Dragonlance "You walk down the road, party is now level 2."

[AnotherGuy]

EDIT: @AnotherGuy - just to let you know I edited my post after you reacted., to add some more thoughts prompted by your post.

Noted, thanks.

I don't see D&D as satisfying simulationist demands.

Yes, if one compares D&D to RM (which I had several sessions experience with in the 90's) you are correct in that D&D falls extremely short on that front.

Now is that to say that no simulation mechanics exist, surely not. IMO they are just very poor. The HD mechanic, however abstract, is something the game uses to denote a range of things including toughness.
Historically I've shown you, how HD has been used for age categories of monsters.

Armour Class in all the editions (besides 4e) is not affected by HD but by other elements (armour worn, hardness of skin/scales, dexterity modifier etc.)
Damage is dependent on size, weapon used and ability modifier etc again for all editions (besides 4e).

You do not have an argument from me that it is a poor mechanic, but that is the mechanic the game does use and to say it is not part of the fiction discounts any information HD does communicate.

Why does a 5e Treant (Huge Creature) have 12d12 HD and a Twig Blight (Small Creature) have 1d6
You may argue it is the size? But I can show you medium sized creatures with 12HD.
You may argue it is the age? But I can show you an old creature with with 1HD.

Surely it is primarily because a Treant can sustain more damage. Now if I convert a Treant to have the same HD as a Twig Blight, then I'm ignoring ANY and ALL work HD tells us (no matter how poorly).
The way I see it, a minion uses mechanics in service of a narrative.
Which is absolutely fine, I'm playing high level and I love the idea of being able to emulate what we have seen in movies with this meta-game concept (i.e. in Starship Troopers originally it took them hundreds of bullets to kill the soldier bugs, towards the end they were killing them easily).

I tried to drift AD&D in this direction in the latter part of the 1980s. It was fairly hard work and the success was mixed at best.

I suspect this is very much many roleplayers' experience of that time! It certainly was mine too.

After playing one session of Rolemaster at my university RPG club, I went out and bought the rules, learned them, and then started GMing RM. I GMed a weekly RM game for 9 to 10 years, which then became fortnightly for another 9 to 10 years (19 years in total; two different campaigns, one about 8 years and the other about 11 years).

I played a handful of times as a player and I was certainly blown away by the level of detail in the game. I thought about it but I think it was the financial investment at the time that didn't see me go through with it - that and I had the D&D books to play.
I wish I had done what you did, it would certainly have saved me from needless tinkering with every newer D&D edition.
I promised my table I would see our current 5e campaign through till level 20, so I'm busy for a few more years doing D&D.
We have a much slower progression than norm.

 

[tetrasodium]

Noted, thanks.


Yes, if one compares D&D to RM (which I have several sessions experience with in the 90's) you are correct in that D&D falls extremely short.

Now is that to say that no simulation mechanics exist, surely not. IMO they are just very poor. The HD mechanic, however abstract, is something the game uses to denote a range of things including toughness.
Historically I've shown you, how HD has been used for age categories of monsters.

Armour Class in all the editions (besides 4e) is not affected by HD but by other elements (armour worn, hardness of skin/scales, dexterity modifier etc.)
Damage is dependent on size, weapon used and ability modifier etc again for all editions (besides 4e).

You do not have an argument from me that it is a poor mechanic, but that is the mechanic the game does use and to say it is not part of the fiction discounts any information HD does communicate.

Why does a 5e Treant (Huge Creature) have 12d12 HD and a Twig Blight (Small Creature) have 1d6
You may argue it is the size? But I can show you medium sized creatures with 12HD.
You may argue it is the age? But I can show you an old creature with with 1HD.

Surely it is primarily because a Treant can sustain more damage. Now if I convert a Treant to have the same HD as a Twig Blight, then I'm ignoring ANY and ALL work HD tells us (no matter how poorly).
The way I see it, a minion uses mechanics in service of a narrative.
Which is absolutely fine, I'm playing high level and I love the idea of being able to emulate what we have seen in movies with this meta-game concept (i.e. in Starship Troopers originally it took them hundreds of bullets to kill the soldier bugs, towards the end they were killing them easily).


I suspect this is very much many roleplayers' experience of that time! It certainly was mine too.


I played a handful of times as a player and I was certainly blown away by the level of detail in the game. I thought about it but I think it was the financial investment at the time that didn't see me go through with it - that and I had the D&D books to play.
I wish I had done what you did, it would certainly have saved me from needless tinkering with every newer D&D edition.
I promised my table I would see our current 5e campaign through till level 20, so I'm busy for a few more years doing D&D.
We have a much slower progression than norm.

What is RM?

 

[AnotherGuy]

What is RM?

Rolemaster

 

[LordEntrails]

it also creates a situation where the gm needs to either channel comic book guy from the Simpsons if a player is regularly behaving in ways that cause disruption§ rather than rewarding a second player who is picking up the slack to minimize disruption.

there are literally people who feel it is reasonable for a player to come to the table with an attitude of I think "don't expect anything from me" is the default and if you want something else you need to state it." should be the default expectation.

Why would you ever chose to play with these people? You do know you are an adult and can chose whom to spend your leisure time with? And the GM can always just walk away or not invite someone back.
Sure, I get social pressures, but learn to deal with them unless you want to spend your life surrounded by people you don't enjoy being around.

 

[Horwath]

I (re-) did the math for one of my current D&D5E campaigns, and the party has advanced on average every 8 sessions. They are currently 6th level and we've played 56 sessions. The longest period of time between leveling was 20 sessions (so just shy of two years of real time).

well, to each it's own I guess, but 20 sessions for a level increase?
How long are your sessions? 15minutes?

honestly, after 3 sessions not getting a level is a warning sign to me that campaign is at too slow of a pace.
3 sessions, if it is not 1st few levels is between 5 and 10 battles. That is more than enough to test the new toys you got at that level.

 

[tetrasodium]

Why would you ever chose to play with these people? You do know you are an adult and can chose whom to spend your leisure time with? And the GM can always just walk away or not invite someone back.
Sure, I get social pressures, but learn to deal with them unless you want to spend your life surrounded by people you don't enjoy being around.

The same question applies in reverse but with additional weight because so much of 5e is structured under an assumption that every gm is some monstrous killer gm that captive players are forced to endure and need a shield from. The shield was built on a bad assumption that silly memes were more of a cry for help and it serves to encourage problems.

 

[el-remmen]

How long are your sessions? 15minutes?

3 hours.

honestly, after 3 sessions not getting a level is a warning sign to me that campaign is at too slow of a pace.

It is a slow pace but the players enjoy it. The focus for us is the characters in the world, and advancement is a by-product of that, not the goal.

As you say, to each (group) their own, I guess.

 

[LordEntrails]

The same question applies in reverse but with additional weight because so much of 5e is structured under an assumption that every gm is some monstrous killer gm that captive players are forced to endure and need a shield from. The shield was built on a bad assumption that silly memes were more of a cry for help and it serves to encourage problems.

No, No 5E is not based upon such an assumption.
Maybe you and many others have made such assumptions, but our group gave that assumption up about D&D about 40 years ago. Even when Gary was running his killer DM games, many people playing D&D were not playing it that way.

 

[Lanefan]

well, to each it's own I guess, but 20 sessions for a level increase?

Sure. That's a bit more than 2 levels per year on average, assuming weekly play and continuing characters.

honestly, after 3 sessions not getting a level is a warning sign to me that campaign is at too slow of a pace.

This would seem to speak to levelling being the main reason for play. If the campaign is otherwise engaging the pace of levelling should, I would think, be irrelevant; and an engaging campaign can go on forever.

3 sessions, if it is not 1st few levels is between 5 and 10 battles. That is more than enough to test the new toys you got at that level.

5 to 10 combats per level? Huh. I've never counted them out but my guess is I'm used to it being more like 30 or more.

 

[wizard71]

Yes, unfortunately they are. The Vecna adventure is worse as it’s a level after every encounter. You never get to play with your toys anymore. The designers do NOT know how to run adventures anymore. It’s a bunch of exposition and background the a fight or two the in to the next chapter which is the next level.