Level granularity, scale and power progression

[Roman]

I am wondering what kind scale of levels do people prefer. D&D has a core 1-20 level progression, though epic levels expand this indefinitely (realistically probably ?double? it to ?40? before breaking down... if you don't consider them broken to begin with), but what kind of scale/range/scope of levels do you prefer to see in games most? ... 1-5? 1-10? 1-20? 1-60? 1-99/100? ...


As a related question, what sort of granularity in power between levels (and between level X and the starting characters and/or ordinary poplation) do you consider optimal? For example, if an ordinary human has a power 100, how much extra power do you like to see every level add?

Last but not least, do you prefer arithmetic power progression, geometric power progression or something in between?

 

[Herzog]

I've played GURPS, Call of Chtuhlu and D&D.

all three have their own distinct type of progression.

In GURPS, I like the way it allows you to progress in those areas where you like to place your focus, without having the extras you didn't ask for in class-type progression. Also, most of the system is point-for-increase, or a few points for increase. Direct enough to give you the feeling that your progression is directly related to the 'experience' you gained.

In CoC, I like the way it directly couples used skills with progression. Skills you never use will never progress above your starting skill. It gives you a feeling that your progression is directly related to the way you play out your character.

In D&D, all progression is in jumps. (by class level). Although I prefer the GURPS and CoC progression types, I find that as long as I see a regular increase in XP, I have the feeling I am slowly getting to my next level, and as long as I pick class levels that match the direction I would like my character to progress in, I have no problem with it.

However, a few months ago I played in a campaign where the DM used the 'level progression' XP reward. In short, it means that the DM looks at the campaign he or she has planned, and at some arbitrary point decides that it is about time the party gains another level, and then awards enough XP to instantly gain that level, giving no XP at all in between.
I really disliked that method, and have since decided that any group using that method can count me out as a player. (aside from the discomfort, it also makes item creation absolutely impossible, since you have no XP to spend)

More directly on topic:
When considering D&D, I would prefer a system that doesn't max out at some point.
The fact that after lvl 20 the progression has to change means the system wasn't thought out well enough.
If reaching a certain lvl means your power has increased to such a level that the style of the game has to change (as has been discussed in another thread), then that's one thing. If (some of) the rules have to change, that's something else.
So, as a direct answer to your question: I don't mind the 1-20 progression, but I do mind the fact that after that level the rules change. When I reach lvl 20, I would like to be able to move on to lvl 21 without having to buy another book. The basic rules of the game should be sufficient to increase your character to any level.
The epic level handbook should be about creating campaigns for that level of characters, NOT about epic level character progression.

About the granularity in power between levels: as mentioned, I like the GURPS and CoC systems, but the D&D progression is otherwise fine with me.
I would enjoy games where my starting character is at the bottom of the power curve (even below the ordinary population if that fits the setting) as much as games where the characters are heroes to begin with (which is the default for 3.x characters)

Herzog

 

[Kae'Yoss]

In D&D/d20, I like a level range of something like 3-30: Start off with a little mettle so not every single encounter has a high probability to kill characters, go up all the way to 20 and beyond. That way, you go through the whole experience from small fry to legend.

I like how character advancement works in D&D, because characters are well-structured and -defined (but it's still quite customizable).

That doesn't mean I don't like other systems, though:

I like WoD because it's mostly freeform (even if you use "Races" like Vampires and their subsystems, like Vampire Clans, most of your abilities are quite customizable).

I also like hybrid systems, especially Legend of the Five Rings. It has something like Races, Classes and Levels, but they have a much smaller impact on your character than D&D (okay, beyond the fact that you can usually only learn magic if you enter a magic school and so on). You can have courtiers that wield a mean katana, or shugenja (spellcasters) that can wrestle down most monks, and the warriors are supposed to be well-educated, anyway.

 

[S'mon]

I like something like double in power every 4 levels, about half 3e's scale.

For scale:

B/X D&D, start PCs at 3rd, with a cap at 14th.

C&C: Start PCs at 1st with max hp, general level cap is 12th but might go above for 'epic' play.

 

[prosfilaes]

When considering D&D, I would prefer a system that doesn't max out at some point.
The fact that after lvl 20 the progression has to change means the system wasn't thought out well enough.
If reaching a certain lvl means your power has increased to such a level that the style of the game has to change (as has been discussed in another thread), then that's one thing. If (some of) the rules have to change, that's something else.
So, as a direct answer to your question: I don't mind the 1-20 progression, but I do mind the fact that after that level the rules change. When I reach lvl 20, I would like to be able to move on to lvl 21 without having to buy another book. The basic rules of the game should be sufficient to increase your character to any level.
The epic level handbook should be about creating campaigns for that level of characters, NOT about epic level character progression.

I don't agree. Specifically, D&D isn't geared for that. If a cleric or wizard stops getting more powerful spells as at a point, that's a big change, and kills part of what makes advancement fun for spellcasters. A fighter who has taken every feat of interest to him, and is left with feats that don't fit the character or don't help a lot is in the same boat. You can't extend that to infinity in one book.

More generally, there's no such thing as a system that can handle all power-levels effectively. It's very hard to make simple rules handle low levels and high levels, all with sufficient distinction per level. Making levels 1-10 more complex for the few people who go beyond level 20 is not a good tradeoff in my opinion, and I believe WotC has surveys that indicate that it's not a good idea sales-wise.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I'd prefer a 1-20 level progression that reflected the power level of the current 1-13 level progression.

Sure, I can effectively do that myself, but it would go a long way toward smoothing it out with players if it were formalized.

WotC already has the research showing that few people play beyond 13th level. They also have a horrendoues -- horrendous -- product in the Epic Level Handbook. If the core game were a lower power level, they could take the opportunity to really fix the "epic" game (current levels 14 to 25 or so).

 

[S'mon]

I'd prefer a 1-20 level progression that reflected the power level of the current 1-13 level progression.

I pretty much agree - I'd say a 1-20 progression that reflects the current power of 1-12, with spell level around three times character level; so 6th level spells gained at 18th, Archmage, level.

I like power to intially advance rapidly then tail off later, so maybe more linear than geometric at higher level - 4th level should be about double 1st, and 8th double 4th, and 12th double 8th, but 16th only about 50% above 12th, and 20th about double 12th. So 20th level PC around 16 times as powerful as 1st level PC, who should start off already significantly better than mundane humans.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I'd prefer a 1-20 level progression that reflected the power level of the current 1-13 level progression.

I love the high levels, wouldn't want to miss them. I'd like to keep my spell levels 7-9, for a start.

As you've said: You can already stick to levels 1-13 or 1-whatever, without too much effort, and those who want more have it.

Plus, even if you only really use low-middle levels, it's good to have the high levels. I sure know that I prefer worlds where the PCs aren't the biggest and baddest bastards around. There should always be something higher - if only to egg them on. And, of course, there's the whole fight or flight thing in: As a DM, I like to have something I can scare the PCs with, something they just coudln't go against. Something to sic on them should they decide to leave their common sense in the other pocket.

 

[Ry]

As a related question, what sort of granularity in power between levels (and between level X and the starting characters and/or ordinary poplation) do you consider optimal? For example, if an ordinary human has a power 100, how much extra power do you like to see every level add?

Last but not least, do you prefer arithmetic power progression, geometric power progression or something in between?

I like a logarithmic power progression - grow fast, then level off but still be able to grow. That's why I cap my campaign at level 6 and then hand out extra feats from then on.

 

[Roman]

Logarithmic leveling progressions are interesting, since they provide diminishing returns.