Player: "I need to level up so I can do cool stuff!"

[Vegepygmy]

In a similar line of questioning, would you play in a campaign where you never leveled and only had 1st level adventuring quests for a six month campaign?

Sure. I wouldn't mind that at all.

I used to play 2nd Edition DragonQuest. In that system, the amount of XP you earn (and thus the rate you advance) is extremely vague; my group interpreted the rules such that our rate of advancement was positively glacial. Essentially, we started at 1st level and never really left it. And I had more fun playing with that group, using that system, than I've had with 90% of the rest. What made it fun were the players and how we breathed life into our characters, not the abilities our characters had. It simply didn't matter that our power level remained the same, because our characters' personalities grew and developed in fun ways.

 

[Hussar]

It's funny. People talk about how slowly they leveled back in the day and I honestly never saw it. We ran 1e and 2e campaigns for about a year at a time generally and we usually hit about 10th level. I ran several 3e campaigns for about a year and we hit about 10th level. Our 4e campaign is just about a year old and we just hit 10th level.

I really don't see a huge difference. I mean, heck, even Gygax talked about a campaign lasting about a year and hitting about 10th level (it's somewhere in the whole Quasqueton Module Treasure leveling debacle that it was quoted). So, my experience has always run about the same.

As far as wanting to level, again, I always wanted to. I used to play paladins. Leveling got me a mount and that was cool. Leveling a caster meant huge differences in play. And I certainly heard complaints from groups if I was too stingy with xp back in the day, just like now.

I'm really not seeing a huge difference.

 

[pemerton]

If it comes down to a system issue (where his character, at low levels, just isn't as effective as some others) it is much harder to tackle. But should, hopefully, eventually become less of an issue.

I don't disagree with anything in this post, but just wanted to pick up on this: it's a funny state of affairs if we take it for granted that, in order to get to play the game we want to play, we have to spend some time playing a game we don't so much want to play.

I far prefer when levelling up is a nice side effect of play rather than the entire goal of it.
Simply put: the reward paradigm shifted from fluff-based to crunch-based, and stayed there.

I think this is very much about playstyle, and what the participants are hoping to get out of the game.

To generalise slightly, in classic D&D play - the sort of play that Gygax gives advice on in the closing pages of his PHB - the character is not the main focus of play. Exploration of the dungeon is the main focus of play, and the PC is a means to that. And often there may be in fact multiple PCs per player, or a PC and his/her henchmen, etc.

In this sort of play, levelling is perhaps less important, because you can explore the dungeon whether or not you gain levels. And levelling is also a reward - a reward for skilled play in extracting loot.

When play is more focused on the character, however, than the challenge conceived independently of the character, then it seems fairly natural that character development should become more important. (As well as general changes in the attitude towards the PC and its centrality, there are also changes in adventure design - in an adventure path, for example, where the general sequence of events may already have been predetermined by the module writer, the details of his/her PC may be the main point where a player feels s/he can easily make a contribution to the fiction.)

And if character development has a mechanical aspect, then it makes sense that, as character development becomes more important to play, so that mechanical aspect becomes more important too.

And I don't think this is a simple crunch/fluff issue. There is almost nothing that is different, fluff-wise, between a 1st level AD&D thief and a 9th level one - only the ability to Read Languages. Whereas even between a 1st level and 2nd level 3E rogue, there may be a change from being a comparatively incompetent swordsman to a comparatively competent one (as Weapon Finesse is acquired).

In 4e the integration between mechanics and "fluff" is also fairly tight - especially because of the contribution that paragon paths and epic destinies make to the description of a PC.

So to flip it around - if you want levelling to matter less to your players, perhaps try and look at a game where (i) levelling has less of an effect on the key story elements of a PC (this is hard to achieve in any edition of D&D for spellcasters, but is achieved for martial PCs in classic D&D), and (ii) where the PCs carry less of the burden of the overall story in the campaign, and are not the main point at which the players get to inject their priorities and ideas into the story.

 

[TarionzCousin]

* no, "Danny" is not my name.

What?!?

This has ruined my faith in internet truthiness.

 

[Mark CMG]

What?!?

This has ruined my faith in internet truthiness.

You tell em, Cuz!

 

[Summer-Knight925]

You can make the best of this situation by telling your dad that he can have more treasure so he can "play how he wants to play" if he gives you more allowance so that you can "play how you want to play".

Maybe you can even offer him a dragon mount in exchange for a nice, new sports car.

I don't get an allowance....

I mean...if you want the long depressing story of my family then sure, whatever, but D&D is what's kept me and my father's father-son relationship together for so long...so in other words D&D is awesome, unless you're into dungeons of warcraft....but hey, I don't judge

 

[Lanefan]

I think this is very much about playstyle, and what the participants are hoping to get out of the game.

To generalise slightly, in classic D&D play - the sort of play that Gygax gives advice on in the closing pages of his PHB - the character is not the main focus of play. Exploration of the dungeon is the main focus of play, and the PC is a means to that. And often there may be in fact multiple PCs per player, or a PC and his/her henchmen, etc.

Yep.

In this sort of play, levelling is perhaps less important, because you can explore the dungeon whether or not you gain levels. And levelling is also a reward - a reward for skilled play in extracting loot.

Assuming one gives experience for treasure, which I don't.

When play is more focused on the character, however, than the challenge conceived independently of the character, then it seems fairly natural that character development should become more important. (As well as general changes in the attitude towards the PC and its centrality, there are also changes in adventure design - in an adventure path, for example, where the general sequence of events may already have been predetermined by the module writer, the details of his/her PC may be the main point where a player feels s/he can easily make a contribution to the fiction.)

There's a whole bunch of assumptions here, I'll take them one by one:

- that players in later editions won't have henches and multiple characters just like in earlier editions. Why not? Just because the game makes assumptions doesn't mean those assumptions have to come out real.
- that character development was any less important in older editions. In many cases character development has always been important. But it hasn't always had a mechanics aspect.
- that players/characters are going to stay on an adventure path once they start it. If they want to stay on a predetermined course then so be it, but if having just finished adventure 4 in a 9-adventure path they decide "screw this, we're going into the hills to bash Giants instead" then how is that any different from any other edition?

And I don't think this is a simple crunch/fluff issue. There is almost nothing that is different, fluff-wise, between a 1st level AD&D thief and a 9th level one - only the ability to Read Languages.

And, of course, that a 9th-level Thief is getting ready to either start her own guild or take over someone else's. And she is - or should be - a whole lot richer than she was as 1st level, with all the benefits and drawbacks inherent. Also, she has probably met all sorts of influential and powerful people during her adventuring career and can try to leverage those acquaintances to her benefit. Etc.

Lanefan

 

[S'mon]

What?!?

This has ruined my faith in internet truthiness.

If it helps, my name really is Simon.

 

[pemerton]

There's a whole bunch of assumptions here, I'll take them one by one:

- that players in later editions won't have henches and multiple characters just like in earlier editions. Why not? Just because the game makes assumptions doesn't mean those assumptions have to come out real.

True, and I don't think I actually mentioned editions.

In practice, though, I think that some of the assumptions made in later editions affect the mechanics in ways that make henchmen harder - for example, the complexity of character building and action resolution in 3E or 4e compared to AD&D or Basic.

that character development was any less important in older editions. In many cases character development has always been important. But it hasn't always had a mechanics aspect.

Well, I'm not assuming anything here. I'm asserting that the centrality of character development has grown over time, and that game design - including PC build mechanics - have changed to reflect this.

If character development is not mechanically expressed, then I think that levelling up will naturally be reduced as a focus of play. But I think there is at least some evidence - namely, trends in game design - showing that as characters become central to RPGing there is a desire for their development to be mechanically expressed, at least in part.

that players/characters are going to stay on an adventure path once they start it. If they want to stay on a predetermined course then so be it, but if having just finished adventure 4 in a 9-adventure path they decide "screw this, we're going into the hills to bash Giants instead" then how is that any different from any other edition?

Well, at this point I think you're not really running an adventure path. I'm not certain, because I'm not an adventure-path guy, but my understanding of the typical adventure-path group is that there is a mutual understanding that the players will stick to the path.

Which means that building their PCs becomes one of their main elements of control over the fiction. (Because both situation and plot have been largely ceded to the GM/module writer/)

And, of course, that a 9th-level Thief is getting ready to either start her own guild or take over someone else's. And she is - or should be - a whole lot richer than she was as 1st level, with all the benefits and drawbacks inherent. Also, she has probably met all sorts of influential and powerful people during her adventuring career and can try to leverage those acquaintances to her benefit.

I chose 9th level because the guild stuff doesn't come up, in AD&D, until 10th! (Though in Basic it's 9th, so maybe I should have said 8th.)

And yes, the high level PC will be richer and better connected, but I see this as more a matter of quantity than quality - after all, the 1st level PC can also be rich (in a relative sense) and well-connected (in a relative sense), with level gain just changing what this is relative to. Whereas, in 3E, a 1st level rogue can't be a relatively good swashbuckler - s/he has to wait to 2nd level to take Weapon Finesse.

In my view, this is the sort of mechanical difference that makes the desire to level more likely to come to the fore in 3E than AD&D. (Though as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] pointed out upthread, some AD&D PCs are also mechanically dependent on realising their concept - spellcasters, obviously, but also paladins, monks and to a lesser extent rangers.)

 

[Hussar]

/snip

In my view, this is the sort of mechanical difference that makes the desire to level more likely to come to the fore in 3E than AD&D. (Though as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] pointed out upthread, some AD&D PCs are also mechanically dependent on realising their concept - spellcasters, obviously, but also paladins, monks and to a lesser extent rangers.)

Don't forget Druids, Bards, and of course, gaining followers for pretty much everyone. I think every class got something to look forward to that was based entirely on level although, to be perfectly fair, this got taken to a whole new level in later editions.