|
10 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 4:55PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
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.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 4:59PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
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
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 5:01PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 5:04PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
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
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 5:15PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
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.
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 5:17PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
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...
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?
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 5:21PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
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.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 5:37PM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Feb 21, 2012
|
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?
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 5:43PM
#59
|
|
|
*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.
I prefer 2nd Edition AD&D. But I have played basic, 1E, 2E, 3.5, & 4E, and found all to be fun.
IF IT'S D&D, I'LL PLAY IT, NO MATTER THE EDITION.
Just roll some dice.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 6:33PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2011
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
