[D&D] Confusion about Levels

[Professor Phobos]

It is that time of year again, when I suddenly and inexplicably develop an interest in playing Dungeons and Dragons. This stands in stark contrast to my usual preferences.

It is strange.

But I figured I'd get this question out of the way while I have the chance. How exactly are levels supposed to reflect individuals within a society? Are they supposed to do so at all?

Is a DM supposed to basically adjust level design on NPCs to match the appropriate Challenge Rating for the PCs? Kind of like the CRPG Oblivion- as you increase in level, your enemies go up to match. I'm mostly talking about NPCs with Class Levels, as I know Monsters are rated differently.

So, in effect, a 10th level bad guy doesn't exist until the PCs encounter him- and if they encounter him earlier, he's really an 8th level bad guy, or if they encounter him later, he's a 12 level bad guy. This has nothing to do with his impact on the setting, just what would make a challenging encounter for the PCs. A band of 1st level Orcs at the start of a campaign "upgrade" to 5th level Orcs later one, when it would be appropriate.

Or is it that NPCs with certain roles are supposed to be certain levels- like the local God-King is supposed to be 20th level because that accurately reflects his power and influence, or because the PCs are 20th level and wouldn't be challenged by someone lower? Or because the God-King is the most important NPC in the setting?

I'm trying to grasp how this is supposed to work. Are levels just a measure of experience- at which point, what are the benchmarks for what kind of deeds merit which levels, or are they a measure of dramatic importance, or are they just a purely "game" thing?

 

[Someone]

Characters within the game aren't supposed to know about "levels" or other abstract measurements. They may know that an individual is extraordinarily skilled, that a wizard can cast powerful spells, or "research" the gem needed to contain a certain person, at most. To be precise, there are means to measure level, but that requires some metagaming on the NPCs or PCs part.

Other than that, all the other things you ask don't depend on the rules, but your common sense, how you view the setting you're playing in and what you think it's going to be fun for your players: if you want them to survive, you won't pit a part yof 3rd levels against a team of 15th level NPCs. That doesn't mean that the rules forbid the existence of 15th level NPCs while your PCs are still 3rd level: they only say they are likely to die in such combat. It's up to you if you want them dead or not.

About kings, if they are merely politicians, they can be really of any level (other people in these boards disagree). If they rutinely ride to battle and defeat monsters on their own, then it only makes sense to them to be high level.

 

[Shazman]

The levels of NPC's are completely independent from the levels of the PC's. If a 1st level party picks a fight with the 10th level leaders of the local thieve's guild, the guild members don't loose levels to match the PC's. They are going to get wiped out or captured, and deserve to be for getting in so far over their heads. It's your job as a DM to match the difficulty of the adventure to the PC's abilities. They just "happen" to get involved in something that's an appropriate challenge for them. Most long term campaigns have the PC's deal with run of the mill minions at lower levels, and fight increasingly more powerful opponents as they delve deeper into the plot/conspiracy/world-threatening menace. Much like you would have to go through several levels of "underlings" to contact a CEO of a corporation or a high-level politician in the real world.

 

[Ry]

Hi Professor,

Sounds like you get interested and then pull away... this is something that I did frequently too until I tried 6th-level, and later 12th-level "epic" rules.

I also found it easier to have the universe be more consistent with these rules; the players might "outgrow" the 1st-level goblin warriors, but the well-trained 7th-level mercenaries remain a threat even when players are at the peak of their power.

 

[Doug McCrae]

You can handle it either way, or a mixture of the two. The DMG discusses this on page 48 in the section headed 'Tailored or Status Quo'. It recommends that if you do have status quo encounters, such as the God-King always being level 20, that you let the players know so they don't assume they can handle every encounter.

 

[an_idol_mind]

My games seem to run just fine without tailoring the NPCs to the levels of the PCs. The group has had 20th-level allies and faced off against (or rather, ran the hell away from) a 20th-level foe when they were at level 4. The setting doesn't tailor itself to the PCs, but the adventures do. If a group of 3rd-level characters really want to take on a 15th-level baddie, I won't stop them. However, I also won't run an adventure where they're forced to take that guy on without help.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But I figured I'd get this question out of the way while I have the chance. How exactly are levels supposed to reflect individuals within a society? Are they supposed to do so at all?

Is a DM supposed to basically adjust level design on NPCs to match the appropriate Challenge Rating for the PCs? Kind of like the CRPG Oblivion- as you increase in level, your enemies go up to match. I'm mostly talking about NPCs with Class Levels, as I know Monsters are rated differently.

So, in effect, a 10th level bad guy doesn't exist until the PCs encounter him- and if they encounter him earlier, he's really an 8th level bad guy, or if they encounter him later, he's a 12 level bad guy. This has nothing to do with his impact on the setting, just what would make a challenging encounter for the PCs. A band of 1st level Orcs at the start of a campaign "upgrade" to 5th level Orcs later one, when it would be appropriate.

Or is it that NPCs with certain roles are supposed to be certain levels- like the local God-King is supposed to be 20th level because that accurately reflects his power and influence, or because the PCs are 20th level and wouldn't be challenged by someone lower? Or because the God-King is the most important NPC in the setting?

I'm trying to grasp how this is supposed to work. Are levels just a measure of experience- at which point, what are the benchmarks for what kind of deeds merit which levels, or are they a measure of dramatic importance, or are they just a purely "game" thing?

You're lookin' at it all wahooni-shaped.

Try this: The local God-King is 20th level with all the appropriate whatever. The PC's are first level. They know the God-King is up to something, but it's in the great distance, so they work their way up to it. First, they deal with his lowly minions (1st level), then they start dealing with soldiers, officers, monstrous troops, giantish armadas, waves of golems, powerful fiendish assistants...and THEN, THEN, once they're finally 20th level and have been a thorn in his side for nearly a year....THEN they face him.

The NPC's don't tailor themselves to the PC's. A DM should, however, tailor the challenges to the party.

 

[RainOfSteel]

I'm trying to grasp how this is supposed to work. Are levels just a measure of experience- at which point, what are the benchmarks for what kind of deeds merit which levels, or are they a measure of dramatic importance, or are they just a purely "game" thing?

Levels, to me, are a near-instant method of benchmarking game-mechanics totals, and therefore in-game power quantities.

A 20th level fighter is far more easily quantified than an 8th generation Ventrue vampire with 400 experience points, to me, anyway.

In actualy play, I play both relative and absolute level usage.

Most NPCs have absolute levels that are unlikely to change during game play.

Shopkeepers, bazaar hawkers, famous smiths, the heads of guilds and organizations, etc.

Important NPC villains may go up in levels across the course of campaign, unless they get killed, or they may not. It's up to me on a case by case basis.

The main encounters the PCs will face in the course of adventures are built relative to their current power level. I mean those encounters in wilderness and dungeon locations (as cities usually have fixed-level encounters regardless of the PC's levels). It is possible for PCs to deliberately locate and travel to areas that are more or less threatening, if they do a little work.

The PCs know, or should know, that if they see Mr. Bad-Ass brilliant swordsman, famous the world over (20 Fighter, 10 This, 10 That), walking by while they're still in their starting levels, and they call him out, then guess what? They're dead.

I warn all players ahead of time that if they commit game-suicide (death by stupidity), such as spitting themselves on the swords or spells of the more powerful (or deliberately walking into death traps or overwhelming odds, etc.), nothing will appear magically in the game to save them.

I also allow players to make Profession based rolls to determine if someone else is: a lot more, more, equal, less, or a lot less powerful than them. Honestly, in-game, players have got to have a way of using their characters to determine this sort of information, otherwise they run around blind. (Really, GM descriptions, no matter how colorful, do not convey this information.)

 

[painandgreed]

It all depends on how the DM wants to run his game. I'm played in games where whatever you encoutner is level appropriate and the townspeople and NPCs all seem to level up with the characters. Personally, I don't like that type of play as a player or DM. I find nothing less satisfying that having my character risk his life day after day and taking great risks, only to find that the town guard that sit around in the tavern and the wizard we buy potions from are always two levels higher than myself.

As a DM, I assign levels (which are concrete things in game that reflect the level of training the PC or NPC has) in what should be a way to promote verisimitude. NPCs go up in level in a way that would reflect their gain of XP for what they do in normal life. High level NPCs are placed where they would go, and the PCs are up against that full NPC if they choose to do so. I've seen PC parties take on level inappropriate encounters way above skill and win due to good preparation, planning or luck simply because in character or out, they decided the risk was worth it. Of course, I've said parties have also run away with the tails between their legs too. Both types of encoutners will end up being more memborable and storyworthy than a campaign of constantly defeating level appropriate encounters.

For the God-King, I would decide how he got there and if he deserved his levels. A person who became God-King because he was 20th level and took the world over would of course be that tough and PCs would have to work hard if they ever wanted to challenge him directly. For a hereditary God-King, he would start 1st level like anybody else as a young adult and work his way up. If he was shielded by advisors and the like and never actually faced any challenges, he might never get to very high level. If he actually had to assume the duties of the God-King and rule, such decisions would probably be worth a deal of XP and he'd climb levels as the years went by. Then it's always possible that his advisors would power level him as he did actually take on tough challenges at a low level while surrounded by higher levels aiding him.

 

[Crothian]

NPCs should be the level they deserve to be. Don't make an NPC lower level just because the PCs want to fight him. The PCs should not be able to win every battle and it's okay to know the battle is a lost cause before it starts. J