I have to say I find the idea that there is a ‘sweet spot' defined by a narrow level band in AD&D very odd.  The enjoyment of the game is dependent upon the campaign, the other players, the quality of the DM as well as the bare combat mechanics.  I have played in very high level campaigns that were edge-of-your-seat exciting and very challenging.  I have played in low-power low level campaigns that were tedious - and ones which were great.  Mysterious intelligent villains, adversaries with goals and strategy, multi-level adventures which take ages to achieve (etc etc, blah blah...) can provide challenge at most levels.  

Many players will tell you that it is the very lowest levels where there was most thrill - just staying alive from round to round.  Similarly getting to high level, becoming heroic, battling the really significant bad guys and establishing your own kingdom makes a memorable game. The game does ultimately have limits - when even a skilful DM will be challenged by the range of powers and options which players wield and it is time to retire the characters.  But this point will vary according to a whole range of factors, e.g. the amount of magic items, number of henchmen, campaign balance, oh and party size - even a 20th level character is vulnerable when he is on his own…    

However even if you just want to consider the basic combat mechanics and nothing else -- adventures and combat don't ‘break down' at 7th level -- unless you are playing with a party decked out with artifacts and super-power magic items or your DM plays opponents with no imagination or skill… "OK guys you are walking down the street and you see a (pause… sound of rolling dice) a lone Cloud Giant -- roll for surprise."  

As to what 4.0 will be like - I am enjoying the speculation and discussion here, but WOTC should stop with the drip drip drip and just release the damn thing when they are finished.  

Back when I used to run cash bots on Diablo II, my wife started playing the game. She refused to let me bot her character to level it, which at the time was incomprehensible to me. Her reasoning? She saw no difference between playing a low-level character in the easy areas and playing a super character in the hard ones.
It's all in the challenges you pose and the structure of the campaign.
However, I have never been one to tailor every encounter to the PC's level. I've had high-level parties run into a few kobolds, and I've had low levels find a nest of dragons. I go for the realism factor as much as possible. An lone orc with a 500 gp gem? He grabbed it from the chief's corpse after his tribe was annihilated. A dragon with 100 gp worth of treasure? He recently lost a territorial fight.
What I never do is leave characters no outs (I think I get that from being a longtime poker player). In all things I strive for realism, as much as a magical world can HAVE realism.
So, being a realist, my issue with 3/4/subsequent E's is that there is not even the remote possibility of realism with the way the worlds are set up, not in a D&D sense. If the characters live on the planet Hurkon, where magical energy resides in every atom, then maybe it is plausible.
Look at Great Cleave, my favorite target. A PC can go on a few adventures, rack up some XP, and suddenly have the ability to strike every enemy within 10'. Realistic? Only on Hurkon.
I don't have issues with a game system that allows this; what I have issues with is calling it D&D. It isn't, plain and simple. It's so far from the D&D concept that it isn't even in the same galaxy.
The current pathetic systems that "they" call D&D are simply paper video games. World of Warcraft with dice, Final Fantasy with a pencil.

i've always felt that certain monsters have their certain area in a game, a heirarchy (or however you spell it) if you will.

having an uber-powerful kobold for instance that can decimate a decent size party on his own, for instance, just makes no sense at all.

as DL says, you should always have things at a realistic random. thats how the world is. sometimes you come across something ridiculously easy, somethings unbelievably hard....thats how it really is.

using an example from tegel again - the party running into a giant shrew. you can still DM in and do allsorts of damage/cause problems. it doesnt have to be uber-powerful to "balance the level of the game" or whatever the actual reasoning is behind these things.

a good DM will always be able to place something in the game and explain it away for whatever it is. to balance it to make life difficult for the party each time they arrive at an encounter, just seems drab and boring to me.

but then maybe thats just my old-style view on it all and my thought process doesnt move over to much newer versions like that.

i actually plan to chat with blackmoor about this at GenCon as i am genuinely interested in it, but i doubt my mind will change on the issue.

it just doesnt feel like D&D anymore. simple as that.

Al

oh i agree. i am not really even that bothered about this 4.0 version, no matter what it is. i just have a problem with the "D&D" thing, cos its not really that anymore.

i will always play the version of the game i like, or not play at all, simple as that. works just fine for me.

but i do respect the fact, that if others wish to pursue a new version, thats cool.

Al

deimos3428 wrote:First off, never use "1974" and "OCE" together if you want to sound knowledgeable, especially around here.

I agonized over that a little, but couldn't decide which term fit. I wanted to indicate the 3-book set, but as it was by itself, before Greyhawk added differing weapons damage. OD&D wouldn't do, since GH is part of it, but woodgrain/whitebox would have sounded like I meant only those editions.

                        ____________________

FormCritic wrote:in a game where the Monster Manual actually gives statistics for Asmodeus, Prince of the Devils, there is clearly a level limit on logic..

Co'C 4th ed. has a great foldout chart of size comparisons for human investigators & unearthly monsters which seems to represent mental disorders.

That would be the central joke of RPGs. It's patently ridiculous to quantify abstractions, yet we do it all the time- psychometrics, non-RPG wargames, grammar.. should English split infinitives be outlawed by Latin?

Is 'Data' singular, or the plural of 'Datum?' Is this correct- "Data are walking to the holodeck." It all depends on the question of whether robots have souls. If so, he's a singular person, if not, he's a plural collection of parts.

i am still shuddering at the thought of a 4E version of Tegel Manor  

well yes, it would be great to see a quality map of the manor and its surroundings and youre right of course, its always good to give JG some spotlight.

Al

sauromatian wrote:Really? Darn. Then how about a Las Vegas hotel/casino based on Milton Bradley's DarkTower? Big black main building with grounds made to look like the mapboard & statues like the figures. A main hall like Thulsa Doom's orgy room. Waitresses, show girls, & licensed prostitutes in chainmail bikinis. Avalon Hill games played for real money. Bouncers in orc costume to deal with any rules-lawyer hustlers.

You know... I think you've got a great idea there...  

I have played many games under 3rd edition rules.

The first was Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, on the PS2.

The second was Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II, on the PS2

The third was Neverwinter Nights.

The first two don't matter, they're "button mashing" arcade games.  Except for the fact that X-Men Legends gives you 4 characters, it plays the same.  You mash the buttons, you kill people, you level up. You get points and decide to make yourself tougher or to do more damage.

Never-ever-again Nights? I learned all I needed to know about 3E, I never want to touch it again.