Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5038635" data-attributes="member: 58197">Bit late to the conversation, but it's a fascinating subject for me so I'll throw my two cents in...IMO, the key to making this concept work is to focus character advancement on breadth over depth - granting more options instead of more powerful ones. So instead of your attack and defense numbers going up, you get different types of attacks and defenses. You become a more versatile combatant but not a markedly more powerful one.A little depth-advancement is fine, but it should be quite limited IMO. I think breadth-based advancement is generally far preferable to depth-based for many reasons:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It allows the aforementioned "everybody starts at 1" approach.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Characters start out simple and gain complexity as they level, allowing the player to master new options one at a time (and since everybody starts at 1, you need never make a leveled-up character to fit into an established campaign).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The DM can build a campaign around a particular monster type as an opponent, without having to worry about the PCs "out-leveling" the monsters and without having to supply an increasingly implausible series of leveled-up versions.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It puts far less of a strain on suspension of disbelief. Depth-based level schemes usually result in characters who go from wet-behind-the-ears novice to world-shaking-empire-smashing-god-slaying lord of destruction in a matter of months.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Players who like to explore new "builds" and character types don't have to make new characters to do it - they can just take their old characters in new directions.</li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification