What level do you like your tabletop RPGs to allow you to achieve?

[Nalleile]

I support the previous statements. The game must have at least 30 levels or the game must be infinite, under the conditions of the game. At the initial levels, the complexity should be moderate, and the higher the level, the difficulty grows, but if the game is infinite, then the complexity is chosen randomly, now I try this game, here is an example this free Davinci Diamond slot machine game that you can play endlessly.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

other

If it's gonna have levels capped, or levels at all, I prefer 4e's 30 levels.

Otherwise, no level cap.

Even in 4e, we don't start at level 1 often. We prefer lvl3, usually. In Star Wars Saga Edition, we often start at level 4, sometimes 2 or 3, but never 1. Same in 5e. So, 10 levels would only work for us in a game where level 1 is about where 5e's lvl 3 is in terms of what the characters are like.

50 or 100 is just so many levels that I would expect each level to be pretty small, gained pretty quick, otherwise it's so many levels that I question why there is a cap.

For Saga, we have been talking about getting rid of the level cap, bringing in 5e style Bounded Accuracy so storm troopers are always a threat and high level characters can't hack death stars by sneezing at them, and you just keep going and picking a feat or talent every other level, and since increasing your abillity scores is less vital, you get just 1 +1, and a bonus Talent.

We think it would work fine as a limitless system, with those changes.

 

[LordEntrails]

Infinite! And absolutely unrelated to anything. Every challenge totally random. Level 10 might give you more combat skills than level 20. Level 15 might grant you roleplaying skills or abilities that you lose 5 levels later. After you gain the power of a god, then you become as powerful as a child again! Infinite Chaos!

 

[TBeholder]

Other: I don't think myself as existing in a level-based universe and pretending to confuse the players with characters is neither adorable nor gives some sort of "street cred".

 

[Pickles III]

Eleven

Ten can be fine but if you need a little push you can turn it up to eleven.

 

[Raith5]

30 for me. I like BECMI and 4e higher level/epic play - but I do think it could be compressed into 25 levels, with epic only being 5 levels.

In terms of granularity, I do have a reoccurring problem with D&D that is compresses too much of its material into the level 6-12 range. I t would be good to space the monsters and spells a bit and make demons and giants only fit for 11+ level PCs.

 

[dbm]

I voted 20 but I generally prefer level-less games. I like progression to be 'little and often' rather than a small number of big dollops.

I felt that Mutants & Masterminds had a very interesting take on progression, with a Power Level that caps your maximum abilities but growth occurring through gaining extra 'power points' or spend on abilities of different kinds. This meant that characters could grow up to a maximum with their signature abilities, and then were force to broaden out a bit before the GM increases the PL so characters can up their signature capabilities again.

It gives a nice balance of regular growth without allowing players to put everything into a big gun all the time...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I voted 20 but I generally prefer level-less games. I like progression to be 'little and often' rather than a small number of big dollops.

What's the difference between a game with a hundred levels, where you gain a level after every session, and a point-buy game where you gain another point after every session that you happen to play for a hundred sessions? Is it just the presentation?

 

[dbm]

I guess the main implied difference is that a level in most games is a pre-packaged set of abilities, though there may be some customisation. Pure points implies the freedom to spend those points on pretty much what ever you like. Also, if level is a thing then it can be an artificial limit ('you must be this tall to ride') whereas pure-points systems lack this mechanism. That could be good or bad, but it is a thing.

As an example, we played a GURPS campaign a while back where one of my players was saving up to increase his stats, and this would take 20 character points. Contrast that to buying new skills (can be done for as little as 1 CP) or increasing existing skills that might cost between 2-4CP. He chose to progress more slowly but then get a 'bigger' benefit as the stat increase would improve many things at once. But it was his choice.

One of the things I like about the 'little and often' route is it allows you to adapt to the flow of a campaign. If you find yourself on an adventure where social skills are paramount you might invest a little in Savoir Faire. Or if stealth is important you might put a couple of points in that skill. By responding this way you end up with a more rounded and varied character; this fits my personal preferences but I recognise other people will feel differently.

ETA: I also used to like RoleMaster's way of handling levels, where each level gave you a bunch of points to spend within certain parameters (e.g. typically you can only buy one or maybe two levels in a skill for each level-up). But it still had the 'small number of large increments' challenge for me.

 

[aramis erak]

What's the difference between a game with a hundred levels, where you gain a level after every session, and a point-buy game where you gain another point after every session that you happen to play for a hundred sessions? Is it just the presentation?

Not quite. In a typical experience point to levels game, each level is wider than the one before, but value for defeating monsters is scaled by the monster, not the PC. So 20 orcs might level a level 1 party, but level 2 parties need 40. And level 3 need 120, or 40 baddass orcs.

In typical point buy only games, the points are awarded for playing, not for defeating enemies. Typically, 1-5, with 1 usually being "showed up"... and 5 being a real Wow moment.


I've seen several approaches with level based:

Levels reflect experience spent already, and are indirectly purchased:

• L5R, FFG's 40K RPGs,
• Tunnels & Trolls ed 7 and later

Level use high XP numbers to generate smaller numbers of advancement in character points:

• Rolemaster.10,000 XP gives 5-50 points to spend upon skills, but you can't spend on skills you haven't used nor trained... at least, RAW. Often played more lax.)

Levels regulate when XP are spent on stuff:

• Alternity.
• LUG Trek

Levels result in increases directly:

• Tunnels and Trolls 5.5 and earlier. (When you level, you get level added to a stat, halved or doubled by utility of the stat.)
• Palladium (When you level, all skills go up; at certain levels, add new skills)

Initial is point buy, advancement is level based:

• Savage Worlds (I've got revised, which is fairly old) has 1-3 points a session, and every 5 is take one advancement; attributes limited to once per 4 advancements. The advancement is worth about 2 skill points.
• D&D 5E is also, to some degree. AL play is point build attributes, then apply class, race, and background; race and background are roughly balanced so effectively packages.

The Experience point systems used tend to correlate... but I see several broad categories

Low XP awards for categories of stuff, usually single digit, with high single to low double digit to level up: Savage Worlds, Alternity

Lots of low awards (double digit to low triple digit), high points required to level: Palladium (foes worth at most 25; a good idea is worth more); Tunnels and Trolls (Foes worth their combat attribute total or MR. Spells worth their casting total. SR's worth their total roll. attacks worth the damage taken or done)

Lots of moderate rewards (triple), high XP to level: Rolemaster (levels cost between 10000 and 500,000 XP each; pretty much every skill use is worth the roll * a difficulty mod; every hit point taken or delivered is an experience point as well, kill bonuses of 10 to 500 points whether killing or killed, loot, travel...) {I've seen a RM session where people leveled twice...}

Awards by foe's abilities, advancement moderate to high (scaling by level): D&D, Atlantean System (aka The Arcanum)

Non-leveled systems
Tend to use category based XP.
EG: Star Wars by FFG: points by length of session, plus additional for hitting one's motivations, and possibly for accomplishing goals (GM's discretion). Point costs same as in CGen, but not all items from CGen available after with Exp. Some items require indirect spends to obtain.
EG: Modiphius' Conan: points by session and GM appraisal 100 to 300, spend on stuff needing several hundred to several thousand to raise. Quite literally, as written, there's no reason to not have simply lopped off 1-2 zeroes from the end, other than the psychology of "2 xp sounds lame, 200 sounds plenty"...
EG: WWG 1 for show up, 1 for played traits, 1 for played them well, 1 for accomplishing goals, and 1 for prosocial behaviors. Costs to raise in the low double digits...

Some, like TFT, have a variety of categories worth multiple points, with a raise of a single point costing an amount based upon total attributes... this was not uncommon among small press games in the 80's.

It's more than just presentation, because it can tie into how XP are spent, and can (asin alternity) prevent acquiring bigger bonuses until later levels. Or, as with Savage Worlds, prevent certain categories from raising too quickly.