The Crimson Binome
Hero
Is this a reference to any system in particular?
What level do you like your tabletop RPGs to allow you to achieve?
It's a reference to Dungeons and Dragons Online, an MMO that is (very) loosely based on 3e D&D.
Zhaleskra
Adventurer
As I will be entering my 40s this year, I find that I'm not interested in save the world/universe/multiverse campaigns as I once was (upcoming board game expansions not withstanding). I'm actually less of a campaign person now, and more of a "series" person.
The obvious answer is that it depends on the system. Longer answer: I prefer characters go from competent to seasoned, regardless of the system's method of getting there. It is much harder to create or play a meaningful adventure in my eyes when characters outclass many people in the world. While I have trouble with AD&D2E's warts, the idea that the characters weren't doing that much adventuring themselves after level 9 seemed like a good stopping point: you've become powerful enough that you've attracted followers, let them do your dirty work. Even in HARP, I think there'd maybe be a few hundred level 5 characters, and a handful of level 10s, with numbers dwindling with every level beyond that. This is because the diminishing return on investment hits fast in HARP, capping out favored skills at level 6 if all you do is max out favored skills: paying 2 points for a +1 bonus doesn't seem that great when for the first 10 ranks it was 2 for +5, then for the next it was 2 for +2, does it?
The obvious answer is that it depends on the system. Longer answer: I prefer characters go from competent to seasoned, regardless of the system's method of getting there. It is much harder to create or play a meaningful adventure in my eyes when characters outclass many people in the world. While I have trouble with AD&D2E's warts, the idea that the characters weren't doing that much adventuring themselves after level 9 seemed like a good stopping point: you've become powerful enough that you've attracted followers, let them do your dirty work. Even in HARP, I think there'd maybe be a few hundred level 5 characters, and a handful of level 10s, with numbers dwindling with every level beyond that. This is because the diminishing return on investment hits fast in HARP, capping out favored skills at level 6 if all you do is max out favored skills: paying 2 points for a +1 bonus doesn't seem that great when for the first 10 ranks it was 2 for +5, then for the next it was 2 for +2, does it?
Gilladian
Adventurer
I'm running 3.5e. We usually end campaigns at around 10th level - sometimes as early as 8, and sometimes we have gone as high as 12th, but that was just once in the life of the edition. I think in 2e we often got into the low teens, but I don't really remember.
I don't MIND that there are higher levels, and some NPCs are described in that way, but since their mechanical abilities rarely affect the game, it doesn't really matter.
I've played one E6 campaign, and it worked fine. We got to 6+1 feat before I got bored with my megadungeon and we switched to a new campaign to give 5e a try. We got to 8th with it before deciding we preferred 3.5e and started over. Current party is 3rd level, soon to be 4th.
I don't MIND that there are higher levels, and some NPCs are described in that way, but since their mechanical abilities rarely affect the game, it doesn't really matter.
I've played one E6 campaign, and it worked fine. We got to 6+1 feat before I got bored with my megadungeon and we switched to a new campaign to give 5e a try. We got to 8th with it before deciding we preferred 3.5e and started over. Current party is 3rd level, soon to be 4th.
thefrickinpope
First Post
I've lately been playing some RPG's that don't feature levels as a game mechanic, and and some that don't even have classes. FFG Star Wars, FFG 40k games, Green Ronin's A Song of Ice and Fire, Opaque's Song of Swords, the Firefly RPG etc. I feel like having the freedom to pick and choose how my character advances his skills and abilities is a lot more fulfilling a lot of the time, rather than being stuck with +1 BAB, +1 to X Save, +6 skills points, and a feat.
That being said, when I do run D&D styled games, my campaigns tend to start at level three or four, and generally will last until characters are level fourteen to sixteen, though this is no hard rule and generally will change depending on how the characters accomplish their goals.
That being said, when I do run D&D styled games, my campaigns tend to start at level three or four, and generally will last until characters are level fourteen to sixteen, though this is no hard rule and generally will change depending on how the characters accomplish their goals.
Last edited:
It very much depends on the system, and also the story.
If I'm running a D&D-style game (I tend to run 3.5 or Pathfinder), our group tends to run those for a year or two, and usually I conclude the story around level 12-15. This is partially because the group likes to play a lot of different stories/systems, and also because of how D&D works at higher levels. Once you get into mid-high to high levels, the balance of the game gets more delicate. At very high levels, it's often a case of "he who acts first, wins." There's a decided number of save-or-die, or save-or-suck spells and abilities that come into play, and if you aren't very, very careful, you'll have multiple scenarios where someone has to sit out long parts of the encounter. If you're prepared and ready for that, more power to you, but unless in certain circumstances, I often find running those high-level games to be more work and less fun.
In games using the Cypher system, I've run right up to max tier (Tier 6) with no problems. That system allows for easier customization on the fly, and I have never felt the kind of pinch from max-tier powers as a GM that I have from high-level abilities as a DM.
If I'm running a D&D-style game (I tend to run 3.5 or Pathfinder), our group tends to run those for a year or two, and usually I conclude the story around level 12-15. This is partially because the group likes to play a lot of different stories/systems, and also because of how D&D works at higher levels. Once you get into mid-high to high levels, the balance of the game gets more delicate. At very high levels, it's often a case of "he who acts first, wins." There's a decided number of save-or-die, or save-or-suck spells and abilities that come into play, and if you aren't very, very careful, you'll have multiple scenarios where someone has to sit out long parts of the encounter. If you're prepared and ready for that, more power to you, but unless in certain circumstances, I often find running those high-level games to be more work and less fun.
In games using the Cypher system, I've run right up to max tier (Tier 6) with no problems. That system allows for easier customization on the fly, and I have never felt the kind of pinch from max-tier powers as a GM that I have from high-level abilities as a DM.
over nine thousaaaaand!
ahem.
maybe it's my infatuation with the d20 system, but 20 feels right.
on the other hand...
there is much truth to this.
ahem.
maybe it's my infatuation with the d20 system, but 20 feels right.
on the other hand...
there is much truth to this.
redrick
First Post
I voted 20. Personally, I prefer to have character advancement be something that happens infrequently. It puts a little more focus on the narrative ways in which your characters are evolving, instead of just fighting bigger, badder monsters every week. Also, from a strictly mechanical sense, there is something really great about going back to a level one character in D&D and saying, "god, it's going to be nice when this character can cunning action." Personally, I could have done with a slightly slower road from 1-3.
On the other hand, I appreciate having more than 10 levels, because it means I can easily ignore the super high levels and still have SOME progression. I don't have a whole lot of interest in the super high level stories, so, with a 10 level game, I'd just end up never playing past level 5. 5 levels feels too few for me.
On the other hand, I appreciate having more than 10 levels, because it means I can easily ignore the super high levels and still have SOME progression. I don't have a whole lot of interest in the super high level stories, so, with a 10 level game, I'd just end up never playing past level 5. 5 levels feels too few for me.
aramis erak
Legend
I prefer skill based games with skills in the 1-10 range.
Similar Threads
