Adventures premier at conventions and are designed with convention play in mind, but most will become available to anyone anywhere. Also Legends of Greyhawk supports online play, so you will be able to play adventures that was as well.
I don't think taking away the down time is an answer. I would rather see other uses of downtime to be more meaningful than limiting it. With the advent of Bastions I would love to see a mechanic which promotes the incorporation of rewards into Bastion development. Possibly in conjunction with limiting how many down days can be utilized for leveling between adventures. Say being allowed to use 10 bonus days in conjunction with 10 earned days to level twice between adventures....
Most classes don't get big things until level 3 when they choose their subclasses. So leveling from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 should be fast, maybe 2 adventures, 3 max. Once you got level 3, you can slow the pace to 4 or 5 adventures.
Also, if there are going to be long overarching storyline (e.g. Winter Fantasy 2026 debuts a five episode, level 5 story arch against the forces of elemental evil), then many players will want to play it more or less in order, so it makes the most sense to have players do all five episodes and level at the end of the story arch. My preference would be 3-5 episodes per arch since that worked well in the past and allows for "golden ticket" sales with a consistent group.
With the new PHB not allowing any subclasses before lvl3, I expect levels 1 and 2 to be VERY boring generic play, certainly for experienced players. In AL I believe Tier2 5-10 always had the best play. I would suggest that you start all players at level 3, and have an option to start at level 5 with Tier 2 play like AL had. If you are going to start everyone at 1, I think you should level up at one adventure per level until 3 before you slow down a little, to minimize time spent at levels 1-2.
another issue is that with this only being available at conventions, many people who attend only GenCon will never reach higher tiers, or will be locked into a single character if they want to advance and perhaps they may find they are bored of its concept by the time next GenCon rolls around.
Having played the preview content at MCC, where we all started at level 1, and having played lots of D&D over the last 25 years, I did not find the experience to be slow or boring. I am also the kind of player that plays BG3 at tactician because that is my kind of D&D for added context. That said, if anything, the content at the preview was more challenging than I expected because it uses the 2024 rules. Monsters hit harder, have more hp and generally can just about kill you in 1 attack. While we did gain a level per game, and I played all 3, it felt good to get each level because I felt like every hit point, ability and skill counted.
That said, I do think that getting to level 3 shouldn't take more than 3 games. After that is another story.
The region idea bugged me since there were so many adventures my characters never got to play.
I didn't like the limitation of only playing an adventure once and never playing it if I ran it first.
There were a lot of folks that made LG work and, I agree, there are a ton of adventures from LG that could be easily reskinned. Not sure about the legal issues.
With on-line LG adventures, we could have fantastic LG games any time.
I hope everything works out.
As for advancing quickly or putting the brakes to slow things down, I prefer to let the players choose the pace they like.
Level per adventure, at the player's discretion. Or at least something less than 60 adventures minimum to complete the series. Maybe have 60 available adventures, structured so you could complete it in 30.
If I know going in that it will take 60+ sessions/adventures online, with random groups, to get to level 20 and finish the series, you can count me out.
I might do (and have done in-person) something like that online with a fixed group of folks I know I will enjoy playing with long term, meeting once a week with the same good/great DM, that warns the group up front "I am planning for this to last about a year". But not online, and not with random groups.
Adventurers League seems to be structured primarily to enable people to play.. lower barriers to organize groups and barriers to join.
A win for WotC/D&D and us gamers.
I would like to see Adventurers League have some “campaign” guidelines and guidance for more static groups where longer modules (like in the approved books) run for more than four hours.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have been playing Dungeons and Dragons for many years and editions. I love to play new combinations and experience new DMs and their games.
I started in 2.0 playing Living City and Ravensblufff, and Procampur back when it was solely EXP, and I don't want to go back to that but I miss the slower, more heroic progression of those days. Leveling after each module feels like character never truly lives and breathes, never experiences wisdom, never really matures, just gets more powerful without appreciating that power. It is all over so quick.
I just took a moment to go through my old files. I still have the log sheet from 2001 when I started. My iconic Dwarven Fighter, Hawkwin Tenebrae, played in 21 modules and was only level 11. I loved that character because I was able to enjoy him for so long - and he was less than half way to 20 (slow EXP progression at higher levels of course). Now yes, I know I don't have to level up after every module but back in the day, I am pretty sure each module was written for different tiers so one could easily play an entire season without the need to get to level 20 to enjoy all the content.
One more story. I came back to Dnd during Covid as many of us did and I started back with Adventure League but since late 2020, I have been playing published modules with an online group twice a week and have largely left AL in the rear mirror (minus the special Dragon event at GenCon last year). We leveled much more slowly in line with the progression of the published modules. Four hours a week for over two years for each character for us to get to level 20. That is the depth I feel is missing with this hurried up process of gaining a level after every session.
Any chance you will share the results of this poll?
Maybe this is just crazy talk, but D&D 2024 still includes advancement by XP, so why not fully embrace the system and just use that?
AL used XP for the first half of its existence, so it's not a new concept and players managed their log sheets and advancement just fine. Couple that with appropriate DM rewards so that DMs can keep up with their friends when they get a chance to play, and you're good to go.
Gotta say I agree with you. XP is a bit messy and annoying, but it puts the agency in the players hands and rewards them based on the challenges they face.
I do however understand that tracking it and doling out XP for non-Combat situations can be intimidating for newer DMs.
Still, it's a system I thought was inferior to milestone when I first started 5e and have now learned to appreciate. Maybe just customize the rules to be absolute with XP so it feels closer to the current system (Don't divide xp amongst players, just everyone gets the full amount).
If XP isn't on the table, then a sliding scale (I voted, but am torn on 3 and 4) like some of the options above. It shouldn't take more than 4-5 sessions to get out of tier 1. It should take more than 5 to get out of tier 2 and definitely should take more than 10 to reach tier 4. That said, 60 adventures to reach level 20 is about a year and some change so it's not that much for the weekly goer. 50 seems like a nice compromise.
Option one uses the same variable twice. You should instead have it state something like this (otherwise, max level is also 5):
Level dictates how many adventures to play before leveling. At lvl Y, play X adventures to gain a level. Max of X = 5
The use of X for both is intentional. At level 1, play 1 adv to level. At level 2, play 2 advs to level, etc... but it maxes at needing 5 advs to level.
It is a hard question to answer without knowledge of how many adventures will be written and what is the expected length of the campaign. There is also the practical difficulties of writing high level adventures in what was traditionally a more mid tier setting.
However I generally support a longer path of advancement than one level per adventure.
Maybe I need someone to explain to me the "Problem" because this should be a non-issue. When you complete an adventure, you have the option to accept a level up. I DM and play and when I am a player I have declined multiple level ups across multiple characters if I feel my character is progressing too quickly.
On the flip side, downtime days are usually generated faster than you can spend them so if you feel you are leveling too slowly you can spend the points.
I think option 2 will be the best. Meaning you will have a minimum requirements for the amount of games played to advance to the next tier.
So for example you play through level 1 though 4 as usual potentially also using downtime days to level up but you need to play 6 games to get to tier 2. So you could play at level 1 get a level up and catch up using DT days. Next game you are at level 3 and you also get another level up after it. So you will need to play 4 more games to get to tier 2 while being level 4 (and also gaining downtime days after each play). This way you will play longer and also be at the top of the tier for most of the time (not at levels 1 and 2). And the same for each tier of play.
Option one uses the same variable twice. You should instead have it state something like this (otherwise, max level is also 5):
Level dictates how many adventures to play before leveling. At lvl Y, play X adventures to gain a level. Max of X = 5
The use of X for both is intentional. At level 1, play 1 adv to level. At level 2, play 2 advs to level, etc... but it maxes at needing 5 advs to level.
If X ≤ 5, then you can never achieve level 6. X can't both be capped at 5 while also equal 17.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Adventures premier at conventions and are designed with convention play in mind, but most will become available to anyone anywhere. Also Legends of Greyhawk supports online play, so you will be able to play adventures that was as well.
I don't think taking away the down time is an answer. I would rather see other uses of downtime to be more meaningful than limiting it. With the advent of Bastions I would love to see a mechanic which promotes the incorporation of rewards into Bastion development. Possibly in conjunction with limiting how many down days can be utilized for leveling between adventures. Say being allowed to use 10 bonus days in conjunction with 10 earned days to level twice between adventures....
Here are my thoughts:
Most classes don't get big things until level 3 when they choose their subclasses. So leveling from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 should be fast, maybe 2 adventures, 3 max. Once you got level 3, you can slow the pace to 4 or 5 adventures.
Also, if there are going to be long overarching storyline (e.g. Winter Fantasy 2026 debuts a five episode, level 5 story arch against the forces of elemental evil), then many players will want to play it more or less in order, so it makes the most sense to have players do all five episodes and level at the end of the story arch. My preference would be 3-5 episodes per arch since that worked well in the past and allows for "golden ticket" sales with a consistent group.
Having played the preview content at MCC, where we all started at level 1, and having played lots of D&D over the last 25 years, I did not find the experience to be slow or boring. I am also the kind of player that plays BG3 at tactician because that is my kind of D&D for added context. That said, if anything, the content at the preview was more challenging than I expected because it uses the 2024 rules. Monsters hit harder, have more hp and generally can just about kill you in 1 attack. While we did gain a level per game, and I played all 3, it felt good to get each level because I felt like every hit point, ability and skill counted.
That said, I do think that getting to level 3 shouldn't take more than 3 games. After that is another story.
Each of the options listed in the below poll allow a player to keep their character's current level instead of advancing?
Its time for High Level God Mode Campaigns like Dark Sun or Deities and Demi-gods
Its time to achieve Immortality!!
The 0 level to level 5 or lower are lame Squire Boy Billy or Stable Boy Shefit
I loved Living Greyhawk.
Principality of Ulek veteran.
The region idea bugged me since there were so many adventures my characters never got to play.
I didn't like the limitation of only playing an adventure once and never playing it if I ran it first.
There were a lot of folks that made LG work and, I agree, there are a ton of adventures from LG that could be easily reskinned. Not sure about the legal issues.
With on-line LG adventures, we could have fantastic LG games any time.
I hope everything works out.
As for advancing quickly or putting the brakes to slow things down, I prefer to let the players choose the pace they like.
Have fun.
Level per adventure, at the player's discretion. Or at least something less than 60 adventures minimum to complete the series. Maybe have 60 available adventures, structured so you could complete it in 30.
If I know going in that it will take 60+ sessions/adventures online, with random groups, to get to level 20 and finish the series, you can count me out.
I might do (and have done in-person) something like that online with a fixed group of folks I know I will enjoy playing with long term, meeting once a week with the same good/great DM, that warns the group up front "I am planning for this to last about a year". But not online, and not with random groups.
Adventurers League seems to be structured primarily to enable people to play.. lower barriers to organize groups and barriers to join.
A win for WotC/D&D and us gamers.
I would like to see Adventurers League have some “campaign” guidelines and guidance for more static groups where longer modules (like in the approved books) run for more than four hours.
I have been playing Dungeons and Dragons for many years and editions. I love to play new combinations and experience new DMs and their games.
I’ve added this to my list of alternate requests. Thank you!
Thank you for taking the poll! For a bit of clarity, Legend of Greyhawk is a multiple PO endeavor, not dependent only on Baldman.
I’m noting requests for alternative methods of advancement. I’ve added another request that XP not be used.
Although I voted above, I'd offer a progression as follows:
1 adventure to level 2
1-2 adventures to level 3
2-3 adventures to level 4
4 adventures to level above that
I started in 2.0 playing Living City and Ravensblufff, and Procampur back when it was solely EXP, and I don't want to go back to that but I miss the slower, more heroic progression of those days. Leveling after each module feels like character never truly lives and breathes, never experiences wisdom, never really matures, just gets more powerful without appreciating that power. It is all over so quick.
I just took a moment to go through my old files. I still have the log sheet from 2001 when I started. My iconic Dwarven Fighter, Hawkwin Tenebrae, played in 21 modules and was only level 11. I loved that character because I was able to enjoy him for so long - and he was less than half way to 20 (slow EXP progression at higher levels of course). Now yes, I know I don't have to level up after every module but back in the day, I am pretty sure each module was written for different tiers so one could easily play an entire season without the need to get to level 20 to enjoy all the content.
One more story. I came back to Dnd during Covid as many of us did and I started back with Adventure League but since late 2020, I have been playing published modules with an online group twice a week and have largely left AL in the rear mirror (minus the special Dragon event at GenCon last year). We leveled much more slowly in line with the progression of the published modules. Four hours a week for over two years for each character for us to get to level 20. That is the depth I feel is missing with this hurried up process of gaining a level after every session.
Any chance you will share the results of this poll?
Oh, and one minor thing, if I am being pedantic:
Option one uses the same variable twice. You should instead have it state something like this (otherwise, max level is also 5):
Gotta say I agree with you. XP is a bit messy and annoying, but it puts the agency in the players hands and rewards them based on the challenges they face.
I do however understand that tracking it and doling out XP for non-Combat situations can be intimidating for newer DMs.
Still, it's a system I thought was inferior to milestone when I first started 5e and have now learned to appreciate. Maybe just customize the rules to be absolute with XP so it feels closer to the current system (Don't divide xp amongst players, just everyone gets the full amount).
If XP isn't on the table, then a sliding scale (I voted, but am torn on 3 and 4) like some of the options above. It shouldn't take more than 4-5 sessions to get out of tier 1. It should take more than 5 to get out of tier 2 and definitely should take more than 10 to reach tier 4. That said, 60 adventures to reach level 20 is about a year and some change so it's not that much for the weekly goer. 50 seems like a nice compromise.
The use of X for both is intentional. At level 1, play 1 adv to level. At level 2, play 2 advs to level, etc... but it maxes at needing 5 advs to level.
It is a hard question to answer without knowledge of how many adventures will be written and what is the expected length of the campaign. There is also the practical difficulties of writing high level adventures in what was traditionally a more mid tier setting.
However I generally support a longer path of advancement than one level per adventure.
Maybe I need someone to explain to me the "Problem" because this should be a non-issue. When you complete an adventure, you have the option to accept a level up. I DM and play and when I am a player I have declined multiple level ups across multiple characters if I feel my character is progressing too quickly.
On the flip side, downtime days are usually generated faster than you can spend them so if you feel you are leveling too slowly you can spend the points.
I think option 2 will be the best. Meaning you will have a minimum requirements for the amount of games played to advance to the next tier.
So for example you play through level 1 though 4 as usual potentially also using downtime days to level up but you need to play 6 games to get to tier 2. So you could play at level 1 get a level up and catch up using DT days. Next game you are at level 3 and you also get another level up after it. So you will need to play 4 more games to get to tier 2 while being level 4 (and also gaining downtime days after each play). This way you will play longer and also be at the top of the tier for most of the time (not at levels 1 and 2). And the same for each tier of play.
If X ≤ 5, then you can never achieve level 6. X can't both be capped at 5 while also equal 17.