Community

Having done both playtests numerous times, my bi-monthly group of middle aged dungeoneers have decided to quit the playtest altogether and look for greener pastures. Next stop, Dragon Age RPG. Why? Because we see the trend in the playtest to layer on more and more modifiers, rules, and tracking that the DM has to take care of.  D&D has sowly turned it's DMs into accountants. While there are some brilliant accountants who amaze with their abilities, the average Joe gets bogged down. This is the death of D&D.  

D&D is built upon a conceit. That conceit is that if a person plays a game 187 times exactly the same way with the same rules, he will become bored and no longer play the game. He needs something more to keep him interested. He needs more adventures, more spells, more powers, more choices, more anything.  This is wrong.  Ask anybody who plays a lot of chess this question; "Are you so bored with chess now that you need new rules or powers to keep it interesting for you?" for anybody but Magnus Carlsen, the answer is, "No!"  Ask any Monoopoly player. Ask any Scrabble player. This is where all RPG games go wrong.  The idea that the first time you enter a dungeon as a level 1 character is not as fun as entering your 459th dungeon as a level 1 character is abusrd. It feels the same. That's why we continue playing. It's not for the added stuff. It's for the fun of getting involved in an adventure.

 Let's do an Einstein thought experiment!  Let's make Level 1 equal to Level 20. That means you get all powers, spells, dice, etc, you would get if you played up to the Epic level in 4e right off the bat as a level 1 character. Is this any more fun than being a level one character and defeating a level one opponent? No, of course not.  For one thing, simply "boning up" on level 20 would be equivalent to a doctoral thesis in D&D.

If WOTC want to make an impact with Next, eliminate levels altoghether. Good dungeon masters, like professional screen-writers can adapt and make endlessly incredible adventures using simple level one characters. That's where everybody starts, and that's what everybody loves. 

It's like watching the 257th episode of CSI-SVU. Fans never get tired of the simple formula. Chess players never tire of the format. It is the same for any successfull game. Get a clue.

 

Good bye. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Cool story, bro.

I really expected the "sky is falling" threads to come a little bit later in the playtest process. Oh well.

Sep 22, 2012 -- 4:15PM, kentop wrote:

Having done both playtests numerous times, my bi-monthly group of middle aged dungeoneers have decided to quit the playtest altogether and look for greener pastures. Next stop, Dragon Age RPG. Why? Because we see the trend in the playtest to layer on more and more modifiers, rules, and tracking that the DM has to take care of.  D&D has sowly turned it's DMs into accountants. While there are some brilliant accountants who amaze with their abilities, the average Joe gets bogged down. This is the death of D&D.  

 

Although I agree with your premise (that they are starting down a trend to more and more modifiers, etc) - I disagree with your approach to the problem.

But if you lack the inclination to argue for what you think the game should be (aside from the no level stuff - that just won't happen)  - enjoy your greener pastures.

Carl

Listen, you whippersnappers, Knee jerking solves nothing. What's wrong with a level 1 game with endless adventures?  Nothing. What's wrong with level 5 modifiers and spell books? Everything...especially if youu're a DM.

Sep 22, 2012 -- 5:07PM, kentop wrote:

Listen, you whippersnappers, Knee jerking solves nothing. What's wrong with a level 1 game with endless adventures?  Nothing. What's wrong with level 5 modifiers and spell books? Everything...especially if youu're a DM.

Thought you were moving on. Why are you still here? What you want to play is clearly not dungeons and dragons, so go find the game you do want to play. I recommend something free form.

Sep 22, 2012 -- 5:07PM, kentop wrote:

Listen, you whippersnappers, Knee jerking solves nothing. What's wrong with a level 1 game with endless adventures?  Nothing. What's wrong with level 5 modifiers and spell books? Everything...especially if youu're a DM.

Love that he's calling someone 40 years old (me) a whippersnapper.

And how 'right' or 'wrong' something is, in a gaming environment, is purely subjective.  You don't like it, then it's wrong for you, and you're free to spend your time, money, and energy on something else.  It may not be wrong for someone else, whose style differs from yours.

Sep 22, 2012 -- 5:07PM, kentop wrote:

Listen, you whippersnappers, Knee jerking solves nothing. What's wrong with a level 1 game with endless adventures?  Nothing. What's wrong with level 5 modifiers and spell books? Everything...especially if youu're a DM.

I play Traveller - there is nothing wrong with a zero-advancement mechanics game.  And you probably can make a fanstastic Fanatasy RPG with no advancement mechanics.  And you don't need advancement to tell a great story. 


It just isn't D&D.  And making D&D like that would be 'the end of D&D'.



(And you young 40-something's are whippersnappers.......)

Carl

Edit: I am slow and 8 other comments were posted while I was typing this.

I'm not sure what your argument is here, you are kind of all over the place. I am making the assumption that you and your group have played D&D for quite some time. You don't state that, but it is kind of implied.

1. You claim that the playtests are adding more and more mechanical complexity requiring DMs to be "accountants".  This is a valid viewpoint and probably worthy of an entire thread, however that is as far as you go with it.

2.  You claim that D&D is killing itself by constantly adding content to the game, that people should be content to play with the same basic content endlessly. Now some will be and some won't. I agree that with a good group you can play with the same base content and have countless different adventures in inumerable different worlds. 

3. You completely negate argument 2 by claiming that you are going to move on to a new game with new content, rules, etc. If you are content with D&D (whatever version you happen to enjoy the most) then why not just stick with it. Wizards is not adding any new content to versions 1-3.5 and within a few years won't be adding any content to 4th . Pick your favorite edition, pick a subset of the available content, and you have your static game. You can play as many times as you like and you don't have to worry about any new content interferring with your game. I haven't looked into Dragon Age RPG ever, but I am fairly certain that it is going to have the same issues of constantly adding new content.

 4. You advocate the removal of all progression. This is the first time I have heard anyone arguing for this. At first I thought you were advocating a leveless system, but then upon rereading your post you actually want to remove all progression from the game. This is another topic that would be worthy of a whole thread. I very strongly disagree with you that this is a good idea but would be interested in a discussion on the topi. Regardless, if that is what you want there is nothing preventing you from removing experience and levels and just playing at lvl 1. Having not looked into Dragon Age I would be surprised if the game offered no progression.

5. The claim that people don't tire of simple formulas is a gross overgeneralization. Overuse of the same formula is the reason I no longer read Clive Cussler, the reason I no longer enjoy most TV shows, and the reason I constantly buy new games most of which are relatively unkown to the general public.

I'm just amazed that "middle-aged dungeoneers" just now realized that D&D is level-based and are now giving up on it. You think they would've come to this realization around 1974 or so.

I apologize for the rudeness above. Several of my fellow posters do not realize the loss of a single voice weakens the choir. To survive if not flourish then D&D needs its fanbase to grow not merely maintain and for the last half-decade the game has been shrinking. 

That said, I cannot fully disagree with your statements. While it is possible to play many long years without new content, D&D has always been an expanding game. After finishing the first boxed set, the first thing the creators of the game did was start making new classes and monsters and spells. After doing that for 4 years they compiled and repackaged the rules as AD&D and started adding even more new content.
When new players come into the game, one of the first things they often do is start making their own monsters or spells or content.
D&D is built on and predicated on the concept of continual growth and expansion. It has never been a tight, lite game save the side project of Basic D&D, which was done by seperate staff as Gygax had no interest in it.

Furthermore, no business ever stops releasing product. Toy companies make new toys, book companies publish more books, car companies always have a new model each year.
If the game doesn't produce content it goes out of print and dies.

As for levels....one of the points of D&D Next is to focus on the element that are common to all versions of D&D. Every version had had levels. Dumping them would be a HUGE change and likely alienate much of the fanbase. 
If you - a very small minority of the playing audience- don't like levels then don't use them. Have your characters start at level 3 or 5 and not change. That's pretty easy as house rules go.  

Sep 22, 2012 -- 5:19PM, Cormroc wrote:

Edit: I am slow and 8 other comments were posted while I was typing this.

I'm not sure what your argument is here, you are kind of all over the place. I am making the assumption that you and your group have played D&D for quite some time. You don't state that, but it is kind of implied.

1. You claim that the playtests are adding more and more mechanical complexity requiring DMs to be "accountants".  This is a valid viewpoint and probably worthy of an entire thread, however that is as far as you go with it.

2.  You claim that D&D is killing itself by constantly adding content to the game, that people should be content to play with the same basic content endlessly. Now some will be and some won't. I agree that with a good group you can play with the same base content and have countless different adventures in inumerable different worlds. 

3. You completely negate argument 2 by claiming that you are going to move on to a new game with new content, rules, etc. If you are content with D&D (whatever version you happen to enjoy the most) then why not just stick with it. Wizards is not adding any new content to versions 1-3.5 and within a few years won't be adding any content to 4th . Pick your favorite edition, pick a subset of the available content, and you have your static game. You can play as many times as you like and you don't have to worry about any new content interferring with your game. I haven't looked into Dragon Age RPG ever, but I am fairly certain that it is going to have the same issues of constantly adding new content.

 4. You advocate the removal of all progression. This is the first time I have heard anyone arguing for this. At first I thought you were advocating a leveless system, but then upon rereading your post you actually want to remove all progression from the game. This is another topic that would be worthy of a whole thread. I very strongly disagree with you that this is a good idea but would be interested in a discussion on the topi. Regardless, if that is what you want there is nothing preventing you from removing experience and levels and just playing at lvl 1. Having not looked into Dragon Age I would be surprised if the game offered no progression.

5. The claim that people don't tire of simple formulas is a gross overgeneralization. Overuse of the same formula is the reason I no longer read Clive Cussler, the reason I no longer enjoy most TV shows, and the reason I constantly buy new games most of which are relatively unkown to the general public.

O.K. This is going to take me a while to reply to each and every one of you but I let me respond to the 5 points Cormroc has made.

1.  To go farther about DM's being accountants belabors the point.

2. I did not say that D%D is killing itself by adding content. I said that D&D is turning DMs into accountants, which will be the death of it.  

3. My group decided to try the simpler rules offered in level 1 of Dragon Rage. They want adventure, not accounting. Upon closer inspection of Dragon Rageseems to be even more complicated than D&D. It has spells that affect a caracters performance over time that the DM has to keep track of. (Blood Crows can "Blind" a character for X turns, reducing his "to hit" dice roll. 

4. Preachings from WOTC talk about the sanctity of the "core rules". Substitute "core rules" for "Level 1 basic rules". Any difference? Layering complexity on top of the core rules only circumvents those rules.  Dragon age goes to level 5 in it's first package. Later packages go up higher levels.  It's basically a clone of D&D. It makes the same mistake D&D does by assuming that players will not be happy with level one simplicity after a few rounds.  

5. Being bored easily is the same thing as "Short Attention Span Theater".  It"s not an indication of intelligence, rather the opposite.
 

Sep 22, 2012 -- 5:20PM, Hocus-Smokus wrote:

I'm just amazed that "middle-aged dungeoneers" just now realized that D&D is level-based and are now giving up on it. You think they would've come to this realization around 1974 or so.

After a time, you have to ask yourself, "Are all these extra powers and abilities making me enjoy the game more?" If the answer is "Yes!", then you are just going to Looooooooooove 5e.

Sep 22, 2012 -- 6:38PM, kentop wrote:

Sep 22, 2012 -- 5:20PM, Hocus-Smokus wrote:

I'm just amazed that "middle-aged dungeoneers" just now realized that D&D is level-based and are now giving up on it. You think they would've come to this realization around 1974 or so.

After a time, you have to ask yourself, "Are all these extra powers and abilities making me enjoy the game more?" If the answer is "Yes!", then you are just going to Looooooooooove 5e.

Or you can say "Do I enjoy playing a character who grows and becomes more powerful over time so that eventually situations that were formerly beyond his abitlities can be handled and things which once challenging become less so.

"If the answer is "Yes!", then you are just going to Looooooooooove 5e."  Ok really just about every Fantasy RPG, because that is a part of just about all of them.  (Or maybe not because there is always more to it than this one aspect.)


Sorry to hear your greener pasture (Dragon Age) wasn't actually greener.  What game are you going to play instead?  I'm sure you have a list of a dozen or so better games, right?

I'm not going to deny that, imho, this last packet was a step in the wrong direction.  I thought I saw trends in game design going from the last F&F packet to the first open packet that I liked - only to see those trends reverse course (and small bonuses was a part of this, but not the only symptom).  But I don't see the removal of advancement as the solution - and I certainly don't see throwing in your dice and giving up as an option either.

But to each their own - enjoy your ideal no-advancement, no-recordkeeping fantasy game.



Carl

Here is my advice on addressing the issue of a game playtest you see going in a direction you very much dislike.

1. The point of a playtest is to get feedback by which the game may be improved before implementation. "X is bad" is useless to game designers. Hyperbole, sarcasm, overgeneralization, and ultimatums ("Change X or I'm leaving you for another game!") are similarly unhelpful when it comes to said point of playtesting. Okay, you've gotten your point across about how serious an issue this is with you. We get it, and I'm sure everyone has such a spot on which to take a stand. I, for one, would have very deep concerns if they went to a fully-3.w skill mechanic. (For the record, I'd still play, but houserule the [...] out of that part of it.) But there are helpful ways of addressing issues, and there are temper tantrums.

2. If you post on the forums, e-mail them detailed explanations, fill out every question on every survey, wait for a playtest or two for them to have a chance on working out kinks in new dynamics & mechanics, and they still do not address the issue or issues you have, then you need to ask yourself a few questions. "Is this a dealbreaker for me? Can I be satisfied just playing an earlier edition? Are they ignoring everyone, or does my issue seem to affect hardly anybody?" I'm sure there are plenty of issues, polarized ones, on these forums, where the loud polar opposites are grossly overrepresented. But they do use feedback. The fixed-HP/rolled-HP option, and the idea of adding the ConMod to heals and HPs, were suggested by me (and I should think many others) in the first survey, and there it is. So maybe the last question is, "Do I actually have a better suggestion that will fix the problem, or am I just presenting a problem and expecting them to fix it no matter what?"

3. Do what your answers tell you. If it's a dealbreaker, break the deal. If you can't be satisfied with another edition, don't spend your money on or play them. If they're ignoring everyone, don't feel too bad about going. If your issue seems to be in the minority, the game may not be for you anyway. If you have a better suggestion, tell them and wait to see. If you don't, shall we give the experienced professionals the benefit of the doubt?

4. If you must go, bow out gracefully. If you want to tell the designers the deal is broken, don't stand on a soapbox in the middle of the forum. An e-mail will get to them even more certainly, especially if maturely- and well-written. Grandstanding will only invite ire from those of us still enjoying D&DN thus far. If you decide to announce your departure in such a manner, it's not about D&D, D&DNext, the mechanics, the designers, how much better any other games may or may not be, modularity, progression, stats, or anything else. It's about you, and if you want to believe you're doing it for any other reason, you just failed an Insight check against yourself.

5. If you say you're going to go, go. Don't hang around the thread to see who agrees with you and argue with those who don't. It helps no one, gets nowhere, and wastes everyone's time. 

Sep 22, 2012 -- 5:29PM, The_Jester wrote:

I apologize for the rudeness above. Several of my fellow posters do not realize the loss of a single voice weakens the choir. To survive if not flourish then D&D needs its fanbase to grow not merely maintain and for the last half-decade the game has been shrinking. 

That said, I cannot fully disagree with your statements. While it is possible to play many long years without new content, D&D has always been an expanding game. After finishing the first boxed set, the first thing the creators of the game did was start making new classes and monsters and spells. After doing that for 4 years they compiled and repackaged the rules as AD&D and started adding even more new content.
When new players come into the game, one of the first things they often do is start making their own monsters or spells or content.
D&D is built on and predicated on the concept of continual growth and expansion. It has never been a tight, lite game save the side project of Basic D&D, which was done by seperate staff as Gygax had no interest in it.

Furthermore, no business ever stops releasing product. Toy companies make new toys, book companies publish more books, car companies always have a new model each year.
If the game doesn't produce content it goes out of print and dies.

As for levels....one of the points of D&D Next is to focus on the element that are common to all versions of D&D. Every version had had levels. Dumping them would be a HUGE change and likely alienate much of the fanbase. 
If you - a very small minority of the playing audience- don't like levels then don't use them. Have your characters start at level 3 or 5 and not change. That's pretty easy as house rules go.  

Mr. Gygax resolved combat in his original dungeon with "Rocks, Paper, Sissors". "Levels" only applied to the depth of the dungeons, not the characters. It's a natural progression, deeper dungeons require stronger characters ad infinitum.  Even D&D succumbs at some point to the law of diminishing returns.  Here we are in the 21st century, with 4e "Epic" levels and so forth. We are way, way beyond even Gygax's imagination, and what are we doing?  Adding complexity.  That alone alienates any fanbase (Ms. PacMan anyone?). That's why participation, and with it, sales, are down.  Why do you think Pathfinder was so popular (beyond the advertising dollars spent)? Is it because people crave extra modifiers in their combat? Pathfinder groups put up with the extra complexity because of the story and not the other way around.  That's why WOTC have finally hitched their wagon to Forbidden Realms. I consider them to be grasping at straws at this point.

Yes, we are all free to make the rules that suit us, but D&D next "core rules" get more complex with every playtest".  I'm betting that the next playtest will be at least one month late (November?) and include at least 10 more pages of stuff I have to learn. That is not improvement. 

In the meantime, I shall try other games that suit my delicate sensibilities, while keeping an eagle eye on the game that excited me in the first place, Tunnels and Trolls. Oops, I mean Dungeons and Dragons.

Mr. Gygax resolved combat in his original dungeon with "Rocks, Paper, Sissors". "Levels" only applied to the depth of the dungeons, not the characters.

[citation needed] 

Sep 22, 2012 -- 7:48PM, Seerow wrote:

Mr. Gygax resolved combat in his original dungeon with "Rocks, Paper, Sissors". "Levels" only applied to the depth of the dungeons, not the characters.

[citation needed] 

Agreed.  Given that the game was an outgrowth of a miniatures combat game he also wrote the rules for, I do not think this is correct.

Carl

Sep 22, 2012 -- 7:48PM, Seerow wrote:

Mr. Gygax resolved combat in his original dungeon with "Rocks, Paper, Sissors". "Levels" only applied to the depth of the dungeons, not the characters.

[citation needed] 

Looks at OD&D 3-pamphlet set, pamphlet named Men & Magic, Volume 1 from 1974.
Sees dice descriptions on page 5 (1 pair 4-sided, 1 pair 8-sided, 4 to 20 pairs of 6-sided, 1 pair 20-sided, 1 pair 12-sided).
Sees levels and level-names for Fighting Men (9 levels, from Veteran to Lord), Magic Users (11 levels, from Medium to Wizard), and Clerics (8 levels, from Acolyte to Patriarch) on page 16.
Disregards OPs comments.   

Did Chainmail use levels?
Men & Magic definitely did.

The OP is misremembering an anecdote involding Dave Arneson.

Specifically, before development on the original Dungeons & Dragons game began in earnest, Arneson used Rock/Paper/Scissors for campaigns played in Blackmoor as his gaming interests began to move away from wargaming and into the exploits of individual heroes.

Regardless, this method was abandoned as the rules for D&D developed between Arneson and Gygax.   

Sep 22, 2012 -- 7:46PM, kentop wrote:

Mr. Gygax resolved combat in his original dungeon with "Rocks, Paper, Sissors". "Levels" only applied to the depth of the dungeons, not the characters. It's a natural progression, deeper dungeons require stronger characters ad infinitum.  Even D&D succumbs at some point to the law of diminishing returns.  Here we are in the 21st century, with 4e "Epic" levels and so forth. We are way, way beyond even Gygax's imagination, and what are we doing?  Adding complexity.  That alone alienates any fanbase

please go reread the original Chainmail rules and compare the complexity with modern games.

I am DMng a 5E playtest game that had three different story lines going at the same time.  I am not an accountant.  I am just organized and flexible.

5E will keep me, as a DM, hopping.  But I can't imagine enjoying DMing a game that did not.

Plus, my feedback is amazing.  They still need me. 

I am about done with the playtest material, tho.  There is nothing in the beastiary that can touch my capped sorcerer.

Answer: Have a slow experience progression with any version of D&D you want to play. That way you can experience as much of each level as you want. The rest just gets into a mechanics discussion, and I agree everyone has different tastes. The only other thing I can state, is the benefit of sticking with the current edition of the game is support in regards to adventures, etc. That has always been my biggest draw to the system, including the availability of players. There are other systems that work better for my needs, but I do not have the time available to create adventures, worlds, etc. like I did when I first started to play.

     

I don't really see a problem here. You don't like higher level play and the additional complexity that comes with it? Don't make characters level up in your campaign. If you and your players do not feel the need to acquire new, shiny options for your characters during a campaign and are content doing the same things over and over, do it.

The Wotc police is not going to bash down the door and burn your books. 

However, those of us (the overwhelming majority, I'd say) who like levels and a bit of scaling complexity, need professionally designed rules. You see, it's much easier to have something (like rules for leveling up characters and multiple class/feats/spells options) and ignore it if you don't like it, than to NOT have something and having to create it from scratch if you want it.

Let us have our multiple, complex options. You can safely ignore them.

Sep 22, 2012 -- 4:15PM, kentop wrote:

If WOTC want to make an impact with Next, eliminate levels altoghether. Good dungeon masters, like professional screen-writers can adapt and make endlessly incredible adventures using simple level one characters. That's where everybody starts, and that's what everybody loves.

 

I disagree!

The DM isn't the only person playing at the table. Everybody is! Creating your character, imagining his background or how he looks is all part of the fun. Having your character go from zero to hero is loads of fun. All these things make a better story.

I've played other games that don't use levels (GURPS, d100 games). They're not nearly as fun than D&D. Whenever I play these games, I always get the feeling that my character is stagnating. The only exception is Cthulhu because in our games, combat pretty much means we're going to die.

Even for a DM, levels are fun. You have a lot more to take into account against high level characters: divinations, bad ass exploration spells. Incorporating these new spells in the story just makes it better.

Sep 22, 2012 -- 4:15PM, kentop wrote:

Chess players never tire of the format. It is the same for any successfull game. Get a clue.

Developpement is an integral part of many other games. Why do people play FarmVille, Railroad Tycoon, Sim City, the Sims? What's the point in having a Tamagotchi?

All these games have one thing in common: you're building something. Character building is fun! Well for some of us anyways.

Sep 22, 2012 -- 6:34PM, kentop wrote:

 

4. Preachings from WOTC talk about the sanctity of the "core rules". Substitute "core rules" for "Level 1 basic rules". Any difference? Layering complexity on top of the core rules only circumvents those rules.

I get how you feel. Sometimes the numbers "mill" seems to increase just because the monsters numbers increase. And the monsters only increase because they need to be a challenge for Player's increase, and on and on. So at 1st level you have an AC of 18 and that's pretty awesome, but by level 8 an AC of 18 is pretty bad and you need to be in the low to mid 20's to be effective. The thing is, D&D has always done this for the past 25+ years. Expecting it to change NOW is just wishful hoping. And apparently this model has been effective as a D&D game for 25+ years (or longer).

So, my suggestion is: Don't level up your characters as you adventure. Perhaps you still want to add some magical items to your game, then use the D&D:Next rules for magical items as they pertain to your campaign or perhaps you like the 1st level Dual-Class/Hybrid rules (if they make such a thing). What E6 did (a version of 3rd Edition D&D) is stop progression at 6th level and from there, progress by Feats as you gain XP. So if your players still want some sort of gain/growth from adventuring then perhaps instead of level, you just gain Feats.

Anyways, I don't think this is the death of D&D at all. The model has been unchanging for as long as I've played the game and while the differences of HOW to play the game change all the time, the basic principals that D&D has run on are still there: A class-based, level-based
Fantasy Roleplaying Game.

Sep 22, 2012 -- 6:34PM, kentop wrote:

5. Being bored easily is the same thing as "Short Attention Span Theater".  It"s not an indication of intelligence, rather the opposite.
 

Now for this; first a short attention span does not equate to limited intelligence. That's just plain insulting. Second, the game can get stale for players when their options are never changing. Using the same maneuvers, the same 10 spells, the same armor or weapons, going against the same monsters IS boring (IMO) after a few months of playing it. If there feels like there is no progression (aside from story) then after a while the POINT in adventuring loses it's luster. So, if your group is fine with 1st level and the basic rules of D&D:Next, then I'd suggest you house-rule a "No Progression" rule where your 1st level character is the end-all, be-all and live with it. I would not expect D&D:Next, however, to conform to that and remain with levels for the end of days.

Sep 23, 2012 -- 3:49AM, Gnarl wrote:

Sep 22, 2012 -- 4:15PM, kentop wrote:

If WOTC want to make an impact with Next, eliminate levels altoghether. Good dungeon masters, like professional screen-writers can adapt and make endlessly incredible adventures using simple level one characters. That's where everybody starts, and that's what everybody loves.

 

I disagree!

The DM isn't the only person playing at the table. Everybody is! Creating your character, imagining his background or how he looks is all part of the fun. Having your character go from zero to hero is loads of fun. All these things make a better story.

I've played other games that don't use levels (GURPS, d100 games). They're not nearly as fun than D&D. Whenever I play these games, I always get the feeling that my character is stagnating. The only exception is Cthulhu because in our games, combat pretty much means we're going to die.

Even for a DM, levels are fun. You have a lot more to take into account against high level characters: divinations, bad ass exploration spells. Incorporating these new spells in the story just makes it better.

Sep 22, 2012 -- 4:15PM, kentop wrote:

Chess players never tire of the format. It is the same for any successfull game. Get a clue.

Developpement is an integral part of many other games. Why do people play FarmVille, Railroad Tycoon, Sim City, the Sims? What's the point in having a Tamagotchi?

All these games have one thing in common: you're building something. Character building is fun! Well for some of us anyways.

If level 5 is more fun than level 1, why bother with level 1 at all? I don't believe that level 1 is level 5 with training wheels attached.  Adding modifiers and more hit points is not in any way "character building".  I'm just saying that moving your character up another level shouldn't be the be all and end all of the game. Level 10 characters are not "more fun". They are more complicated. You have to carry around lots of paperwork to keep track of all the additions.  If that is the goal, why not just start with those rules and powers anyway?

Sep 23, 2012 -- 6:33AM, kentop wrote:

If level 5 is more fun than level 1, why bother with level 1 at all?

It is the journey, not the destination, grasshopper, that matters.

You have to carry around lots of paperwork to keep track of all the additions.

Fortunately for you, the playtest materials allow you to have a simple character with very little paperwork.  Don't use Backgrounds, don't use Specialties.  Want a simple character?  Choose a fighter and use CS only to inflict extra damage.  Choose a thief.  As you level up, all you'll ever have to do is ocassionally add a +1 to your attack bonus or a skill check and roll hp.  That's as simple as it ever was in OD&D (simpler, since we traded attack matrices for the simpler atack bonus).

Sep 22, 2012 -- 7:46PM, kentop wrote:

 
Yes, we are all free to make the rules that suit us, but D&D next "core rules" get more complex with every playtest".  

Not sure the core element is changing that much... they seem to be introducing core + some module or another. The change in hit points may have been a removal of a module for instance. For instance the first rules had perhaps a heroic hitpoints module.

I dont think they have given up on the simplistic "core"  

Sep 22, 2012 -- 8:06PM, crazy_monkey wrote:

The OP is misremembering an anecdote involding Dave Arneson.

Specifically, before development on the original Dungeons & Dragons game began in earnest, Arneson used Rock/Paper/Scissors for campaigns played in Blackmoor as his gaming interests began to move away from wargaming and into the exploits of individual heroes.

Regardless, this method was abandoned as the rules for D&D developed between Arneson and Gygax.   

I may make a module using a form of rock paper scissors... presumedly it was abandoned due to the desire for more detailed variation. 5e's use of bounded accuracy is actually supportive of it, since to hit progression is a somewhat less significant value of leveling... its been transferred at some level to damage.  If there is an armor was damage resistance technique that would help a bit as well.

Sep 23, 2012 -- 6:33AM, kentop wrote:

If level 5 is more fun than level 1, why bother with level 1 at all? I don't believe that level 1 is level 5 with training wheels attached.  Adding modifiers and more hit points is not in any way "character building".  I'm just saying that moving your character up another level shouldn't be the be all and end all of the game.

Character advancement IS fun because it has a direct correlation with your achievements as you progress through the game (adventure, quest, etc). Level 1 IS fun and that's why it takes a few sessions to go to 2nd level. Once you hit 2nd level, you can breath a tiny bit more as you adventure. Orcs and Kobolds are still dangerous but your more reassured in your capabilities to deal with those threats. That is then challenged by something more difficult and different. As a 1st level character, I know how Goblins and Kobolds and Orcs fight. I see the traps they make and gain a grasp of how their society works. That intrinsic knowledge helps me overcome them when they're adversaries. Then you  throw in an Ettin and it's a whole new ballgame with new experiences and more knowledge to gain (as a Character).

I have a feeling that you believe most D&D players have some sort of value system where as their level goes up, so too does the fun but that simply isn't true (at least for me anyways). I see different kinds of fun at the level I'm playing. I thought the tiers of play 4E brought in was a terrific idea that had a lot of sense build in. The first ten levels were heroic. You did heroic things that would have an effect on a smaller area, perhaps a few small towns or small region. Here you fight more common foes that plague simple people and small civilizations. The Threats are on par with your level and the area your in. In paragon tier, your more renown but the threats you face are more threatening. Cities are specifically requesting your name to deal with Frost Giants, with Demons and Devils, and corrupted organizations. These are characters that affect big cities and big regions than before because the scheme of the monsters are often incorporated over a bigger area with more intrigue. Then you hit Epic tier, 21-30 levels and this is where your on the world/cosmic scale. The foes you face in this aspect aren't demons and devils, they're Princes of Hell or Avatars of Gods. Your directly working with rulers of countries and national powers. Your hardly considered "mortal" by plebeians and revered as Legends. You can travel planes as easily as people walk to the farmer's market. You converse with Angels and divert world-dominating forces. People at level 1 just don't do this. Ever. And if they could, then it shouldn't be a level-based game.

Sep 23, 2012 -- 6:33AM, kentop wrote:

 Level 10 characters are not "more fun". They are more complicated. You have to carry around lots of paperwork to keep track of all the additions.  If that is the goal, why not just start with those rules and powers anyway?

That really depends on class, rather than level. I had a 3E wizard that had 5-6 pages starting out at 1st level. They were mostly spells and equipment page with the basic stats on page 1. I can make a D&D:Next fighter at 5th level on 1 piece of paper, with the equipment and background and mechanics and specialties all listed there. It takes a bit of shorthand (like dmg for damage, atk for attack) but it's pretty simple as far as management of paperwork goes. Additionally, your equating complicated with options and that's simply not the case. A 5th level Fighter in the playtest has a few more options but works pretty much the same. I attack with a static bonus, add damage, and that's about it. I'm just not seeing the over complexity with D&D:Next as you, perhaps.

Sep 22, 2012 -- 7:46PM, kentop wrote:

Yes, we are all free to make the rules that suit us, but D&D next "core rules" get more complex with every playtest.

Yes, the complete rules will be more complex than an incomplete subset of the rules with no attempt to fill in for the missing rules.

Kind of like how the rules for chess are more complex than the rules for how pawns and bishops move.

And the playtests have been moving toward being more-complete subsets - they don't have even a first draft of complete rules figured out yet.

Sep 23, 2012 -- 6:33AM, kentop wrote:

If level 5 is more fun than level 1, why bother with level 1 at all?

I don't think Level 5 is more fun than Level 1, and I don't think Level 1 is more fun than Level 5. What I DO think is that watching my character progress, gain new skills and new abilities is fun. I like starting with something just out of the training hall, and watch her grow with her experiences, learn new spells or combat moves or skills or languages or ... And it's satisfying to see that we ARE gaining those things because we have, as a group, overcome the challenges that the DM has set us. If I want to play a game with static rules, where the challenge is to try to use the known set of rules to WIN, I'll choose Chess or Monopoly or Bridge, or something like that. But for us, D&D isn't a game we WIN. It's a game we play and really love that's been going on for nearly 30 years. What game of Chess can claim that?

Sep 23, 2012 -- 3:50PM, SteeleButterfly wrote:

Sep 23, 2012 -- 6:33AM, kentop wrote:

If level 5 is more fun than level 1, why bother with level 1 at all?

I don't think Level 5 is more fun than Level 1, and I don't think Level 1 is more fun than Level 5. What I DO think is that watching my character progress, gain new skills and new abilities is fun. I like starting with something just out of the training hall, and watch her grow with her experiences, learn new spells or combat moves or skills or languages or ... And it's satisfying to see that we ARE gaining those things because we have, as a group, overcome the challenges that the DM has set us. If I want to play a game with static rules, where the challenge is to try to use the known set of rules to WIN, I'll choose Chess or Monopoly or Bridge, or something like that. But for us, D&D isn't a game we WIN. It's a game we play and really love that's been going on for nearly 30 years. What game of Chess can claim that?

Anything I would try to add would just be redundant due to SteeleButterfly's post. Well said.

I like simple systems but I've always felt that the forms should vary and be plentiful.  A form is a particular monster or a spell or a feat.   Such things so long as they harmonious fit inside a simple system makes for a fun game.  

I am on the fence about 5e.  I don't know if it will be the game for me.  But I definitely would never make that decision prior to the final game getting released.  I'll comment along the way if I feel like it.  I see things I like a lot and things I dislike.  Thats the way of life.  I never know which direction the playtest will go.  I get the feeling that they are reacting to feedback.  





 

Sep 23, 2012 -- 6:47AM, Garthanos wrote:

Sep 22, 2012 -- 7:46PM, kentop wrote:

 
Yes, we are all free to make the rules that suit us, but D&D next "core rules" get more complex with every playtest".  

Not sure the core element is changing that much... they seem to be introducing core + some module or another. The change in hit points may have been a removal of a module for instance. For instance the first rules had perhaps a heroic hitpoints module.

I dont think they have given up on the simplistic "core"  

This is in error as stated.


We are testing the core.  The last packet was a version of the core.  This packet is a version of the core (with the possible exception of the Sorcerer and Warlock not being core four).  The next packet will be a version of the core.


Changes to things like the hit points do not represent modules - they are alternate versions of core.


Carl

Personally, I think the core element needs to remain simple.  I like what they have so far.  It simple, and its streamlined.  Its a good start to build other stuff on.  I'll be interested to see what the next playtest material looks like.  Personally, I don't want to see all the fluff built into this version that 3, 3.5 and 4 all have.  I want a simple core that I can play with the base four classes.  Beyond that, they can add on with modules and other stuff.  I think when they switched from being more Theatre of the Mind to Tabletop MMORPG, they killed what this game was.  Some people like all that fluff.  Some people approach this game wanting to power game with a fantasy superhero.  Me, I want to build that superhero one level at a time, so that he don't come into his own until about 7th level or so.  I like the Frodo journey to hero, instead of starting out as Thor, God of Thunder.  But that's just me.

Sep 22, 2012 -- 4:15PM, kentop wrote:

Waah!  Waaaaaaah!  I quit!

 

Bye

This topic confuses me so I will just say this.

Diffrent levels. Different classes. Diffrent races. Different monsters. Different traps. Different towns. Different NPCs. Different subsystems.

It is not a matter of better but different.

Doing the same thing over and over is boring. But everyone has their preferred constants. The various moduls also the groups to keep some constants while applying aspects that can be variable.

This very serious business is all a matter of perspective.

I played - and understood - Rolemaster.  I - and anyone who's done so - should get a medal for being able to navigate and enjoy Rolemaster (if you're thinking that this is "cred" of any sort - there's a jumbo jet whizzing over your head with "The Point")

So hardly anything D&D ever will make - is "too complex" as far as rules go - at least for me.

Can I, have I, played a game with no levels? I'm sure tons of people on these boards have.

But when you come to D&D - you come for a familiar experience. That familiarity would likely be something akin to previous additions - whether it be Red Box... or 4th.

OP... you care, it's evident because you've posted and you stayed.  You think you've got something to contribute - by all means, contribute away - but save us the melodrama of slamming the door. 

Rant and  rave and use those stupid Latin fallacy things.... like a normal forum-goer.

Sep 23, 2012 -- 8:21PM, Medhia_Nox wrote:

I played - and understood - Rolemaster.  I - and anyone who's done so - should get a medal for being able to navigate and enjoy Rolemaster (if you're thinking that this is "cred" of any sort - there's a jumbo jet whizzing over your head with "The Point") 
 

I never found the rules of Rolemaster to be complex. Over-burdensome and a pain in the butt to bookkeep, but not really complex. I actually quite liked Rolemaster's rules. What I didn't like was the amount of time it took to bookkeep them all throughout the game.

Sep 23, 2012 -- 8:21PM, Medhia_Nox wrote:

So hardly anything D&D ever will make - is "too complex" as far as rules go - at least for me.

Agreed. I haven't played an edition of D&D yet that I would consider complex. I think that's a good thing, too. I play it for good storytelling adventures that sometimes require a bit of bookkeeping, not for rampant bookkeeping with occasional storytelling thrown in. That is the main reason I don't play Rolemaster anymore. The ratio of referencing tables, charts, and graphs didn't equal or fall below the amount of time spent enjoying the storytelling.

Sep 22, 2012 -- 7:21PM, QuestorTelloc wrote:

Here is my advice on addressing the issue of a game playtest you see going in a direction you very much dislike.

1. The point of a playtest is to get feedback by which the game may be improved before implementation. "X is bad" is useless to game designers. Hyperbole, sarcasm, overgeneralization, and ultimatums ("Change X or I'm leaving you for another game!") are similarly unhelpful when it comes to said point of playtesting. Okay, you've gotten your point across about how serious an issue this is with you. We get it, and I'm sure everyone has such a spot on which to take a stand. I, for one, would have very deep concerns if they went to a fully-3.w skill mechanic. (For the record, I'd still play, but houserule the [...] out of that part of it.) But there are helpful ways of addressing issues, and there are temper tantrums.

2. If you post on the forums, e-mail them detailed explanations, fill out every question on every survey, wait for a playtest or two for them to have a chance on working out kinks in new dynamics & mechanics, and they still do not address the issue or issues you have, then you need to ask yourself a few questions. "Is this a dealbreaker for me? Can I be satisfied just playing an earlier edition? Are they ignoring everyone, or does my issue seem to affect hardly anybody?" I'm sure there are plenty of issues, polarized ones, on these forums, where the loud polar opposites are grossly overrepresented. But they do use feedback. The fixed-HP/rolled-HP option, and the idea of adding the ConMod to heals and HPs, were suggested by me (and I should think many others) in the first survey, and there it is. So maybe the last question is, "Do I actually have a better suggestion that will fix the problem, or am I just presenting a problem and expecting them to fix it no matter what?"

3. Do what your answers tell you. If it's a dealbreaker, break the deal. If you can't be satisfied with another edition, don't spend your money on or play them. If they're ignoring everyone, don't feel too bad about going. If your issue seems to be in the minority, the game may not be for you anyway. If you have a better suggestion, tell them and wait to see. If you don't, shall we give the experienced professionals the benefit of the doubt?

4. If you must go, bow out gracefully. If you want to tell the designers the deal is broken, don't stand on a soapbox in the middle of the forum. An e-mail will get to them even more certainly, especially if maturely- and well-written. Grandstanding will only invite ire from those of us still enjoying D&DN thus far. If you decide to announce your departure in such a manner, it's not about D&D, D&DNext, the mechanics, the designers, how much better any other games may or may not be, modularity, progression, stats, or anything else. It's about you, and if you want to believe you're doing it for any other reason, you just failed an Insight check against yourself.

5. If you say you're going to go, go. Don't hang around the thread to see who agrees with you and argue with those who don't. It helps no one, gets nowhere, and wastes everyone's time. 

I feel if you are not happy with the way 3ed/4th/5th ed is, go back and play 1st or 2nd ed. Or better yet take the part you like for each of them and work out a personal edition that you and your players like. Its not that hard to do.

The DM is what keeps the D&D game fresh.  Not powers, magial items, monsters, levels, and splat books.

With that said, if the game system fails to empower the DM or the system has overreaching rules that restrict DM freedom then it will become stale.   

Sep 23, 2012 -- 6:33AM, kentop wrote:

Sep 23, 2012 -- 3:49AM, Gnarl wrote:

Sep 22, 2012 -- 4:15PM, kentop wrote:

If WOTC want to make an impact with Next, eliminate levels altoghether. Good dungeon masters, like professional screen-writers can adapt and make endlessly incredible adventures using simple level one characters. That's where everybody starts, and that's what everybody loves.

 

I disagree!

The DM isn't the only person playing at the table. Everybody is! Creating your character, imagining his background or how he looks is all part of the fun. Having your character go from zero to hero is loads of fun. All these things make a better story.

I've played other games that don't use levels (GURPS, d100 games). They're not nearly as fun than D&D. Whenever I play these games, I always get the feeling that my character is stagnating. The only exception is Cthulhu because in our games, combat pretty much means we're going to die.

Even for a DM, levels are fun. You have a lot more to take into account against high level characters: divinations, bad ass exploration spells. Incorporating these new spells in the story just makes it better.

Sep 22, 2012 -- 4:15PM, kentop wrote:

Chess players never tire of the format. It is the same for any successfull game. Get a clue.

Developpement is an integral part of many other games. Why do people play FarmVille, Railroad Tycoon, Sim City, the Sims? What's the point in having a Tamagotchi?

All these games have one thing in common: you're building something. Character building is fun! Well for some of us anyways.

If level 5 is more fun than level 1, why bother with level 1 at all? I don't believe that level 1 is level 5 with training wheels attached.  Adding modifiers and more hit points is not in any way "character building".  I'm just saying that moving your character up another level shouldn't be the be all and end all of the game. Level 10 characters are not "more fun". They are more complicated. You have to carry around lots of paperwork to keep track of all the additions.  If that is the goal, why not just start with those rules and powers anyway?

You have this underlying assumption that Complexity equates to less fun.  That may be true for you.  But I assure that it is not true for the vast majority of players.

But for me, Complexity = Fun.  I like tracking modifiers, status conditions, calculating optimal situations, and figuring out the best approach.  That's fun to me.  It's engaging.  It rewards me to make informed decisions about the game's engine. 

I'd definitely be on the opposite end of the spectrum from you.  And curiously, I'm not that thrilled to play DnD Next because it is too simplistic for me.  There isn't enough to manage, track, and decide uponr for me.  I feel like I'm not provided that many options as a DM or as a player from the game engine. 

I know that I'm not the majority when it comes to Next.  A lot of people like it, and that's fine.  They are welcome to enjoy roleplaying as a hobby, because more compatriots are never a bad thing.  I'm very happy to introduce people to the hobby even if they go off and play another system entirely.  And I'm happy that DnD Next is appealing to enough people to maintain them in the hobby.

So while Next may not be the option for you, that doesn't mean that it's a horrible game.  Or that it's going to doom the DnD brand.  From the feedback it's generated, its looking to be a pretty well rounded game that a lot of people will enjoy.   Let them enjoy their game, and you and I can go and enjoy our respective games.  Then we can all get together and talk about how awesome roleplaying is. =)

Sep 23, 2012 -- 6:21PM, CarlT wrote:

We are testing the core.  The last packet was a version of the core.  This packet is a version of the core (with the possible exception of the Sorcerer and Warlock not being core four).  The next packet will be a version of the core.

I think you are right mostly except for this part about healing.  There will be a "default" healing system.  I'm sure there will be other modules for other playstyles.  But core will merely say that there are hit points and they are recoverable.  If you want to call the default core thats fine, no arguments there.  But it will be pluggable I'm sure.  There is to much disagreement amongst the base for one solution to meet all needs.

Sep 24, 2012 -- 1:47PM, JssSandals wrote:

 You have this underlying assumption that Complexity equates to less fun.  That may be true for you.  But I assure that it is not true for the vast majority of players.

But for me, Complexity = Fun.  I like tracking modifiers, status conditions, calculating optimal situations, and figuring out the best approach.  That's fun to me.  It's engaging.  It rewards me to make informed decisions about the game's engine. 

I'd definitely be on the opposite end of the spectrum from you.  And curiously, I'm not that thrilled to play DnD Next because it is too simplistic for me.  There isn't enough to manage, track, and decide uponr for me.  I feel like I'm not provided that many options as a DM or as a player from the game engine. 

Although I understand your point - and to a limited extent agree - I do think that it is true that Complexity serves as a barrier to new players.

I also think that there is (at least) two different axes of complexity:  There is complexity in character building (3.x) and there is complexity in actual play (4E). 

I think that 3.x went to far in the 'complexity of character building' direction - that was that point of the whole 'system mastery is require' idea.   I have no desire to see a game return to this level of complexity.
I think that 4E went too far in the 'complexity of play at the table' direction - that is what makes combats drag for hours and hours.


But if you gave me a game with the character building complexity of 4E (complex but not too complex) and the play complexity of 3.x (likwise) -I'd settle for that.


I'd prefer to ramp down the complexity of play a bit - closer to the AD&D game.  But 3.0 isn't so complex it couldn't serve as a decent model.  Just so long as they deal with walking menageries and a few other issues.

And I want your complexity to be restricted to your character.  Anything that slows down play should either be a valualbe use of time - or speeded up.  Lot of small additive bonuses are an example of this - they slow down play, so I'd like to see a faster and simpler option.  If your character is taking actions to give your character lots of small bonuses - OK.  But as a DM I don't want to have to track small bonuses from several different sources and determine how they all interact - it's not a good use of time and it slows down combat.



Carl

Sep 23, 2012 -- 3:50PM, SteeleButterfly wrote:

Sep 23, 2012 -- 6:33AM, kentop wrote:

If level 5 is more fun than level 1, why bother with level 1 at all?

I don't think Level 5 is more fun than Level 1, and I don't think Level 1 is more fun than Level 5. What I DO think is that watching my character progress, gain new skills and new abilities is fun. I like starting with something just out of the training hall, and watch her grow with her experiences, learn new spells or combat moves or skills or languages or ... And it's satisfying to see that we ARE gaining those things because we have, as a group, overcome the challenges that the DM has set us. If I want to play a game with static rules, where the challenge is to try to use the known set of rules to WIN, I'll choose Chess or Monopoly or Bridge, or something like that. But for us, D&D isn't a game we WIN. It's a game we play and really love that's been going on for nearly 30 years. What game of Chess can claim that?

Personally, I've always felt the game plays best at around 5th or 6th level (pick your edition, they are all similar) with decreasing funnitude as the levels move further away from that sweet spot.  Of course, the characters' growing experience overrides this as you and others have done such a good job explaining.

Sep 22, 2012 -- 4:15PM, kentop wrote:

If WOTC want to make an impact with Next, eliminate levels altoghether. Good dungeon masters, like professional screen-writers can adapt and make endlessly incredible adventures using simple level one characters. That's where everybody starts, and that's what everybody loves. 
 

Interesting idea.  A lot of RPGs can be enjoyable without levels, and some have even been successful with no experience or advancement stytem, at all (in old-school Traveller, for instance, your character not only never advanced after character creation, but would eventually get worse due to aging).  I remember finding that apalling at the time.  

The sense of advancement does trigger some sort of positive feedback response in our little nerd brains, I think, and accounts for some of the success of D&D and RPGs in general (and a lot of video and on-line games, for that matter).  Doing away with that gimick, while it might produce a purer and philosophically superior game, probably wouldn't boost its apeal.

Sep 24, 2012 -- 4:55PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

Sep 22, 2012 -- 4:15PM, kentop wrote:

If WOTC want to make an impact with Next, eliminate levels altoghether. Good dungeon masters, like professional screen-writers can adapt and make endlessly incredible adventures using simple level one characters. That's where everybody starts, and that's what everybody loves. 
 

Interesting idea.  A lot of RPGs can be enjoyable without levels, and some have even been successful with no experience or advancement stytem, at all (in old-school Traveller, for instance, your character not only never advanced after character creation, but would eventually get worse due to aging).  I remember finding that apalling at the time.  

The sense of advancement does trigger some sort of positive feedback response in our little nerd brains, I think, and accounts for some of the success of D&D and RPGs in general (and a lot of video and on-line games, for that matter).  Doing away with that gimick, while it might produce a purer and philosophically superior game, probably wouldn't boost its apeal.

I do find it amusing however - that the OP, after years of experience with the prior editions of D&D, comes to the first edition to make a serious effort to flatten the growth curve and reduce the rate at which the players get more powerful with level - and call that "the death of D&D" because it doesn't do away with such progression altogether.



Carl

Xena lacks a sense of progression for her character... but Gabriel goes from a lazylord style clever bard to a full combatant bard multiclassed skirmishing ranger.  The nature of her contributions to the story change over time - but maybe the measure of them didnt need to change much.

Sep 24, 2012 -- 5:01PM, Garthanos wrote:

Xena lacks a sense of progression for her character... but Gabriel goes from a lazylord style clever bard to a full combatant bard multiclassed skirmishing ranger. 

Not entirely true - Xena does undergo quite a bit of growth.  But it's all internal and not related to her ability to fight.

One could, however, advance the argument that the show is really all about Gabriel because that is where you see the greatest development both as a character and 'mechanically'.


Just as it has been argued that Samwise was the real protagonist in Lord of the Rings.


Carl

Sep 24, 2012 -- 4:59PM, CarlT wrote:

I do find it amusing however - that the OP, after years of experience with the prior editions of D&D, comes to the first edition to make a serious effort to flatten the growth curve and reduce the rate at which the players get more powerful with level - and call that "the death of D&D" because it doesn't do away with such progression altogether.

Basically what I said in post #11.
You said it more eloquently, as is your posting nature, but yeah...same principle.

Sep 24, 2012 -- 5:04PM, CarlT wrote:

Sep 24, 2012 -- 5:01PM, Garthanos wrote:

Xena lacks a sense of progression for her character... but Gabriel goes from a lazylord style clever bard to a full combatant bard multiclassed skirmishing ranger. 

Not entirely true - Xena does undergo quite a bit of growth.  But it's all internal and not related to her ability to fight.

Ok I will give you that one... 

Sep 24, 2012 -- 5:04PM, CarlT wrote:

One could, however, advance the argument that the show is really all about Gabriel because that is where you see the greatest development both as a character and 'mechanically'. 

Carl

My point above was actually that the growth of Gabrielle was represented change in the nature of their story contributions and in some sense not an increase in what D&D calls level a lazylord bard rertaining.  I can easilly see a lot of stories being told with most "advancement" beinig of that nature.

There was a fan variant of D&D that involved what was like at one level ie Level 6, but with perhaps feat advancement?

 
 

How about removing epic, paragon, epic, etc. from levels and just have a dial type of template? That way, it allows you to play your playstyle just by turning the dial. You can play an epic campaign from level 1 simply by applying the epic template. Or, you can go heroic the whole way and never have to deal with that stuff. It allows the DM to add that stuff whenever they see fit. Not at specific levels.

I for one like the leveling system I get my players to level up every 2 levels starting at level2 .. so they play level 2 for awhile then 4 then 6 then 8 etc

BUT i totally agree with you that it does turn metagaming +2 to attack roll + this - this but how do you change it? 

*sigh*
I've heard this one before. Many times before. 2e was going to be the death of AD&D. 3e was going to be the death of D&D. 3.5 was going to be the death of D&D. 4e was going to be the death of D&D. Now apparently 5e is going to be the death of D&D. I respect the opinions of each as to their preference, but let's not exclaim that the sky is falling until the sky is actually falling. Each edition has strongpoints and weaknesses, and each of them I play and will still play. I'm liking what I see of 5e so far (mostly) and will buy and play it when it comes out. But I won't be giving up the old editions either.  

Sep 23, 2012 -- 6:33AM, kentop wrote:

Sep 23, 2012 -- 3:49AM, Gnarl wrote:

Sep 22, 2012 -- 4:15PM, kentop wrote:

If WOTC want to make an impact with Next, eliminate levels altoghether. Good dungeon masters, like professional screen-writers can adapt and make endlessly incredible adventures using simple level one characters. That's where everybody starts, and that's what everybody loves.

 

I disagree!

The DM isn't the only person playing at the table. Everybody is! Creating your character, imagining his background or how he looks is all part of the fun. Having your character go from zero to hero is loads of fun. All these things make a better story.

I've played other games that don't use levels (GURPS, d100 games). They're not nearly as fun than D&D. Whenever I play these games, I always get the feeling that my character is stagnating. The only exception is Cthulhu because in our games, combat pretty much means we're going to die.

Even for a DM, levels are fun. You have a lot more to take into account against high level characters: divinations, bad ass exploration spells. Incorporating these new spells in the story just makes it better.

Sep 22, 2012 -- 4:15PM, kentop wrote:

Chess players never tire of the format. It is the same for any successfull game. Get a clue.

Developpement is an integral part of many other games. Why do people play FarmVille, Railroad Tycoon, Sim City, the Sims? What's the point in having a Tamagotchi?

All these games have one thing in common: you're building something. Character building is fun! Well for some of us anyways.

If level 5 is more fun than level 1, why bother with level 1 at all? I don't believe that level 1 is level 5 with training wheels attached.  Adding modifiers and more hit points is not in any way "character building".  I'm just saying that moving your character up another level shouldn't be the be all and end all of the game. Level 10 characters are not "more fun". They are more complicated. You have to carry around lots of paperwork to keep track of all the additions.  If that is the goal, why not just start with those rules and powers anyway?

Leveling isn't JUST about more modifiers and more HP. It's also about gaining more options: maneuvers, spells, power,  etc. Yes, level 5 can be more fun than level 1 because you have more options, argueably better tools to adventure with. The point of level one is to ease into the number of options. But, many people even skip that and start at level 5. it's about having options.

Aside from Traveller, already mentioned, I'm trying to think of any other well known RPG that had NO progression at all. Some may do away with 'levels', but they STILL have some sort of character points that you can use to 'buy' improvements: better stats, new powers, new toys, etc.
It seem nearly all the really popular RPGs have progression: D&D, Pathfinder, GURPS, ShadowRun, BattleTech. I think that's a good indicator that the majority of players and DMs WANT progression.

A lot of people have commented that levelling up allows for the sense of growth and accomplishment. They have also mentioned that more options can be fun; in that players have more room to do what they do best. They have been expressed succinctly and elegantly, so I wont belabour these points.

What I'm having some trouble with is OP's assumption that more options means more work for the DM. Hopefully what follows will be a reasoned arguement against this, using 4e as a baseline as 4e is relatively complex mechanically.

I run a 4e campaign and find the number of options available to players overwhelming. So much so that I have told the players that they are responsible for their characters. As long as their characters are legal as per the character builder, that is where my involvment in the mechanics of their character ends.

My responsibility is to craft a story and deliver challenges to the players. I also act as an arbiter. Just because my player has had to spend 45 minutes agonising whether to pick power X vs power Y, does not mean that my work has increased by any amount.

In combat, my responsibility is simply to give the players a spicier version of "Monster attacks, gets 25. Does that hit your AC" - "Yes" - "Ok it does 15 damage" - "I am bloodied". The players responsibility is to say "I attack monster with power #9. I roll 25." - "That hits" - "I deal 19 damage" - "The monster is bloodied". It is also their responsibility to give truthful and accurate values.

My work has not increased just because they had 8 other powers to choose from. They player's has but he or she is greatful for the choice to create the character that they wish to play. But that's not the OPs point; his point is that it is an increase in the work of the DM and that alienates them from the game.

Outside of combat, my responsibility is to deliver a compelling story that inspires and drives my players. Complex tactical rules do not hinder this. Nor do increased player options and their ability to progress. In fact, it actually makes it easier to produce a sense of growth and achievement that comes with a compelling story.

My work does increase from having to remember Marks etc, as well as conditions like bloodied and that I shouldn't try shift monsters when they are next to the Paladin or what have you. Next reduces this considerably and I personally hope that all of these things are gone forever. I hate the feeling when something has slipped my mind and a player has an "Aha! Gotcha" moment when their one obscure power comes into play to thwart my plans. Presently, none of this is in Next.

So where is this additional work for the DM in Next?

It always amazes me that when a new version of D&D comes out the ones that really don’t like the changes, talk about quitting D&D as if it is dead. If you do not like what 5E may become play 4E, play 3.5,  play 3.0, darn play 1E if you like. Just like the RPG Traveller, there are many rule sets to play.

Sep 24, 2012 -- 5:01PM, Garthanos wrote:

Xena lacks a sense of progression for her character... but Gabriel goes from a lazylord style clever bard to a full combatant bard multiclassed skirmishing ranger.  The nature of her contributions to the story change over time - but maybe the measure of them didnt need to change much.

I was always disappointed that Xena never got as powerful as Lucy Lawless.

Did not have a chance to level up enough, I guess.

Sep 24, 2012 -- 10:56PM, Shasarak wrote:

Sep 24, 2012 -- 5:01PM, Garthanos wrote:

Xena lacks a sense of progression for her character... but Gabriel goes from a lazylord style clever bard to a full combatant bard multiclassed skirmishing ranger.  The nature of her contributions to the story change over time - but maybe the measure of them didnt need to change much.

I was always disappointed that Xena never got as powerful as Lucy Lawless.

Did not have a chance to level up enough, I guess.

Lucy got chops.

Sep 24, 2012 -- 10:56PM, Shasarak wrote:

Sep 24, 2012 -- 5:01PM, Garthanos wrote:

Xena lacks a sense of progression for her character... but Gabriel goes from a lazylord style clever bard to a full combatant bard multiclassed skirmishing ranger.  The nature of her contributions to the story change over time - but maybe the measure of them didnt need to change much.

I was always disappointed that Xena never got as powerful as Lucy Lawless.

Did not have a chance to level up enough, I guess.

"But Xena can't fly."  "I told you, I'm not Xena.  I'm Lucy Lawless"


Commentary on the OPs suggestion to redesign D&D to remove advancement: imgs.xkcd.com/comics/think_logically.png




Carl

TSR "Real" D&D never died(Still played and ran by "real" dungeon masters), though wotc's game that uses the title D&D died long ago, no matter how much they try to keep it up it is dead "SAGA".

They create systems no real DMs/GMS will run, leaving players to run their games for other players, it be like me calling my friend to come over and then handing them a ps cd and asking them to spin it on their finger while I try to play the game.

What?

Sep 25, 2012 -- 1:48AM, CondorDMaDnD2ed wrote:

TSR "Real" D&D never died(Still played and ran by "real" dungeon masters), though wotc's game that uses the title D&D died long ago, no matter how much they try to keep it up it is dead "SAGA".

They create systems no real DMs/GMS will run, leaving players to run their games for other players, it be like me calling my friend to come over and then handing them a ps cd and asking them to spin it on their finger while I try to play the game.

Words... words.... none that matter. 


Nothing to see here folks. Just a pile of nonsense. 

Sep 25, 2012 -- 1:48AM, CondorDMaDnD2ed wrote:

TSR "Real" D&D never died(Still played and ran by "real" dungeon masters), though wotc's game that uses the title D&D died long ago, no matter how much they try to keep it up it is dead "SAGA".

They create systems no real DMs/GMS will run, leaving players to run their games for other players, it be like me calling my friend to come over and then handing them a ps cd and asking them to spin it on their finger while I try to play the game.

Condor there have been a number of threads asking you not to be abusive to other players... even mild insults like that should be kept at bay.

There are plenty of REAL DMs who play games such as 4e and while I can understand your argument, your going at it from an awful standpoint. Its different strokes for different people, many people still do enjoy DMing, unfortunately its not as a big of a draw as it once was.

But D&D lives, despite the best shots of trolls and idiots, its just a little old and tired. 

I didn't insult you and im sorry if you see it that way, just please calm down, harassing people and causing work for the admins just brings the forum down. I was saying D&D the brand is old and tired... and sorry but yes I do see you as a troll, your posts are all full of rage, It makes others act up.

When have I been two faced on here

dude, like, breathe in the love.

My criticism of quitting in this manner is it sets you up for looking funny if you ever did go back and play it, but that's really your lookout.

As far as D&D goes with death and all that, the game's always had system bloat right back to the '80's. Maybe it's more pronounced now because of a corporate overlord, but TSR in its later days wasn't a whole lot better. heh my pile of 2e supplements dwarfed my 3e pile.

Moaning is kinda lame.

    I've removed content from this thread because baiting/trolling is a violation of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code of Conduct here www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.

Sep 25, 2012 -- 1:48AM, CondorDMaDnD2ed wrote:

TSR "Real" D&D never died(Still played and ran by "real" dungeon masters), though wotc's game that uses the title D&D died long ago, no matter how much they try to keep it up it is dead "SAGA".

They create systems no real DMs/GMS will run, leaving players to run their games for other players, it be like me calling my friend to come over and then handing them a ps cd and asking them to spin it on their finger while I try to play the game.

That's the problem. So many people thinking they are the only REAL this or that. By thinking you are one of a very few elite "real" DMs, and that your way of DMing is the only true way, completely misses the point of the game.

I may have my issues with particular rules that I don't like(vancian), but, I wouldn't be so arrogant as to think that just because I don't like a set of rules, that it means the death of the game.

And it SHOULD be players running games for other games. Are there really ANY DMs out there that haven't ever played the game? 

Yo we're keepin' it real up in da haus!

Sep 22, 2012 -- 4:15PM, kentop wrote:

*Snip!*

Dude. If you only like level 1, just remove leveling from your game. It really is as simple as that. Some of us like character growth, options, and higher level play. Stating your opinion is one thing, and being condescending is another.

gotta admit, I agree with a lot of what was posted by the OP. (but totally disagree with his arguement about character advancement...)

I would be fine with just figher, magic user, cleric, and rogue, as base classes.

I dont need archtypes, feats, sub-classes, or anything else to make that work and can create my own rules for any expansion on those classes (IE giving multi classed cleric/fighters some additional abilities if they join a specific order of holy knight etc)

The problem is, most players arnt fine with that, they want to have all the options right in front of them, and few players want to run a vanilla character, most needing something to make their character feel special.

on top of that... a gaming company is a company, a company must make money for it's investors.

If you want hype, if you want the hobby to reach from one generation to the next, If you want people who have no history with pen and paper RPG's interested in playing a tabletop RPG without having to be sold on it by you... If you want awesome new art, If you want your game to integrate with the newest communication technology, that company needs to make money and thats been true ever since TSR began.

The problem with making money is you get un-neccessary games, un-necessary rules, un-necessary expansions, and massive system bloat.

System bloat is what killed 3.0. System bloat is what's killing Pathfinder right now (over 300 feats and new feats every month, a single 15th level round of combat taking over an hour to resolve because of all the rules that need to be reviewed and all the variance in; defenses, elemental effects, modifiers, etc.)

unfortunately, so far, I have not seen a way to avoid system bloat while still making a pile o' cash for the game company. just selling downloadable adventure paths, and modules wont cut it.

when the OP figures that one out, please let me know and we can both be bazillionares.  

I don't get it. D&D has always had levels 1 - 20 (+ Epic levels) , how the heck did you ever enjoy the game?

I enjoy level 1 as much as the next guy, but I also enjoy seeing my character progress - its that progress - both in ability and personality that makes playing the character fun.

Also, D&D Next is doing a great job at simplifying the modifiers. Especially with the advantage rule, rarely do you have to deal with +/-2 , 4, 5 , 6 and flat-footed anymore.

They understand the problem and are working to address it. Its more simple then 4th, 3rd and 2nd edition so far. My only request would be that they extend that thought to spells, basically avoid +/- X modifiers period, and focus on dice tricks.

If anything, I would argue that some of the rules are too simple for 4E fans as optional tactical grid rules have yet to be introduced.

Really I'm shocked this thread even exists.

Oct 5, 2012 -- 12:45AM, Baalbamoth wrote:

gotta admit, I agree with a lot of what was posted by the OP. (but totally disagree with his arguement about character advancement...)

I would be fine with just figher, magic user, cleric, and rogue, as base classes.

I dont need archtypes, feats, sub-classes, or anything else to make that work and can create my own rules for any expansion on those classes (IE giving multi classed cleric/fighters some additional abilities if they join a specific order of holy knight etc)

The problem is, most players arnt fine with that, they want to have all the options right in front of them, and few players want to run a vanilla character, most needing something to make their character feel special.

on top of that... a gaming company is a company, a company must make money for it's investors.

If you want hype, if you want the hobby to reach from one generation to the next, If you want people who have no history with pen and paper RPG's interested in playing a tabletop RPG without having to be sold on it by you... If you want awesome new art, If you want your game to integrate with the newest communication technology, that company needs to make money and thats been true ever since TSR began.

The problem with making money is you get un-neccessary games, un-necessary rules, un-necessary expansions, and massive system bloat.

System bloat is what killed 3.0. System bloat is what's killing Pathfinder right now (over 300 feats and new feats every month, a single 15th level round of combat taking over an hour to resolve because of all the rules that need to be reviewed and all the variance in; defenses, elemental effects, modifiers, etc.)

unfortunately, so far, I have not seen a way to avoid system bloat while still making a pile o' cash for the game company. just selling downloadable adventure paths, and modules wont cut it.

when the OP figures that one out, please let me know and we can both be bazillionares.  

You can avoid system bloat by concentrating on adventures, campaign settings and horizontal feats. Basically focus on new backgrounds, specialties, prestige classes that gives different options, not better options.

Sep 22, 2012 -- 5:12PM, Salla wrote:

Sep 22, 2012 -- 5:07PM, kentop wrote:

Listen, you whippersnappers, Knee jerking solves nothing. What's wrong with a level 1 game with endless adventures?  Nothing. What's wrong with level 5 modifiers and spell books? Everything...especially if youu're a DM.

Love that he's calling someone 40 years old (me) a whippersnapper.

And how 'right' or 'wrong' something is, in a gaming environment, is purely subjective.  You don't like it, then it's wrong for you, and you're free to spend your time, money, and energy on something else.  It may not be wrong for someone else, whose style differs from yours.

Not to judge.

But I believe it has something to do with your my little poney picture. Its what my four year daughter would choose as her 'avatar'.

..... but I think that irony is what you are aiming at? lol


Still, I don't know allot of whippersnappers that play D&D - most are middle aged from my personal experience.

Oct 5, 2012 -- 6:07AM, Gwathir wrote:

Really I'm shocked this thread even exists.

I'm not shocked in the slightest. Statements like the OP's happen every time a new edition of D&D is announced or released. The "sky is falling" meme gets rather tiring. ZOMG!!!11!D&DisDEAADD!!! Silliness, knee-jerk specualtion, and paranoid thought processes are all they amount to. I give them about as much credit as road-side zealots screaming to repent, and that the end is nigh. Maybe it is nigh...but if it is, there's nothing I can do about it.

Heh I like how hocus put it there, and its a good way of looking at it.

Even if D&D were dead, and this is the end, do people really have to shout about it and take the I told you so attitude once its done? Let us "sinners" who do the right despicable act of still enjoying D&D live in our blissful ignorance till the rapture actually happens.
 

D and D is dead?

Not a problem. Someone get me a 9th Level Cleric or a Ritual Caster and 500 gp.

Problem Solved!

Oct 5, 2012 -- 10:50AM, OrwellianHaggis wrote:

Heh I like how hocus put it there, and its a good way of looking at it.

Even if D&D were dead, and this is the end, do people really have to shout about it and take the I told you so attitude once its done? Let us "sinners" who do the right despicable act of still enjoying D&D live in our blissful ignorance till the rapture actually happens.
 

Is this this October this time?

 [/quote]
You can avoid system bloat by concentrating on adventures, campaign settings and horizontal feats. Basically focus on new backgrounds, specialties, prestige classes that gives different options, not better options.[/quote]


what the heck does "horizontal" mean in this instance,

for example... in PF they have a "power attack" feat that scales as you level but is generally -1 to hit for +2 damage, and if you use it you must use it for all attacks. another feat is "piranha strikes" which gives the same bonus, but you must be small sized using a small weapon to gain the bonus and it specifically isn't useable with "power attack"

HOWEVER there are other feats that may be used in combination with piranha strikes which can make it much more disgusting powerwise than power attack. (halfling "risky striker" feat cannot be used with power attack but can be used with Piranha strike etc)

that is the problem I see with this horizontal feat issue, if a new feat has a slightly more benificial use for a different build, all those slight bonuses can build up to some serious power creep,

it also makes it extremely annoying when if you want to build a "small fighter" and there are 500 official feats that are available, many repetitive but each having a slightly different game effect, you'd have to know and read all of them to select the "best" or most effective feat for the build your trying to pull off. 


now add 500 new backgrounds, 500 new specalties, 500 new archtypes etc. and its going to take reading a small library if you want to really focus on some specific tatic, or just select the best feats background specality and archtype the game allows for the concept you had.   

does not matter if this was intended or not, new rules + new feats etc, lead to system bloat. always.

totally unavoidable.

It also means that likely once every three to five years, they will kill off the old edition with a re-write or an "update" (if thats what perkins wants to call it now) that will force you to buy all new books and cut way back on the bloat... until they do it again (and that by the way is the tatic Games Workshop has used for years to its great success... and why I wont play any games workshop games.)

        

Sep 24, 2012 -- 4:55PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

Sep 22, 2012 -- 4:15PM, kentop wrote:

If WOTC want to make an impact with Next, eliminate levels altoghether. Good dungeon masters, like professional screen-writers can adapt and make endlessly incredible adventures using simple level one characters. That's where everybody starts, and that's what everybody loves. 
 

Interesting idea.  A lot of RPGs can be enjoyable without levels, and some have even been successful with no experience or advancement stytem, at all (in old-school Traveller, for instance, your character not only never advanced after character creation, but would eventually get worse due to aging).  I remember finding that apalling at the time.  

The sense of advancement does trigger some sort of positive feedback response in our little nerd brains, I think, and accounts for some of the success of D&D and RPGs in general (and a lot of video and on-line games, for that matter).  Doing away with that gimick, while it might produce a purer and philosophically superior game, probably wouldn't boost its apeal.

There are also games like E6 which have a very low level cap and alternate advancement after.

Sep 25, 2012 -- 1:48AM, CondorDMaDnD2ed wrote:

TSR "Real" D&D never died(Still played and ran by "real" dungeon masters), though wotc's game that uses the title D&D died long ago, no matter how much they try to keep it up it is dead "SAGA".

Everyone knows REAL DMs make their own games.

See how condescending that sounds?