More "realistic" advancement in D&D?

[Snoweel]

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.

...snip...

I am in particular trying to get at the discrepancy in both the vast difference in power between lower and higher levels (or even low and middle), but also the awkwardness of supposedly powerful NPCs "only" being of a level (say, Paragon tier, 11th+ level) that can be reached by PCs after just a few adventures and as little as a few weeks within the game.

I know it's only a tangential point for you but I do want to point out the official WotC line on this:

Although some non-player characters might have a class and gain power, they do not necessarily advance as the PCs do, and they exist for a different purpose. Not everyone in the world gains levels like PCs. An NPC might be a veteran of many battles and still not become a 3rd-level fighter; an army of elves is largely made up of nonclassed soldiers.

---Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters p.13

I think if anything, experience points should be renamed to something else, because in a game where PCs can become literally superhumanly powerful, clearly something other than experience is responsible for their power increase.

Either way, a 30-level system is inappropriate for a simulation, which you seem to aiming for. If you absolutely must play D&D, you may as well embrace the system and justify why humans (and elves and stuff) can become so phenomenally powerful in such a short space of time.

IRL, you could take (almost) any four guys off this board and with just a week's training they could beat Brock Lesnar in a fight.

That's because IRL not even the (notionally) best fighter on the planet is 30th level.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I certainly think this is a much better approach than trying to rebuild the entire structure of the game. There are lots of tweaks that can be made together to give the effect you want, without any changes to the core structure.

For 4e, you can run an Heroic Tier world where levels run 1-10; magic items of level 11+ are artifacts created by the gods etc.

Using half XP, it takes around 6 sessions to level, that gives you around 60 sessions before the PCs would normally exceed the cap, which is more than the 3e campaign standard of '52 sessions to go 1-20'.

Make most NPCs 3rd-7th level monsters; that way they remain viable as threats or allies all through the campaign; eg PCs can fight a lone 7th level gnoll at 1st level, a small group at 5th, and a large pack with leaders at 9th, and still be challenged. No one wonders why the monsters don't stomp the cities with their mostly 3rd level Human Guards. You won't need to adjust NPC stats for party level, and the world will still seem real. Your monster palette can use roughly the 1st 15 levels without adjustment, higher level monsters can be de-levelled for use (eg I take ca 6 levels off the Paragon giants, putting them mostly in the 9th-12th level range).

Another advantage of this approach is that you can always change your mind later, going to regular advancement rate and/or going into Paragon tier, and there won't be a massive wrench.

My own Vault of Larin Karr 4e campaign is basically Heroic Tier, with a few (presumably) low Paragon NPCs far offstage. I use a sandbox setting and standard XP, I'm finding it's taking 3-4 sessions to level, which works well for me since I'm only running 1 game every 2 weeks for 6 session/3 month periods, then taking breaks of several months. Any slower would be too slow for my needs. If I were running daily then half XP would be better.

 

[jbear]

It's difficult to quantify how someone learns a new task/skill in 'real world' terms. For one reason, this will vary from individual to individual. I believe the 'training' one gets at an early age also influences how quickly one picks up similar or related activities later in life.

Another important factor is how intensely you are involved in the new activity. If you only go to music lessons twice a week, and then practice for an hour a day at home then your advancement will be slow. If you wake up at 6am and are intensely involved in music learning activities til 8 in the evening, and then practicing until bed time, your advancement will be a lot faster.

Also, once you can play the instrument, how long does it take a musician to pick up a new style of music or a new song? Obviously not as long as it takes to learn the instrument in the first place.

I presume level 1 characters have already learnt how to use their instrument. As they advance they are learning new and more difficult songs, but the important base is already there to build upon.

Anyway, if you want to achieve a system of advancement that seems more realistic to you, I'd suggest you scrap XP altogether and advance your PCs a level when you consider the circumstances have been reached where an increase in power is 'realisitic'.

 

[mmadsen]

I think if anything, experience points should be renamed to something else, because in a game where PCs can become literally superhumanly powerful, clearly something other than experience is responsible for their power increase.

Well said.

Either way, a 30-level system is inappropriate for a simulation, which you seem to aiming for. If you absolutely must play D&D, you may as well embrace the system and justify why humans (and elves and stuff) can become so phenomenally powerful in such a short space of time.

On the other hand, a talented individual with the right experience can become so good at something that he is effectively superhuman. Trick shooters really can shoot coins out of the air, zen archers really can hit targets from horseback while blindfolded, rock climbers really can climb sheer cliff faces, acrobats really can walk tight ropes, etc.

It does not strain credibility that the greatest knight in all the land is worth more than 20 ordinary knights. It does strain credibility that he could, say, take 20 sword slashes on his unarmored body without dropping, or whatever.

That is, the power level of D&D isn't necessarily the problem; it's the "unrealistic" nature of that power that's the problem.

IRL, you could take (almost) any four guys off this board and with just a week's training they could beat Brock Lesnar in a fight.

That's because IRL not even the (notionally) best fighter on the planet is 30th level.

Four ordinary guys might be able, with training, to take Brock Lesnar down from ambush, but it's not a sure thing. He really is that much bigger, stronger, faster, and skilled than ordinary men. Once we add weapons though -- without adding armor too -- that changes things, because no one is especially sword-proof.

 

[Filcher]

Or, if you have the old first edition AD&D DMG kicking around, you could use the old training rules for level advancement.

If memory serves (and it probably doesn't) didn't it also cost gold for advancing? Or was that just the justification for 1 gp = 1 xp? I'm in an airport w/o access to my books.

 

[Filcher]

Not advancement, but related to the OP ...

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.

One idea I've been toying with is having monsters do their level in damage when their attacks miss. If HP really are "luck, divine providence, endurance, blah blah," then ducking a blow or blocking a strike should wear you down a little. Blocking a blow from Orcus really should cost you "30 H(oly smokes that was close) Points."

This way, a mob of 100 peasants might at least inconvenience a 15th level character.

I don't know how it will work across the levels, but I'm going to try it out our next few sessions, along with the other usual anti-grind fixes.

 

[Snoweel]

Four ordinary guys might be able, with training, to take Brock Lesnar down from ambush, but it's not a sure thing.

I dunno man, I've seen the difference just a week of MSD training can make to some guy who's got no idea. Add to that a focus on specific 4-guys-vs-Brock-Lesnar tactics; I've seen 3 MPs (one fat, one skinny and one female) take down an absolute ferocious monster (admittedly drunk and probably raging from steroids) just through great teamwork. The key was that the first guy in nearly had his head taken off with a punch but he picked himself off the ground in time to help the other two.

It was very impressive.

But that brings me to my caveat. I guess four ordinary guys would be no chance of beating Brock Lesnar unless they were willing; they'd need sufficiently high levels of aggression or self-respect to hang in there if they took a big punch or kick, where most people would give up rather than stick to the game plan.

But I'm making an analogy about adventurers here. Adventurers can be as brave as they want. They're not going to bottle it if they experience a bit of pain or if things start going against them. And four ordinary men, sufficiently motivated (this includes trust in each other) are physically capable of taking down anyone after only a week's training. All they have to do is grab Lesnar at the same time. That might take a few goes but it's doable.

 

[Filcher]

The key was that the first guy in nearly had his head taken off with a punch but he picked himself off the ground in time to help the other two.

Off topic, but which was the first one in? Fat or skinny?

 

[Snoweel]

If HP really are "luck, divine providence, endurance, blah blah," then ducking a blow or blocking a strike should wear you down a little.

I always assumed losing hit points did include the jarring felt by blocking a big strike on your sword or shield.

This way, a mob of 100 peasants might at least inconvenience a 15th level character.

The DM should just narrate that kind of thing:

DM: Roll d20.

Player: 16

DM: You kill 16 peasants but eventualy they drag you down and pummel you into unconsciousness...

I don't know how it will work across the levels, but I'm going to try it out our next few sessions, along with the other usual anti-grind fixes.

Hint: have enemies give up if it fits their character.

At certain stages of adversity (e.g. they take their first hit, become bloodied, see a mate die, or surrender, or run away) then they should just do whatever they can to protect themselves, whether that be surrender, run away, or play dead.

Few people IRL willingly fight to the death. Even fewer animals. Even when protecting their young.

Off topic, but which was the first one in? Fat or skinny?

The skinny bloke. He shelled up as he went in so he took the brunt of the blow on his forearms but it still knocked him to the ground. It was pretty big.

I wasn't surprised he got up but I was surprised he got up so quickly.

 

[Oni]

I think if anything, experience points should be renamed to something else, because in a game where PCs can become literally superhumanly powerful, clearly something other than experience is responsible for their power increase.

I vote AWESOME POINTS, complete with all caps and primary colours.