D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Tiers of Play

[Raith5]

The WotC site was having problems reading my post, so I'll share my thoughts here:

I'd like to challenge the framework of how tiers are divided. Since this is a Wandering Monster article, why not look at the monsters as a tier defining feature?

Spell access is certainly a useful feature, but I wouldn't say it is what defines a tier.

BECMI organized it around "scale of exploration" (dungeon > wilderness > city > kingdom > planes & gods). The rules that opened up thru BECMI showed that something new was happening - they really defined the tiers. Of course, the much loved Planewcape challenged those assumptions by putting low-level PCs out in the planes. And even BECMI adventures were mixed, so you'd have dungeons at Expert-tier for example.

I agree that a focus on monsters is as important to tiers as a world and story building device. And this means that they have think about where creatures like Giants and Demons etc are in terms of hit dice/level.

However I still reckon they are trying to fit a hell of a lot of content into 20 levels. I like epic type of play and would prefer more than 3 levels (though 10 levels in 4th was too much). I would rather see this stretch out to 30 levels (with faster progression) with five tiers of play or something like that.

 

[Ichneumon]

My responses fell in line with the typical response to each and every question. Either I am sheep, or they are on point

Same here. Time to hand in my original thinker card.

 

[MerricB]

Same here. Time to hand in my original thinker card.

Baaaa!

My problems with this do not come from the concepts behind it, but only through the execution. And, since I haven't seen the execution yet, it still all looks good.

Cheers!

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't need the game to decide for me when it's time for my player's to begin participating in specific types of scenarios.

"The Game" decides nothing, and to my thinking, scenario type has nothing to do with it either.

In the old days, these "tiers" were general guidelines that merely suggested that beginning PCs seek adventures in relatively controlled underground locations not far removed from a base of operations for sheer survivability. After a few levels were under their belts, the PCs would be more likely to survive wilderness exploration far from safe base camps or civilization. At name level, the PCs were powerful enough to clear wilderness hexes and rule their own land. None of that had much to do with scenario type. Basic level characters could get involved with courtly intrigue in a city. There was no mandate to hunt rats in a basement.

Mind you these suggestions existed because it could get frustrating for level 1 PCs to set off across the trackless wilderness to become lunch for some monster once they got a day or two away from town. Now if you go to the trouble of concocting rules to prevent this from happening, that permit players with their heads firmly fixed up their rear ends to survive no matter how stupidly they behave then sure, these suggestions are meaningless.

 

[Tovec]

Which one of you douchè-bags voted that epic level characters should keep the rats away from the tavern's food supplies? Monstrous Rats!

I did. As well as for the previous tier. Currently it is at 2% for the epic and 1% for the .. paragon? (I don't like the terms they use.) So I guess others thought as I did and voted the same way - in both of those there is 0% saying the .. goblins? What was the questions lol?

The reason for this is because I hit "fight demons" during the expert tier, and there was nowhere else to go. Then again, I'm not surprised since WotC has been historically terrible at predicting what kinds of plots I want to do at higher levels - including what magics I expect the party to use repeatedly at those levels. *shrugs*

 

[Thyrwyn]

I don't need the game to decide for me when it's time for my player's to begin participating in specific types of scenarios.

I don't think that is the intention, but "tiers" can serve as a convenient indicator of PC power relative to the rest of the game world. If 3rd lvl PCs are saving the world from demonic invasions, then that has rather far reaching implications in terms of the availability of higher level NPCs - as in there aren't any. It is also important in terms of creating a consistent Bestiary, with creatures and monsters of appropriate power level to challenge the PCs.

So not so much about the types of scenarios, but more about the perceived power of the threats and opponents faced in those scenarios. At least, that was my understanding of the poll questions.

 

[Derren]

I don't think that is the intention, but "tiers" can serve as a convenient indicator of PC power relative to the rest of the game world. If 3rd lvl PCs are saving the world from demonic invasions, then that has rather far reaching implications in terms of the availability of higher level NPCs - as in there aren't any.

That doesn't explain why you need the term "Apprentice Tier" or "Epic Tier" instead of just saying Level 3 or Level 18 (outside of marketing of course).

 

[GX.Sigma]

Why not make it two distinct but compatible games, like BECMI was? Start with four classic races, four classic classes, no feats, no backgrounds, no sub-classes, focus on non-grid play with no class abilities/spells that are best for grids, compressed set of classic spells and equipment. Dungeons in Basic, Wilderness in Expert, Kingdoms in Paragon, and Planes/Gods in Epic. Support each tier with BEPE modules and world maps.

I think that product would sell well. New players would buy them. The types of players Hasbro highlighted in their study of gamer perspectives (quick rules, quick set-up, shorter games) would buy it, and some experienced players would buy both.

I've read that the BECMI line sold pretty poorly by the late 80s, since AD&D was the big deal, and people wanted to play that. I don't know how true that is, but I certainly saw how it went with the 4e Red Box. People don't like it when the introductory game is different from the real game. They'd rather just play the real game. (And if they're both "real games," then you have to support two competing lines and commit corporate suicide like TSR.) "Two distinct but compatible games" is not a viable plan, and I don't think it ever was.

I think the best plan (which is what they're doing) is to have the introductory game be the core, and the advanced game is just more options for that.

 

[Derren]

I've read that the BECMI line sold pretty poorly by the late 80s, since AD&D was the big deal, and people wanted to play that. I don't know how true that is, but I certainly saw how it went with the 4e Red Box. People don't like it when the introductory game is different from the real game. They'd rather just play the real game. (And if they're both "real games," then you have to support two competing lines and commit corporate suicide like TSR.) "Two distinct but compatible games" is not a viable plan, and I don't think it ever was.

The viable plan (which is what they're doing) is to have the introductory game be the core, and the advanced game is just more options for that.

That makes me thinking, has there ever by an instance where the simpler version/edition of an RPG outsold the more complex one? At least in D&Ds case there doesn't seem to be. That kinds makes this drive for simplicity WotC is doing since 4E look like a folly.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't need the game to decide for me when it's time for my player's to begin participating in specific types of scenarios.

Then you're in luck. You can just skip over the word 'tier' every time its mentioned in the book. That way everyone wins!