Feature or Bug: D&D's Power and Complexity Curve

[5ekyu]

There are plenty of other RPGs that don't use classes/levels.

indeed there are but really - classes and levels are not tied to rate of advancement.

you can do a fantasy hero point buy game or many many others and still, get the farm-boy to jedi in a few movies feel.

then there are games/genres where the "advancement" is more from gear/wealth than from character changes - my second RPG was traveller black book way back in the day and the actual changes to character were almost nil - but there was a **huge** difference between ACR and flak at the start and grenade launcher, plasma guns and battle dress later on.

Then there are games with a far more narrative "tv and movie" driben play - like ScreenTime - where leveling and power ups are much less a thing of rules or even expected at all. You are doing the "play through a movie" or "season of a series" thing and so, odds are, any sort of sense of power-up comes at the conclusion.

 

[Shiroiken]

The steep power and complexity curve in D&D (5E, yes, but also 3.x and PF) expressed through it's leveling system is a bug. it makes the game less fun for me, particularly as a GM. it breaks my sense of immersion in the world and it limits and constricts the kinds of adventures, campaigns and stories that I can tell through D&D. D&D would be better if leveling were divorced from the power and complexity curve.

Discuss.

You are in the minority among D&D players, as this is not a bug, but a core feature of the game. Any RPG that uses levels is going to have the issues you describe, but oddly 5E is probably the one with the least issue for you (except maybe OD&D, but unlikely).

In AD&D and BECMI, characters may not have gotten as many features/complexity as they leveled (as opposed to modern gaming principles, where every level is supposed to matter), but they DID get a lot more powerful (especially casters). 3E upped the ante with the attack and save bonuses (not to mention skills), and added in additional complexity of prestige classes and feats. 4E was both better and worse, for while it could allow you to easily reskin monsters to be the same type (such as a campaign against an orc nation) to use at every level, the characters were on a treadmill of constantly gaining more and more power and abilities to be used against more and more powerful enemies.

5E is different. While characters still get more powerful/complex, they do so in more limited ways. A 20 ft wall is a significant obstacle at level 1, but even at level 20, unless the character has a specific ability (proficiency, class ability, or spell), it's just as difficult to overcome, since the check is exactly the same. Weaker enemies remain viable much longer, simply by adding to their numbers, allowing a more LotR type effect. Yes, eventually orcs will have to be phased out if you continue the campaign long enough, but something that many forget, is that most campaigns end around level 10. The leveling complexity increases dramatically past this point, requiring a more epic story.

You have mentioned that you are not looking for a fix, as you already know how you could fix it. Something to consider is that D&D (any edition) is not the right game for you. There many other RPGs that are more story based that can provide a much better example of what you like (I'm a huge fan of the original Deadlands RPG myself). Most of them use skill/ability points for character progression, which can be slow or quick, depending on the GM and system. 5E was playtested to appeal to the broadest possible player base, but this means there are still going to be people that it is not a good game for.

 

[Oofta]

One misconception I see is that in the LOTR, most of the company had room to grow. I don't think that's true - they were all (except the hobbits) high level at the start of the movie. Since they were already maxed out or close to it for the power level appropriate to the world, there was no reason to show growth.*

The hobbits? I think there was quite a bit of growth there, just not growth in terms that would fit a game like D&D.

As for the rest, I do sometimes remember the olden days (pre-3.x) where it took forever to level if you didn't gain XP from gold. I rarely use the guidelines from the book and instead discuss with the group how quickly they want to advance, and what they want to accomplish. Personally, I like slow leveling particularly at lower levels. Unless there's an earth-shattering event or your PCs are travelling dimensions, high level play can get a bit goofy.

On the other hand, I can look back at my professional career and see quite a bit of growth. I've always been pretty good at what I did, but I've certainly gained knowledge of new technologies and I'm better at implementing solutions than I used to be. So my character getting better at what they do only makes sense. The speed at which it happens is a bit much, but that's why I emphasize down time between adventures.



*Edit: except of course for Gandalf, who leveled up after defeating a Balrog

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Now, I am not saying there should be NO mechanical advancement, just that specifically the power and complexity curve of D&D is a problem especially when taken over the course of a long campaign.

The thing is, the rate of advancement is entirely up to the DM, in creating the campaign. The default is pretty fast, much like how the default natural healing rate is ridiculously fast, but you can slow that down as much as you need to. If you think characters get too powerful or complex at level 6, then you never have to let them get that far.

The big issue is that players have an assumption for D&D campaigns to run from 1-20 over the course of a year, so if you did want to slow things down significantly, it might be hard to find enough players who are invested in that. By and large, there's not a significant overlap between the group who likes slow-and-low-level games and the the group who prefers to play D&D.

 

[GlassJaw]

Well luckily for the OP there are numerous other systems to choose from. Just not sure why he felt the need to post about it. *shrugs*

 

[Reynard]

To illustrate why I think it is a bug, let's imagine a variant of D&D 5E with a couple core changes. First, characters do not gain hit points as they level. Perhaps they start with a hit point "kicker" or maybe they just get their first level hit points. In either case, one of the foundational elements of increased power -- longevity in the face of tougher opponents -- is removed. Second, D&D style flash bang magic is removed from the game, including magic items that replicate such spells. There may or may not need to be a few other limits (character classes like Warlocks that bake in a lot of magical features as class abilities probably have to go, too) but generally speaking those are the primary big changes. What does that do, and how does it illustrate my point?

First, characters still gain levels. Every few levels their Proficiency bonus increases and they get a feat or an ability boost. They get their class features ever couple levels as well. So they are getting "better." However, an orc is still an orc because they still only have the same hit points they started with, and the bigger, tougher, scarier higher CR monsters really are bigger, tougher and scarier. In addition, a yawning chasm or a sheer cliff or a murder mystery are still actual obstacles for the characters. They can't just fly over it or spider climb up it or speak with the deceased. The world looks the same over the course of their careers and remains more immersive and viable in the face of the PCs.

 

[Reynard]

Well luckily for the OP there are numerous other systems to choose from. Just not sure why he felt the need to post about it. *shrugs*

Because this is a discussion forum and discussing things is fun?

 

[Arilyn]

To illustrate why I think it is a bug, let's imagine a variant of D&D 5E with a couple core changes. First, characters do not gain hit points as they level. Perhaps they start with a hit point "kicker" or maybe they just get their first level hit points. In either case, one of the foundational elements of increased power -- longevity in the face of tougher opponents -- is removed. Second, D&D style flash bang magic is removed from the game, including magic items that replicate such spells. There may or may not need to be a few other limits (character classes like Warlocks that bake in a lot of magical features as class abilities probably have to go, too) but generally speaking those are the primary big changes. What does that do, and how does it illustrate my point?

First, characters still gain levels. Every few levels their Proficiency bonus increases and they get a feat or an ability boost. They get their class features ever couple levels as well. So they are getting "better." However, an orc is still an orc because they still only have the same hit points they started with, and the bigger, tougher, scarier higher CR monsters really are bigger, tougher and scarier. In addition, a yawning chasm or a sheer cliff or a murder mystery are still actual obstacles for the characters. They can't just fly over it or spider climb up it or speak with the deceased. The world looks the same over the course of their careers and remains more immersive and viable in the face of the PCs.

You would have to really dig in and rebuild the character classes. Abilities across all characters would be less flashy, more skill oriented. I would probably limit the levels to 10, so coming up with new class abilities that don't go over the top would be easier to design. You would definitely want to severely limit spell casting classes to one or two. And the magic system would need a serious overhaul. It could definitely work, but it's not something you could enter into lightly.

 

[TheSword]

Playing at higher levels is definitely more challenging as a DM. Challenging is not necessarily a bad thing though for a party and DM willing to rise to the challenge. I can count on one hand the campaigns that got to 18th level and each of them managed it for a reason... because the world, PCs, NPCs and plot were awesome.

There's nothing wrong with restricting play to the relatively safer tiers 1 & 2. It is a very sensible approach for most campaigns. No one should feel like they're playing the game 'wrong' for doing this.

However complexity is not a vice, it is what makes the higher levels so rewarding when its done well. Many of us who play rpg's i suspect enjoy being able to grips with an interesting and complex rule system that lets us replicate our imagination and make choices that increasingly affect the game world.

 

[Reynard]

You would have to really dig in and rebuild the character classes. Abilities across all characters would be less flashy, more skill oriented. I would probably limit the levels to 10, so coming up with new class abilities that don't go over the top would be easier to design. You would definitely want to severely limit spell casting classes to one or two. And the magic system would need a serious overhaul. It could definitely work, but it's not something you could enter into lightly.

I wasn't actually proposing to do this. It was more an illustration of how if you significantly flatten the power and complexity curve, the game benefits from it.