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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gundark" data-source="post: 3071951" data-attributes="member: 6148">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. 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.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)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?  I don't know I guess i'm rambling.PS. As I said in the OP I don't have issues with D&D having levels, just interested in the discussion.</blockquote>

Verification