I had that same problem getting my group to stick with a B/X-based game (LotFP). The leveling was way too "slow" for them. They wanted to level a lot and have a lot of headroom to allow for more leveling. And that was one of the big problems (for me) of having a game that only went to 5 levels where each level would take 7 or more sessions to acquire.rabindranath72 wrote:There is no way I am interested in a 30 levels game, when I can only play once or twice a month, and if the advancement is as slow as AD&D or BECMI.
The last campaign I ran was with BECMI, we played for a few months, with a group of 7 PCs and going strictly btb, only 4 of them made to 2nd level.
That's why the idea of "mini-levels" is so great, IMO. It's kind of a hybrid between the idea of levels and skill points. Players see the benefits of leveling more often but the inflation of actually leveling is greatly reduced.
For a group of 40-somethings (of which I count myself a member), this is ideal (again, IMO). Because even if we never get to bona-fide Level 10, we're encouraged to play because we're seeing the benefits of the next level more quickly. So, I'm level 1. In a B/X game say I'd need 4800 XP to get to level 2. That puts me currently at 2400 XP. Instead of having to slog through 8 sessions trying to achieve level 2, I'd get a benefit every 800 XP (or however Joseph breaks it up). So at 3200, say I choose to take the extra hit points or my spell bonus from level 2. Then at 4000 XP I get something else. Then at 4800 I get all the stuff I didn't take.
All while staying on the same "Level Track" that allows people to say "I'm Level X" and keeps them wanting to play to the next one.
That's something that would resonate with both the younger members of my group (who want to play in a game with lots of levels and want to get to them at an accelerated pace) and with the older members of both my regular group and my other group who would be less inclined to play a game that leveled more slowly for exactly the reasons you describe.
The other group. let's call them the irregular group has a hard time with both scheduling and cohesion. I think a lot of that is because they tend to play games without a well-defined reward system. So they're more likely to get together for a short run of Traveller, Trail of Cthulhu or Mountain Witch. While the "D&D group" is by-far the most regular gaming I've had in the last five years. You can set your calendar by them.
I was never a fan of levels. I went through a period where I hated them. Really. But I've come to respect them as a reward framework that does it's job at getting people back to the table. I know there's at least a half-dozen sessions of the regular group where I would've phoned in but chose not to because I wanted to be there when the group leveled.
The 3e/4e meme is a factor for me from the standpoint of recruiting players and getting my current players on board. 1/3 of the regular group knows of 3e but has never played it. Yet 2/3 have played, at least, AD&D. 1/3 have played OD&D. Another 1/3 have played B/X or BECMI (prior to LotFP). All of us have played 4e. There are 6 people in that group. So the thirds was easy math.rabindranath72 wrote:At the moment, I would prefer a game which doesn't have too many levels, and in which every level brings something a bit more significant than hit points.
I don't think the "3e/4e meme" is really a factor here. I don't have much experience with 4e or 3.5e, but you can definitely build engaging roleplaying encounters for 1st level characters in 3.0e; I have served the PCs' a**es on their shields more than once, often without even fighting.
From my experience the advancement rate of 3.0e seems ideal, and a game going up to 10th level within that framework definitely fits within the "heroic tier." Anything beyond that goes outside the boundaries of Appendix N stuff.
The irregular group's not much different, despite age differences and very different interests in gaming.
The only problem with 3e advancement is the inflation. At some point around or after level 10 (depending on class), things can get a little out of hand. The cool thing about what Joseph is talking about is that DCC will have a similar reward structure to 3e. Actually a better one, IMO, because rewards will come sooner and more regularly throughout the play experience. But it will not have the inflation issues that 3e runs into. Or at least it shouldn't.
I can't see it being a worse option for a group of 40-somethings than a game with 5 levels where the expectation is it would take a year to get to 5th level. That's exactly the same BECMI issue described in your post.
The mini-levels mitigate that a good deal.
)
