Are xp/levels/advancement necessary?

[Upper_Krust]

Hey there!

For some time I have had nagging doubts about what the heck xp and levels represent, and what the effect on the game would be if PCs didn't advance so... obviously. Related to this are a lot of unrealistic and yet all-too common situations in D&D games:

- Campaigns that span a few weeks of game time and result in PCs with levels higher than their age... (Does it strain credulity for someone to leave his village an inept peon and return a month later as the most skilled warrior in the kingdom? So what if he went through the whole Age of Worms adventure path; how much could he actually learn in so short a time that experts who have spent their whole lives could not?)

One way to do this would be to cap advancement rate in months equal to the next level.

Therefore it would take 1 month to get to 1st, a further 2 to get to 2nd, 3 to get to 3rd etc.

1st = 1 month training
2nd = 3
3rd = 6
4th = 10
5th = 15 (1 year, 3 months)
6 = 21 (1 year, 9 months)
7 = 28 (2 years, 4 months)
8 = 36 (3 years)
9 = 45 (3 years, 9 months)
10 = 55 (4 years, 7 months)

20 = 190 (15 years, 10 months)

What you could then do is change the EXP tables so that the current formula gives you the EXP needed for a months worth of adventuring.

Which means you would need the experience points of a 3rd Ed. 10th-level character to actually reach 4th-level.

However, while more realistic, is that necessarily more fun?

- Wide disparity in the power level of NPCs with no outward way to judge... (sure, smart PCs can tell low-HD monsters from high-HD ones, but how are they supposed to know whether the old hermit NPC is a crazy 1st level commoner or a 12th level sorcerer?)

- High-level retired adventurers who are barkeeps but are just as sharp and skilled as they were decades ago... (How come their skills don't deteriorate from non-use?)

Is it possible to imagine D&D without advancement? What would happen if your group simply decided on the level at which they wanted to play, and just started playing, without tracking xp?

Is it possible to imagine D&D without levels... or more to the point, without large disparities in skill between anyone and anyone else? Would this still be considered a heroic game or would you classify this as gritty/realistic?

There needs to be an incentive. One possibility would be to make each level mean less overall (but I think that would feel unsatisfactory). Yet another is to make the starting character far tougher* (se the Hit Dice rules below for starters).

*I seem to remember the WEG Star Wars d6 was a lot like this.

To a lesser extent, the thoughts above apply to monsters with hit dice as well. Hypothetically speaking, there's nothing in the rules saying a DM couldn't design a normal-looking bunny with 24 HD and a +35 base attack bonus, right? That's an extreme example, but reduce it to 2 HD and it's still arbitrary.

Thoughts and opinions anyone?

I already solved that problem by introducing rules which assign Hit Dice by mass into the Immortals Handbook - Epic Bestiary.

A creature gets assigned hit dice equal to half its height in feet.

e.g. An orc gets 3 HD, an Ogre gets 4 HD, a Hill Giant gets 5 HD.

If the creature's two biggest dimensions are roughly equal (like a horse or elephant), then it gets assigned Hit Dice equal to 2/3rds its largest dimension in feet.

If the creature is roughly equal in all dimensions (like a Beholder), then it gets assigned Hit Dice equal to its largest dimension in feet.

Using these rules, a normal human would start with 3 HD. Which means a mob/army of humans is a lot tougher.

These rules do not apply to Fey, Outsiders or Intelligent Undead. Nor do they apply to Constructs...who have Hit Dice equal to the (minimum?) caster level.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Man, of course levels and XP are important. There are plenty of games without them. DUNGEONS & DRAGONS (of any stripe) shouldn't be one of those games. I mean, play your house game the way you want, but the default should be XP and levels.

And classes.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think xp/levels/advancement are nessecary for D&D, but not for roleplaying in general.

I think the players need something to look forward to and advance to, though. You could make that any one of several things (treasure, feats, skill points, etc) without nessecarily requiring an entire "level," however.

 

[DragonLancer]

- Campaigns that span a few weeks of game time and result in PCs with levels higher than their age... (Does it strain credulity for someone to leave his village an inept peon and return a month later as the most skilled warrior in the kingdom? So what if he went through the whole Age of Worms adventure path; how much could he actually learn in so short a time that experts who have spent their whole lives could not?)

- Wide disparity in the power level of NPCs with no outward way to judge... (sure, smart PCs can tell low-HD monsters from high-HD ones, but how are they supposed to know whether the old hermit NPC is a crazy 1st level commoner or a 12th level sorcerer?)

- High-level retired adventurers who are barkeeps but are just as sharp and skilled as they were decades ago... (How come their skills don't deteriorate from non-use?)

It's just a game. Don't worry about it. Thats my advice.

Levels and XP work very well for the fantasy genre (though I can't explain why, it just does). Don't try to over to overthink it.

 

[Umbran]

Why must they change and grow in a way measured by the rules over time? If we take a lot of TV shows, the main characters don't change and grow a whole lot over time. Static characters can have a lot of adventures, and change in lots of ways, without ever involving rules for advancement.

Technically true, however, we should note some things...

Most GMs and players are not professional-quality authors. They are unlikely to come up with stories and developments that are as compelling as seen on really good TV shows for a particularly long time. And even good TV shows tend to run dry eventually. Advancement adds a dimension that we can use to supplement the fact that we are amateurs, and cannot spend time on writing our games like a professional writer can.

Many folks play RPGs in part for the tactical challenges. If the characters don't advance mechanically, the tactical options available to them will never change. While there are folks out there who like single, unchanging games (like, say, chess), and will play them repeatedly, it is not my impression that this is the majority of folks.

And, the #1 reason why an RPG needs advancement - because it sells books, and makes selling the thing at least a marginally viable business. Without that, you don't have distribution or market share worth mentioning.

 

[irdeggman]

If time is the issue - then use the optional training rules from the DMG (pg 197+).

IMO every RPG game I've played in has some sort of reward system that allows the PC to improve (i.e., get better at things and/or learn new things). Some use levels (like D&D, some use various point awards (that can be spent on improving/learning new things - like Deadlands. But everyone has some sort of reward system that allows this improving of PCs.

 

[Ourph]

I've never played D&D with absolutely no XP or level advancement, but I've played with drastically slowed advancement (basically, every level after 3rd required MUCH, much more XP than normal) and really liked it. Instead of spending 2-3 sessions at each level we ended up spending about two sessions longer at each level as we advanced. I think a campaign where everyone started somewhere between 5th and 10th level and just stayed there would be extremely fun.

One of the reasons I'm enjoying WFRP much more than D&D at the moment is because of the shallower advancement curve and more granular advancement scheme.

 

[Numion]

Okay, let me try this:

"Damn my dice were HOT! So, how much loot and ..-.. um, do I get?"

Nope, doesn't seem right. There just has to be the XP part at the end. It wouldn't seem worth my hacking if it was just the loot (CR < party level -8 for fun hacking not withstanding)

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

Thanks for the great replies!

I guess levels and xp strike me as more video-gamey than other aspects of the game, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it would be nice if story goals were more important (or even equal in importance). Anyway...

Sans clothing or other signs of wealth, can you look at two men and tell which is a stockbroker worth millions and which one is a fry cook? Usually not.

...if the players can tell the level of two similarly dressed locals without knowing anything about them, then verisimilitude is being broken and it has nothing to do with the advancement rules.

Often there is an expectation (spoken or not) that players are supposed to judge the difficulty of an encounter, and its their own fault if they bite off more than they can chew. With monsters its usually much easier; dragons are tough, kobolds are weak. But when a single NPC can be as weak as a kobold or as tough as a dragon with no outward clues, its much more dicey.

 

[Lanefan]

- Campaigns that span a few weeks of game time and result in PCs with levels higher than their age... (Does it strain credulity for someone to leave his village an inept peon and return a month later as the most skilled warrior in the kingdom? So what if he went through the whole Age of Worms adventure path; how much could he actually learn in so short a time that experts who have spent their whole lives could not?)

Fixable by enforced downtime, either via having to train for each level or through there simply being no adventuring to do for a while (the next part of the story takes place in the mountains, but good luck getting there before spring; might as well take the winter off...)

- Wide disparity in the power level of NPCs with no outward way to judge... (sure, smart PCs can tell low-HD monsters from high-HD ones, but how are they supposed to know whether the old hermit NPC is a crazy 1st level commoner or a 12th level sorcerer?)

Simple. They're *not* supposed to know. Period.

- High-level retired adventurers who are barkeeps but are just as sharp and skilled as they were decades ago... (How come their skills don't deteriorate from non-use?)

This has been a pet peeve of mine for many years; not that the skills don't deteriorate, but that I can't come up with a workable system to define *how* they deteriorate. Still processing...

Lanefan