# D&D changes every 5 levels by design...



## MerricB (Feb 8, 2007)

Just found this post by Ryan Dancey on rpg.net (ok, he posted it 3 minutes ago...)

Original Thread http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=310363

*Ryan Dancey*
"D&D 3/3.5, by design, changes roughly every 5 levels. You may find that your group becomes comfortable in one of those 4 quartiles, or you may find that your group enjoys the changes of pace that happen when moving from quartile to quartile."

Interesting. The entire post is very interesting.

Discuss. 

Cheers!


----------



## hong (Feb 8, 2007)

I'm pretty sure I made much the same observation here, a few years back.

Levels 1-5 = low, "gritty" fantasy (Conan, Black Company)
6-10 = heroic fantasy (LotR)
11-15 = superheroic fantasy (wuxia, Achilles)
16-20 = supers (four-colour)


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Feb 8, 2007)

LvL
1-5:       Capable but still just "insert race here"
6-10:     An example of all that a "race" may unsuccessfully aspire to emulate
11-15:   Semi-Divine God-Hero "This is the tale of the rage of Achilles"
16+:      Divine Entity of Mythic Power "His voice was as a chorus of thunders and neither Gilgamesh nor Enkidu could look upon he who issued from the Cedar Palace in blazes of light and wrath at the first axe stroke."

Agree the mechanics is designed to create different experiences at different levels the power curve rises more quickly as levels increase.  But I've always kind of liked that, I mean if you wanted to keep it all real and "gritty" put away the paper and go DO it.  THIS IS FANTASY BE FANTASTIC, I get enough reality in the real world as is.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Feb 8, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure I made much the same observation here, a few years back.
> 
> Levels 1-5 = low, "gritty" fantasy (Conan, Black Company)
> 6-10 = heroic fantasy (LotR)
> ...




That's pretty close. I'll buy that.


----------



## Nyaricus (Feb 8, 2007)

Neat stuff, and makes sense.

My players hate me for always starting them off at low level though  

cheers,
--N


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Feb 8, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Levels 1-5 = low, "gritty" fantasy (Conan, Black Company)




I have a bit of difficulty reconciling the Conan of Beyond the Black River or a Witch Shall Be Born with level 1-5. For that matter, the Conan of Hour of the Dragon, Sword and the Pheonix, Red Nails, and IIRC Queen of the Black Coast doesn't seem very 1-5 either.


----------



## phindar (Feb 8, 2007)

Yeah, the whole Conan being the mightiest warrior in the whole wide world (hey, wasn't that a movie?) thing sort of implies he's higher level, but I get that the feeling of the world is low-level and gritty.  That's also my favorite range to play.  My group splits it up a little differently, based on our own preferences:

1-2: You can die at any time
3-6: Gritty, but not immediately fatal
7-10: Heroic Fantasy
11-14: Superheroes Game
15+: We've heard rumors about this. 

The official breakdown is a little more, well, official, but this is pretty much how my group looks at it.


----------



## Deekin (Feb 8, 2007)

I break it up this way.

1-5 = save the town
6-10 = save the city
11-15 = save the country
16-20 = save the world.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 8, 2007)

1-7 Characters face challenges on a dangerous field
8-14 Characters can, with the right preparations, dictate the venue for a challenge
15+ Imagination and preparedness matter far more than numbers


----------



## drothgery (Feb 8, 2007)

Deekin said:
			
		

> I break it up this way.
> 
> 1-5 = save the town
> 6-10 = save the city
> ...




21+ = save the cheerleader


----------



## Taren Nighteyes (Feb 8, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> 21+ = save the cheerleader




I nearly spewed.....good one


----------



## T. Foster (Feb 8, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure I made much the same observation here, a few years back.
> 
> Levels 1-5 = low, "gritty" fantasy (Conan, Black Company)
> 6-10 = heroic fantasy (LotR)
> ...



 I really have no interest whatsoever in the 3rd or 4th categories...


----------



## Hussar (Feb 8, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> I really have no interest whatsoever in the 3rd or 4th categories...




While that's probably true, I, for one, am very very glad that it's included in the ruleset.  Granted, the high level stuff is different and could definitely use the same amount of loving that low level D&D gets, but, at least it's there.

Don't get me wrong, I played in the 1-10 sandbox for most of my gaming.  But, it's nice to try something very different without having to change to a different game.


----------



## Sammael (Feb 8, 2007)

Since my current campaign, which started at level 1 some 5 years ago, is on the brink of Epic levels, I can look back and say with complete honesty that I agree with Dancey's premise 100%.

Whether this is a function of the D&D ruleset, or my own mindset as a DM, I cannot say. But I know that the game I've been running has changed quite a bit every 5 levels or so.

(A) Levels 1-5: Save the mayor's daughter. Explore the Sunless Citadel. Travel to a remote town. Escape from the Underdark. Save a tribe of wemics from evil druid's influence. 

(B) Levels 6-10: Become affiliated with various organizations. Establish a base of operations. Do some serious dungeon-crawling. Show to the world at large that you are a force to be reckoned with. Save a city from becoming an outpost for evil wizards.

(C) Level 11-15: Visit the setting's largest city. Start taking part in the game played by the setting's major players. Visit the Planes briefly. Enter the world's deadliest dungeon to defeat a major enemy. Pursue said enemy across half the world, defeat his generals, and finally confront him in an epic battle. Save the kingdom from being collateral damage in his evil campaign of terror.

(D) Level 16+: Start fulfilling the prophecy you learned of during period (B). Interact with deities and learn of their divine plans. Travel the Planes for extended periods of time. Save the world from being broken apart by the struggle between gods, and help restore the proper time flow, thus repairing the history.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 8, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure I made much the same observation here, a few years back.
> 
> Levels 1-5 = low, "gritty" fantasy (Conan, Black Company)
> 6-10 = heroic fantasy (LotR)
> ...



Hmm, the first two fit my Midwood campaign outline pretty damn well. At level 11, the main storyline will be over and I'll have to come up with something appropriate.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 8, 2007)

> I have a bit of difficulty reconciling the Conan of Beyond the Black River or a Witch Shall Be Born with level 1-5. For that matter, the Conan of Hour of the Dragon, Sword and the Pheonix, Red Nails, and IIRC Queen of the Black Coast doesn't seem very 1-5 either.




Well, it's all a matter of scale. If Conan is LV5, and the entire rest of the world is made up of kobolds, commoners, and housecats, it can stay pretty gritty but still maintain his status as the Bestest In the World.

Just 'cuz there *are* 20 levels doesn't mean that anyone in the world *has* them all. 

Still, I don't know Conan from a hole in the wall, so if he's cleaving through solid steel walls engineered by dwarves from a dimension beyond, then I guess it's no problem to reconcile him with 20th level uberheroism.


----------



## hong (Feb 8, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> I really have no interest whatsoever in the 3rd or 4th categories...



 I had a cat when I was a child. Her name was Fred.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 8, 2007)

I think that _knowing_ about the divisions in D&D play and that they are intended to be different would help people plan their campaigns: whether they need to slow down XP to keep in their comfort range, and what the style of game is easiest to run at what levels...

Cheers!


----------



## Hussar (Feb 8, 2007)

That's a good point MerricB.  Really, I actually rather enjoyed WulfRatbane's threads about the sweet spot in D&D.  This is just an adjunct to that idea.  If you enjoy a certain style of play, then stick within the level range that applies.  Otherwise, it will very quickly become very frustrating.

In other words, if you want to keep things low key, heroic fantasy, then single digit levels will likely fit your mold rather well.  Add in the odd double digit NPC and Bob's your mother's brother.

OTOH, if you want to do something different, say planar adventures or Dark Sun, or even Scarred Lands which is a fairly high octane setting, then bumping the level curve upwards a bit might fit better.


----------



## cwhs01 (Feb 8, 2007)

I think this scheme is slightly different for spellcasters or fightertypes. I'd say the 1-5, 6-10, 11-15 and 16+ fits rather well for fighters (types with full bab progression), but spellcasters usually get a major powerup a level earlier. perhaps for casters, it should look more like this 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, 17+


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 8, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Just found this post by Ryan Dancey on rpg.net (ok, he posted it 3 minutes ago...)
> 
> Original Thread http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=310363
> 
> ...





Surely interesting... IMXP there is a noticeable shift *around level 7-8* when some important tactical abilities become available via 4th level spells:

- teleportation (_Dimension Door_)
- constant invisibility (_Greater Invisibility_)
- shapechanging (_Polymorph_)
- unlimited range divination (_Scrying_)

If _Fly_ was 4th level instead of 3rd, then the set would be complete. The availability of these really changes something in the game IMHO.

There is not another similar shift later on... nothing that really marks a transition between two different kinds of adventures. At higher levels there is instead only a gradual increase in complexity that usually ends up (for me   ) in lots of DMing problems. Probably my DMing crumbles down somewhere between 13th-17th level but not at a specific point.

So if I were to divide D&D in "zones" it would be 3 for me:

From 1st to 6th: adventures! great but still largely human characters of local fame
From 7th to 14th: wondrous adventures! definitely extraordinary characters and heroes of world contemporary fame
From 15th: epic adventures! earth-shattering events, legendary characters of historical fame


----------



## Hussar (Feb 8, 2007)

I'm curious about scry actually.  My players never use it, so it hasn't been an issue for me.  Why is scry such a big deal?  So you can see the 10 feet around the target, big deal.  Considering you cannot cast it in the middle of an adventure (except maybe druids), why does scry seem to come up so often as the big campaign shaking spell?


----------



## MerricB (Feb 8, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> There is not another similar shift later on... nothing that really marks a transition between two different kinds of adventures. At higher levels there is instead only a gradual increase in complexity that usually ends up (for me   ) in lots of DMing problems. Probably my DMing crumbles down somewhere between 13th-17th level but not at a specific point.




One of the big differences - and one that isn't obvious to the hack'n'slash gamer - is at 9th level when the PCs gain access to _commune_, _commune with nature_ and _contact another plane_. At 9th level, it's access to information that changes the nature of the game. _Teleport_ helps, of course...

Mind you, it's at 10th-11th level that you can reliably use these spells (as you have the slots available), and they become more significant.

I don't think _dimension door_ and _scry_ are as significant.

Cheers!


----------



## Justin Cray (Feb 8, 2007)

Don't forget the opposition. Evil Mad(Yet Strangly Sane Concerning Tactics)man With Scry = Scary.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 8, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> That's a good point MerricB.  Really, I actually rather enjoyed WulfRatbane's threads about the sweet spot in D&D.




Yep, thanks.



> This is just an adjunct to that idea.  If you enjoy a certain style of play, then stick within the level range that applies.  Otherwise, it will very quickly become very frustrating.




I still need to read Ryan's piece (I really should be getting ready for work by now) but in my opinion, the biggest jump is 5th level spells. You can bookend 5th level spells (that is, 9th level casters) either at the _very_ end (climax) of one kind of experience, or the very beginning of another, but you can't really reasonably play to 10th level without 10th level being anti-climactic to 9th. A campaign aiming at this particular experience (which I called the sweet spot) is well served to have a climax at 9th level and a satisfying resolution that winds up as the PCs possibly-- _possibly_-- make 10th level.

As I type these words it occurs to me that having sorcerers gain new spell levels on the even levels could be a real problem. I'd fix that, if I designed a sweet spot ruleset.


----------



## Obergnom (Feb 8, 2007)

hmm, what just occured to me is, for me and most folk I game with, it would be brilliant to have a d20 variant system that slows advancement in power without slowing level gain. A system where your 20th level character has got the power of a 10th level regular D&D character.

I would love that. Advancement of character is an importand thing for most players, thus just cutting the xp in half would not do the job. And the DM would still be able to use regual D&D Monsters, just double the CR to get an approriate Encounter.


----------



## hong (Feb 8, 2007)

Obergnom said:
			
		

> hmm, what just occured to me is, for me and most folk I game with, it would be brilliant to have a d20 variant system that slows advancement in power without slowing level gain. A system where your 20th level character has got the power of a 10th level regular D&D character.
> 
> I would love that. Advancement of character is an importand thing for most players, thus just cutting the xp in half would not do the job. And the DM would still be able to use regual D&D Monsters, just double the CR to get an approriate Encounter.



 Don't forget the taurens!


----------



## Obergnom (Feb 8, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Don't forget the taurens!





Actually, one guy I game with misses the GURPS thing of getting some CP every session... no, Taurens do not have much to do with it


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 8, 2007)

Obergnom said:
			
		

> hmm, what just occured to me is, for me and most folk I game with, it would be brilliant to have a d20 variant system that slows advancement in power without slowing level gain. A system where your 20th level character has got the power of a 10th level regular D&D character.
> 
> I would love that. Advancement of character is an importand thing for most players, thus just cutting the xp in half would not do the job. And the DM would still be able to use regual D&D Monsters, just double the CR to get an approriate Encounter.




That's the thrust of the sweet spot thread. Don't have the link-- maybe someone else can find it. 

I don't start very many threads in the General forum though so it should be easy to find.


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 8, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> One of the big differences - and one that isn't obvious to the hack'n'slash gamer - is at 9th level when the PCs gain access to _commune_, _commune with nature_ and _contact another plane_. At 9th level, it's access to information that changes the nature of the game. _Teleport_ helps, of course...
> 
> Mind you, it's at 10th-11th level that you can reliably use these spells (as you have the slots available), and they become more significant.
> 
> ...




don't forget _raise dead_.

heck the 4th lvl druid spell _reincarnate_ makes things change too. in more than one way sometimes.  

_polymorph_ is another spell you should include in this mix


----------



## FickleGM (Feb 8, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That's the thrust of the sweet spot thread. Don't have the link-- maybe someone else can find it.
> 
> I don't start very many threads in the General forum though so it should be easy to find.



http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=170445


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 8, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Just found this post by Ryan Dancey on rpg.net (ok, he posted it 3 minutes ago...)
> 
> Original Thread http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=310363
> 
> ...




This is exactly as important as other instances of the law of fives.


----------



## satori01 (Feb 8, 2007)

I do tend to agree with Wulf that 5th level spells are the huge gleaming sign post of arriving magically.  Those are the big deal effects of fantasy: Turn someone into a newt, bring someone back from the dead, appear out of nowhere, send an illusionary image to speak on your behalf, etc...etc..

As a sign post, I actually think 5th level spells are more significant than any other level.  My group is approaching 17th level, so that may change, as 9th level spells rear their head, but in a group w/o a Wizard or Cleric the feel of 9th level spells I am sure will be different.

Which brings me to my point: party size and party composition effect a great deal, what 'epoch' of D&D you are playing.  My own group has consistently maintained a roster of 7-9 players.  With that many people, I think you tend to have a shorter low level period, as with some gentle care and good tactics, the group can have a sizable impact on 'mid level' monsters.

Likewise...a group made up of pure melee, or multi-classed spell casters are going to keep the mid level balance a bit longer, at least until  "THE THIRD ITERATIVE ATTACK".
That 3rd attack is a sea change event, possibly greater, but more subtle than 5th level spells.


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 8, 2007)

satori01 said:
			
		

> Likewise...a group made up of pure melee, or multi-classed spell casters are going to keep the mid level balance a bit longer, at least until  "THE THIRD ITERATIVE ATTACK".
> That 3rd attack is a sea change event, possibly greater, but more subtle than 5th level spells.




true dat.
and the build levels just before that attack: 8th (bonus feat for fighters, a new stat increase), 9th (a new feat) and 10th (last level before taking the 10 lvl PrCs)


----------



## DragonLancer (Feb 8, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> 21+ = save the cheerleader




LOL. Fantastic. Thats cheered up an otherwise bland day.


----------



## Mercule (Feb 8, 2007)

This holds true with what I tell my group:
1-5: More or less normal, if skilled, people.
6-10: Olympic class athletes, extreme geniuses, etc.  Pushes into unlikely, but possible.
11-15:  Hollywood physics.  These things can't happen, but they're still semi-believable.
16-20: Wireworks and other feats that are blatantly impossible -- but still fun.

Since magic is straight-up not real-world at 1st level, I mainly worry about how things like fighting, skills, and similar abilities compare.


----------



## drothgery (Feb 8, 2007)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> LOL. Fantastic. Thats cheered up an otherwise bland day.




Thanks.


----------



## RFisher (Feb 8, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Levels 1-5 = low, "gritty" fantasy (Conan, Black Company)
> 6-10 = heroic fantasy (LotR)
> 11-15 = superheroic fantasy (wuxia, Achilles)
> 16-20 = supers (four-colour)




This is very interesting. Mini-campaigns that start at the lowest level of a category & max at the upper one could be a lot of fun.


----------



## Schmoe (Feb 8, 2007)

That Ryan Dancey fellow, he's a smart dude.  I think his involvement was a huge factor to how successful D&D and D20 have been.

When you think about it, it makes perfect sense to have a single game that can appeal to the widest possible audience.  Some people will always gripe and moan about not enjoying some level of gameplay, but they can still find their sweet spot in the game and remain there comfortably.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 8, 2007)

Schmoe said:
			
		

> When you think about it, it makes perfect sense to have a single game that can appeal to the widest possible audience.  Some people will always gripe and moan about not enjoying some level of gameplay, but they can still find their sweet spot in the game and remain there comfortably.




Seriously, it's that realization that has kept me from redesigning for a sweet spot game.

There's just not really that much redesign to be done, no matter how much fun I might have doing it.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Feb 8, 2007)

Disagree.  *D&D* of any stripe should do what the DM wants it to do.  If the game is gritty all the way up to 9th level, then that's the DM's prerogative.

It's all in how you run your campaign.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 8, 2007)

Schmoe said:
			
		

> ...but they can still find their sweet spot in the game and remain there comfortably.



i'll just agree to disagree with your statement.


----------



## buzz (Feb 8, 2007)

Deekin said:
			
		

> I break it up this way.
> 
> 1-5 = save the town
> 6-10 = save the city
> ...



This is the best campaign-building advice I have ever read.

It'd be really nice if comments like these and Mr. Danceys were in the DMG. WotC, please take note.


----------



## Schmoe (Feb 8, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i'll just agree to disagree with your statement.




Well, we _are_ talking about D&D 3.x, and not OD&D.  

Think of RPGs as food. D&D 3.x offers nearly every flavor of ice cream available.  But if you like cake, you should look elsewhere.


----------



## Korgoth (Feb 8, 2007)

Obergnom said:
			
		

> hmm, what just occured to me is, for me and most folk I game with, it would be brilliant to have a d20 variant system that slows advancement in power without slowing level gain. A system where your 20th level character has got the power of a 10th level regular D&D character.
> 
> I would love that. Advancement of character is an importand thing for most players, thus just cutting the xp in half would not do the job. And the DM would still be able to use regual D&D Monsters, just double the CR to get an approriate Encounter.




Have you played previous editions?  For example, in Menzter (Basic/Expert/Companion/Master with the Elmore covers) advancement goes all the way to 36th level... but like all pre-3E D&D, you stop gaining Hit Dice at 9th level.

I think that one thing which 3E does that totally changes the way the level progression works in the game is giving Hit Dice past 9th level.  So that high level characters walk around with enormous sums of hit points.  That makes it a lot different from the previous rules sets.


----------



## buzz (Feb 8, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> So that high level characters walk around with enormous sums of hit points.  That makes it a lot different from the previous rules sets.



High level opponents dish out enormous sums of damage, too... so it kind of balances out.


----------



## Obergnom (Feb 8, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Have you played previous editions?  For example, in Menzter (Basic/Expert/Companion/Master with the Elmore covers) advancement goes all the way to 36th level... but like all pre-3E D&D, you stop gaining Hit Dice at 9th level.
> 
> I think that one thing which 3E does that totally changes the way the level progression works in the game is giving Hit Dice past 9th level.  So that high level characters walk around with enormous sums of hit points.  That makes it a lot different from the previous rules sets.




Yep, I played AD&D 2nd for many many years, but the rest of my group did not, and some of them refuse to even try a Castles&Crusades campaign. A game which IMO changes what was bad about 2nd Ed. without beeing a totally differnt game, which is how I see 3E. (Not that I do not like 3E, it is just not D&D to me.)


----------



## Korgoth (Feb 8, 2007)

Obergnom said:
			
		

> Yep, I played AD&D 2nd for many many years, but the rest of my group did not, and some of them refuse to even try a Castles&Crusades campaign. A game which IMO changes what was bad about 2nd Ed. without beeing a totally differnt game, which is how I see 3E. (Not that I do not like 3E, it is just not D&D to me.)




That's too bad.  C&C seems pretty darn cool to me.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 8, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Original Thread http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=310363
> 
> *Ryan Dancey*
> "D&D 3/3.5, by design, changes roughly every 5 levels.






I think it is more proper to say that D&D changes each and every level by design, changes significantly at many odd levels, and changes radically at ninth level and seventeenth level.  The "every five levels" observation doesn't really hold up well when you crunch the numbers and look more closely.


----------



## Goblyn (Feb 8, 2007)

After reading this thread, I'm curious as to the implied big change caused by the THIRD ITERATIVE ATTACK. All the posts make sense to me except this one.

Thanks.


----------



## Sammael (Feb 8, 2007)

I think that the second iterative attack makes a whole lot more difference than the third. Namely, it marks the point where the fighter can no longer move and use all his attacks in the same round, but, rather, he has to start making choices in combat.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 8, 2007)

Nyaricus said:
			
		

> Neat stuff, and makes sense.
> 
> My players hate me for always starting them off at low level though



My players hate me for refusing to run anything over about 10th level because I don't like that feel of the game anymore.  

That is an interesting post.  I guess I kinda just assumed that the progression was a historical anomaly, not something that was built in by design.

It's also my experience that the feel can change dramatically with just very minor house rules on, say, hit point accumulation per level or something like that.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 8, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> *D&D* of any stripe should do what the DM wants it to do.  If the game is gritty all the way up to 9th level, then that's the DM's prerogative.
> 
> It's all in how you run your campaign.




This does not negate the truth of the original assessment.

Yes, D&D _can_ do whatever the DM wants it to. I've seen super-heroic low-level games, and gritty high-level ones. The fact that the system has such flexibility does not necessarily change the fact that the game was/could have been designed with something akin to the aforementioned breakdown in mind. In other words, while you can do X with the system, it may indeed be _easier_ to do Y with the system. That doesn't make Y better than X; just closer to the initial design philosophy.

Personally, I find the "change every 5 levels" assessment rather illuminating. I may choose to ignore it in some campaigns, but it will definitely at least get me to think more thoroughly about the effects I want from a given campaign, and how best to achieve them.


----------



## T. Foster (Feb 8, 2007)

The idea of D&D being "four, four, four games in one!" is cool (even if I have no desire to play two of them) but is at least somewhat at odds with the standard "20 level campaign-arc" model -- the idea that you're not supposed to just pick the one game you like and stick with it, but are instead expected to play all four, in order. This is likely to be just as unsatisfying for the guy who wants to play _wuxia_-style but has to wait around for 6 months to a year playing "grim n' gritty" before he can start having fun as it is for me, the guy who was enjoying the grim n' gritty game but now find myself stuck playing _wuxia_-style as my ostensible "reward." The game should, IMO, include more advice (and/or alternate rules) to facilitate narrower one, two, or three-style campaign-arcs for those who prefer them.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 8, 2007)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> My players hate me for refusing to run anything over about 10th level because I don't like that feel of the game anymore.




Me too. 

I am sure I'm just repeating what I said in the Sweet Spot thread... I don't really care what "level" the game assigns to any particular power level. It's just a number.

What matters to me is 

a) what powers are available to the characters over the arc of their career

b) how much real-world game time is spent getting there 

and

c) how do I give the players the "I leveled!" feel (aka powering up) at a consistent and satisfying rate over the course of that real-world time.

If I were to redesign D&D to be "ONE! ONE! ONE! Sweet Spot Game!" those would be the the design criteria.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 8, 2007)

And another things-- also probably mentioned in the Sweet Spot.

To me, this illustrates the fundamental flaw with Adventure Paths as we currently know them: 

I believe that most people (yes, most) are going to be unhappy with about 50% of the content. It's going to drag down the way any given AP is viewed, as a success or not. I think an AP that focused on extended play through 5 or 10 levels, instead of 20, while perhaps missing a certain portion of the market, would overall be considered a much greater success by its target market.


----------



## kyloss (Feb 8, 2007)

Schmoe said:
			
		

> " Think of RPGs as food. D&D 3.x offers nearly every flavor of ice cream available. But if you like cake, you should look elsewhere."




But what if I want an Ice cream cake , or birthday cake flavored ice cream?


----------



## buzz (Feb 8, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I think an AP that focused on extended play through 5 or 10 levels, instead of 20, while perhaps missing a certain portion of the market, would overall be considered a much greater success by its target market.



I think WotC is exploring this, given releases like _Red Hand of Doom_ and the _Expedition_ series.

Anyway, I also think it's good idea simply because mega-campaigns like _Shackled City_ seem to be asking for a huge commitment from the play-group. E.g., my Saturday crew is playing _Age of Worms_; given our typical schedule, we estimated that it'll take us _three years_ or so to play through the whole thing. And this leaves aside the fact that the odds we'll stick it out for that long are pretty slim.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 8, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> I think WotC is exploring this, given releases like _Red Hand of Doom_ and the _Expedition_ series.




I knew there was a reason I felt like a genius again today.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 8, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Disagree.  *D&D* of any stripe should do what the DM wants it to do.  If the game is gritty all the way up to 9th level, then that's the DM's prerogative.
> 
> It's all in how you run your campaign.





I agree with the intent of the statement.

The actuality of it however, does not hold up to 'official' support.

If you want to run a low-powered, grim and gritty game and use prepublished module and official source material, you're going to be prunning a lot of material, adding rules to compensate for the lack of magical gear, etc...


----------



## Presto2112 (Feb 8, 2007)

Nyaricus said:
			
		

> Neat stuff, and makes sense.
> 
> My players hate me for always starting them off at low level though
> 
> ...




One of my players was like that, too.  But after our last session, I got a fantastic compiment via email from this player:



> I think a good time was had by all, I know I enjoyed myself. *It definitely made me reasses my hatred for all things 1st level.* I look forward to the next game (when when when) as well as the division of the treaure.




It gave me grinnage all day.


----------



## Ry (Feb 8, 2007)

Pretty much sums up why I leave my games capped at level 8.


----------



## Schmoe (Feb 8, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> And another things-- also probably mentioned in the Sweet Spot.
> 
> To me, this illustrates the fundamental flaw with Adventure Paths as we currently know them:
> 
> I believe that most people (yes, most) are going to be unhappy with about 50% of the content. It's going to drag down the way any given AP is viewed, as a success or not. I think an AP that focused on extended play through 5 or 10 levels, instead of 20, while perhaps missing a certain portion of the market, would overall be considered a much greater success by its target market.





Well, I'm not sure I agree with "most" people, but I definitely agree that a lot of people will be put off by a large portion of any campaign that stretchs from levels 1 to 20.


----------



## Schmoe (Feb 8, 2007)

kyloss said:
			
		

> But what if I want an Ice cream cake , or birthday cake flavored ice cream?




Citizen, please be mindful that Computer has provided you with all the options you need.  You are not classified for any further information.  Further inquiries along this line may require investigation.


----------



## Schmoe (Feb 8, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I knew there was a reason I felt like a genius again today.





Sit down.

Take a deep breath.

It will pass.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 8, 2007)

Schmoe said:
			
		

> Sit down.
> 
> Take a deep breath.
> 
> It will pass.




Usually about the time I actually set pen to paper, actually.

Still... within the confines of my shower: Soooper Genius.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 8, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Disagree.  *D&D* of any stripe should do what the DM wants it to do.  If the game is gritty all the way up to 9th level, then that's the DM's prerogative.
> 
> It's all in how you run your campaign.




However, the changing nature of spells available really do change the campaign. If you permit magic-users and clerics, there are some points where the game will change just based on their capabilities.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Feb 8, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> The idea of D&D being "four, four, four games in one!" is cool (even if I have no desire to play two of them) but is at least somewhat at odds with the standard "20 level campaign-arc" model -- the idea that you're not supposed to just pick the one game you like and stick with it, but are instead expected to play all four, in order.




Indeed.



> The game should, IMO, include more advice (and/or alternate rules) to facilitate narrower one, two, or three-style campaign-arcs for those who prefer them.




That'd be really great. What I find astonishing is that none of the designers have really written about this before - although it may just be my inattention. Seeing Ryan Dancey's post was illuminating.

I think there's an assumption in AD&D (1e) play that a campaign will go from 1st to 12th level and then stop, thus meaning the balance between the classes and races holds up over the entirity of the game (MUs more powerful at later levels, demihumans best at early levels...) The 3e design is for all PCs to be "equally" effective at any given level, although the implementation isn't perfect.

However, the change in the game depending on what level you are is real; BECM D&D had a changing structure based on the PCs position in the world, although I don't know how well that mapped to the spellcasters' abilities. AD&D had it by default, due to the acquisition of powerful spells. (A fighter gaining levels really doesn't change much in what they can do, just in how good they are at it, but the magic-user and cleric change significantly.)

Cheers!


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 8, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> This is the best campaign-building advice I have ever read.
> 
> It'd be really nice if comments like these and Mr. Danceys were in the DMG. WotC, please take note.




If you visit anyone good at cold reading you can get an unlimited amount of similar advice.


----------



## Herobizkit (Feb 8, 2007)

rycanada said:
			
		

> Pretty much sums up why I leave my games capped at level 8.



Do your players ever go crazy that there is no longer any chance of advancement?  I know I would.  

Personally, I enjoy my games from 7-15th.  Especially with PrCs being thrown into the mix, it would be aggravating as hell not to be able to reach the full 10-level progression that they were meant to be.

Also, I tend to multi-class like crazy, and being capped at level 8 would just seem redundant for any kind of mutli-classing.


----------



## blargney the second (Feb 9, 2007)

Obergnom said:
			
		

> it would be brilliant to have a d20 variant system that slows advancement in power without slowing level gain. A system where your 20th level character has got the power of a 10th level regular D&D character.



I'm running a campaign right now where the PCs can't have a caster level greater than half their character level.  It's been pretty interesting so far!
-blarg


----------



## buzz (Feb 9, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> If you visit anyone good at cold reading you can get an unlimited amount of similar advice.



Are you directing this insult at Deekin, Dancey, me, or all three? I just want to make sure I'm reading you correctly.


----------



## hong (Feb 9, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> If you visit anyone good at cold reading you can get an unlimited amount of similar advice.



 Hey Mal, are you still banned over on RPGnet?


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 9, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> Are you directing this insult at Deekin, Dancey, me, or all three? I just want to make sure I'm reading you correctly.




I'm referring to:

"You may find that your group becomes comfortable in one of those 4 quartiles, or you may find that your group enjoys the changes of pace that happen when moving from quartile to quartile."

In the spirit of that, I recommend that you're best off playing D&D as a fighter character, as a character who isn't a fighter, or a character who is a multiclass fighter, because D&D is designed to have character classes. 

This is equally specific and useful advice.


----------



## buzz (Feb 9, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I'm referring to:



Well, I was referring to Deekin's comment. If you want to harsh on Dancey, please quote him directly.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Feb 9, 2007)

Schmoe said:
			
		

> Well, I'm not sure I agree with "most" people, but I definitely agree that a lot of people will be put off by a large portion of any campaign that stretchs from levels 1 to 20.



Yep.  Did it once (ran the game to lvl 20 or near enough as makes no difference) and it was fun, but I don't feel the need to ever do it again.  My preference is definitely for games geared to levels in single digits over their entire length.  how to KEEP the PC's there for the long term without arbitrary fiat, and doing damage to the "normal" pace and level progression, there's the rub.


----------



## Stalker0 (Feb 9, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> In other words, if you want to keep things low key, heroic fantasy, then single digit levels will likely fit your mold rather well.  Add in the odd double digit NPC and Bob's your mother's brother.




Completely agree, and its something newer DMs need to be warned about more often imo. A certain campaign style has a time limit, the party's level. Once they get to a certain point the old style adventurers are over...they are just too easy for the party. Nothing wrong with that, but its important to consider.

This is also where the xp system goes right out the window. You have to balance a party's leveling with the theme of your campaign. If you intend the whole campaign to be gritty, you need to ensure the xp per session is low and characters level slowly. This is a time where you can give them other benefits like more feats, but keep their overall power relatively weak.


----------



## William drake (Feb 9, 2007)

1-5 are some times to rough for first time players, the fact that death is easy to catch is hard  to grasp.
6-10, in a world where maybe, of a like ours, a 3bill popoulation, maybe 1mill exisit at or near this level, your pretty big and powerful. 

We always counted your level into the population by adding a "0" to it so:
1- is 1'n 10
2-1'n 100
3-1'n 1,000 
4-1'n 10,000 
5-1'n 100,000 
6-1'n 1,000,000 
7-1'n 10,000,000
8-1'n 100,000,000
9-1'n 1,000,000,000
(From here on, powerful beings either leave the planet into other realites, or fall away from knowledge, or live amongst people hiding themselves.) Power corrupts, and ultimate power corrupts absolutely...many, as I see it, kill each other for more power, because, well, nothing in this system would give them more experience....they could kill half the population and not much would happen as rewards for them. Also, you got to put in ageing, natural ageing allows for most heroes to die before they reach levels beyond 7 I would say, not including the players, sinc the story is set around them. And since the game is about evil and good, good is always more powerful, but alone...so evil beings, or those who had done evil once, were usually the most powerful. (Not including other reasons, like divine influence, curses, destiny...bla.)

I like 1-10 best myself, lots of things are still dangerous.

11-15, its fun, you got legends going on around you about you.
16-20, well, the story's got to end around this time, because what can stop you.

21+, I as a Dm who's ran one game from 1st to 28, was the highest player, started wondering what was the point, armys were nothing, legions of men could be killed with any magci users will, epic fighters and barbarians mowed them down, rouges an monks never got it...even dragons at this point weren't really that scary to them, so whe nteh game ended, I said no more epic level games.


----------



## Gez (Feb 9, 2007)

Yeah, I already noticed level 5 or 6 was a magic level for classes.

For spellcasters, third-level spells.
For fighters, _two feats at once_.
For all combattants, full attack becomes possible.
For all characters, +1 in each save and in BAB.
And of course, now's the time they can get a cohort with Leadership. The earliest prestige classes can be taken now or at level 7.

It's really a big boost.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 9, 2007)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> Yep.  Did it once (ran the game to lvl 20 or near enough as makes no difference) and it was fun, but I don't feel the need to ever do it again.  My preference is definitely for games geared to levels in single digits over their entire length.  how to KEEP the PC's there for the long term without arbitrary fiat, and doing damage to the "normal" pace and level progression, there's the rub.




Perhaps I should fork this off to a different thread, but, I wonder how long people expect a campaign to last?  In real time I mean.  Me, I'm pretty content if a campaign (meaning that you start with X characters in Y place and end with X characters in Z place) runs about 12-24 months.  I'd get pretty bored with playing the same character for any longer than that, and, as a DM, I want to try something new.

I think that's why I've really taken a liking to the 20 level campaign modules like the AP's or World's Largest Dungeon.  They should take about 2 years of real time for my group and then I'm done.  Makes for a very comfortable spread for me.


----------



## Anaxander (Feb 9, 2007)

Another thing which influences gameplay is the ability of the players to travel through the game world. From level 1-9/10 the players are completely dependent on the DM for the possibilities of large scale travelling, while from level 9/10-13/14 they can fast travel anywhere in the world, and from level 13/14 they can travel to any plane.

Travel
1-9/10: Regional travel: Walk, ride, sail, tactical fly...
9/10-13/14: World travel: Overland flight, teleport, ... 
13/14-20: Planar travel: Plane shift, gate, ...


----------



## Hussar (Feb 9, 2007)

Anaxander said:
			
		

> Another thing which influences gameplay is the ability of the players to travel through the game world. From level 1-9/10 the players are completely dependent on the DM for the possibilities of large scale travelling, while from level 9/10-13/14 they can fast travel anywhere in the world, and from level 13/14 they can travel to any plane.
> 
> Travel
> 1-9/10: Regional travel: Walk, ride, sail, tactical fly...
> ...




While that is factually true, it's not really so in play.  Yes, at lower levels, I have to travel from A to B in a fairly mundane way.  However, since the DM is completely in control of my destination, the fact that I suddenly can teleport or plane shift doesn't really matter.  I'm still travelling from A to B.  The DM is still (mostly) telling me to go from where I am to where he wants me to be.

About the only real difference is the ability to go back to places you've already been.  Something that is mentioned in the Savage Tide AP is that once the PC's leave Sasserine, they aren't going to come back unless they choose to do so themselves, perhaps on a magic item buying run or something like that.

However, as far as an adventure goes, my destination is almost always determined by the DM who will also determine how many random events will occur from A to B (Always only ONE!).  All teleport or Plane Shift really does is knock out some random encounters.


----------



## Maggan (Feb 9, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> While that is factually true, it's not really so in play.  Yes, at lower levels, I have to travel from A to B in a fairly mundane way.  However, since the DM is completely in control of my destination, the fact that I suddenly can teleport or plane shift doesn't really matter.  I'm still travelling from A to B.  The DM is still (mostly) telling me to go from where I am to where he wants me to be.




In my games, the ability for instant long distance travel changes just about everything. I allow my players quite a degree of freedom, and they would very much protest if they could "only" go where I want them to be. They go all over the planes, if they feel there is a good reason for it. And I allow it. Unless I disallow teleport and spells like that completely, which happens as well.

To me it makes a huge difference in planning an adventure if the players know they have to spend a month to get resupplied and gather reinforcements or hire an expert, or if they have to spend half a day.

/M


----------



## buzz (Feb 9, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> In my games, the ability for instant long distance travel changes just about everything.



I have to wonder if (and this may be obvious) Eberron's lightning rail and airships are an attempt to provide a means external to the PCs' capabilities that allows for easy access to a wide variety of locales, i.e., adventure seeds. They can just zip from adventure to adventure, and make it back to civilization easily when the need arises (i.e., "We need healing!").


----------



## Maggan (Feb 9, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> I have to wonder if (and this may be obvious) Eberron's lightning rail and airships are an attempt to provide a means external to the PCs' capabilities that allows for easy access to a wide variety of locales, i.e., adventure seeds. They can just zip from adventure to adventure, and make it back to civilization easily when the need arises (i.e., "We need healing!").




I think it is a likely theory. Those means of transportation is fast enough to be useful alternatives to walking or riding, but not instantaneous like spells can be. Also they can more easily be controlled by the DM.

/M


----------



## Greg K (Feb 9, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> While that is factually true, it's not really so in play.  Yes, at lower levels, I have to travel from A to B in a fairly mundane way.  However, since the DM is completely in control of my destination, the fact that I suddenly can teleport or plane shift doesn't really matter.  I'm still travelling from A to B.  The DM is still (mostly) telling me to go from where I am to where he wants me to be..



Other than the first session, my players pretty much determine where they want to go. Sometimes, I'll throw in a small side adventure or encounter along the way to the destination of their choosing, but I never tell them where they have to go- even then, they are free to ignore the side adventure.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 9, 2007)

Hey there! 



			
				Deekin said:
			
		

> I break it up this way.
> 
> 1-5 = save the town
> 6-10 = save the city
> ...




21-40 = conquer/reshape the world, save the galaxy/plane, blow up a town _(with one spell)_
41-80 = conquer/reshape a layer/solar system, save the universe, blow up a city _(with one spell)_
81-160 = conquer/reshape a galaxy/plane, save the multiverse, blow up a country _(with one spell)_
161-320 = conquer/reshape a universe, save the omniverse, blow up a world _(with one spell)_


----------



## mmadsen (Feb 9, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> The idea of D&D being "four, four, four games in one!" is cool (even if I have no desire to play two of them) but is at least somewhat at odds with the standard "20 level campaign-arc" model -- the idea that you're not supposed to just pick the one game you like and stick with it, but are instead expected to play all four, in order. This is likely to be just as unsatisfying for the guy who wants to play _wuxia_-style but has to wait around for 6 months to a year playing "grim n' gritty" before he can start having fun as it is for me, the guy who was enjoying the grim n' gritty game but now find myself stuck playing _wuxia_-style as my ostensible "reward." The game should, IMO, include more advice (and/or alternate rules) to facilitate narrower one, two, or three-style campaign-arcs for those who prefer them.



Very well said.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Feb 9, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Seriously, it's that realization that has kept me from redesigning for a sweet spot game.
> 
> There's just not really that much redesign to be done, no matter how much fun I might have doing it.




Lazy bastard.

Regarding Conan (or most book-heroes), if you're in a world with no healing magic, the odds of anyone surviving enough fights to get to 5th level is pretty damn low.  In the land of the cleric-less, the 5th level hero is a god.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Feb 9, 2007)

Someone (sorry, too lazy to quote) asked how long people expect the campaign to last in real time, given that this ties into XP advancement and the quartiles of the the game.

Well, different groups expect different things; and different people within the group expect different things. Some groups are tired of a campaign after 6 months. Other groups stay in the same campaign for years (cf. Sagiro's or Piratecat's games).

Some players switch characters as often as possible. Some players lovingly craft their character over months or years of real-time (or they just keep playing essentially the same character in every campaign). Some players move back-and-forth along this continuum, either as they grow and want different things from the game, or even within the same campaign as they want different things at that moment.

I think D&D's ability to cater to a lot of different styles of play is one of the keys to its success. I hesitate to use the phrase "all things to all people", because that's often a derogatory comment about something, but D&D does have that element to it.


----------



## RFisher (Feb 9, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> High level opponents dish out enormous sums of damage, too... so it kind of balances out.




It still changes the feel of the game. He didn't say the game became imbalanced because of this change, just different.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> However, as far as an adventure goes, my destination is almost always determined by the DM who will also determine how many random events will occur from A to B (Always only ONE!).  All teleport or Plane Shift really does is knock out some random encounters.




In some campaigns I run: The players choose the destination. The journey _is_ the adventure. The destination is just a nexus between adventures. If the PCs had teleportation, the Lord of the Rings campaign I ran would have been significantly different & shorter.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 9, 2007)

It seems to me that Ryan Dancey is assuming single-classing. It seems to me that the game changes with the availability of spells. Basically about every other spell level. The game changes when characters first get fireball, lightning bolt etc. Then Raise Dead, Teleport, Plane Shift. Then Resurrection and Limited Wish. Then Shapechange, Gate, and Wish. On the warrior side, things change when they start getting the fancy weapon special qualities which look cartoony, like Shocking Burst or Flaming.


----------



## buzz (Feb 9, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> It still changes the feel of the game. He didn't say the game became imbalanced because of this change, just different.



Right, he just said it was different from earlier editions.

Out three-year-old campaign is in the 15th-16th level range right now, and, honestly, PC death is way more common than it was pre-10th. Of course, our DM is a tactical genius, so staying alive is a tall order.


----------



## scourger (Feb 10, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> Anyway, I also think it's good idea simply because mega-campaigns like _Shackled City_ seem to be asking for a huge commitment from the play-group. E.g., my Saturday crew is playing _Age of Worms_; given our typical schedule, we estimated that it'll take us _three years_ or so to play through the whole thing. And this leaves aside the fact that the odds we'll stick it out for that long are pretty slim.




Yeah, I started The Shackled City and only got through 2 adventures in about 6 months of weekly play.


----------



## scourger (Feb 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I wonder how long people expect a campaign to last?




In our group most games/campaigns last about 6 months.  The it's time for a break.  Some come back later for more.  Most don't.


----------

