Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6288063" data-attributes="member: 42582">I am playing 4e (the most recent non-playtest version of D&D). I am using the standard 4e XP rules. The 4e DMG says this on rate of advancement (p 121):If you were to start a campaign with 1st-level characters on January 1st, play faithfully for four or five hours every week, and manage to finish four encounters every session, your characters would enter the paragon tier during or after your session on June 24th, reach epic levels in December, and hit 30th level the next summer. Most campaigns don’t move at this pace, however; you’ll probably find that the natural rhythms of your campaign produce a slower rate of advancement that’s easier to sustain.</blockquote> This roughly fits my experience, including the bit about "a slower rate of advancement". I play around 20 sessions a year, of 3 to 4 hours each, and have taken about two years per tier (I expect the game to conclude this year, its 6th). In what way is this "flying through levels as quickly as possible" with "the game designed to cater to it"? I don't understand. XP rewards are radically different across different versions of the game. Comparing XP tables from Moldvay Basic to (say) 3E or 4e tells us nothing about respective rates of levelling. In what way? And as [MENTION=2656]Aenghus[/MENTION] indicated, playing a magic-user was always about "rushing through levels to get to the juicy bits". Gygax and Moldvay tell us as much in their respective rulebooks. If you don't like level gain, why not just slow down the rate of XP acquisition in your game by applying some sort of dilation factor? If you are using a standard Monster Manual, to fight dragons, demon lords etc requires certain minimum statistical capabilities for the PCs. Which can't be gained except via levelling. I'm pretty sure that that is what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] means by "the whole game". In my case, it tends towards the boring. I am not that interested, as GM, in engaging in exposition for the sake of it. And as a player I am not that interested in listening to it. I want to engage in situations of challenge or conflict ie the PCs want something and there is an obstacle in their way. In my personal experience, the reason that players build up a knowledge of the backstory is because they are engaging with the obstacles that it throws up. What colour boots do my NPCs wear? In nearly all cases I couldn't tell you. What is their motivation, and with what political and/or cosmological force are they aligned? That is what I try to bring out in play, because that is the field of conflict with which the players (via their PCs) are engaged.[/QUOTE]

Verification