the pacing of a D&D/AD&D campaign

GygaxianProse

Hello, fellow waiters.
One thing I like about Baldur's Gate is that it only brings you from approximately 1st-6th level. Most CRPG's today have a much higher rate of advancement. But BG, being 2nd Edition AD&D, inherits a slower pacing, which was previously explored in computerized format via the famous Gold Box series of 1st Edition games.
In practice, I saw that in pnp AD&D, the level advancement was often tweaked by the DM to keep the campaigns from stalling, but on a computer, it seems a good pacing for a long campaign such as BG-->SoA/ToB.
You really savor, and struggle, through the lower levels in BG, which is as it should be.

Anduine

I also really enjoy it, and I agree with you when it comes to pen and paper. The primary DM amongst my friends usually has us level up faster, but that's also because we are involved in fights that are somewhat or clearly beyond our level. We've been playing for 10-20 years depending on which person you are pointing to, and with that kind of experience comes a deep understanding of the game as well as tactics, which allow us to overcome obstacles where others may fail.

Still, most of us are fond of details, and the campaign I am in now has a great deal of investigation/detective work, with over 50 hours invested containing around 2-3 hours of combat, which is unacceptably low by some (or perhaps many?) gamers.

Anyhow, Baldur's Gate is meant to be savoured, and if struggle at times is necessary for savouring to occur, than I say "So be it."

sandmanCCL

I prefer a game where every level matters over one where the excitement doesn't really happen til a third of the way through the game's level scheme.

That said, BG1 has terrible pacing. I'm usually level 3 with my guy and Imoen before I finish two or three areas, and then jump up another level from killing basilisks.

Level 6-13 is the most compelling levels of all of AD&D. Beyond that things get too easy, before that things are just kind of boring.

kilroy_was_here

Yes, the fabled 'sweet spot' of leveling: after the PCs have advanced enough to not fear death at each critical threat but before they become living legends with more abilities you can stake a stick at.

Supposedly one of the design goal in 4e was to keep players constantly in the sweet spot by spreading out the powers for each class evenly. Whether they succeeded or not is each person's own opinion, but the general consensus was... not favorable.

Lemernis

The leveling pace depends on how much side-questing and power-leveling one does. If you follow the plot... which arguably means next to no side-questing, or at least limited side-questing... I think you end at about level 5-6.

Justification for side-questing and delay of the main plot can be found... at least early on...

For example, I know that the first time I played through the game, I didn't continue in the direction that the clues pointed after completing Khalid's and Jaheira's quest. It failed to notice the cues. IIRC, the very first post I made back on the olds PBG forums in '00 was to ask what am I supposed to do after completing the Nashkel Mines? I had been roaming the country-side exploring, and having a grand time. But felt that I needed to get on with the plot.

However, once you do gain a clear idea of your mission, from a RP standpoint it really wouldn't make a lot of sense to traipse off and complete all the side-quests in the game. And from a RP perspective you wouldn't "solo" the bassilisk map (i.e., meta-game and power-level), for example.

The side-quests for NPCs do make sense, though. And, certainly, along the way if you're the heroic types you'll tend to be helpful as you encounter people in need. The mercenary type is only going to take quests that offer a clear reward. Evil types probably aren't going to be attracted by many quests.

ajwz

PnP typically has much worse pacing than computer games.
All the dice rolls and mathematics are calculated intantly behind the scenes (plus there is ususally only one player playing so no waiting around)
Meaning that the characters can level up purely or mostly from encounters and challenges.
In PnP because fights and encounters are much slower, either the players rarely if ever level up, or more likely, the DM feels obliged to level them up with "quest" xp roughly once every 3 sessions, which isn't particularly good either.

Playing through low levels is fun, but a lot of (typically younger) pen and paper players seem to disagree with this.

Shin

I would say that playing through the low levels is fun, but for me it only really comes into its own when you know there is the potential to move past them into the higher levels and reach the full potential of your character.
As in, it's fun, but it's not the kind of fun where I'd want to perpetuate it by going back and starting a new character as soon as I felt I wasn't low-level anymore. The best part comes from the bigger picture.

The BG trilogy handles this very well I think. You could say it delivers both sides, which for me is a significant part of its greatness.

Jaxsbudgie

In the 3.5 pen and paper game we had, we each reached a level of around 9 after 2 and a half years of playing. Our DM was super tight with XP.

sandmanCCL

kilroy_was_here said:

Yes, the fabled 'sweet spot' of leveling: after the PCs have advanced enough to not fear death at each critical threat but before they become living legends with more abilities you can stake a stick at.

Supposedly one of the design goal in 4e was to keep players constantly in the sweet spot by spreading out the powers for each class evenly. Whether they succeeded or not is each person's own opinion, but the general consensus was... not favorable.

This is why I argue with people all the time about the over-importance on "game balance." 4e, strictly speaking, is a better balanced product than any other D&D coming before it. No one class just mops the floor with everyone else, everyone is fairly useful at all periods, etc.

And that essentially stripped away a lot of the soul of D&D. Pen and Paper games never have been nor ever should be balanced. Why? It's just make believe at rules! It's not even about a "game" experience per se. A wizard SHOULD be the end-all, be-all.

If a game isn't set in a competitive sport-like arena, then it doesn't really need to be "balanced."

DJKajuru

I just don't like when they banalize high levels - I mean, in forgotten realms a 20th character is most likely a tremendous hero, a powerful ruler or an epic villain , people who have been through a lot of stuff to obtain all that power.

Opposed to that , I remember playing NWN2 , and the farm girl who had never adventured turned out to be a 15th level fighter - for me, it makes the story lose credibility.

fighter_mage_thief

1 level per month or two. You grant xp after the session.

@DJKajuru In 2nd ed, around level 9 to 10, a lot of characters, such as the fighter, thief, and cleric, will attract followers. The cleric, for example, will attract 20 to 200 followers, the fighter can get over 150 soldiers, including an elite guard and a personal bodyguard. By this level, they have all gained a lot of fame (of some sort) from their adventures. So like you're saying, a 20th level character is basically legendary, and high level groups of adventurers may be accompanied by large armies and legions of followers. Or by themselves.

Communard

sandmanCCL said:

A wizard SHOULD be the end-all, be-all.

Better not let Conan hear you say that...

Lemernis

Or Minsc.

Hoebagger

I'm a huge fan of the whole idea of playing an E6 game. The concept originally came from the "Gandalf was a 5th level Magic User" topic back in the day.

The short version is that D&D can be broken up into roughly 4 sections: Levels 1-5 Gritty Fantasy, 6-10 Heroic Fantasy, 11-15 Wuxia, and 16-20 Superheroes. Most enjoyment tends to come from people in the first and occasionally second quartile where things are scary and before things get out of hand.

One good compilation of the idea can be found here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/tabletop-gaming/206323-e6-game-inside-d-d.html

neleothesze

DJKajuru said:

I just don't like when they banalize high levels - I mean, in forgotten realms a 20th character is most likely a tremendous hero, a powerful ruler or an epic villain , people who have been through a lot of stuff to obtain all that power.

Opposed to that , I remember playing NWN2 , and the farm girl who had never adventured turned out to be a 15th level fighter - for me, it makes the story lose credibility.

@DJKajuru Well, to be fair, it was more like 7-8 if you just did the bare bones.... and you did have to keep her in an extra spot for a while until she learned the ropes of adventuring... and her proficiency was only with short swords (even after years of hard work on the farm, she doesn't suddenly have the muscles and expertise to use a giant hammer or a greatsword. (And if you just follow the MQ, by the time she

dies at her grandad's place

she's still depicted as young innocent woman. In her case I always reasoned that the actual level was more for gameplay balance than any outward representation of her power level; toting around a level 1 character forever isn't fun for anyone.

@Hoebagger You're probably right. I always seemed to muster more patience for a low-level fight with a gibberlings than a high level fight where I could show off my uber-powerful 7-9th level spells. In ToB I felt that 25% of my time was spent buffing, 25% in dialogue, 15% travelling,15% picking up, equipping and selling items, 10% debuffing, and a grand 10% showing off my skills in battle.
In BG1 when someone cast a MM you knew it was going to hurt. In BG2 every villain is a super-villain. What, you gated a demon, how wonderfully mad of you, you still can't touch me, I am Generic Bandit, lord of potions and buffs and PfE is my middle name. I'm exagerating of course, but sometimes the extra tricks you got to learn at level up seemed like shinier versions of what you already knew.

Dazzu

I never understood some aspects of PnP. Say I wanted to roll a Gnome Cleric... sounds fun, but I won't grow beyond lvl... 8 I think, and that's only if I have max wis.


Now, imagine you're campaigning a while... your human dual class travel companions are skyrocketing the level chart, they're now all at least 12, but you can't advance any further because you're maxed at 8



How was this fair?

beerflavour

Dazzu said:

I never understood some aspects of PnP. Say I wanted to roll a Gnome Cleric... sounds fun, but I won't grow beyond lvl... 8 I think, and that's only if I have max wis.

Now, imagine you're campaigning a while... your human dual class travel companions are skyrocketing the level chart, they're now all at least 12, but you can't advance any further because you're maxed at 8

How was this fair?

Earlier editions had the level restrictions for demi human races. But nothing prevents the gaming group or DM to use "house rules". The dungeon master's guide even offered alternatives to allow demi humans advancement beyond the level limits.

beerflavour

GygaxianProse said:

Hello, fellow waiters.
One thing I like about Baldur's Gate is that it only brings you from approximately 1st-6th level. Most CRPG's today have a much higher rate of advancement. But BG, being 2nd Edition AD&D, inherits a slower pacing, which was previously explored in computerized format via the famous Gold Box series of 1st Edition games.
In practice, I saw that in pnp AD&D, the level advancement was often tweaked by the DM to keep the campaigns from stalling, but on a computer, it seems a good pacing for a long campaign such as BG-->SoA/ToB.
You really savor, and struggle, through the lower levels in BG, which is as it should be.

Tbh I prefer the slow advancement in BG1. You still get more abilities and at the same time you're challenged by the content. Hobgoblins with poisoned arrows, bandits with their chilly arows, kobold commandos, etc. were all a challenge. Weaker party members always were in danger of getting targeted, so you had to maintain appropriate formations.

In BG2, especially in the addon ToB, most "normal" encounters were too easy. Apart from the big battles nothing could stop a high level adventuring party.

Dazzu

Again, how were level restrictions fair?

Figrut

In 3.5 campaigns, my players hit level 19+ at around 1000 hours. It seems just fine. Everyone is mostly on a second or third character. They pick their favorite they had played. They get brought back with a mini story and excuse of rapid advancement. I present them with a choice of several epic level campaigns with the warning of no rerolls (new characters), and everthing seems paced fine for everyone about 85% of the time.

Shin

It was never about fair. The early PnP game development was hit-and-miss, there's no divine sense of balance and fairness in it any more than there is in BG. 4E is more fair and more balanced, but hasn't been well received because it suffers in other ways.

But RPGs are like wine, never let anyone else tell you how you like it. If you want to play it another way, play it another way.

GygaxianProse

I hast neglected my own thread...
Actually, AD&D 1E is not unbalanced with its level limits, especially with the UA rules. What balances it out are the slew of special abilities, multi-classing, and stat modifiers, which humans have none of. That said, not many people paid attention to the level limits anyway!
As to fairness and balance, there are differing perspectives on what that even means. The original AD&D classes balanced each other in terms of function and role. There is a balance to the differing class level advancements.
I hear a lot about the early editions' imbalances, but don't understand. Basic through early 2E are all relatively lean, well-balanced RPG's.

HaHaCharade

GygaxianProse said:

Hello, fellow waiters.
One thing I like about Baldur's Gate is that it only brings you from approximately 1st-6th level. Most CRPG's today have a much higher rate of advancement. But BG, being 2nd Edition AD&D, inherits a slower pacing, which was previously explored in computerized format via the famous Gold Box series of 1st Edition games.
In practice, I saw that in pnp AD&D, the level advancement was often tweaked by the DM to keep the campaigns from stalling, but on a computer, it seems a good pacing for a long campaign such as BG-->SoA/ToB.
You really savor, and struggle, through the lower levels in BG, which is as it should be.

Heck ya. I'll be honest -- I have the most fun in AD&D at lower levels. It's like, becoming the rock star. I can actually battle goblins, orcs, and kobolds with a sword instead of nuking them from a mile away. I can mingle with the townsfolk without them all knowing of me. Its the most fun to build the story. I think honestly its more fun for the DM too... though there are obviously perks of being high level, I like being the underdog.

Figrut

I think the higher level players get, the less practice DM's have running things at the stage. Also, I see a lot of DM's narratives get away from them the longer the game goes on, they run out of good ideas, and then they just blame the character's level rather than adapting. The DM goes stale, not the game.

PlasticGolem

Dazzu said:

Again, how were level restrictions fair?

They weren't, but they weren't unfair either, since players were allowed to choose their race and class. In early versions of D&D, demi-humans were intended to be exotic but marginal creatures in a human-centric world. Players were encouraged to play mostly humans, and settings were in human-dominated lands. Level limits were a mostly unsuccessful attempt to allow players to play demi-human characters but to encourage them to prefer humans.

The concept of "game balance" meant something different in the old days than it does now. Now, game balance more or less means that each race and class or roughly equivalent in power and ability. At the time, it meant that each race or class had a particular niche that it filled. In 1st Edition, there was no sense in which a thief and a magic-user were equally powerful: the thief was a weaker class, but it could do certain things that no other class could (such as scale sheer surfaces, move in complete silence or read unknown languages). More recently, the rogue and the wizard are on a more equal footing power-wise, but they have also lost their distinctiveness: they do the same basic thing (kill monsters) just with different powers and tactics.

NightfallRob

Dazzu said:

I never understood some aspects of PnP. Say I wanted to roll a Gnome Cleric... sounds fun, but I won't grow beyond lvl... 8 I think, and that's only if I have max wis.



Now, imagine you're campaigning a while... your human dual class travel companions are skyrocketing the level chart, they're now all at least 12, but you can't advance any further because you're maxed at 8



How was this fair?

Everyone eventually learned to ignore level limits. I haven't played a game that included them, regardless of edition, for roughly 15 years and counting. The idea behind it was to balance racial abilities and mimic Tolkien's world that had humans slowly dominating it. Most of us eventually ditched it as a failed concept and continued on without it.