Leveling assumptions then and now

[Jhaelen]

I don't assume it, but in my own experience it tends to happen that way.

Of the three long (10+ years) 1e-style campaigns I've played in or DMed, one sank around 8-9th level*, one sank around 9-10th level*, and one sank around 10-11th level*; and in that order. I'm hoping my current campaign can get to 12th!
* - approximate party level average. Some individual characters got a bit higher.

The two of those I ran sank for different reasons. The first one I'd plain got tired of, and the rules by then needed a pretty big overhaul. The second one was still quite viable, but I just ran out of good ideas as to what to run.

Wow, this is almost identical to my experience and the various campaigns we played!

The first was my homebrew campaign, exclusively using self-written adventures which lasted until about 9th level, the second (during which we switched to 2e) we just played through the 'classic' official modules, using the Tomb of Horror as a campaign ending device after about level 11, and the third was a Dark Sun campaign that ended at about level 8.

Most campaigns I participated in as a player sunk due to tpks. I've never played a character higher than level 9.

 

[evildmguy]

I'm not sure why you think that. OD&D + Greyhawk had spells and foes for up to 18th level PCs, AD&D certainly had spell charts all the way up to 20th level. Anyone with spells got more spells and higher level spells. Everyone got More Awesome magic items. Everyone was fighting More Awesome foes.

We played games up to 20th level (and beyond).

I've never known anyone offline who assumed that 'name' level was the end of the game. Ever. Game magazines from the 70's and 80's never assumed that either.

Cheers

Certainly I can't speak for you, only myself. The few characters that got higher than 10th level pre 3E in my old games were because the players didn't want to give them up and I was too nice to say no. Otherwise, yes, I go by campaigns and a group's story. When that story is done, I want to go onto another group's story.

I also faked several things to give xp and levels because I was young, stupid and inexperienced. The two groups that got to high level wouldn't be there if it wasn't for that.

Yes, there are some improvements for some characters beyond "name level" but only spellcasters really see a big change. I proved, to myself, that a group of well playing 9th level adventurers could kill a lich of 18th level. And a 10th level well prepared and well equipped mage could kill a group of 18th+ level adventurers. Because of that, there didn't seem to be any point to go beyond "name level" to me.

I always took "name level" to be the point where an adventurer builds a fortress or keep and retires. I think I got it from "reading between the lines" of the 1E books but I could be wrong.

It's probably my own want for "realism" in that only so much happens in person's (adventuring) life before they retire. That's also why I tell a group's story and then want to move onto the next group's story.

When college came along, campaigns ran for a summer and end at however high they would get in that time. Since we would have different people available and different times, we started anew each summer and they could only get so high.

3E saw characters get to ~15th level before the campaign was over. The players were disappointed as heck, I find out years later, but I was burned out on 3E for various reasons and it was easier for me to start over. I did find out recently that they weren't happy about it but fortunately they came along with me.

So, again, it's all anecdotal for me, but that's what I saw. I am the first to admit I don't have a lot of xp of playing or having lots of groups as I have DMed 90%+ of my DND time.

edg

 

[billd91]

It's interesting to hear that is your experiences. I wonder whether it is connected to the idea of running distinct 'campaigns'?

In those days all the gamers I played with had a 'stable' of characters, of various classes and various levels, who would be brought out for a game or a series of games; normally in the same campaign world, sometimes being run by different DMs. One of the results of this was that nobody got 'stale' playing the same character all the time.

It may have been a contributory factor to the relative longevity of characters, as against campaigns.

Cheers

That's pretty much how we used to do it too. And one of the things that tended to inflate the number of characters was one of the DMs coming up with an adventure (either home-brew or module) that was for lower leveled characters. We'd end up making new PCs to add to our stables and play.

 

[Ariosto]

My understanding is that in Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, 20th level meant mandatory retirement (and a celebratory dinner at Dave's expense). At least one player tried to avoid attaining that level with a character he wanted to keep playing!

The Original set stated, "There is no theoretical limit to how high a character may progress," but clarified some key matters only up to 13th or 17th, while others remained ambiguous. Experience-point progressions beyond "name" level remained matters of inference for the original three classes, although made explicit for classes introduced later.

I gather (mainly from Tim Kask, IIRC) that the added spell levels and such in Supplement I were meant mainly for the provision of exceptionally powerful NPCs. That demihuman level limits were pretty much raised by 1 across the board (before considering extraordinary ability scores) in AD&D is in line with what seems a general expectation of higher levels among PCs.

From the earliest days of D&D right into the 1st ed. AD&D era, Gygax and Kuntz came out against "Monty Haul" campaigns because (for one thing) they quickly exhausted the range of power levels at which the game was really interesting. See, for example, the stats of various deities and demigods. On the other hand, I think they have stated that the published versions of their characters (Mordenkainen, Robilar, etc.) are considerably "toned down" from what actually developed in play.

What I have mainly seen is "retirement" of characters to their domains in the early teens, from which they but rarely come forth to adventure. It becomes increasingly difficult to keep aggressive high-level characters alive, and hardly anyone really wants to get into a "wish war" -- especially with beings who have survived it for centuries already!

YMMV, of course. Some people prefer high-level play almost exclusively, just as some prefer low levels. Most of the folks with whom I have gamed favor variety, with the "Marvel Comics mode" just an occasional indulgence -- when an appropriately epic undertaking arises.

 

[Glyfair]

If the authors in question included enough potential XP for a far more meteoric rise (which a certain examination of older modules demonstrates), but said meteoric rise did not occur, one must conclude perforce that a large portion of the potential was not realized. I.e., monsters were not defeated, and treasure was not gained. Anyone failing to take this into account is creating a model not in accordance with the expected reality, and that model must be considered suspect.

Remember that these quotes were about OD&D. The first TSR modules were all AD&D, which used different advancement rules (xp for gp gained being a major turning point). Using modules to gain assumptions is pretty tricky. The only OD&D modules were third party (principally Judges Guild).

Personally, I think level advancement rate is better tied loosely to real time. I don't care whether I play once a week or once a month, I don't really feel comfortable gaining only a level or two after a year of play.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Remember that these quotes were about OD&D. The first TSR modules were all AD&D…

Pretty much true, but there are a couple of "buts" in there. For example, the Wintercon V/1976 version of The Lost Caverns of Tsojconth was published, and pre-dates AD&D. The original versions of B1 and B2 were both released for Holmes Basic, which I think of as a flavor of OD&D (its rules are closer to OD&D than to anything else -- especially the stuff like attribute bonuses, movement, et cetera).

…which used different advancement rules (xp for gp gained being a major turning point).

XP for GP was the rule from the beginning, so I'm not sure what you mean by it being a turning point. OD&D and AD&D had essentially the same advancement rules from Supplement I on (with minor differences in the total XP to advance a given level and the exact XP given for a monster). Prior to Supplement I, OD&D had the 100 xp per monster level guideline, which was subject to a lot of referee futzing in order to reflect the actual difficulty and "value" of the battle. But variations in monster XP aside, the treasure XP was always 1 xp for 1 gp, and treasure XP was always the biggest chunk of XP.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Remember that these quotes were about OD&D.

When the 1e DMG was coming out, Gary's editorial stated that the main message was "The party is over." AD&D was intended to be harder than OD&D, and level more slowly.

Using modules to gain assumptions is pretty tricky.

That's part of my point.

When you consider the idea that TSR assumed that all treasure in modules would be found, we have against that (at the very least) the published description of how the winning party fared in the GenCon Against the Giants tourney (they missed the major treasure in G1, and had to find the next module by taking to Snurre's head, using speak with dead), and the quote in my .sig.

But the point is not to establish in granite what the actual progression was; it is merely to establish that there is a change in the expected progression (expected by the designers) between then and now.

Especially in rebuttal to repeated claims that everything is "the same as it has ever been" even though "sacred cows have been slaughtered", "it is much better", and "it has changed". It is difficult to intelligently discuss the effects of change (good or bad) when a vocal minority is dedicated to pretending that no change has occurred.


RC

 

[Puggins]

Especially in rebuttal to repeated claims that everything is "the same as it has ever been" even though "sacred cows have been slaughtered", "it is much better", and "it has changed". It is difficult to intelligently discuss the effects of change (good or bad) when a vocal minority is dedicated to pretending that no change has occurred.

Which particular minority are you referring to? What posts? It's crystal clear to anyone who started in 1e that the game has evolved, whether you like it or not.

A few more comments:

Having DMed 1e up to 14th level, I can testify that the game essentially capped out well before then (10th to 12th is fairly accurate). A reasonably equipped 12th level party has nothing to fear from any monster in 1e short of the Tarrasque or Demogorgon or really poor saving throw rolls. Type VI/Balors were the toughest of the non-demon Princes and averaged 44hp (8+8 HD) vs. 290 in 3.5e (and even more in 4e). Ancient Red Dragons had 88hp vs. 660hp in 3.5e. A 12th level party of four would kill the ancient red in practically no time.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Which particular minority are you referring to? What posts?

I don't think it's that hard to find the posts I am talking about, but at the same time I don't think EnWorld's Rules allow me to specify.

It's crystal clear to anyone who started in 1e that the game has evolved, whether you like it or not.

"The game has evolved" is a questionable position.

D&D 4e is certainly a different animal than AD&D 1e, and D&D 4e is certainly a descendent of AD&D 1e. "Evolution", of course, no longer implies in the biological sciences a forward progression to a better state. It has, instead, become a bias-neutral statement of change. Successful evolution occurs on the basis of fitting into an environmental niche/adaptation to environmental conditions.

In this sense, 4e has certainly "evolved" from 1e. Of course, exactly what conditions 4e is adapted for -- be they market forces, or what is best for actual game play -- is open to debate. Most people, IME, admit that it is a compounding of these two elements. It is also, perhaps, an element to consider, that the design goals have changed, of a necessity, because 4e seeks to reach a different (and, obviously, WotC believes a broader) target audience than 1e sought to reach.

In another sense, AD&D 1e has not evolved beyond its actual parameters -- after all, plenty of people still play 1e. Regardless of not being in print, it is still very much a "living system".

This might be likened to animal husbandry. You can breed a terrier to hunt rats, but doing so does not mean that the mastiff stock it was bred from has "evolved" or no longer exist. Instead, it has "branched". In this sense, D&D 4e is a branched descendent of AD&D 1e, bred to perform a different function than its predecessor, but not an "evolution" of its predecessor.

Of course, one might also make a claim that D&D has "evolved" in a biased "A is better than B" manner, but this is a subjective claim at best. The edition of D&D that best suits a group's needs depends very much upon what those needs are in the first place. One is not inherently "better" than the others.



RC

 

[Plane Sailing]

I always took "name level" to be the point where an adventurer builds a fortress or keep and retires. I think I got it from "reading between the lines" of the 1E books but I could be wrong.

For us, 'name level' was the point where an adventurer builds a fortress, develops the land, sees off monstrous incursions, engages in politics, perhaps even building their own nations... our adventures moved onto a broader canvas (and were all the better for it IMO).

And I have to say, as a DM I never found any problem challenging 1e parties of all classes right up to 18th level or so. Nor did my fellow DMs. I find it hard to conceive how a party of 9th level characters could slay an 18th level lich without giving the lich some unrealistic disadvantages, but maybe that is just me.

Cheers