[D&D] Confusion about Levels

[Kae'Yoss]

It is that time of year again, when I suddenly and inexplicably develop an interest in playing Dungeons and Dragons.

I know that. I call that time "always"

Is a DM supposed to basically adjust level design on NPCs to match the appropriate Challenge Rating for the PCs? Kind of like the CRPG Oblivion- as you increase in level, your enemies go up to match. I'm mostly talking about NPCs with Class Levels, as I know Monsters are rated differently.

The DM is supposed to do it however he likes it best. Do what's best for the game.

You could always indisciminately scale everything (including monsters - you can advance them to increase their challenge rating - it works more or less how you advance normal characters), you could create everything up front and let the players figure out who they can take on at any moment, and so on.

So, in effect, a 10th level bad guy doesn't exist until the PCs encounter him- and if they encounter him earlier, he's really an 8th level bad guy, or if they encounter him later, he's a 12 level bad guy.

My favourite way of playing is just like that - and completely different: Yes, the characters will usually encounter something more or less appropriate for their level - the 10th-level party might have an adventure part that consists of a couple of EL 8 encounters, a EL 10 encounter, and an EL 13 boss. But those particular guys aren't exactly scaled to their power level - I write up all the enemies they will fight, and whenever they encounter one, I'll give him the appropriate level.

It's rather that this Guy X is supposed to be level 13 all along, and I'll sic him on the party when they're 13ish. Or I make something up altogether when I start the adventure.

But should they leave out an encouter - circumvent a fight or something - and later take on that guy, I won't magically boost him up to be still as difficult as before. There will probably some advancement (the guy hasn't been sitting on his fingers the whole time), but how much that is depends on the guy himself, and on what he's been up to in the meantime.

Some examples:
There's an evil adventuring party who was hired to attack them as soon as they enter the Kingdom of Examplia. The heroes' original plan was to go there right away, but due to some unforeseen events (read: some players pulling off something completely unexpected), they first have to go to Otheria for a spell, where they advance 4 levels. In the meantime, that anti-party looted some dungeons, made other jobs, all the while waiting for their informants to tell them that their prey has entered Examplia. So when they finally arrive, that other party (who was roughly on par with the heroes) will also have increased 4ish levels.

Another example has the heroes (5th level) being thrashed by a 12th-level fighter, who then leaves them to die in some death trap (in best Evil Overlord Tradition) - only they escape (of course), and flee the country - vowing revenge. They encounter that Overlords agents in a different part of the world, where they take out all his operations there (and advance 10 levels while doing so), until the Overlord himself is forced to take care of those nuisances. He was not entirely idle during that time, and has advanced 4 levels (to level 16) by the time the heroes confront him.

The last example (true story) is the party being humiliated when they seek a sorcerer (for information) and encounter a dragon instead, who lets them pay dearly for the information they seek - oh, and for their life. That dragon would have obliterated that party, so they had no choice but to give that dragon quite a large sum for his services (sparing their lives and giving them the information they need). But much later, after the party advanced from smallfry to near-epic champions of their races and faiths (and, in one case, the hero himself, and maybe Filthy Lucre), they decide to pay another visit to said dragon. The heroes have advanced considerably in the months that have passed, but the dragon his still essentially the same.

Or is it that NPCs with certain roles are supposed to be certain levels- like the local God-King is supposed to be 20th level because that accurately reflects his power and influence, or because the PCs are 20th level and wouldn't be challenged by someone lower? Or because the God-King is the most important NPC in the setting?

I don't quite think that status and level have to be related all the time. It's often appropriate, of course, but not always:

The barbarian chieftain is probably the most powerful barbarian in his outfit, because the strongest warrior rules the clan. A king could be a first-level aristocrat who inherited the throne. He might not remain first-level for long (if he takes ruling seriously, that is, because that will give him a lot experience), but King is no PrC that has some entry requirements like "Character Level 10+"

I'm trying to grasp how this is supposed to work. Are levels just a measure of experience- at which point, what are the benchmarks for what kind of deeds merit which levels, or are they a measure of dramatic importance, or are they just a purely "game" thing?

Well, ultimately, they're a game thing, but they do represent experience. If you have X experience points, you're level Y. You can't get experience points without some experience (in the D&D core rules, that means mostly combat encounters, but that's not exclusive, of course)

 

[Shades of Green]

Well, ultimately, they're a game thing, but they do represent experience. If you have X experience points, you're level Y. You can't get experience points without some experience (in the D&D core rules, that means mostly combat encounters, but that's not exclusive, of course)

Definitely. Level is a game mechanic measuring experince and the overall "skill" of the character in what he does (e.g. how good a fighter is in fighting or how good an Expert is in his overall field of study).

Under basic D&D 3.0E assumptions, around 90% of the population are level 1 Commoners. The majority of the population from the other classes is also at low levels. PCs at level 11+ are vastly powerful than most people in the world - they are the superheroes of the setting. Villains of level 11+ are supervillains. Both superheroes and supervillains are rare and unique. A world of common folk serves as the backdrop for these characters' exploits.

That's the reason why I like low-level play: you're part of the world, not above it.

 

[S'mon]

I find in 3e you really need to use the Tailored approach, because unlike in prior editions, there is no leeway. In 1e your 5th level PCs might take down the 15th level BBEG, not in 3e. In say B/X or C&C I can use status-quo encounters a lot more, because the lethality level is much lower; eg in my C&C game I just used an 8 hit dice barbed devil vs 1st & 2nd level PCs!

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I find in 3e you really need to use the Tailored approach, because unlike in prior editions, there is no leeway. In 1e your 5th level PCs might take down the 15th level BBEG, not in 3e.

I think they really shouldn't be able to take down that guy 10 levels their senior.

But that doesn't mean that the BBEG needs to be 15th-level. It just means that they'll have to overcome man obstacles before they finally face him. At 5th-level, they won't face the lich king. They might face one of his necromancer minions.

 

[hexgrid]

Are levels just a measure of experience- at which point, what are the benchmarks for what kind of deeds merit which levels, or are they a measure of dramatic importance, or are they just a purely "game" thing?

All of the above.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Levels to me are relative power. If I have a world where the king is a foppish dandy, the question I then ask is, "where does he get his power?" Perhaps he is a master at manipulation and politics - in which case he is a high level aristocrat who has no skills for combat. Maybe he is a puppet, in which case he might be a low-level NPC, but with others of higher level behind him, controlling him. Or maybe it is simply the honored rules of succession and level has little or nothing to do with it, and a coup would be simply if somebody desired to do it.

In terms of the NPCs the party may need to fight, I usually try to match the NPCs' levels to about that of the party. It is all about the mission, and the party usually goes on a level-appropriate mission. You don't send in Navy Seals to do a routine patrol of the streets. You also don't send in a small group of new privates to take infiltrate and neutralize a fortified encampment. The D&D party gets the same treatment from me. I offer plot hooks (missions) for things that are about right for them. I may foreshadow more powerful things to come and if they choose to go straight for that, I will find ways for them to be properly warned that they may be getting in over their heads. If they still choose to do it, I won't suddenly decide the boss that they are not supposed to meet until they have five more levels is suddenly weaker just so they can take him on.

 

[Kestrel]

If I think about it too much, my head hurts.

I just make sure the npcs they fight are challenging enough for the session. Anything beyond that is a headache.