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

[Tony Vargas]

13th age got it right. There's something intuitive about the old 'scale of 1 to 10.' If you wanted to have more 'progression,' you could - hypothetically, because no game has ever done it - have several tiers each with 10 levels.

 

[Ratskinner]

I don't really care too much about the actual numbers or even if its a game with levels or not. I think its more important that the game provide the PCs with some room to evolve into the "pocket" or "sweet spot" of whatever the system is. Some of the new/innovative games (even ones I like a lot) have IME/IMO a minor problem with starting off as competent heroes. That seems to put a damper on the sort of group cohesion and dynamics that those first few faltering adventures as clumsy noob heroes provide a party. I really haven't seen any relationship or history mechanics that seem to provide that very well.

 

[Battle Sloth]

I prefer to play games without levels if the group is more RP focused. Level-less systems tend to let you explore your character by advancing traits and powers that matter to the character. With my current group, they are more beer and pretzels-y with light RP.. I prefer levels with them since it it tends to give you more tools to play with over time without having to invest much thought into why the character would do those things in the first place and just enjoy the fact you have a new way to thwack things.

 

[was]

We usually end about level 12 or 13 and start something new.

 

[Argyle King]

Other: I prefer rpgs which don't have levels.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I went with other. If the game is level based, I want to see no upper limit. I want to be able to play a character for a VERY long time and still have some advancement (even if it is slow).

I was in a Champions game and we started as sorta week (not quite new mutants/teen titans level), and ended up being the JLS/Avengers. The game ran 11 years, and we all pretty much played the same characters.

In D&D 3.x, I played a couple of characters to level 27 or so, before real life intruded and we had to stop playing all together.

In both cases we played weekly. I like LONG games.

 

[Legatus Legionis]

.

 

[Lylandra]

For my personal taste I'd prefer "other" or open ended / 30-99, although I usually play D&D derivatives with their 20-30 levels max.
What I enjoy are small step levels or simply no levels at all, but a steady power increase. Having to wait multiple sessions in order to feel some sort of mechanical progress isn't the right thing for me

 

[Caliban]

30 levels, but with 4 advancement points partway through level that grant you benefits in addition to the ones you gain upon reaching the next level. Your normal class advancement maxes out at lvl 20, and then from lvl 21 to 30 you have a different set of advancement paths you can follow that are not tied to any particular class.

 

[frijoles junior]

ACKS RAW is 14, and that's what I use for playable races using classes from the book, to the extent they make sense in the game world. ACKS also has rules for custom classes, and I cap those at 12.

Dimmermount extended ACKS for characters reaching level 18 (after?) attaining immortality, and I've exploded that out to 16 for undead (to the extent they can have class levels), 18 for physical immortals, and 20 for true immortals (demigods)

That's probably needlessly complicated as I very much doubt anyone sees level 9, much less 12, but the stick needed a carrot to dangle from the end.