Crazy Jerome
First Post
In my more cynical moments, I sometimes think the biggest problem with bigger numbers is that it leads to laziness--in design, in adventures, in DMs, and in players. That doesn't mean that you can't have some increase, but you don't want the increase to be dominant.
If, for example, you want to have 36 levels for PCs, and you want the scaling of the numbers to have a range of around 15 steps, then obviously there are levels where the numbers don't change. That means you have to come up with something else interesting to get while gaining those levels. That something else can be mechanical abilities, things found in play, new character challenges in the campaign, etc. If the numbers start looking like "well enough," then the pressure starts to go the other way.
Of course, if the numbers effect on overall effectiveness is small enough, but the range is large, you can get around this with discipline. Nothing says you can't have a game where the numbers go up substantially every level, but they only account for a fraction of effectiveness. In practice, it tends to not work that way, though.
If, for example, you want to have 36 levels for PCs, and you want the scaling of the numbers to have a range of around 15 steps, then obviously there are levels where the numbers don't change. That means you have to come up with something else interesting to get while gaining those levels. That something else can be mechanical abilities, things found in play, new character challenges in the campaign, etc. If the numbers start looking like "well enough," then the pressure starts to go the other way.
Of course, if the numbers effect on overall effectiveness is small enough, but the range is large, you can get around this with discipline. Nothing says you can't have a game where the numbers go up substantially every level, but they only account for a fraction of effectiveness. In practice, it tends to not work that way, though.
