Slowing Advancement and Other Arbitrary Restrictions

[I'm A Banana]

Looks like you could slow XP and, at the same time, slow treasure acquisition. Same encounters, just less reward for each of them, so you get more of them before you gain a level.

 

[Brimshack]

I generally try to keep my campaigns a little slow. My preference is to do this by adding this other than hack and slash without giving a significant x.p. pay-off for them. Lots of extra role-play, and the pay off for that is better circumstances. Since I tend to start the characters with major political obstacles to overcome, it takes quite awhile before these result in easy ply.

Most importantly, I am a firm believer in conflicts which do not result in clear PC victory. I figure everybody wants to keep their skin, so there are lots of conflicts where one side or the other ends up retreating and the second allows it.I don't give full x.p. for such things, and it adds flavor to a low level campaign. In the first few sessins the players ar often lucky if they can fire an Xbow without hurting themselves. It takes awhile before they even begin to wrack up a kobald or an orc. Then they begin to build momentum...


Anyway, I mean the point is that one can slow down a game by adding challenges which the players may not win, but which they will simply survive. That's my preference anyway...

 

[S'mon]

Sorry, wasn't clear. I meant that my 1e and 2e campaigns leveled at exactly the same rate as my 3e campaigns, both as a player and a DM. 4-6 sessions/level on average, in any edition.
The whole "it usually took years to hit double digit levels" never applied in any game I ever played or saw until 3e actually.

I think in my 1e campaign it also took roughly 16-24 hours' play to level, much like your 4-6 sessions, but we were mostly playing 45 minute sessions in the school lunch break. Actually I remember a 3rd level half-orc Fighter once killed a giant zombie critter from Dragon mag in solo combat and went straight to 5th level, but that was exceptional.

If I do 3e XP by the book though, the PCs level every 2-3 sessions. That's the difference - I have to halve 3e XP awards to get it back to every 4-6 sessions. 5 sessions to level is the recommended rate in the Rules Cyclopedia version of D&D, and I think it's a good baseline figure, though 1e after Name level should be more like 10 sessions, RC levels 9-36 need half as much XP, and are intended to be burned through much quicker than 1e/2e/C&C levels 9+. The 3e designers intended 3.333 sessions to level, which is on the quick end of what I think's ok, but then you get competent players & a tough GM (or a Necromancer module) and it goes to 2-3 sessions. 2 sessions to level is I think just too quick for the game to work well.

 

[Hussar]

The 3e designers intended 3.333 sessions to level,

Y'know, that's a number I see bandied about a lot. 20 levels in a single year of play. Yet, that was trotted out early in the 3e days, and, a great deal of play since then has pretty much buried that idea.

See, I have a great difficulty in reconciling the idea that you can get through 13 1/3 creatures, in a system that everyone tells me takes 2 hours to do a single combat.

Designer intent doesn't really amount to a hill of beans when it flies in the face of actual play. There may have been the intent for games to hit 20th within 66 sessions, but, I've yet to see anyone online who actually does this.

 

[Reynard]

Y'know, that's a number I see bandied about a lot. 20 levels in a single year of play. Yet, that was trotted out early in the 3e days, and, a great deal of play since then has pretty much buried that idea.

See, I have a great difficulty in reconciling the idea that you can get through 13 1/3 creatures, in a system that everyone tells me takes 2 hours to do a single combat.

Designer intent doesn't really amount to a hill of beans when it flies in the face of actual play. There may have been the intent for games to hit 20th within 66 sessions, but, I've yet to see anyone online who actually does this.

You keep bandying about the 1E modules to illustrate your experiences with 1E. Think about the modules for 3E the same way. More, even, think about the Dragon Mag adventure paths: 20 levels, 12 issues(months). You can't get more core than that.

 

[Reynard]

As far as converting to 1e- just one question - Why?

After about three decades of hard biting work, the makers have set forth a better system.

::sigh::

Not, they have made a different system, with different strengths, that many people (myself included) like. It is not, however, better, nor does its existence somehow make the previous editions suddenly bad.

 

[Kestrel]

I used to believe this, but now I look at it like it has a second head. I mean, why shouldn't games have a reward mechanic, and why shouldn't we try to use it to encourage the kind of play that we want? I mean, what if someone said "You don't need to try to accumulate wealth to have fun playing Monopoly, the thrill of gaming should be enough." Game design - which includes providing incentives through the system (or "numerical carrots") has a place in roleplaying.

Well, I didn't toss out leveling, I just tossed out a numerical system to getting there. We encourage the play that we want by discussion, between games. The players tell me what they want to see in the game, and I try to provide it.

I am working on a reward mechanic, because everyone likes recognition of when they do something cool, but I just dont think the xp system is what Im looking for. The idea I'm throwing around is a Fan Mail mechanic, where players can give others players an action point or swashcard when they do something really cool, have a great idea, or roleplay a scene really well. I have good players that want a fun game, so I don't have to worry too much about abuse of a player mechanic.

 

[Reynard]

I am working on a reward mechanic, because everyone likes recognition of when they do something cool, but I just dont think the xp system is what Im looking for. The idea I'm throwing around is a Fan Mail mechanic, where players can give others players an action point or swashcard when they do something really cool, have a great idea, or roleplay a scene really well. I have good players that want a fun game, so I don't have to worry too much about abuse of a player mechanic.

A reward system is arguably the most important subsystem in any game, simply because what rewards are given out for is going to have a major impact on what most players actually do. If the reward system (XP, say) is built around killing things and taking its stuff, then reward-minded players will kill things and take their stuff. This is where 3E has become a little stronger than previous editions -- rewards are given for "overcoming challenges" which can (though don't always) mean more than killing things and taking its stuff.

Conversely, if players are rewarded for "doiing cool stuff", you *might* get more cool stuff in your game. however, as any Exalted storyteller can attest, that isn't always the case -- having to listen to 5 minute long, boring, repetitive, "I just saw this in an anime" stunt descriptions can drive one mad.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Plus, it wouldn't work too well for groups with a "quiet player" or the like, who might not grab the spotlight (and who likes it like that).

 

[Ry]

If you have a quiet player (I do) I find (stronger than 1d6) action points are better than XP awards. XP awards penalize the quiet player, action points help everybody share the spotlight.