It can be cool even if it doesn't go to 11...

[Lanefan]

In some of the newer retroclones (DCC RPG and 13th Age, in particular), PC level only rises to 10. This seems like a good idea to me.

I like the idea of a gained level being something you've fought for and won, not something you're entitled to every few sessions. Less levels gained makes flatter math easier to work with.

Agreed completely with the second bit.

The first bit? Well, it doesn't have to hard-cap at 10th - I always like these things to at least in theory be open-ended - but by 8th or so level advance should be pretty slow and by 10th at a near (but not complete) standstill.

Besides, you need higher levels in the game so the opposition can be higher level.

Would it potentially shorten campaign life?

Take it from me, it does not. I run modified 1e without x.p. for g.p. and my campaigns go on for ages, reaching about 9th-11th level by the end.

Lanefan

 

[Agamon]

I'd be cool with fewer levels, but I don't buy the idea that more levels means you haven't earned them, as much as you can earn anything in a game.

All I'm saying is that more levels means you likely would gain them faster, which leads to rules like "x number of encounters to gain a level," which rubs me the wrong way.

It'd be nice to see a return to non-linear level advance, where higher levels take longer to achieve, but that just might be me.

 

[delericho]

Well...

My opinion on this depends on how well WotC design the game. In 3.0e, although the game had 20 levels in the core, plus Epic levels added after (and 3.5e sort of had Epic in the DMG), the truth was that the game started to struggle at early-teen levels - yes, it could still be played, but it got harder and harder to manage.

4e included 30 levels in the core, but then WotC provided relatively little support for Paragon play, and painfully little for Epic play.

The net result of both of these was that the majority of play was in those first ten levels, which meant the support concentrated on those levels, further discouraging higher-level play, and so on.

If WotC are going to do the same again (and I'm worried they are), then frankly I'd prefer them to drop the higher levels and spread out that low-level goodness. No point in doing the higher levels if you're just going to make a mess of them.

But in an ideal world, I would much rather see WotC do a full level range (whether it's Low/Mid/High or Heroic/Paragon/Epic), and do it well (and then proceed to support it all, of course).

Ideally, I would also like to see easy-to-use rules for jumping in at the start of each tier, and then for remaining in the tier indefinitely - basically, an inbuilt E6-like option for each tier.

To the OP: Would that suit you?

 

[Tony Vargas]

In some of the newer retroclones (DCC RPG and 13th Age, in particular), PC level only rises to 10. This seems like a good idea to me.

When they first said 'bounded accuracy' I thought that was all they meant. Just not having so many levels.

Actually, what might be cool would be to have 'Tiers' like in 4e, but of level 1-10 each. Tiers would represent vast increases in power, not just levels, so a campaign would normally happen entirely within a tier. If a character started out a mere mortal, but a hero, he'd be a hero for 10 levels and finish his story arc. He might enter the next tier if the DM decided to go there, but it'd be a whole new campaign, he'd be taken up to Olympus or whatever, awaken godly powers, and go mucking about the outer planes dealing with other gods and demons - starting as a "1st level" godling. He'd still be a "10th level hero" but his old heroic powers would hardly scratch the new sets of foes he faces.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Or you could just stop at 10th level and let the people who like higher levels have their candy too. Putting everything above 10th level in a module is a pretty drastic solution to something that isn't a problem, IMHO.

But it is something to keep in mind when you consider the different genres.

Sword & Sorcery á la Conan may be suited fine at the first 10 levels. Conan didn't fight any Wizards casting Meteor Strike. So that's where our "normal ,non-superpowered" Fighter can be found. But at higher levels, you get into the range of Hercules, demigods and the like.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I'd like 10 to be the pinnacle level. Post 10th level you can still level up but when you do some stuff start to deteriorate. Physical skills and to hit and such become worse whereas only some mental skills and spells are allowed to grow.

Why would anyone want to level up only to become less effective? -Don't know, such is life. It creates contrast, it's the autumn of a long and fruitful career as an adventurer. It makes sense.

Post 10th it's your last adventure where you pass the torch to younger characters. It's epic. Also, it creates a world where everybody starts at 1st level, even characters that are brought in later in the campaign. The game kills every character in the end. It's grownup. 11th level characters sacrifice themselves for the greater good, they retire unless under the most dire of circumstances.

11th level characters:

Qui-Gon Jinn
Eddard Stark
Robin Hood (Russel Crowe)
Roger Murtaugh
Gandalf the Grey
Old Boy

12th level characters:

Yoda (Ep.V)

 

[underfoot007ct]

I'd like 10 to be the pinnacle level. Post 10th level you can still level up but when you do some stuff start to deteriorate. Physical skills and to hit and such become worse whereas only some mental skills and spells are allowed to grow.

Why would anyone want to level up only to become less effective? -Don't know, such is life. It creates contrast, it's the autumn of a long and fruitful career as an adventurer. It makes sense.

Post 10th it's your last adventure where you pass the torch to younger characters. It's epic. Also, it creates a world where everybody starts at 1st level, even characters that are brought in later in the campaign. The game kills every character in the end. It's grownup.

<snip>

Passing the torch is fine, but why 10th? Why not 15th or 20th?

I don't understand if you are saying "after 10 th" chars are less effective?

If the rules are written well, char can be effective & fun to any level.

Also, why would you have have to start at first? Fine if you choose to do that, but certainly not a hard rule.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Passing the torch is fine, but why 10th? Why not 15th or 20th?

I don't understand if you are saying "after 10 th" chars are less effective?

If the rules are written well, char can be effective & fun to any level.

Also, why would you have have to start at first? Fine if you choose to do that, but certainly not a hard rule.

10th level was suggested by the OP. It doesn't matter. I think it's important that characters peak at some point. I'm not a fan of the epic destiny or apotheosis for every single character in the game. I find growing old or become spent from all the fighting more satisfying.

I don't mind if players start at a higher level. Yet, if the math is flatter, and if you peak at X level and thereafter become less powerful, it is not quite as necessary to keep everybody at the same level. Say if a 12th level character is as good as an 8th level character*, 10th level characters will be the most glorious, at the height of their career, a definite resplendant moment that can't be achieved in any other way.

* By design. Not some fluke. I mean a hard BAB -1 for the 11th level Fighter.

 

[malkav666]

All I'm saying is that more levels means you likely would gain them faster, which leads to rules like "x number of encounters to gain a level," which rubs me the wrong way.

It'd be nice to see a return to non-linear level advance, where higher levels take longer to achieve, but that just might be me.

Sounds to me like its not the amount of levels that is the problem for you, but rather the exp reward system. I Like for players in my D&D games (I run 2e/3.5 and PF) to usually get to level 5 or so fairly quickly and then gain levels slowly myself.

For me its all about managing the expectations of the group. I tell them I want levels on e through 4 to pass pretty quickly and that I want to slow down progression of everything beyond that before the first synapse of character concepts even begins processing in their minds.

The problem that a lot of dms face without the levels rolling in is that they then let the characters grow in ways that can't be justified with math. They players need rewards to complete their experience. A system with quick leveling has built in rewards that come with a mechanic and pace the players understand. Without such a system the DM has to do more work to excite the players and make them feel rewarded.

This means that the DM in those cases must design rewards that don't destroy whatever level of balance and flavor the campaign enjoys. I could for example give out treasure or title or land as reward for progress, but as the games challenges are based on toon level it becomes more difficult for the DM to maintain the playfield while varying the experience when other types of rewards are used too often. It is actually the largest pitfall of games with levels IMO.

Then it comes down to how much work the DM is willing to put in to maintain the game. I am used to running games and have no problem using non exp rewards and slowing level progress. But newer players and DMs may not find such an environment as hospitable.

Personally I prefer from my D&D to have levels 1 - 20 covered in the main book but I am okay with more or less. I always change the pace to fit the kind of story I want to tell anyways. But with a solid 1-20 system it gives new DMs a way to have reward canned into the product for them and I think it makes the game more approachable for new players so it gets my vote. Creative storytellers will always use just what they want anyways. Storytelling and games adjudication are learned skills and its nice to have a level playing field to learn those skills in.

But those are just my own opinions and what works for me and mine.

love,

malkav

 

[Minigiant]

Just because the game works on 20 levels doesn't mean you have to use all of them.

You can retire at any level or start playing the character at any level of their development.

I never got the loveaffair of the game telling you to stop playing a character. Or making the incentives for continuing so bad that you don't want to.