|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 19, 2005 22:24:11 GMT -5
Interesting comments from EGG in his DF Q&A thread: Doing the math that works out to approximately 1 level per 40-50 hours of playing time, and that's with one character playing well and not dying (i.e. it doesn't factor in a bunch of 'false starts' from characters dying at 1st or 2nd level). I must admit that seems tremendously slow to me -- yeah 2 to 3 years to reach 9th level sounds about right, but that's assuming a group that only meets once every 2 to 3 weeks with a fair share of 'false start' characters and so on, in other words about 1 level per 15 hours of playing time -- roughly 3 times as fast as what Gygax recommends. Where does everybody else stand on this? Would you really expect someone to play a dozen or more sessions with the same character before reaching 2nd level?!
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Aug 20, 2005 6:59:40 GMT -5
Interesting question Foster.
This IMO has more to do with the real time you have to play. When I was in highschool level progression was slow (when calculating the actual game play hours) but we didn't die as much (bigger groups and more careful). In college we were more experianced players, and intentionally sped things up so we could start playing higher level characters. This resulted in a higher attrition rate but resulted in a couple PCs making it really high (10-12th).
Post college (and now) we play so infrequently and we have so much experiance that level progression is much faster. We intentionally create shorter dungeons with the more deadly encounters occuring more quickly. Of course we burn through low level characters like matches on a windy day, but we end up avoiding stagnation and get some real heros out of it.
So my take is: if you have the time do it right with slower progression (even if you are experianced). Go through good sized modules, ask the DM lots of questions, go on side adventures, break PCs out of prison, burn down villages, etc. If your playing alot this kind of stuff only makes for PCs with character and history. These are the "best" PCs, the ones you remember. If you don't play much but are very experianced, run some brutal mini-dungeons (essentially taking out alot of the filler that eats up time even though its great) to pump the PCs up more quickly. Otherwise experianced players would get bored. If you have a group with some new players and your pressed for time, tough. You have to go the slow route for their benefit. Otherwise they will miss what the game is all about (which ironically is not level ascention, but rather survival and immersion. And it takes years to get bored at lower levels).
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 20, 2005 13:00:39 GMT -5
So you think the general idea of "2-3 years of play to reach 9th level" is the more important consideration than numbers of hours/sessions per level -- so if you're playing once a week you can afford to go more slowly and explore more detail and perhaps only have the characters gain a level every dozen sessions or so, but if you're only playing once a month you should speed things up and expect characters to gain levels every 3-4 sessions. A very interesting notion...
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Aug 20, 2005 21:34:39 GMT -5
I wouldn't say that exactly. If the players are experianced and you don't have alot of hours to play a month yeah, speed things up (which also should make advancement more difficult). If you have time, even with experianced players, the pace should be slow. Thats not to say that there shouldn't be occasional quick advancement (for instance random monster encounters with treasure type tables used). Its good to keep the players guessing as to the length of the dungeon and the element of randomness also needs to be included.
New players need to go through the ropes. Esp. today with the quick pace and power focus of D20/3E games which miss the boat.
|
|
|
Post by Gandalf Istari on Aug 22, 2005 12:10:16 GMT -5
Been meaning to post a response, but had a busy weekend.
I'm running my wife through B2 right now, and so far after 5 actual playing sessions (i.e., sessions that didn't include character creation and book keeping), we're at about 12 hours or so of play time, with her first level characters at just over 1300 xp. Now, it has to be taken into consideration that I've reduced the treasure she is hauling out of the Caves of Chaos by a factor of ten so far, as my personal view is that there is too much cash floating around for a first level module. So, the bulk of the xp for her characters has been from defeating monsters (she's cleared the goblin caves so far, and has had one run in with some hobgoblins), with only about a third or less of her xp coming from treasure gained and hauled back to the Keep. She'd probably have about another 1000 xp so far if I had left the treasure as printed in B2 at the normal amounts.
Overall, she doesn't mind the pace at all. Basically she makes a foray into the caves each session, gets into a combat, and then retires to the Keep. One session she had her party run away because they were close to dieing, and she was about to get surrounded. She's lost one character so far, and several other characters have come close to dieing each outing. Another thing to keep in mind is that she is really learning how to play "old school" for the first time, as her past experience was nearly exclusively with 3e a few years ago. The amount of ground we cover each session has already increased as we've gone along, as both of us get back into the swing of gaming.
I expect her characters will all level up after the next session or two, as she will be moving into some of the tougher caves, and I have left more treasure there for her to find and thus end up with more xp. So, about 6-8 sessions of about 2-3 hours each is what we'll end up with for her characters to make it to 2nd level (with one dead so far, so the replacement character is behind the others by about 700 xp).
Honestly, the pace EGG stated in the above quote seems quite slow to me, at least as far as a weekly or biweekly playing schedule goes IMO. Running B2 at the pace we've been going at, if I included all of the treasure in the module that is written in the key, my wife's characters would be much further ahead right now. As well, so far we've had no real "role playing" going on either. She makes forays into the Caves, then returns to the Keep just to rest and heal. Selling of items, buying new equipment, renting a room at the Inn, etc. have all been done without any roleplaying at all (as I prefer), merely as book keeping at the end of each session.
Edited to add: Of course, once characters get into higher levels, progression will slow down as the xp needed to level up will greatly increase. In the end perhaps its a wash, with lower levels taking only relatively short amounts of time, and higher levels taking alot longer. So maybe EGG's estimates are on the money. Still, 2-3 years to get to 9th level? That seems quite slow to me. Each gaming group will of course move at their own pace, but I can't see our campaign taking 2-3 years to reach that level of play.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 22, 2005 14:07:04 GMT -5
B2 is usable with AD&D, of course, but keep in mind that it was actually written for OD&D/BD&D (which as of 1979 were still essentially one and the same). Thus it assumes a larger typical party size than AD&D (a dozen+ including NPCs and men-at-arms), higher PC mortality rate (less healing magic available, no -10hp cushion), and, even considering those, faster advancement (no mandatory training, etc. -- in his 1976 article "D&D is Only As Good as the DM" (TSR#7, reprinted in BoTDv1) Gygax suggests the following rate of advancement for D&D: "It is reasonable to calculate that if a fair player takes part in 50 to 75 games in the course of a year he should axquire sufficient experience points to make him about 9th to 11th level, assuming that he manages to survive all that play"). Thus if you're running AD&D characters in B2 it's only natural that the module will feel like it's giving out too much treasure and encouraging too speedy advancement because, from a strictly AD&D perspective, it is.
|
|
|
Post by Gandalf Istari on Aug 22, 2005 16:03:43 GMT -5
B2 is usable with AD&D, of course, but keep in mind that it was actually written for OD&D/BD&D... Well, yeah. Really, its not just B2. Nearly every old school module (OD&D, BD&D, AD&D) has loads and loads of cash, gems, and expensive sellable items laying around (not to mention magic items, but I won't include those since you don't get xp for them unless they are sold, which players rarely do). Now of course, that doesn't mean that the characters will find it all, or be able to get it back to their home base (and thus won't get xp in either case), but the amount of coins and gems in most old school modules is really, really high. For all the decrying EGG did against monty haul games over the years, his modules were as rife with it as the rest (and yes, I know monty haul doesn't just mean too much treasure being given out, as it includes notions of risk vs. rewards, level of challenge, etc.). I'd almost be willing to bet that you could take most old school modules, assume that the players find and remove only half of the treasure written in the module (a somewhat conservative ratio I'd say), and those characters would still level much faster than EGG relates in the above quote (assuming an average number of monsters slain throughout each module).
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Aug 22, 2005 23:34:00 GMT -5
Who the hell cares if you have too much loot or too much magic if your dead. I have always been in the camp of the extraordinary is AD&D. Anyhow, what the heck are you going to do with money in AD&D, retire? The funny thing is in real life pirates (some of whom were supposedly the wealthiest people alive at the time) would blow through there gold just partying, sleeping with women and what have you. Most of them died drunk and pennyless in the mud. Why would AD&D be any different. Let your wife guy potions of healing for 1000 gp each and keep the doe in your games.
|
|
|
Post by PapersAndPaychecks on Aug 25, 2005 17:21:43 GMT -5
A quick mental calculation shows that my own group is at around 30 hours' playing time per experience level. This feels right to me.
|
|
|
Post by Gandalf Istari on Aug 26, 2005 11:59:06 GMT -5
Who the hell cares if you have too much loot or too much magic if your dead. I have always been in the camp of the extraordinary is AD&D. Anyhow, what the heck are you going to do with money in AD&D, retire? The funny thing is in real life pirates (some of whom were supposedly the wealthiest people alive at the time) would blow through there gold just partying, sleeping with women and what have you. Most of them died drunk and pennyless in the mud. Why would AD&D be any different. Let your wife guy potions of healing for 1000 gp each and keep the doe in your games. I seriously doubt that my wife is going to have her characters "partying, sleeping with women, and what have you..." Why do I keep treasure limited, especially in the early levels of a campaign? Because..."the superior DM will have just enough treasure to whet the appetite of players, while keeping them lean and hungry still, and always after that carrot just ahead...The game is always supposed to be a challenge, to cause players to want for something, and to wish to adventure with their characters in order to obtain the desired things. Remembering that good players will be able to gain from nearly any successful encounter - there will always be some armor and weapons or equipment to be gained from an adventure - you should not hesitate to be stingy and tight right from the beginning of a campaign!"
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Aug 26, 2005 13:06:56 GMT -5
I think its important to be tight with money and magic only so that when you find it it has a wow effect. Nothing is worse then when low level PCs find a +1 sword or 1,000 GP gem and don't raise an eyebrow.
Still, the game shoud include oddities now and then. The occasional Bilbo Baggins finding a magic ring etc.
|
|
|
Post by Gandalf Istari on Aug 26, 2005 13:36:11 GMT -5
Hehe, Axe. I was quoting from the DMG there, just to tweak you a bit...
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Aug 26, 2005 19:31:41 GMT -5
I must have read to quickly to have missed the brilliance of Gygaxian pros.
|
|