More "realistic" advancement in D&D?

[buddhafrog]

Thanks Oni. If I had found these earlier, I might have gone this route (OSRIC 2.0 sounds good after quick research). But I have all the needed .pdf's, DM screen, characters created, taught the basics, etc. I think I will try this. However, after a couple months, if lacking, I might give another a try.

Regarding monter bonuses.... We just had our first encounter last week and I hadn't realized it until reading this thread. All the +X bonuses per monster includes the +1/2 level, correct? If so, then that is mighty good to know. I can easily subtract this +1/2 level bonus. Thanks!

 

[ashockney]

One thing I've always found annoying about D&D is the vast difference between a low and high level character, where a hundred 1st level characters wouldn't be able to take down one 20th level one, probably not even one 10th level one. I am all for heroism and fantasy, but I'm also interested in some degree of "realism"--I guess what Ron Edwards called simulationism.

A particularly irksome aspect of this quality is how the PCs always seem to run into similar level monsters and NPCs, as if any monsters or NPCs more than three levels difference seem to fade away into the background of the campaign world. I know some DMs, including myself, try to take a more naturalistic approach, even warning the players "I might throw anything at you, so know when it run away." But even though this is conscious in me I find it tempting to stick only to appropriate encounter levels.

The vast difference in levels and the way advancement is handled creates a weird kind of dissonance in the campaign world, where you have the PCs going on a mega-adventure lasting a few months in the game world but taking a year of weekly sessions and making it to 20th level, and then you have NPCs in published products like Paizo's excellent Seekers of Secrets that are supposed to represent seasoned veterans in positions of power that have gone on dozens of quests over a decade or more of adventuring, but are "only" 10th level.

In D&D advancement seems pretty consistent across the levels, so that a 5th level character is about five times as powerful as they were at 1st level, or if it can't be that quantified, "a lot more powerful" suffices. 4E evened this out a bit in that 1st level characters are about the equivalent of 3rd-5th in earlier editions, and there is less of a difference between 1st and 5th, although still a significant one (as there should be).

Now if I were to imagine a "realistic" fantasy world--that is one that follows similar basic laws as our own plus magic, dragons, and all that good stuff--I would think advancement would occur in smaller increments, and would diminish over time. So in terms of power increase you might get something like this:

In the above scheme, the difference between each level in terms of power gradually diminishes, and then evens out during the "paragon" tier (11-20th), slows down a bit more at 21st level and evens out to an even smaller increase.

I am basing this sense of "realism" on how we develop skills in our own world; if you practice a musical instrument or other artistic discipline diligently, you can achieve a basic degree of mastery within a few years; but deeper levels take much longer.

1) What are examples of some games in which advancement is more "realistic," that it slows down so that the difference between (the equivalent of) a 10th and 11th level character is less than between a 2nd and 3rd?

2) Any suggestions on how to tailor D&D 4E to make advancement more gradual and realistic?

To answer your questions directly:
1) Stormbringer (Chaosium) has the effect you're looking for. You tie something like HP to level, but if you want to gain "defense" "to hit" and "skills" you need to USE them in game time, and that gives you a "chance" to improve each during training between sessions. In order to improve a skill, you must roll "over" the skill on a standard dice. For example, the "to hit" bonus and "defense" bonus cap at 20. You typically roll a d20 for their use. Each "training" session would require you to roll "greater" than your current score. At first level, you're essentially "assured" this will improve, by the time you've achieved a "19" to hit bonus, getting to 20 may take 20 rolls or attempts. You can also require a certain amount of time, money, and/or "specialists" in the RP game world to complete the training, which can dramatically slow down the in-game time. Therefore, just by using something simple like 1 week per "point" increased, you've added 20 factoral to in-game time, which is a minimum of 4 years (210 weeks). Another example of this difference between levels is in 1e and E6. In these games, they simply and directly flatten out the power curve by limiting the advancement past a certain point. In 1e, a character 5th level fighter would have an average of 25 - 45 hp. A 15th level fighter would have an average of 63 - 83 hp. Although this is noticably more hp, it's still able to be overcome in the right circumstances, and with a little luck.

2) To make advancement in D&D more gradual and realistic, I strongly recommend reading the thread on Piratecat's campaign. His last campaign went too many years to count, and his current 4e campaign is scheduled to last approximately 6 years (levelling once per four game sessions, playing once every two weeks). I think the "effect" you're looking for, however, is more in relation to the power curve or austerity. If it is power curve, I recommend a second look at E6, which I find compelling (although I've not played or run this). If it is austerity, I would recommend adding a critical hit system similiar to that of Rolemaster or Hackmaster. In this way, you add the threat to any game system that a "random goblin" has the potential to kill a 20th level character.

 

[Destil]

For D&D the easiest way to do this is to play E6 (or E8 or whatever).

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/206323-e6-game-inside-d-d.html

 

[Dragonblade]

Really, the best way to flatten the power curve is to eliminate the 1/2 level bonus that PCs get to their attacks and defenses. Likewise, subtract 1/2 level from the defenses and attacks of all the monsters.

This eliminates a lot of the power gap between high and low level.

 

[S'mon]

You can create a world where NPCs are between 5th and 10th level, start the PCs at 5th, and cap at 10th (using E10 if desired). That way, characters never get more than twice as powerful from start to end of the campaign - technically in 4e it's supposed to be x2 power per 4 levels, but that can easily be tweaked by the magic items they get; if they start with 'level 10' items and never get more then the gradient will be shallower.

Personally I think that 4e has a pretty shallow gradient anyway, compared to earlier editions, and a level 1-10 Heroic Tier campaign shouldn't cause huge issues. At standard wealth/item awards the PCs end around 5 times as powerful as they started.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Not so much fixing the advancement rate, but The Black Company campaign setting put in some excellent ambush/surprise rules where a small platoon of low levels (2nd-4th) could have a high success rate at taking down a high level character (16th-20th).

But beyond the ambush/surprise moment, the high level character would still have the power you would expect from a D20/3.x-based system. Probably wiping the small platoon off the map rather handily.

 

[buddhafrog]

E6 for 4e?

For D&D the easiest way to do this is to play E6 (or E8 or whatever).

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/206323-e6-game-inside-d-d.html

I'm very new to this and am trying to find what works best. I like the idea of E6 (or so), but your link and others I have found are all 3.5 editions. Any info on E6 with 4e?

Thanks greatly.

 

[Starfox]

The easy way is to dump xp. Instead give out levels based on sessions played. It takes a number of sessions to level up equal to the level you are advancing to. So 2 sessions to second level, three sessions to third level, and so on (or a multiple of this of you want a slower game). Level 10 is 54 sessions. Level 20 is 209 sessions. Level 30 is 464 sessions.

Loot take a little more effort; I'd suggest a less-loot system like that apparently included in DMG2 (I don't have that book).

You might want to split the leveling benefits over time if you do this - 30 sessions is a grueling amount of time to wait to gain any kind of advancement. On the other hand, you might not.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I'm very new to this and am trying to find what works best. I like the idea of E6 (or so), but your link and others I have found are all 3.5 editions. Any info on E6 with 4e?

Thanks greatly.

No one (AFAIK) has done E6 or whatever with 4e but if I was doing it I would do it as E6 except I would cap the normal advancement at 10 or 12 and then do it like this

continue to get feat as you gain xp as normal and to gain powers where new powers become available but no power higher than the level normal advancement stopped and I would give the paragon path powers as normal.
I would drop the epic stuff altogether. Not sure about what monsters would be safe to use though as I have little experience of the game at paragon tier.

 

[Umbran]

I'd like to note that a problem with the difference in power between level 1 and level 20 is much different than a problem with "advancement".

Back in Ye Olden Days, a lot of us played campaigns by standard rules, but found for how we played, a campaign was pretty much done by the time we reached level 10, often after several years of play. That Level 20 was godlike power was not an issue, as our rate of advancement (in real world terms) was so slow that we'd never reach it, and the development (both game mechanical and in dramatic terms) we wanted to see in our characters was done long before we got there.

So, the simple expedient of doubling or tripling XP requirements (or similarly cutting rewards) may be sufficient to fix advancement problems - depending on your players. This leaves the upper levels of power available for the GM to use for NPCs and story, and leaves you with few mechanical repercussions.

Or, to put it simply - if you find you are going too fast, consider taking your foot off the gas, rather than modifying the engine.