D&D 5E The Illusion of Experience Points that Everyone Disbelieves

[Giltonio_Santos]

Uh... what exactly is a "theme park-style game" and what in the world does that obviously pejorative label have to do with the preferred method of character advancement?

I certainly don't recall "leveling up" from Space Mountain to Expedition Everest or whatever last time I was at DisneyWorld. I'm really struggling to find any way in which that label is in any way at all relevant.

Well, as long as my experience is concerned, it's just descriptive, not pejorative at all. Isn't it funny when the obvious meaning of things ends up not being obvious at all?

While someone else already explained what I meant, maybe I still should apologize, though, because I previously thought that referencing games as "theme park" or "sandbox" was common and generally understood.

Not necessarily, which I think was the perhaps mis-stated point of this thread in the first place. Even sandbox style games can just as effectively be run with ad hoc XP awards, in which case, the "XP is an illusion" is a valid point. An over-stated point, but not an invalid one.

As I said in the text you quoted, it's not a matter of what is and what isn't possible. "Level when you want to" is equally possible in both theme park and sandbox, but I stand by my belief that choosing between ad hoc leveling or objective XP awards creates totally different games, both in feel and in playstyle, and that I demand the later option to be in any D&D edition I want to play (otherwise, I'll just keep playing 2E, where the option is there and nobody will ever remove it).

 

[Desdichado]

Well, as long as my experience is concerned, it's just descriptive, not pejorative at all. Isn't it funny when the obvious meaning of things ends up not being obvious at all?

While someone else already explained what I meant, maybe I still should apologize, though, because I previously thought that referencing games as "theme park" or "sandbox" was common and generally understood.

Theme park as a label is commonplace. It just doesn't mean what you used it as--it refers to the experience being inauthentic, touristy or trite.

The use of the analogy of the various "lands" is actually quite clever... but I certainly had never heard it before.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Theme park as a label is commonplace. It just doesn't mean what you used it as--it refers to the experience being inauthentic, touristy or trite.

The use of the analogy of the various "lands" is actually quite clever... but I certainly had never heard it before.

I won't contest that it can in fact be used in a pejorative way, but it can also be used (not only me, but a lot of people do that) just to describe a game where content is developed in order to suit the needs of a given group at a given time. It's not about the authenticity of the experience or the challenge level of the actual adventures, it's about level 1 characters finding hatchlings but no great wyrms and groups without a paladin finding a frost brand instead of a holy avenger lying in the catacombs of an ancient temple. It works with some prominent "story now" agendas, but simply cannot accomplish the kind of organic gameplay I (and some other people) prefer.

 

[Li Shenron]

Indeed, in D&D, whatever the level a group of PCs is, that group will only undertake adventures designed for that level. Not only that, but commercial D&D campaigns and adventuresd even calculate how many XPs the PCs are likely to earn during each adventure, and the level of each adventure is accordingly calibrated. Adventures would arguably not even be fun if undertaken by PCs of the "wrong" level.

I am not sure, but I think you're overlooking the possibility that not all PCs have the same total XP.

This doesn't work well in all RPG. Some of them pretty much require that all PCs are of the same level (or very close), in order for an adventure to work smoothly, i.e. an adventure specifically designed for such level.

Or more generally, every RPG tolerates a certain "maximum level spread" among PC. I would very much prefer a RPG to have a large level spread, in which case XP are useful to reward PC who survive longer (because you don't have to allow new PCs starting at the same level) and players who come to play more often.

Certainly, if everybody has to be at the same level because the RPG doesn't tolerate a large level spread, it's probably best to just level up when the DM has run out of adventures to play at that level.

 

[Dungeoneer]

I am starting to strongly suspect that this is an edition-based preference. People who started with 3.x and up expect to encounter monsters they might conceivably beat, even if it might be a very challenging fight. People who started in the primordial soup of oD&D and its immediate successors expect that they might encounter anything at any time.

Am I way off track with these assumptions?

 

[Umbran]

Am I way off track with these assumptions?

I think you're off track, yes. Unless somehow you don't count AD&D as an "immediate successor".

Remember that the classic AD&D modules were the basis for play for a whole lot of people - and they were clearly designed and marked for level-appropriateness.

 

[TwoSix]

I think you're off track, yes. Unless somehow you don't count AD&D as an "immediate successor".

Remember that the classic AD&D modules were the basis for play for a whole lot of people - and they were clearly designed and marked for level-appropriateness.

I may be off-base here, but weren't OD&D dungeons designed with levels that mapped roughly to character level?

 

[Dungeoneer]

I think you're off track, yes. Unless somehow you don't count AD&D as an "immediate successor".

Remember that the classic AD&D modules were the basis for play for a whole lot of people - and they were clearly designed and marked for level-appropriateness.

I may be off-base here, but weren't OD&D dungeons designed with levels that mapped roughly to character level?

I may not have been clear, I meant to include (oD&D->2e) in my 'primordial soup'. Basically, anything before WotC, however you prefer to phrase that.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Theme park as a label is commonplace. It just doesn't mean what you used it as--it refers to the experience being inauthentic, touristy or trite.

The use of the analogy of the various "lands" is actually quite clever... but I certainly had never heard it before.

Theme park is a common term in MMORPG circles. If you post on one of those sites, they'll immediately recognize it.

It generally means an MMORPG where you go to one specific area, talk to a bunch of NPCs in the area who give you a bunch of quests to do things in one specific area such at the Cave of Wonders or The Land of Misfit Toys. You then go to this specifically themed area, complete all the quests and then move on to another area where you get quests for a new "theme park".

It is similar to, but not identical to a story based D&D campaign where you get a quest to go to a specific place and accomplish a quest and then come back only to get another quest to go somewhere else.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Remember that the classic AD&D modules were the basis for play for a whole lot of people - and they were clearly designed and marked for level-appropriateness.

Not only that but the DMG for 1e AD&D had a table to show what monsters should be on each Dungeon Level which were supposed to map roughly to character level as well. Each level was carefully populated with a mix of easy, medium and hard encounters for the appropriate level.

I mean, the idea was supposed to be that players could go to Dungeon Level 2 even at first level if they wanted to, but they'd get higher risk and should know this in advance.