Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 5735231" data-attributes="member: 2205">It's easy to see how that's a very unsatisfying way to structure the game for a lot of folks, though, which is why level issues with D&amp;D remain a sore spot that will probably always rub a lot of folks the wrong way as long as &quot;the story of D&amp;D&quot; continues to be told the way that it is.&nbsp; It simply doesn't make a lot of sense from any point of view other than a strictly gamist one.&nbsp; The DCs (or targets, or what-have-you have to keep pace with bonuses, otherwise the game isn't fun to play--well the cosmetic change to everything in an attempt to keep everything the same isn't really satisfying either.&nbsp; Not to mention that it's supremely inelegant.I know D&amp;D is really sold on the concept of leveling, and probably for good reasons.&nbsp; But it seems that there's got to be a better way to flatten the power over levels.&nbsp; I know that was a design goal of 4e--stated, even--but I don't know how well that it was accomplished (I don't play 4e, although I have read through a bit of the books.)&nbsp; Probably not nearly as well as it still needs to be.In addition, I recall seeing some survey results from WotC--I wish I had them in front of me still, but I don't know where they went or where I saw them to begin with--that suggested that very few games actually utilize the majority of the levels in D&amp;D.&nbsp; Whether that's because of percieved problems with higher level D&amp;D or some other reason I don't know, but I find it curious.&nbsp; It seems to me, anyway, that there's a general and very rough consensus of sorts that D&amp;D is really only good for about half--maybe less--of the levels that it provides, after which point the game behaves poorly due to the numbers issue and because of game-breaking spells.&nbsp; An elegant design would either fix the other levels, or simply do away with them entirely and focus on the part of the game that most gamers are utilizing anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 5735231, member: 2205"] It's easy to see how that's a very unsatisfying way to structure the game for a lot of folks, though, which is why level issues with D&D remain a sore spot that will probably always rub a lot of folks the wrong way as long as "the story of D&D" continues to be told the way that it is. It simply doesn't make a lot of sense from any point of view other than a strictly gamist one. The DCs (or targets, or what-have-you [I]have[/I] to keep pace with bonuses, otherwise the game isn't fun to play--well the cosmetic change to everything in an attempt to keep everything the same isn't really satisfying either. Not to mention that it's supremely inelegant. I know D&D is really sold on the concept of leveling, and probably for good reasons. But it seems that there's [I]got[/I] to be a better way to flatten the power over levels. I know that was a design goal of 4e--stated, even--but I don't know how well that it was accomplished (I don't play 4e, although I have read through a bit of the books.) Probably not nearly as well as it still needs to be. In addition, I recall seeing some survey results from WotC--I wish I had them in front of me still, but I don't know where they went or where I saw them to begin with--that suggested that very few games actually utilize the majority of the levels in D&D. Whether that's because of percieved problems with higher level D&D or some other reason I don't know, but I find it curious. It seems to me, anyway, that there's a general and very rough consensus of sorts that D&D is really only good for about half--maybe less--of the levels that it provides, after which point the game behaves poorly due to the numbers issue and because of game-breaking spells. An [I]elegant[/I] design would either fix the other levels, or simply do away with them entirely and focus on the part of the game that most gamers are utilizing anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification