PCs interact with the system.

I think the Changing Game is the solution for the woes of high level D&D that so many people experience. 5-8 encounters between rests becomes an albatross after a certain level, and single encounters between rests become rocket tag. But if PCs have things that are important that they care about beyond their own personal power, a new purpose appears that can drive drama and tension and fun without just looking for different set dressing for the same old fisticuffs. And not that high level domain rulers don't need to occasionally go punch a dragon or demigod in the jaw. All the great epic heroes come out of retirement for one last battle, after all.

I don't think there's any chance of it happening, but 1D&D could do worse than explicitly discussing the Changing Game and providing tools for developing through dungeons then wilderness then domain management and finally immortality. It shouldn't be to the exclusion of just continuing adventuring, but it is a lot easier to ignore certain rules than it is to make up new rules.

So, what do you think about the Changing Game? Did you play that way? Do you? If not, why not? If so, what tools do you use to support it?

 

[aco175]

Most of my campaigns tend to pitter out by level 10-13 or start to become too all-powerful with the fate of the world hanging on each dungeon and becomes stale.

The game does change from 1st level where a couple goblins hide to challenge you to suddenly at 5th level the goblins are nowhere to be found and now giants are hiding in larger bushes to jump out and attack. By 10th level you need even larger bushes and dragons to be hiding. The lonely goblins must have all been eaten until the PCs move on and bring the giants and dragons with them.

Wizards tried to change the game some by making the 'sweet spot' of gaming levels last longer and then speed up the first couple and last few levels. This seems to work ok for my group. One tends to get to 3rd, maybe 5th rather fast and then slow down to 10th. Never got high enough to speed through 17-20 though.

I would like some things on establishing domains and castles and such. Making magic items and new spells. We will se or maybe another 3PP will come out with something to fit the new edition.

 

[payn]

I've been more of a lvl 1_10 player/GM for sometime now. Likely due to heavy doses of 3E and PF1. I'm less concerned about the power journey and more about the adventure journey. My campaigns always start humble and build to setting wide conspiracies. One of my favorite TTRPGs is Traveller which has nearly flat power progression. So, I don't expect or desire the mechanics to provide the "changing game" but I can understand folks who do.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

Level 1: 3 lucky kobolds can achieve a TPK
Level 20: 3 kingdoms cannot achieve a TPK

Combat does not change because the basic mechanics still work at all levels.
But throughout the game other mechanics get introduced such as managing a mansion or keep, (navigating with) ships and ruling lands. But technically you can use those game mechanics also at level 1. We just choose to start off as nobodies.

 

[Reynard]

Combat does not change because the basic mechanics still work at all levels.

I'd quibble with this. Combat does change as the characters -- particularly casters -- begin to operate on a more superheroic level.

But throughout the game other mechanics get introduced such as managing a mansion or keep, (navigating with) ships and ruling lands. But technically you can use those game mechanics also at level 1. We just choose to start off as nobodies.

This is true. I have used the Domain and Warfare rules for lower than name level PCs before, because they inhereted a keep or the whole campaign was about young heirs thrust into rulership positions too early, etc.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

I'd quibble with this. Combat does change as the characters -- particularly casters -- begin to operate on a more superheroic level.

We don't have to argue whether the characters get a LOT more powerful. Everybody will agree.

But I don't see a fundamental difference between a wizard casting Tasha's Hideous Laughter and taking out an enemy from combat at level 1, and a wizard casting Otto's Irresistible Dance doing essentially the same at level 11. Sure, there are differences and one requires a saving throw before it's successful, etc., etc. But there is no fundamental difference.

Wizards at level 1 have very powerful tools to deal with level 1, such as Sleep, Tasha's Hideous Laughter and of course Magic Missile to (almost) guaranteed damage.

From a game-mechanics point of view, it's all the same across the levels. It's just that we perceive it as different because at level 1 you kill nobodies, and at high levels you kill things that matter. But that's all story telling, not game mechanics.

 

[Oofta]

We played around a little bit with the higher level rules back in the day, but we never embraced them. In all my years of gaming, I've had exactly 1 PC build a keep as part of an ongoing story. It's just not anything I see people particularly aspiring to.

The game changes when you go up levels, I've been in and run campaigns to level 20 and my player's PCs just hit 18 in my current campaign. The campaign changes, old threats reappear, the history of the PCs grow but the game doesn't change much. I even purchased Colville's Stronghold's & Followers book on the theory that people might want to go that direction. It's never come up and the book is gathering dust.

For a lot of people running a kingdom just wouldn't be all that fun. Maybe it should be an option, but there's always 3PP like the S&F book for those that want it. WOTC can't cover every play style, I doubt enough people would buy into a sourcebook for that kind of stuff. Even for Dragonlance they've pretty much just admitted that things like mass combat are not a good fit for D&D and if you want to run the mass combat they sell a board game for that.

 

[Umbran]

But if PCs have things that are important that they care about beyond their own personal power, a new purpose appears that can drive drama and tension and fun without just looking for different set dressing for the same old fisticuffs.

But, why do you have to wait for "name level" to have things that are important that the PCs? Why is that thing they care about necessarily an extension of their personal power?

Why is that thing necessarily becoming a ruler over other people?

The changing game is a solution to a problem that could be fixed at level 1, to be honest, no longer requiring the game to change in that particular way.

So, what do you think about the Changing Game? Did you play that way?

Back in the day of 1e, yes, we had characters with followers and wizards towers and such. But ultimately, those were boxes checked, because the rules for what you actually do with them were so thin. Okay, so I have followers. Now what?

Do you? If not, why not?

No, I don't generally do that any more, because I am driving at things the PCs want other than cracking heads together much, much earlier in my campaigns, and none of my players have had, "become ruler over land and/or people," as a character desire in a couple of decades.

 

[overgeeked]

So, what do you think about the Changing Game?

I miss it every time we play.

Did you play that way?

Not always, but when we did it was a blast.

Do you? If not, why not?

No. Because almost no one’s heard of it and it seems poorly tacked on to people who only every knew about endless combat.

If so, what tools do you use to support it?

I know MCDM has two great books for 5E. Stronghold & Followers. Kingdoms & Warfare.

For older editions, as you say, the RC and CMI still work just fine.

Matt Colville has a great video series on politics for anyone interested in including some of this in their games.

 

[Reynard]

But, why do you have to wait for "name level" to have things that are important that the PCs?

You don't necessarily have to, but at least as presented in BECMI, these things cost a lot of money -- money you gathered while gaining levels (since XP came primarily from gold acquired).

 

[Clint_L]

The people I started playing with went from OD&D to AD&D, and I joined as that transition was wrapping up. I had the Basic game as a gift, but we saw it as an oddity, along with the two follow-up sets. There were quite a few kicking around because they were the kind of things you got as gifts from older relatives who heard you were into D&D. But we never actually played them because we were already playing AD&D, and we saw those sets as not real D&D.

So my late game experience was different. We typically got to around 10-11 level, which meant we had followers per the rules and I think I once claimed a stronghold? Can't remember. I do remember that my ranger got lucky and rolled a Storm Giant follower, which was cool, but we didn't know what to do with it, so those rules mostly were just fun little tables that you rolled on and then went back to questing.

Do I think that aspect of gameplay should be a focus of the core rules? No, way too idiosyncratic. But OneD&D isn't like some big watershed moment where the game will transform, so it would make sense to do that kind of campaign outline as a supplementary adventure. I think the risk is that it dilutes the brand and tries to make an RPG into a sort of half-assed war game or strategy game that doesn't work very well (c.f. AD&D's attempt). Maybe a better solution would be for WotC to create an actual war game or strategy game that does not try to be part of D&D but uses the IP and can be tied into campaigns. That way it wouldn't be tied to RPG-oriented rules (i.e. the d20 system) and could be its own thing.

Edit: In re-reading the OP, maybe you are describing more transitioning from role-playing being about individual and party quests and more about statecraft and stuff? Maybe that could be in a DM's Guide that included more information about different styles of campaign? I've never had players who wanted to go in that direction so I haven't thought about it much. Or, since you write that the Companions guide still works, do an updated version of that. As its own thing, not in the core rules.

 

[Umbran]

You don't necessarily have to, but at least as presented in BECMI, these things cost a lot of money -- money you gathered while gaining levels (since XP came primarily from gold acquired).

Well, castles cost a lot. And you have to pay followers, or otherwise see to their well-being.

But my question was why can't you have things that the characters care about. The OP seemed to be noting, basically, that after a while, fighting for the sake of fighting gets boring, so give the PCs something else to deal with.

I am questioning why "build a castle and get followers" is really the only "thing they care about" on the table here. It is, honestly, kind of specific, and probably doesn't apply to a lot of PCs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I miss it every time we play.

Not always, but when we did it was a blast.

No. Because almost no one’s heard of it and it seems poorly tacked on to people who only every knew about endless combat.

I know MCDM has two great books for 5E. Stronghold & Followers. Kingdoms & Warfare.

For older editions, as you say, the RC and CMI still work just fine.

Matt Colville has a great video series on politics for anyone interested in including some of this in their games.

As @Reynard said, the old rules work just fine for that style, even in 5e. There are OSR games that are amazing at this (ACKS is a wonderful example). So it's out there and very usable.

The issue is, all that stuff is comparatively pretty low profile compared to whatever WotC's pushing now. That's why I want this stuff included in the DMG, so new players who haven't had the opportunity to experience something other than the approved Most Popular style of gameplay can decide for themselves.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, castles cost a lot. And you have to pay followers, or otherwise see to their well-being.

But my question was why can't you have things that the characters care about. The OP seemed to be noting, basically, that after a while, fighting for the sake of fighting gets boring, so give the PCs something else to deal with.

I am questioning why "build a castle and get followers" is really the only "thing they care about" on the table here. It is, honestly, kind of specific, and probably doesn't apply to a lot of PCs.

It doesn't have to be, but it used to be a big part of the assumed play cycle, it served and serves a purpose, and including it as an option would, IMO, be beneficial. We should also include other ways to break out of the eternal combat treadmill.

 

[Reynard]

Well, castles cost a lot. And you have to pay followers, or otherwise see to their well-being.

But my question was why can't you have things that the characters care about. The OP seemed to be noting, basically, that after a while, fighting for the sake of fighting gets boring, so give the PCs something else to deal with.

I am questioning why "build a castle and get followers" is really the only "thing they care about" on the table here. It is, honestly, kind of specific, and probably doesn't apply to a lot of PCs.

Well I didn't say anything about "other stuff to care about" except in the context of how I experienced the positive effects of the changing game. I'm not sure why you want to actively not-engage the premise. Saying one thing answers a specific issue doesn't necessarily say anything about what else might answer that issue.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

A lot of players are simply not interested. I have tried to garner interest.

 

[Krachek]

Bring the game into politics, warfare, power don’t require specific minimum level or additional rules.
I play in a campaign on those terms with a level 6 character and actual 5ed rules and it’s pretty satisfying.

 

[Shiroiken]

Experienced quite a bit of this in AD&D. In one of my favorite 2E campaigns, about 2-3 times a year we'd have a session that was nothing but planning and maintenance of our domains. Very few dice were rolled that session (at least by the players) and absolutely zero combat.

3E and 4E never played out that way for me, mostly because I ended up playing/DMing the biggest group of murder hobos. Eventually we moved away from this (I now only play with 2 people from this era), especially with 5E, but even so most campaigns tend to be more story based, leaving very little downtime for such things.

 

[Malmuria]

Has anyone played Forbidden Lands? From my understanding the game is built around characters having a stronghold from level 1. Vaesen, another free league game, works this way too. What's appealing is that the home base can be upgraded and provides certain mechanical bonuses (BitD works this way too).

That said, I think there is a certain fantasy around being able to just carry everything you need in your backpack, traveling the world with your friends. A stronghold game that is merely home design invoices and taxes will not be that appealing by contrast.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Has anyone played Forbidden Lands? From my understanding the game is built around characters having a stronghold from level 1. Vaesen, another free league game, works this way too. What's appealing is that the home base can be upgraded and provides certain mechanical bonuses (BitD works this way too).

That said, I think there is a certain fantasy around being able to just carry everything you need in your backpack, traveling the world with your friends. A stronghold game that is merely home design invoices and taxes will not be that appealing by contrast.

Especially if you characterize it that way.