So what's gold gonna be for?

[Lonely Tylenol]

I can't find a single thing to disagree with in that.

Hold on, wait. Am I still on the internet?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

This is akin to being promoted from Private to Colonel in the same time. You don't progress that fast in anything...it just isn't right and completely blows the 'feel' of the game. It isn't in the remotest sense of the word, believable. I realize this is a fantasy game, but one reason that the LotR was different than the rest of the pulp crap that was out there at the time. There was a sense of realism that held it together.

When it is missing from a game, it does a lot to sour the aspect of Epic and makes it look more Cartoonish.

I'd wager that I could get myself up to a decent competitive level in fencing in a year if it was all I ever did. Likewise, a year is plenty long to get to level 9, considering how many hours a week adventurers put into their myriad shticks.

 

[gizmo33]

I have played DnD with bad DMs, mediocre DMs and a few superb DMs. None of them, not even the best, could run an Empire building game at a level that would interest me.

Your assessment is what I also believe most of the time. However, I wonder whether or not some computer software, combined with a "heroes of battle" type approach of presenting things from the PC perspective, could be used to create something interesting. After all, I don't think anyone is so much of a simulationist that they expect the DM to play the NPCs when they're not interacting with the PCs, or that the DM is supposed to develop a dungeon naturally by playing out the thousands of random events that led up to it's creation. In theory it seems that all you would need would be enough simulation to suspend your disbelief and then you'd have what you have with normal dungeon crawling.

 

[gizmo33]

I'd wager that I could get myself up to a decent competitive level in fencing in a year if it was all I ever did. Likewise, a year is plenty long to get to level 9, considering how many hours a week adventurers put into their myriad shticks.

Being competative in fencing is not the same thing as being 9th level in DnD IMO. Unless competitive fencers can kill dozens of adversaries at once and swim around in pools of lava without dying. There's a certain aura that 9th level adventurers have and it's a little uncomfortable to think about a character transforming into one in the course of a year.

 

[LordVyreth]

Okay, here's how I would handle gold and magic items, if I was soley responsible for 4th Ed.

1. Stat boosting primary magic items. Here we have our +x swords, items of important attribute bump (strength for fighter, intelligence for wizard, dexterity and constitution for pretty much everyone,) rings of protection, etc. These are legacy items and are automatically improved by leveling, and only by leveling. These make a character better in combat for the most part, and everyone gets them. No money is involved here.

2. Useful magic items. This category contains wings of flying, cloaks of the montebank, bottles of air, portable holes, etc. Few of these directly improve combat, though they do improve combat options. They mostly open up possibilities for adventures, and the game assumes someone in the party spends gold to get them. Nobody, however, has to. If one player does but another has other interests for money, that's fine. The former player has more combat/dungeon versatility, but the party as a whole still can go off and adventure underwater, in flying castles, and other places that need such magic items. And if nobody wants to buy those items, either they aren't interested in such adventures or the DM creates some other setting-specific ways to get the party involved (like a generous NPC benefactor or a random magic teleporter.) The expectation is that the characters also get some potions, scrolls, wands, and other expendible items, but most of these can be found instad of bought.

3. This leaves a sizeable discretionary incombe, giving the player many options. Players eager to play generous characters can give it to charity. Hedonist characters can spend it on the usual ale/whores (which could actually justify bringing back the old 1ed prostitute table, ironically! Except it could be level-based, featuring upper level categories like "15th level half-demon bard," and "Selune.") Prestige-obsessed characters can spend it on clothing, jewelry, and other luxury items, and ambitious players can buy castles, armies, airships, or businesses.

And what about the consummate professionals with no interest in any of these things? They can spend the money on more level 2 items or the even less useful level 3 items. These include cubic fields, decks of illusion, bags of tricks, that sort of thing. They also can get lesser equivalents of their legacy items to specific situations. For example, a fighter with the 4th ed equivalent of a +5 sword as a legacy item can also buy a +3 club specifically to fight undead. Tertiary attributes can also be found here. A fighter has little combat benefit to an intelligence booster, but if the player wants this option, it can be found here. This way, all players are about equivalent for most combats, but the adventure, combat, or dungeon focussed player won't feel like money is a waste.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Also, if you believe that Oblivion handles high level combat and dugneon crawls better... why doesnt it handle low level combat dungeon crawls better? Should we just cut out the combat of D&D? Good luck finding a game with the 6 players scattered throughout the world still interested in the game

That's what I thought. Sundragon's argument, if correct, doesn't just apply to high level D&D but to all levels. It would mean removing the dungeon bashing from Dungeons & Dragons, which seems a little strange, to say the least.

I agree with Wulf that exploring the unknown, killing what lives there and taking its stuff is the core or essence of the game. It's certainly what I enjoy the most.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'd debate that. I've done a lot of "going into dungeons, killing the bad guys, and taking their stuff", but such activities were means to the end, not the ends of themselves. The "ends" were either the in-game ends of building the castle or saving the Kingdom, or the out-of-game ends of doing something fun with friends on a Sunday afternoon. I've never gotten a thrill from kills orcs per se.

Essence <> ends.

The reason for going down the dungeon is ultimately fairly unimportant. It's just an excuse for violence. Good-aligned parties are doing it to save the kingdom or the reputation of Queen Guinevere. Neutral or evil parties are doing it for the loot. They're both in the same place ain't they? Doing the same things, killing the same beholders.

 

[allenw]

I'd wager that I could get myself up to a decent competitive level in fencing in a year if it was all I ever did. Likewise, a year is plenty long to get to level 9, considering how many hours a week adventurers put into their myriad shticks.

What always blows my suspension of disbelief is: If an "elite" person can make it to Level 20 in, say, two years, surely a regular person could do it in, say, 10 years. That being the case, why isn't the (adult) world mostly populated by 20th+ level characters? Especially when you start talking about dwarves and elves...

Sadly, rapid level advancement is the default norm in the 3Ed RAW. Just look at something like Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, in which the PCs *must* go from 4th to 14th level in a practically non-stop series of episodes (which should logically take under a year) in order to save the world?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Being competative in fencing is not the same thing as being 9th level in DnD IMO. Unless competitive fencers can kill dozens of adversaries at once and swim around in pools of lava without dying. There's a certain aura that 9th level adventurers have and it's a little uncomfortable to think about a character transforming into one in the course of a year.

Okay, so how many hours of practice do you think you would need before you could swim around in a pool of lava? All we have to do then is aim for 9th level characters to have that much time to practice.

I think it makes more sense for the purposes of argument to say that low-level characters are "barely competent", mid-level characters are "competent," and high-level characters are "the best there is." When we break it down like that, the vagaries of D&D physics matter less and comparisons to real-world learning curves--which is what you're using as a benchmark for your "one year is too short" comment--become more viable.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

What always blows my suspension of disbelief is: If an "elite" person can make it to Level 20 in, say, two years, surely a regular person could do it in, say, 10 years. That being the case, why isn't the (adult) world mostly populated by 20th+ level characters? Especially when you start talking about dwarves and elves...

That's not a question of advancement speed. It's a question of why everyone isn't being an adventurer.

Really, that's something that goes pretty deep into the assumptions of the game world. Why settle for being a warrior or expert when you could be a fighter or wizard? Why be a commoner when you could be a rogue? Even if you're stuck being a warrior, why be a guard, when you could find some other guys with swords and go loot a dungeon? Certainly, if you become an adventurer, you're going to get powerful pretty quickly. However, you have to be one first. Why isn't everyone.

It's not a question of advancement speed because even if it takes 20 years to get to level 20, rather than 2, everyone over the age of 35 would be level 20, assuming that advancement speed is the only thing holding them back.