D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Tiers of Play

[GX.Sigma]

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.

I don't think it has to do with complexity. I think it has to do with the tendency of new players to not want to buy the "starter version" when there's the "real" version right there (probably assuming the "starter version" only has a tiny amount of content, and they're expected to buy the "real" game when they're finished with it). Also, new players are usually introduced to the game by their more experienced friends who are already playing the "real" version.

 

[dd.stevenson]

The only use for tiers is to throw around those words (epic tier!!11) for marketing.

That's strictly false. Tiers are useful because they mark the availability of certain exploration (utility) spells and abilities. Designing an adventure for characters who can fly is different than designing an adventure for characters who can teleport is different than designing an adventure for characters who can shift planes.

Point of fact, I first became acquainted with the notion of tiers from a Ryan Dancey post on paizo.com during the second superstar competition. (Although I don't recall whether he used the term 'tier'.)

Now, maybe you're like me and don't really design adventures, and instead just prefer to throw more capable enemies at the players, play the baddies to the hilt, and let the chips fall where they may. But still, the tiers provide a useful guideline about what kind of monster you are throwing at the PC.

 

[Mistwell]

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

I'd love to read the source for this rumor. It does not comport with my recollection, but my recollection could be wrong. I was under the impression BECMI sold well, and the Rules Cyclopedia did fine as well.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm accustomed to Tiers of Play being actual levels and differing by class. But then when there are only 10 levels, at least safely expected levels a hard working player could reach in the length of campaign, then every level has its own iconic challenges and rewards.

In terms of spell effects, all magic comes from the functioning of the world. A wizard was not the creator of fireballs. Fireballs are possible to create in the D&D world without magic and sometimes they just manifest on their own. That's how wizards learned about them in the first place.

The important bit is these magical effects are level-defined world challenges for players to face, not so much powers they gain upon advancing into a level. They can face 5th level Fireballs at any level. Having the power on your character log isn't what makes the game more challenging.

And that's just the magic-user's challenges. There are other classes.

And honestly I don't see what setting stakes has to do with this or D&D at all. These are new difficulties for the players to improve in handling. Being able to cast Legend Lore or Limited Wish doesn't mean the players should have their goals determined for them anymore than at any other time in the game. EDIT: Stake setting by the DM is not just a misunderstanding of what a DM does or D&D in general, but a bad precedent for removing all of what games do for the limited play of storytelling.

 

[Sadras]

Is this a hint as to the new Basic / Expert / Companion / Master / Immortal set of books?

Basic / Apprentice = levels 1–4

Expert = levels 5–10

Paragon = levels 11–16

Epic = levels 17–20

I can hope! I'd love for that game to be published alongside the "Advanced" game.

+1.

 

[Derren]

Tiers are useful because they mark the availability of certain exploration (utility) spells and abilities.

No, levels do that. Not Tiers.
Fly does not become available when the wizard becomes Expert Tier, it becomes available when he be gets level 5.

 

[MerricB]

I'd love to read the source for this rumor. It does not comport with my recollection, but my recollection could be wrong. I was under the impression BECMI sold well, and the Rules Cyclopedia did fine as well.

My recollection is that the D&D Red Box sold really well - a lot of copies indeed. Sales of the other sets I'm not sure about. I don't think the Immortal rules did well, for instance! TSR became a lot less enthusiastic about the BECMI line as the 90s wore on, and the Rules Cyclopaedia, in many ways, is the last moment of glory of the line - with AD&D 2e receiving a lot more of the love.

Cheers!

 

[frankthedm]

High level adventures should have challenges that can't be solved merely by the application of PC's personal abilities. Merely using tougher opponents, and an overall jacking up of the numbers isn't going to cut it.

Of course if players aren't interested in domain management or any kind of administration then its probably best to just begin a new campaign.

Agreed, PCs would feel less like magic-addicted murderhobos if they would settle down and raise a stronghold more often.

 

[Sadras]

No, levels do that. Not Tiers.
Fly does not become available when the wizard becomes Expert Tier, it becomes available when he be gets level 5.

Yes, but Tiers (which is not a new concept) represents the everyday collective capabilities of a range of levels of a party. Designing adventures for Tiers is easier than designing them to suit the need of each specific level. So Tiers assist in Adventure Design which in turn assist DMs as they represent a guideline and if you so want can incorporate mechanics based on Tier. Our group already incorporated Tiers with a Tier-designed feat before this article came out (we had adjusted the Toughness Feat).

 

[GreyLord]

My recollection is that the D&D Red Box sold really well - a lot of copies indeed. Sales of the other sets I'm not sure about. I don't think the Immortal rules did well, for instance! TSR became a lot less enthusiastic about the BECMI line as the 90s wore on, and the Rules Cyclopaedia, in many ways, is the last moment of glory of the line - with AD&D 2e receiving a lot more of the love.

Cheers!

IMO (of course, as always), I'd say the Red Box (and all previous basic sets) sold extraordinarily well. Phenomenal in fact. Even better than the AD&D three perhaps.

The Expert Boxes I'd say also sold well, though not as well as the Red Box by far.

The Companion was also a steep drop off, but did well enough.

I think you saw a lot of drop off when going to the Master set...and the Immortals...I'm not so certain how well it did. Certainly well enough that when they did it all over again, they created a new Immortals set later, but I'm still inclined to say that compared to the Red Box, the I set was minimal in relation to sales.

I think the RC also sold decently, though again, not as well as the Red Box, and maybe not even as well as the Expert sets.

After that, you saw a nosedive of anything sold, basically after the RC...D&D didn't sell again...well...in numbers cognizant of keeping the line going.

IMO of course...just saying that again.

(PS: Just thought I'd add, Frank probably is better on the exact numbers, or better memory in that regards if you have access to him, which I think you do Merric? At least to ask the question. However, I think he's answered it before also...though that was elsewhere and not here I think).