Level Advancement Rate in 3e

[S'mon]

Unfortunately, I cannot remember the poster, but I surely remember the quote:

"Never have so many words been used to say so little."

And I would add that what little is there is not constructive.

PS

Hey Storminator, see you on the Minatures Forum!

 

[bwgwl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 3e is too fast for me

Considering that many people complained that a lot of 2E's rules were arbitrary, doesn't the general acceptance of 3E's own arbitrary features seem a bit contradictory?

no. perhaps it just means 3e's arbitrary features match the majority's arbitrary tastes better than 2e's arbitrary features.

Being that I've achieved it [level 20], I'd say those that were unable to were victimized by their own lacking, not one of the systems.

perhaps. personally, i tend to get bored with a campaign or character after a year to a year and a half, and like to switch systems, genres, themes, and such on a regular basis. if this "short attention span" is a lacking on my part, so be it. (although i don't view it as a defect. where some gamer may have spent the last 15 years in one fantasy campaign, i've been through 3 different fantasy worlds, a sci fi game, espionage, supers, horror, anime, and much more. he's been playing one character consistently; i've played nearly a dozen. he has depth of experience; i have breadth. one is not necessarily better than the other.)

given that i (and it appears most other gamers (or at least the majority of those surveyed by WOTC)) will change campaigns every year or so, i like the fact that i will now have the chance to experience the full breadth of 3e's core rules (levels 1 to 20). that's the only "magic" to level 20 -- in the core rules as written, that's the endpoint. there is no progression after that. you haven't "won" the game -- as you say, you win every time you have fun gaming. all 20th level marks (prior to ELH) is the point at which advancement ends.

in previous editions of D&D, we'd keep playing short campaigns and go from 1st level to about 7th or 8th before moving on. continually playing 1st-to-8th campaigns gets boring to a gamer like me who prefers breadth of experience to depth.

Now, however, the system caters to the power-gamer and the RP minimalist, setting a goal that, as stated earlier, is false and contrary to the nature of the game: A goal that seems to demark a point of winning a game when the only way to really win is to have fun, which can be achieved at any level of play.

i don't agree that 3e's goal is to "win" it. i don't get that feeling from reading the rules.

i will agree that the game does seem to be geared toward "powergamers and RP minimalists," as you put it. i don't think that's a bad thing. i would most likely count myself in that group. i think the silent majority of gamers would also fall into that group. De gustibus non disputandum est.

 

[Havoc]

They are designed with a particular setting in mind, namely Greyhawk. More than that, the D&D rules incorporate lots of assumptions as to how magic works (arcane vs divine), the style of gameplay (fast-flowing, abstract combat rather than detailed simulation), the amount of background information (sparse rather than detailed) and so on. You can get other rulesets that emphasise different aspects of gaming (H*rn, for instance, is heavy on the level of background detail, and GURPS is heavy on simulating reality in terms of mechanics).

All of these, are "generic" in terms of not being tied to a particular game world. None of them are generic in terms of being universally suitable to all gaming styles.

Well said!!!!!!!!!
The only one that came close*for me* was fudge but it of course requires lots of tweaking.
Of course, if, by style, you also mean and include GM's work, then I think that no game ever will accomodate for all styles.
I love D&D because it is less work intensive than, for instance, fudge, even for players: some of them do not want to think lots of time ahead and prefer just to pick up a class and then build their character progressively?

 

[hong]

Is Hong really that bad?

Yes.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 3e is too fast for me

True, but you asked. I made one comment, Buttercup commented, I commented, you commented, I commented, you commented, I commented, you blamed it on me.

You say this like it's a negative thing.

I was thinking the same about you, actually.

But I am funny.

BE! FUNNY!

No.

That's my line.

 

[rounser]

These people are bragging about who they put first on their ignore list, and gleefully writing negatively of the person as if they're not present to read those words. Sounds like they have an axe to grind.

hong, you must have hit some egos where it hurts.

 

[hong]

These people are bragging about who they put first on their ignore list, and gleefully writing negatively of the person as if they're not present to read those words. Sounds like they have an axe to grind.

hong, you must have hit some egos where it hurts.

I'll be back to my normal immature self in a few weeks.


Hong "as opposed to my abnormally immature self" Ooi

 

[diaglo]

hong, you must have hit some egos where it hurts.

well for an item or creature to have an ego it has to be sentient

 

[diaglo]

originally posted on the Gary Chat thread: As for advice to WotC. I don't think they need any in regards the D20 system. However, in regards to the new D&D one, I believe that there is a question of "legs" for many new players, because as things stand the game allows too rapid level increase. There's more, but if Hasbro wants consulting, they'll cntract for it

Gary

straight from the EGG's keyboard.

 

[jmucchiello]

Rapid-fire advancement isn't wrong, but it's wrong for me, and for the majority of us who grew up with 1e and 2e. We always used to say that houserules were fine, but if you make enough changes, then past a certain point, you're no longer playing D&D. That's what this feels like; certain things about the game have changed to the point where it no longer feels like D&D.

Overall, I do like 3e; the rate of level advancement is probably my biggest gripe...well, that and the absurdly high cost of magic item creation.

I've played every edition but the little booklet version (when they were new) and I like the faster pace. In fact I'm in a 1st ed game at the moment where the advancement just crawls: we're 10th level and the DM gives out 5-7,000 XP / 8 hours of play time. That's at least 20 sessions between levels. (and we only meet once a month!)

I can't understand how it doesn't feel like D&D though. The advancement rate is the last thing I think about when determining if something is D&D like. I look at thing like: are the dwarves dour? are elves frolicking in the woods? Do you walk up to goblins in their caves and kill them because that's what you're supposed to do? None of that has changed.

And finally, how much did magic items cost in older editions? They use to be treasure that provided xp TO the character. A +1 sword was worth 400 xp. Now it costs 80 xp and 1,000 gp to make (or 2,000 gp to buy). How is that more expensive?