If most DMs prefer low-mid levels...why have levels?

[Hussar]

And, I think that the idea of D&D being limited to lower levels is a bit of a holdover from older DM's. Looking at the adventures that are generating a lot of buzz now, we see things like the Adventure Paths from Paizo, Rappan Athuk from Necromancer and the World's Largest Dungeon from AEG - all designed to go into the high double digit levels.

I think as people get more and more used to the idea that there really is life after name level, we'll see a lot more high level play.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Interesting replies.

I agreee that the DM isn't the only one at the table, and that the players want to have the feeling that their characters are progressing. However I wasn't suggesting that there be no progression, or even slower progression, just progression that impacts less on overall character abilities.

Which is my preference. Again, the console RPGs I mentioned do a great job of providing near-constant advancement (leveling multiple times in a single dungeon, and in P&P terms in a single session of play) but keeping the actual gains in power more modest - and preventing the entire feel of the game from changing.

The same players that play D&D also play and probably enjoy just as much more front loaded systems. So I don't know how much I buy into the "levels are for the players" idea.

Actually, IMX this isn't really true. There's a huge swathe of gamers who will only play D&D, and a fair number of them don't like more front-loaded systems even when they experience them. As much as I dislike the D&D paradigm, I'm quite willing to acknowledge that it has a lot of fans, and I wish them no ill as long as they aren't my GMs.

Another arguement is "because D&D has levels" , okay...but shouldn't the game evolve into a better smoother system? (Then again whose to say that levels > front loaded games)

Why should it?

There are many better, smoother systems already on the market. In fact, most of the 'innovations' you're talking about have been available since GURPS in, what, the late '70s? Rather than wanting D&D to be the way you want it to be, you'd be better served to support systems that already do what you want with your money and time.

I see no reason D&D can't continue to service the people who like D&D - but plenty of reason that people who don't like D&D should experience other games.

It seems to be rare to have a game progress far into higher levels. It's never happened for me (however I hope to with my current AoW game). I'd say that those who have hit the magic level of 20 are in the minority rather than the majority. I heard that just before 3rd ed. WotC did a survey and found that the average campaign lasted 1 - 1.5 years (maybe I'm misquoting) i'll bet that even then many of those groups hadn't hit 20. Maybe their would be less dissappointment at a game without levels ending (ie. no "ugh we didn't hit 20th level").

Every 3e D&D campaign I've finished has either been at 20th level or within spitting distance. Most concluded in 1 to 1.5 years. D&D 3.x is, in fact, designed to take a group of four from 1st to 20th in the space of one year.

A question is..is game prep faster in level-less systems?

Depends on the system, but in general, oh lord, no! HERO is probably the prep-heaviest game imaginable, GURPS is only slightly better. Lighter level-less systems, like Mutants & Masterminds, SilCore or TriStat, take about as long as d20/D&D because you have no prebuilt packages to draw upon, even though the systems are much simpler overall.

To be fair, once you get these systems under your belt and run them for a few years, you'll probably prep standard encounters faster, although maybe not in HERO. Custom-designing a major NPC, however, will be a pain in most any point-buy system.

 

[MerricB]

And, I think that the idea of D&D being limited to lower levels is a bit of a holdover from older DM's. Looking at the adventures that are generating a lot of buzz now, we see things like the Adventure Paths from Paizo, Rappan Athuk from Necromancer and the World's Largest Dungeon from AEG - all designed to go into the high double digit levels.

I think as people get more and more used to the idea that there really is life after name level, we'll see a lot more high level play.

I agree. High-level play isn't something to be scared of - it might not suit your group, but that's a different matter.

As D&D continues, we see more and more tools being created to make high-level play enjoyable and easier to run. From the high-level monsters and sample NPCs, to the Adventure Paths and WLDs, to computer tools for those who like them... we're getting more and more tools to help us run high-level games.

One of the common complaints I see is that "there are too many modifiers", but I'm not convinced they're mandatory. If your party doesn't cast thirty spells on yourselves before going into combat, are you really that much worse?

There are probably still things that can be done to make the high-level experience better (save or die spells, I'm looking at you!), but I'm very much looking forward to reaching the end of the Age of Worms with a bunch of 21+ level PCs.

Cheers!

 

[jeffh]

So, are people suggesting that some DMs dangle the higher levels in front of the players like the proverbial carrot on a stick that keeps the donkey moving foward in a vain attempt to reach it?

That doesn't sound very nice.

Firstly, who's suggesting there's anything vain about it? It's the fact that they do eventually reach higher levels that keeps the whole process going.

Second, who's suggesting it's done purposely by the GM? What people (at least the ones who are correct ) are saying is that this is built into the game itself; the GM has very little to do with it.

Lastly, help me out here - even if it were done on purpose by the GM, I completely fail to see what would be wrong with that.

 

[Hussar]

Firstly, who's suggesting there's anything vain about it? It's the fact that they do eventually reach higher levels that keeps the whole process going.

Second, who's suggesting it's done purposely by the GM? What people (at least the ones who are correct ) are saying is that this is built into the game itself; the GM has very little to do with it.

Lastly, help me out here - even if it were done on purpose by the GM, I completely fail to see what would be wrong with that.

You see nothing wrong with deceiving your players? Or being deceived as a player? You are far more forgiving than I. As a player, I do try to have at least a few ideas of things I would like my character to do, such as my priest who wanted to start his own cult and therefore needed the leadership feat. If the campaign never reaches 6th level, then I can never do that. All I can do is plan for it and dream about it.

While that may be fun for a while, at some point I would actually like to attain my dreams. What's the point of playing a fantasy game if I can't make my fantasies come true?

The limitations on the levels is most certainly not built into the game itself. That's simply not true. There is a huge amount of support for higher level games whether from WOTC or the d20 crowd. There are more than a few threads floating around here on how to handle higher level play as well that are chock full of good advice. Never mind that you've now got three adventure paths that are going to lead into the high double digit levels, as well as any number of modules being offered in other venues as well.

The days of there only being two or maybe three modules for 10-14th level play are long behind us. The rules are there to be used and, believe it or not, do actually work without half the group being left in the dust.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

For me, the progession from low to high levels is part of the whole D&D experience. It is fun and fascinating to watch the PCs grow from a bunch of nobodies who run from Alchemical Zombie Chicken(TM) to great and mighty heroes who have slain dragons, speak to kings as peers and possibly have saved the world once or twice.

If I want to start the PCs at relatively low power levels and stay there, I'll run GURPS or WFRP. If I want the PCs to start as extraordinarily mighty heroes, I'll run Exalted.

But D&D campaigns tend to run from one extreme to the other. And to me, that's what makes it a D&D campaign.

 

[Gold Roger]

For me, the progession from low to high levels is part of the whole D&D experience. It is fun and fascinating to watch the PCs grow from a bunch of nobodies who run from Alchemical Zombie Chicken(TM) to great and mighty heroes who have slain dragons, speak to kings as peers and possibly have saved the world once or twice.

If I want to start the PCs at relatively low power levels and stay there, I'll run GURPS or WFRP. If I want the PCs to start as extraordinarily mighty heroes, I'll run Exalted.

But D&D campaigns tend to run from one extreme to the other. And to me, that's what makes it a D&D campaign.

Yarr, couldn't have said 't better for meself matey.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I think the main "limitation" on high-level D&D is simply that it takes so much time to prepare adventures for them - especially high-level NPCs.

I mean, it's a snap of creating some low-level NPCs as antagonists, but the higher the level gets, the more do you have to agnoize over feats, skills, attack bonuses, special magical equipment...

I mean, I have created the d20 NPCs Wiki to help with this issue, but even that can only help so much...

 

[WizarDru]

It seems to be rare to have a game progress far into higher levels. It's never happened for me (however I hope to with my current AoW game). I'd say that those who have hit the magic level of 20 are in the minority rather than the majority. I heard that just before 3rd ed. WotC did a survey and found that the average campaign lasted 1 - 1.5 years (maybe I'm misquoting) i'll bet that even then many of those groups hadn't hit 20. Maybe their would be less dissappointment at a game without levels ending (ie. no "ugh we didn't hit 20th level").

A question is..is game prep faster in level-less systems?

Having run a game from 1st to 28th level (and successfully concluded the story), I'd agree that it's likely that hitting 20th is a minority option...but mostly because games fall apart, not because of the system per se. WotC's survey informed their decision to speed up the levelling process. WotC found that many campaigns ran for YEARS, and because of previous editions slow levelling, players rarely had the opportunity to reach those high-levels....in other words, they didn't consciously choose not to play high level, they often levelled so slowly they rarely reached them. In 3e, the conscious choice was made to make it so that characters could, if they desired, run from 1st to 20th in that time span.

As someone who played GURPS as his game of choice for 15 years, I will say this: prep time is actually as slow or SLOWER than D&D, unless you cut corners in the same way that you would for D&D. A level-less sytem like GURPS presents characters who are full-fledged heroes from day one...but who rarely get more powerful or grow that significantly. I ran a Fantasy game that ran from 100 points to 250 points over the course of 8 years...and while the players grew considerably more powerful, the scale was nothing like 1st to 20th in D&D....more like the equivalent of 5th to 10th or so, perhaps even less than that.


Now, it's also common knowledge that, for 3.0, WotC did far less playtesting for high-level play than low-level play...which is one reason that quite a bit of it needed errata. Prep time IS more significant, but IME, less than what many expect it to be.

Why have high-level play? Because the style of play is DIFFERENT, and some players and DMs enjoy it. 3rd level players are single-handedly stopping an invasion of the prime by the ravaging Githyanki Incursion. 5th level players aren't travelling to the abyss and bearding the lion in his den. 8th level players aren't turning back a demonic horde. 10th level players aren't staring down Orcus and GETTING HIM TO BACK DOWN. FOR NOW.

It is an option for play, just like alternate magic systems, new classes, campaign settings or house rules. It never hurts to have more options.

 

[diaglo]

For me, the progession from low to high levels is part of the whole D&D experience. It is fun and fascinating to watch the PCs grow from a bunch of nobodies who run from Alchemical Zombie Chicken(TM) to great and mighty heroes who have slain dragons, speak to kings as peers and possibly have saved the world once or twice.

If I want to start the PCs at relatively low power levels and stay there, I'll run GURPS or WFRP. If I want the PCs to start as extraordinarily mighty heroes, I'll run Exalted.

But D&D campaigns tend to run from one extreme to the other. And to me, that's what makes it a D&D campaign.

agreed.