It can be cool even if it doesn't go to 11...

[Agamon]

In some of the newer retroclones (DCC RPG and 13th Age, in particular), PC level only rises to 10. This seems like a good idea to me.

I like the idea of a gained level being something you've fought for and won, not something you're entitled to every few sessions. Less levels gained makes flatter math easier to work with.

Would it potentially shorten campaign life? Well, I think that's easily adjustable by taste already (Pathfinder has a great way to speed up or slow down progression).

This would not float everyone's boat, I know. Perhaps there could be an epic module that adds levels to the game either for higher level adventuring, or rules to run a domain, but it'd be nice if the core was kept simple with just the levels most people most often play.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I prefer the idea of less levels but fatter levels. Keep the vertical math abbreviated (not to the point of bounded accuracy though) while expanding what the character can do at each level. If you're talking Pathfinder, I would suggest overlaying an Archetype over the class (additive rather than replacement) as well as adding a social Archetype that is earned through play. If you're talking 4e, I'm thinking more powers at each level. If you're talking feats, I'd suggest more feats at each level (as in a feat at each level).

Such would be my preference so essentially, I agree with you Agamon.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Minigiant]

Not cool to me. I don't always like playing fresh meat and 10 doesn't give enough room to grow.

Plus I want the high level game to function, be supported, and work out the gate. So I prefer high and epic level to be a system that is designed with low and not simply patched on later.

 

[Agamon]

Not cool to me. I don't always like playing fresh meat and 10 doesn't give enough room to grow.

It does in the games I mentioned.

Plus I want the high level game to function, be supported, and work out the gate. So I prefer high and epic level to be a system that is designed with low and not simply patched on later.

High level play has almost always been an add-on in the past, 4e being the only exception (1e's high level game feels tacked, for sure). So there's precedent.

 

[Minigiant]

It does in the games I mentioned.

I am not a fan of lots of "fat" levels. I want the level up changes to character sheets to be minor and quick.

High level play has almost always been an add-on in the past, 4e being the only exception (1e's high level game feels tacked, for sure). So there's precedent.

And that is why high level out of the box always stunk in the past without a very very knowledgeable DM with more free time than average and a great deal of house rules and fixes (in my experiences).

If high level will be a add-on again, then it will have to be actually looked at, playtested, and supported instead of just tossing something out there.

 

[Kavon]

I prefer the idea of less levels but fatter levels. Keep the vertical math abbreviated (not to the point of bounded accuracy though) while expanding what the character can do at each level.

An interesting idea, and certainly not for everyone (myself including, I think).
Could it be made to work somewhat like..
You combine levels 1 and 2 (and call it level 1), then once you have enough exp for level 3, you gain the following two levels worth of abilities (called level 2). At the point for lvl 4, nothing happens, but when you would normally get to 5th, you get the abilities of levels 5 and 6 (level 3), etc...
Or maybe start at lvl 1, then at the exp for lvl 3, you gain the abilities for levels 2 and 3, etc...
Depends on how much power you want to start with, I guess..
Also goes well with the spell level progression.

As far as the actual topic. I think it's a fine idea to have options to keep your campaign grounded. I don't think it would be a good idea to restrict it to that, though. If the Player's Handbook doesn't go beyond lvl 10, I'm not sure it would go over well with the majority of people.
You should have the option to start play at a higher level from the get-go, if that's the kind of game you want to play, instead of having to wait for a release that will likely be months away.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'd only be interested in something like this as a possible necessary piece of well-done multiclassing/gestalt rules. Basically, such rules deal with character breadth of power, whereas levels are dealing with depth of power. Capping power for a given class, by capping levels at a reasonably small number, such as 10, is one way around the problem of exponential power gains at higher levels messing up character breadth options. Presumably, higher level play in such a system would have classes stacking, but not in the usual way of increased attack chances, better saving throws, etc.

For example, in a simple game, you play your fighter to 10, then if the game goes on, you pick up something like knight and play that to 10, stacking on more options, and so on, as often as you care to do this. If in the same system, you decide to play a fighter/wizard from the start, the fact that you are only behind 5/5 to his fighter 10 can be made acceptable in the system. He can''t stay ahead of you in fighter levels forever, if you both pursue. So it is just a matter of what you get now versus what you get later. While he is getting his 10 knight levels, you are rounding out your fighter/wizard levels.

A gestalt is going to work better in such a system, because such stacking is already presumed.

There is also an implied "E6" type of effect, in that since abilities are not stacking directly, once you've level 10 in a class, the next class you pursue will have a bit of overlap. Then any such optional rules to allow more synergistic power besides straight stacking would, in effect, become the higher level power. (For example, your 10/10 fighter/mage doesn't hit any better than a 10th level fighter, but he can set his sword on fire to do extra effects when he hits, and he hits quite well.)

 

[Fifth Element]

I like the idea of a gained level being something you've fought for and won, not something you're entitled to every few sessions. Less levels gained makes flatter math easier to work with.

I'd be cool with fewer levels, but I don't buy the idea that more levels means you haven't earned them, as much as you can earn anything in a game.

High level play has almost always been an add-on in the past, 4e being the only exception (1e's high level game feels tacked, for sure). So there's precedent.

That's not a good reason. If the lower levels are the ones people play most, maybe it's partly because the epic-level stuff has traditionally been tacked-on rather than fleshed out?

 

[the Jester]

In some of the newer retroclones (DCC RPG and 13th Age, in particular), PC level only rises to 10. This seems like a good idea to me.

I like the idea of a gained level being something you've fought for and won, not something you're entitled to every few sessions. Less levels gained makes flatter math easier to work with.

Would it potentially shorten campaign life? Well, I think that's easily adjustable by taste already (Pathfinder has a great way to speed up or slow down progression).

This would not float everyone's boat, I know. Perhaps there could be an epic module that adds levels to the game either for higher level adventuring, or rules to run a domain, but it'd be nice if the core was kept simple with just the levels most people most often play.

Or you could just stop at 10th level and let the people who like higher levels have their candy too. Putting everything above 10th level in a module is a pretty drastic solution to something that isn't a problem, IMHO.

 

[Harlock]

Or you could just stop at 10th level and let the people who like higher levels have their candy too. Putting everything above 10th level in a module is a pretty drastic solution to something that isn't a problem, IMHO.

I tend to agree. Slowing leveling down isn't exactly rocket science, either. Cut XP gain by a percentage. Break levels down if you want more even development (break the specific gains up over other levels). I know everyone gets bent out of shape when someone says, "you're the DM, just do it your way and make it your game," but come on, DM fiat has always been a part of the game, as much as has the six attributes.