D&D General Matt Colville on adventure length

[tetrasodium]

Not really sure what you're implying here. I've played at least a dozen different 5e campaigns at this point. Of them, exactly one has had the "acceleration" the person I replied to spoke of.

If it's supposed to be how the game is run, why is it so hard to find it in practice, across wildly different groups, from different contexts, where the one and only factor in common is that I happened to be a player in them?

And if the fruits of the so-called "DM Empowerment" initiative are to empower most DMs to make their campaigns suck more by not doing what the books plainly tell them to do, I'm really not sure it's as worthwhile as folks claim it to be.

Quoting Google for simplicity "The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics.".

The acceleration of leveling rates in 5e is simple math not impacted by the observer effect but you are very strongly implying otherwise to dismiss the math when you are the observer

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think this might be related to the popularity of milestone leveling combined with the lack of explanation in the DMG. The XP tables are designed to get you to level 3 in a very short time, but there's nothing in the DMG that actually explains that. So if you're using milestone leveling, you could easily miss that and spend longer on level 1 and 2 than intended.

XP was only ever designed for kill monster take treasure type gameplay, and has never worked well for other types. CRPGs like BG3 very carefully calculate XP awards in a way that is impractical in tabletop games.

But milestone leveling is terribly implemented in several WotC campaigns. I’ve moved to what is essentially a session based system, with one level every third session (when a significant objective is achieved).

I would hope to see a discussion on progression methods in the new DMG, with the emphasis on tuning to the group’s taste.

 

[Staffan]

XP was only ever designed for kill monster take treasure type gameplay, and has never worked well for other types. CRPGs like BG3 very carefully calculate XP awards in a way that is impractical in tabletop games.

But milestone leveling is terribly implemented in several WotC campaigns. I’ve moved to what is essentially a session based system, with one level every third session (when a significant objective is achieved).

I would hope to see a discussion on progression methods in the new DMG, with the emphasis on tuning to the group’s taste.

Sure, that's a discussion to be had. But the 5e XP table is designed in a very particular way in order to speed up and slow down at various intervals in order to create a particular experience across a full campaign. I know I've seen devs mention this online (I think Mearls mentioned it back when he was allowed to communicate), but there's nothing about it in the DMG.

I can't be hedgehogged to look it up, but I think it went something like:

• Levels 1 and 2 are tutorial levels intended to last about a session each.
• Level 3 slows down a little but is still pretty fast.
• Levels 4 through 9 are kinda slow, because that's where the game works best so let's stay in the sweet spot.
• Level 10 is a little slower, just before hitting the awesome stuff at level 11.
• Level 11+ are fast because at that point the game itself slows down with all the crazy stuff that's going on.

I found a spreadsheet I had made that calculates how many medium and hard encounters you need to level up* (going by the DMG guidelines). At levels 1 and 2, you need 4 hard encounters. 3 takes 8, and then it's about 10 per level until level 9. Level 10 takes 11, and after that it's about 6-7 hard encounters per level. This kind of back and forth implies that someone actually designed it to be this way, unlike say 3e which has a pretty static formula of 13 1/3 equal-EL encounters to level up.

* Assuming the actual XP awarded are the same as the "encounter difficulty XP". I never understood why an encounter with many weaker opponents gets treated as more XP for the purposes of calculating difficulty but not for actual awards, but that's a discussion for another time.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sure, that's a discussion to be had. But the 5e XP table is designed in a very particular way in order to speed up and slow down at various intervals in order to create a particular experience across a full campaign. I know I've seen devs mention this online (I think Mearls mentioned it back when he was allowed to communicate), but there's nothing about it in the DMG.

I can't be hedgehogged to look it up, but I think it went something like:

• Levels 1 and 2 are tutorial levels intended to last about a session each.
• Level 3 slows down a little but is still pretty fast.
• Levels 4 through 9 are kinda slow, because that's where the game works best so let's stay in the sweet spot.
• Level 10 is a little slower, just before hitting the awesome stuff at level 11.
• Level 11+ are fast because at that point the game itself slows down with all the crazy stuff that's going on.

I found a spreadsheet I had made that calculates how many medium and hard encounters you need to level up* (going by the DMG guidelines). At levels 1 and 2, you need 4 hard encounters. 3 takes 8, and then it's about 10 per level until level 9. Level 10 takes 11, and after that it's about 6-7 hard encounters per level. This kind of back and forth implies that someone actually designed it to be this way, unlike say 3e which has a pretty static formula of 13 1/3 equal-EL encounters to level up.

* Assuming the actual XP awarded are the same as the "encounter difficulty XP". I never understood why an encounter with many weaker opponents gets treated as more XP for the purposes of calculating difficulty but not for actual awards, but that's a discussion for another time.

If you don’t expect people to use it there isn’t much point in spending a lot of time discussing it.

 

[Staffan]

If you don’t expect people to use it there isn’t much point in spending a lot of time discussing it.

But in that case, why spend time designing it to provide a particular experience? I mean, if you think that pace is important, why not discuss it when talking about other methods of progression? And if you don't think it's important, why spend time tuning it instead of using a fixed-interval system like in 3e?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But in that case, why spend time designing it to provide a particular experience? I mean, if you think that pace is important, why not discuss it when talking about other methods of progression? And if you don't think it's important, why spend time tuning it instead of using a fixed-interval system like in 3e?

Same reason humans have an appendix. Legacy. It’s not important to the way the game is expected to be played now, but it’s important to connect the current edition to the heritage brand.

I expect milestone levelling will be presented as standard in the updated rules, with XP as an alternative option.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Quoting Google for simplicity "The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics.".

The acceleration of leveling rates in 5e is simple math not impacted by the observer effect but you are very strongly implying otherwise to dismiss the math when you are the observer

I can only tell you what I have seen. Despite doing deadly combats, we did not level up. The DM told us how much experience we earned, and it was not enough to actually cross that 300 XP benchmark. What more do you want? Annotated actual play podcasts?

I can only tell you what I actually, physically experienced--and that experience has (apart from Hussar's game) consistently been that getting a measly 300 XP took so long, several campaigns never even made it that far. I've never seen any campaign gain more than two levels (though that's simply because there hasn't been enough sessions in Hussar's game; there's every indication we'll get there.)

I cannot tell you why so many DMs have chosen not to give enough XP to level up at the intended rate. I cannot tell you why they deviated from the clear intent of the rules in a way that damaged the experience. I can only tell you that they did do so. I repeatedly exhorted several of these DMs to reconsider some of their tactics. The first few blithely dismissed any recommendation I gave. Then I started getting active hostility (as in "if you don't like it, you can leave, and if you keep pushing, I might ask you to leave anyway"), despite literally only asking one single time, which was my signal to stop even trying. "DM Empowerment" at its finest.

Cast all the aspersions you like. It won't change my lived experience.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But in that case, why spend time designing it to provide a particular experience? I mean, if you think that pace is important, why not discuss it when talking about other methods of progression? And if you don't think it's important, why spend time tuning it instead of using a fixed-interval system like in 3e?

Same reason humans have an appendix. Legacy. It’s not important to the way the game is expected to be played now, but it’s important to connect the current edition to the heritage brand.

I expect milestone levelling will be presented as standard in the updated rules, with XP as an alternative option.

I don't think you've really answered the question. If it really were just legacy, no other reason, they wouldn't have done that much effort--nor talked it up during the playtest. That's why (for example) level 11 is a weird dip in needed XP compared to both previous and subsequent levels, even accounting for the "high levels are slow naturally" aspect.

It seems pretty clear to me they DO intend people to use it. I'll go up to bat criticizing 5e design points pretty much any day, but this at least I can tell they attempted to do some kind of testing, some kind of tailoring to actually fit a goal. I don't think they succeeded, but it's clear they were trying.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I can only tell you what I have seen. Despite doing deadly combats, we did not level up. The DM told us how much experience we earned, and it was not enough to actually cross that 300 XP benchmark. What more do you want? Annotated actual play podcasts?

I can only tell you what I actually, physically experienced--and that experience has (apart from Hussar's game) consistently been that getting a measly 300 XP took so long, several campaigns never even made it that far. I've never seen any campaign gain more than two levels (though that's simply because there hasn't been enough sessions in Hussar's game; there's every indication we'll get there.)

I cannot tell you why so many DMs have chosen not to give enough XP to level up at the intended rate. I cannot tell you why they deviated from the clear intent of the rules in a way that damaged the experience. I can only tell you that they did do so. I repeatedly exhorted several of these DMs to reconsider some of their tactics. The first few blithely dismissed any recommendation I gave. Then I started getting active hostility (as in "if you don't like it, you can leave, and if you keep pushing, I might ask you to leave anyway"), despite literally only asking one single time, which was my signal to stop even trying. "DM Empowerment" at its finest.

Cast all the aspersions you like. It won't change my lived experience.

The players level up at the rate the DM says. Nothing new about that. The trick is for the DM to be able to empathetically judge what rate is right for the players.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't think you've really answered the question. If it really were just legacy, no other reason, they wouldn't have done that much effort--nor talked it up during the playtest

What makes you think they didn’t scribble it in the back of an envelope and naughty word you during the playtest? Don’t explain, make it look complicated, and people will be fooled into thinking you have done something really clever.